I don't think networking is the market of this thing, despite the name. In fact, it could probably use a different name. It's a mips24k; I doubt it can do software networking at the 300mb speed the wifi runs at.

Do you have an idea how much of bandwidth a MIPS cpu like that can push?

The chip is actually made for routers: it has 802.11n "MAC/BBP", 5-port 10/100 switch, etc. http://www.anz.ru/files/mediatek/MT7620_Datasheet.pdf I wonder how "Hardware NAT with IPv6 and 2 Gbps wired speed" works if the switch is only 100 Mbits...

I guess if what you want out of this is really a router, you are supposed to either build the rest of the hardware yourself or wait for yourself, or wait for the "motherboard" module for this.

I do, thanks.Hmm, let's see if I can give you the information without breaking a confidentiality agreement. Ah, here is a discussion on the openwrt mailing list: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2013-Augus... As you can see, they reported 90mb/s (they also quote 710, but I think that is the switch doing that). And that's on a mips74k.

I know it's made for routers, but most likely not for doing a lot in software. As you quote, it does hardware NAT. There's a reason they put that in.

There isn't a fundamental reason why the mips couldn't do the job, but running stock linux it's going to be thrashing its L1 cache, and it doesn't have an L2. Also, next time you play with one of those,check the hardware counters for how many instructions/sec it actually manages to process running flat out :-)

90Mb/s at least? Makes sense that they won't go for the gigabit Ethernet. Any idea how that compares to ARM with the same frequency? I'd say about the same. That's not bad, right?

I would guess about the same; I didn't have two similar ones to compare. The mips might be a bit slower though. I had the sense that the limitation was really L1 thrashing of code space, so the ARM being a bit denser might help. It would also help if the SOC had a smaller latency to memory as well - don't know what this one has.

Bear in mind that it's probably a packet rate rather than a bit rate limitation. That really bit us in our application because we were trying to run many lines of voip, which means lots of small packets. - YMMV.

It's a chip for very low-end routers: 2.4GHz only, no gigabit switch (although apparently it can be equipped with two gigabit ports), and a CPU that would struggle to do 50Mbps WAN-LAN with firewall and QoS. It's only redeeming quality is that it apparently has a PCIe lane, but the CPU is still going to have trouble feeding whatever NIC you connect to that.

I looked into a lot of these boards a while back and most are like this one: crippled with 100mbps Ethernet. Sad to see that yes, this one is too. The Ethernet module is far slower than what the CPU can push.

Doesn't destroy it, but it's certainly a black mark. Are 1gig chipsets that much more expensive than 100mbps these days?

Good point. I remember working on MIPS M4k CPUs many years ago which could almost service a single 1Gbps link (at 100% CPU though). Without a gigabit link on the other side fast WLAN is pointless though. It was just too tempting to see a little board for networking. I agree though, networking is not the primary market.

Expensive enough to largely be impractical.

From what I've seen, open source development that involves hardware typically involves reverse engineering specifications and/or emulation. Neither is practical for state-of-the-art.

Not to mention, MIMO is just a "wee" bit tougher than simpler schemes.

  802.11ac WiFi, 5GHz, preferrably supporting a 4x4 MIMO

Retail price just went up to $300. Four dual-band wifi radios are expensive.

If I could have a router or even just an AP with complete hardware documentation in public and 100% open source firmware for it that would be an ok price. With the advertised $25 of course greed kicked in as well. ;-)

I'm curious to know why you want to "avoid the 2.4GHz network". Can you please explain why?

I can't speak for rffn, but many people want to avoid using the 2.4GHz spectrum due to congestion.

In the 2.4GHz band there is a limited amount of space available, and there are now many wireless routers in typical residential neighbourhoods all competing for the same space. Many other devices such as cordless phones, baby monitors, and wireless speakers also use 2.4GHz and interfere with wifi signals. Most microwaves generate significant amounts of noise in the 2.4 GHz band when in use.

In the 5GHz band there is much more space available, and there are many fewer competing devices and sources of interference. The penalty of 5GHz is slightly less range, and more expensive wifi equipment.

Exactly. Where I live I see about 20 networks in 2.4GHz, not even talking about Bluetooth, 802.15.x and other 2.4GHz users. Over the latter WLAN should have priority though if the other devices are standard conforming. In 5GHz I can still only see one or two other networks.