Hello!
I’ve got RB5009 and need 3 AP to cover my apartment. Thinking about going Mikrotik way for the ease of management through CAPSMAN. At first I will connect them to RB5009 wired for one AP and want to mesh the other two. Later I will connect all three by ethernet cables through Netgear M4300 switch. At my location I can get ax2 and ax3 for approximately 179 and 212 euros respectively. Which way should I go in term of stability and performance? Price is not a big issue here.
Managing expectations…
First of all I am not sure if the ax2 or ax3 contain MESH mesh capable radios. I believe most are looking for seamless roaming??
Hopefully someone will chime in and verify either way but do not assume that they are at this point.
Second, do not base wifi on ease of capsman, why because its an EGOCENTRIC approach, who gives a flying DUCK, if the wifi service/quality is crap.
In other words in order of priority, the USER should come first and that means decent wifi.
Thirdly, Three Access Points isn’t that much and since the setup is basically the same for one as it is for three, capsman is not a strict requirement. I say this because using capsman is not trivial, its complex adding a layer of configuration on you , wifi settings and additional processing loads.
Not saying you shouldn’t just managing expectations!!
Fourth, depending upon size of apartment, 3 APs may be overkill but since we have no info on space/coverage/obstacles etc… hard to say.
Fifth, the experience level of users with AX2 and AX3 is very limited, probably more people that have used audience wifi.
Sixth, the questionable level of maturity of wifiwave2 drivers needed and the confusion they bring to the table is not funny… It will bring pain…
Seventh: Are your APs going to be wired to the router or are you relying upon the wifi devices to talk to each other to extend the signal ???
Eight, if wired, where are the connections coming from WALL plates?
I want to connect one AP by wire and other two wirelessly so to create mesh network.
For meshing audience was created.
I want wi-fi 6 functionality.
I don’t have AX2 but do have AX3 (for now only acting as AP while I am testing it).
I still have 2 AC3’s in place in diagonal corners in my house (vertical and horizontal diagonal from each other).
Where I can not get a signal from AC3 on the opposite corner, AX3 still gives me pretty decent signal traversing 2 thick brick walls (about 20 cm / 8 ") and a full concrete floor in between with steel bar reinforcements in it.
Diagonally, that is. Let that sink in. That’s about the worst you can have for a radio signal in a house, diagonal traversing concrete and brick (the real showstopper would be full steel plates in the walls, grounded 
).
So if I would have the choice between AX2 and AX3, I’d go for AX3. 2 might be enough already.
Try to avoid at all cost to have one of the APs connected on the backhaul via wireless. Wired is the only way to go.
Besides, AX3 only has 2 radios. If you use 5GHz as backhaul, you’re limiting your devices to 2GHz speeds.
If you do the reverse, your backhaul will be limited (but longer reach).
There is never a suitable solution there. Except … wired.
And yes, for 2 (or 3) devices, skip capsman. It complicates things needlessly.
But doesn’t ax2 have better antenna? I’m a bit confused with the specs.
Where did you get that ?
You really think a device without external antenna provides better capability then a device with the big ears ax3 has ?
Ok, they could have been smaller but they do have a purpose.
I can compare ac2 and ac3 since i used to have them both.
Ac3 won each time.
I look at the official specs of the antennas. Ax2 looks better in this domain. I’m in no way engineer but think the circuitry matters, not only physical size. Do you have any reason not to trust manufacturer’s specs?
It’s because of the external anntenas ax3 has to use LESS power.
Look at it from another angle, when sending a signal, which device do you think has the best receiving sensitivity ?
I will let you answer that.
Have no idea where things could go wrong with their design.
ax3 no brainer…
Really getting tired of you making assumptions baseless at that, telling hoelve who has experience with both that he must be wrong.
You have issues!!!
If you want to only believe what you interpret out of the vendor speak, then read this from the product page.
Ultimate power for your whole home
hAP ax³ is our most powerful AX device with the best wireless network coverage so far.
@anav … just don’t chew off his foot, we need him walking.
So you are telling me to forget about what device maker says (actually, lies) and believe that in such devices only size matters based on someone’s personal experience that one completely different device is better than another completely different device? Ok. I like this scientific approach. Better just go buy longer antennaes for my old router so I could double the coverage while saving my money. Who needs these gain numbers, yeah…
The way I see it is you’re asking a question, you get valid answers but your argumenting on each answer you get.
Then why ask the question if you think you know it better ?
Where is the lie ?
You are not interpreting the numbers correctly.
AX2 needs higher transmission power because it does not have those external antennas.
Again, look at the reception side. Which device do you think has the best sensitivity ?
You still did not answer that question.
If I follow your logic, there would be no need for antennas on base stations for cell phones either. Just stick a couple of square cm’s of whatever on a building and it should work.
Then why are cell providers installing all those antennas all over the world ? They must be stupid then ?
External antennas have a purpose. They increase transmission and reception range.
Internal antennas provide a more equal distribution of range (ball shaped). Perfect for a room.
External antennas can provide more doughnut shaped distribution, better for longer range.
Broadly speaking AX2 and AX3 are the same internally. Range wise AX3 is the best of both.
Since you mention this setup will be for an apartment (therefor I assume 1 floor):
If you only need reception within a room, go for AX2. Signal may pass one wall maybe two (depends on material the wall is build with) but I wouldn’t expect too much from it.
If you need to go beyond a room, use AX3. Or put an AX2 in each and every single space.
My guess: 2 AX3’s placed diagonally and you can cover the whole apartment.
Again:
I have two AC3’s (same antenna concept as AX3) and they cover a HOUSE (1 floor is 110 sq meters, there is a full basement, 2 floors and an attic. All walls are brick and floors are concrete)
The AX3 I am toying with now goes from my office on the second floor within the range of the AC3 diagonally placed on the other side in the living room on the first floor.
Your choice.
And forget about meshing using wireless. Use wires for connecting all your APs and when the client hops from one AP to the other, there will be a slight delay.
But AX3 will help your client staying connected for as long as possible to the same AP.
And now I stop responding here.
Thank you for your extensive explanation, now you made it clearer. I will connect all AP by wire when I move but at the place where I now live I cannot do this so extreme parts of it are not covered even by 2.4 signal. So I have an idea even before I move to buy a couple of hAPs to make mesh network. I understand the drawbacks but the alternative is to not have coverage at some places at all. I still believe that in my particular case AX2 would be more appropriate. If that won’t work well I have a lot of RJ45s in all rooms to add more AP later
Its what I call religious arrogance, combined with “dumb as an ox”, a unique combination…
(apologies CP, its what wheelchairs are for ;-P)
I believe that in real life you are not so brave and prone to rushing to conclusions. I see you more as a geek who doesn’t give a s**t to things like design, price and many others normal people usually take into consideration. It’s a pity I had to see you behaving not the way good people do.
No I just call it as I see it. Anything else would be a lie or pandering.
AX2 is a waste of money, the AX3 for a few pennies more gives you much better performance and more forward growth potential and is not a half baked step towards wifi6.
Its your dime, as you state!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regardless, its dawned on me that we have been discussing the wrong products or the title is not quite correct.
The ax2 and ax3 are not access points they are WIFI Routers! There are no capax3 access points for example
So the question could be construed as a discussion/comparison between the the radios in each device.
However, you seem to be indicating that there are more important factors in the equation hitherto not communicated previously, namely budget and
aesthetics
Then, that gives us more wriggle room! Lets look at the facts…
A. You have a fantastic router - the RB5009 and thus you dont need any more wifi routers .
B. You should consider smart Access Points.
C. You have multiple wired outlets and thus a wall mount solution is possible and less obtrusive. ( it would appear rabbit ears are deemed ugly? )
D. You want to spend minimally.
I have similar in my house, MT routers with TPLINK eap245 and eap660HD.
However the EAP660HD is a huge ugly round monster luckily sits up high out of sight so not really an issue and the EAP245 is wifi5 tech (stale).
I trunk port into them and they handle vlans nicely and great performance.
They have come out with better form factor devices for wifi6 and budget friendly.
https://www.amazon.ca/TP-Link-Business-Wireless-Gigabit-EAP615-Wall/dp/B09KYK1S9R/ref=sr_1_1?crid=39VKF8BKUYKLA&keywords=eap615-wall&qid=1676125306&sprefix=eap+615%2Caps%2C362&sr=8-1
They can be (as I do) configured as standalone APs, so dont need any TP omada software crap. The only key would be to turn down 2.4ghz power as you would need very little power and separate channels from each other and ensure sufficient 5ghz power and channel separation to roam around the apartment.
Recommendation: Purchase two of these items and only take one out of the box. Place one temporarily centred in the apartment. If performance is adequate throughout, return the second. If not then move the first one to one end of the apartment and the take the second one out of the box and place it at the other end of the apartment..
( I am going to purchase one myself to play with to replace the eap245 in the basement ( should be here by wednesday )
ps. separate model but this one same width.height but almost 2 inches thick and the ethernet port protrudes signficantly into the wall.
https://www.amazon.ca/TP-Link-Business-Wireless-Gigabit-EAP655-Wall/dp/B0BSB34H5R/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2PGIWOG72A32Q&keywords=eap655-wall&qid=1676126691&sprefix=eap655-wall%2Caps%2C181&sr=8-1
pps. what should be clear is that by using access points, you can more cheaply convert to newer technology down the line and keep your excellent 5009 for the next 10 years.
The difference in specced antenna gains between ax2 and ax3 is not really significant (around 1dB; ax2 is better on 2.4GHz, ax3 is better on 5GHz). What is significant is 5dB lower Tx power available on ax2 (17dBm-24dBm on 2.4GHz, 15dBm-23dBm on 5GHz) compared to ax3 (22dBm-29dBm on 2.4GHz, 20dBm-28dBm on 5GHz). The lower HW power is at higher rates meaning that in mediocre conditions ax2 will perform worse because available Tx power on ax2 is lower than most country regulations and higher HW Tx power does make a difference.
Rx sensitivity is the same, so performance in direction from station to AP should not be different too much.
Flexibility to orient antennae on ax3 may also improve range/throughput.