Articles: Networking

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]


I performed a series of tests on the DI-824VUP++ router to check out the bandwidth of its interfaces, the coverage area of its wireless interface and the speed of its VPN connections. I will compare some of the results with those of the ASUS WL500g Premium obtained under the same conditions.

I used the following equipment for all the tests:

  • Two Category 5 Ethernet cables
  • Notebook on the Intel Centrino Duo platform
  • PC based on a mainboard with a Marvell Yukon Gigabit Ethernet controller

I used the popular IxChariot program to test the speed of the network connections, running the High_Performance_Throughput scenario.

Here are the results of the tests of data-transfer speed between the different network interfaces.

1) Data is transferred within the router’s local wired network (LAN-LAN):

Click to enlarge

2) Data is transferred within the router’s local network, but one of the devices is attached to the DI-824VUP+ via Wi-Fi using WPA encryption. The Wi-Fi device is placed near the router (WLAN-LAN):

Click to enlarge

3) Data is transferred between a computer on the local wired network and a computer on an external network (its address is in the same subnet with the router’s IP address). WAN-LAN:

Click to enlarge

The following table shows the average data transfer speed of the DI-824VUP++ in comparison with the WL500g Premium:



WL500g Premium










So, the D-Link router is inferior to the ASUS in two out of three tests. Their results are only the same in the LAN-LAN test. This indicates that the worse performance of the D-Link is due to its lower processing power. It also has only half the amount of memory the WL500g Premium has. I guess we’ll only get an objective view of performance of the DI-824VUP++ when we compare it with a device that has similar specifications.

Next goes a test of the VPN connection bandwidth. The DI-824VUP+ router acts as a VPN-server here. The client was running Windows XP Professional SP2. The parameters of the VPN tunnel were as follows:

  • Encapsulation protocol: PPTP
  • Authentication protocol: MSCHAP v1
  • Encryption: MMPE

Click to enlarge

The results of this test agree with my opinion about the router’s processor. By the way, the declared support for 40 IPsec tunnels seems like a marketing trick: if the speed drops down so much with one tunnel, it is going to be very low with, say, 10 tunnels working simultaneously.

The last item in my test program is to measure the coverage area of the wireless module. As usual, I measured the level of signal in different places of a closed environment using a notebook. The results of the WL500g Premium are listed for the sake of comparison.

Distance to router
with obstacles

Signal Quality


WL500g Premium

6 meters
two walls (brick, plasterboard)

68% (excellent)

51% (good)

6 meters
one wall (brick)

90% (excellent)

54% (good)

12 meters
two walls (brick)

46% (good)

15% (poor)

Finally we see the D-Link router win a test! It kept connected even when the WL500g Premium was not available on air at all. As a kind of experiment, I tried to establish a wireless connection to the router from a very remote room that was located at a distance of no less than 20 meters behind five walls, two of which were brick ones. Unbelievable as it may seem, the router with its default antenna coped with that task, providing a signal level of 22%. The ASUS router couldn’t provide the coverage under the described conditions.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 ]


Comments currently: 0

Add your Comment