Luma also outperformed the Archer C5 V2 by an even larger margin for Total Simultaneous UDP performance vs. The chart above shows Luma had almost exactly double the unidirectional TCP/IP throughput compared to the Archer C5 V2. This maximum is lower than 1000 Mbps because it includes protocol overhead.Īs noted in previous reviews using the V4 testing methodology, Total Simultaneous TCP/IP throughput is proving to be a better performance differentiator. About all the designs have in common is the placement of rear panel components.īoth products delivered unidirectional TCP/IP routing throughput over 900 Mbps in both directions, with Luma hitting the 941 Mbps maximum achievable rate in the test. The V2 design uses separate devices for CPU and each radio.Ĭompared to the Archer C5 V1 board below, you can see that the C5 V2 is a completely different design. Note the original QCA-based design used a router SoC with built-in 2.4 GHz 3×3 radio. The 2.4 and 5 GHz modules are at the upper left of the image the Broadcom SOC is shown center right. The image below shows the top of the TP-LINK Archer C5 V2 board with heat sinks and RF shields removed. – QCA9880 3-stream 802.11ac radio solution – SiGE / Skyworks SE2576L 2.4 GHz power amps (x2) – Skyworks SE2574BL-R 2.4 GHz power amps (x3) TP-LINK Archer C5 V2 front panel callouts The callout below shows the front panel arrangement and LED status legend. With the exception of only having two external dual-band antennas, the Archer C5V2 looks remarkably similar to the C5V1. We’ll do a more detailed component comparison shortly. V2 is a true 2X2 configuration with only two antennas based on a Broadcom platform. The Archer C5 V2 is a completely different animal based on an entirely different chipset. This gave the original C5 an unfair advantage that earned it a SNB #1 Ranked award. So it linked at 217 / 450 Mbps (20 / 40 MHz bandwidth) when used with a 3×3 2.4 GHz client. Firmware limited the 5 GHz maximum link rate to 867 Mbps, but the 2.4 GHz radio link rate wasn’t capped. It was actually a de-featured Archer C7 (3X3 radios) with three external and three internal antennas. Version 1 Archer C5 was a bit of an oddball router. We reviewed the original version of the Archer C5 in Part 1 of our AC1200 roundup. Which brings us to TP-Link’s Archer C5 Version 2. Many of today’s mobile devices have only 2×2 802.11ac radios anyway, which are a perfect match for a less expensive AC1200 router vs. Yet AC1200 routers still can provide a performance boost over your current 802.11n router and are perfectly fine for networks in small spaces and only a few Wi-Fi devices.

Prodded on by router marketeers, buyers are opting for bigger numbers on their router boxes along with (much) higher prices. There’s not a lot of buzz about AC1200 class routers these days.

Tp link router comparison