AF absolutely has sync? As far as AirMaxAC, sure, no sync.. At this time.
In the end though, there are a lot of operators that simply don't care about sync. Eventually in many markets it will come to a point when you simply run out of clean frequency, ie: using one or two or three per tower won't cut it, due to competitors, cell offload, etc. In that scenario where GPS sync is virtually useless (because you're picking the best freq per direction), its pretty obvious that there are a few radios that would currently excel in that scenario. There are many places where we are, for instance, where multiple competitors, city and state links, federal, etc have towers less than a mile from us. Having the ability to "shrug off" that adjacent and co channel noise is critical for us. On April 18, 2015 4:52:38 PM AKDT, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: >This test ignores a few kind of important details... the UBNT and >Mikrotik >AC radios have no ability to sync, which gives them a significant >disadvantage. also, the Mimosa radios are (theoretically) capable of >higher >throughput since they are the only ones with the ability to use two >80mhz >channels... granted, it's pretty rare that is actually possible in the >real >world, but if you had synced Mimosas everywhere, it could be done. He's >also using a $499 ePMP radio, when he should be using a $200 Force110 >PTP. > >That said, the conclusion the the AF5x is the best is probably right :P > >On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > >> If your criterion is performance in the presence of a signal on a >> different frequency 30 dB stronger than the desired signal, this >analysis >> is relevant. Also, this seems to be the scenario airPrism is >designed to >> address. But how often would this occur? Even if the interference >is from >> another non-synced transmitter on the same tower, you’d think >directional >> antennas would knock the interfering signal down to less than 1000 >times >> the desired signal. >> >> I guess this could be realistic if you have a point to point link in >the >> same band as a sector, so that a giant dish at the other end is >pointed >> right at your sector. >> >> >> *From:* Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com> >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 18, 2015 5:34 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com ; Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Very interesting post.. >> >> Horseshit, read the article. Did you miss the portion where Jim said >"it's >> the exact same chip that's in the RM5"? >> >> I would have liked to have seen the RM5 in this test as a baseline, >but >> ignoring the results simply because it's N tech in the EPMP is silly. >Not >> only does the throughput drop, but the LEVEL it degrades at is only >> "bested" by the B5C in a few of the tests. N or not, that's a very >poor >> result. >> >> I would love to see other tests posted on this from other people, its >> always nice to have multiple sources to remove any potential level of >bias. >> >> Jim did an excellent job on this and should be commended. >> >> On April 18, 2015 2:26:50 PM AKDT, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/18/15 2:49 PM, Peter Kranz wrote: >>> >>>> Very interesting shootout comparing AF5X, AC-Lite, AC PTP, >EPMP-1000, >>>> B5c and RB922 >>>> >>>> >https://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Stories/Radio-Shootout-Pt-2-let-s-try-a-whole-bunch-of-them/cns-p/1232309 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dude didn't seem to catch that the ePMP is an N radio and dismisses >it >>> as worst of the worst. Looks to me like it would probably hold up >>> comparably to its AC counterparts if you take that into >consideration. >>> >>> ~Seth >>> >>> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
