It is significantly worse... Look at the spec sheets. Our old SAF Lumina can do 366mbps in a single polarity 256qam 56mhz channel... an AF11 doesn't even match that running at 1024qam - it will theoretically do somewhere around 340mbps at 1024qam and somewhere around 275mbps at 256qam.
On May 25, 2017 9:06 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If all you can get on a particular path is a theoretical single 40 MHz > wide FDD channel pair, one polarity, I don't see how the 1024QAM bps/Hz > efficiency would be significantly worse than a competing single polarity > product (SAF Integra, etc) running in the same channel size. Unless you are > counting more expensive competing products that advertise header > compression and very different Mbps rates for 64-byte vs much larger packet > sizes. > > It's very cost effective so I will forgive it many things, my main problem > is that it can't actually *use* near the full width of an 80 MHz channel. > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> > wrote: > >> Yeah. Cost is one thing, but if all you can get is a single polarity on a >> particular path, the AF11 is probably one of the last things I'd look at. >> Congestion is a problem around here. >> >> >> On 5/25/2017 8:21 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> On 5/25/17 18:12, Mathew Howard wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> We're running the full 56mhz/MIMO... I haven't been able to get them to >>>> run at 1024qam yet (antennas still need to be fine tuned, it wasn't ideal >>>> weather conditions when we put them up, so I'm hoping we'll be able to get >>>> a bit more out them), so they're only at around 550Mbps capacity (and I've >>>> verified the link will do around 500Mbps with real traffic). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Only 500 meg with two channels? Crap, I have an old Exalt that can do >>> that with only one channel at 256QAM. >>> >> >> >
