Hi All,
Today I noticied that the RB850Gx2 is no longer on the mikrotik website.
In place there is a routerboard called RB450Gx4.
What is the main difference and why is the RB850Gx2 no longer availible?
Info RB450Gx4:
https://mikrotik.com/product/rb450gx4
Anybody any thoughts?
Newer, faster, cheaper, but same size.
RB450Gx4
Four core 7160MHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 5xGigabit Ethernet, PoE out on port #5, RouterOS L5
716Mhz
indeed it’s cheaper than the 850Gx2, but compared to the hAP ac2 - which is almost the same - it’s more expensive ($99 vs $69)
i know it packs faster 1GB RAM instead of 256MB, and has a lot bigger flash and an uSD card slot. and finally af/at poe and poe OUT - the stuff i miss from hAP ac2.
but hey, the price is still very good!
can we assume that Mikrotik will ditch the PPC platform altogether?
the RB1100 series is already arm. now the RBx50 as well. the last survivor seems to be the RB800.
just to know the difference between IPQ4018 (hap ac2) and IPQ4019 (this baby and wap60G)
So according to your sheet the RB450Gx4 should have the possibillity for dualband wifi?
Wonder why mikrotik did’nt put it in.
i guess space constraints. the extra power input jack, the serial console, poe-out, all take up valuable space. and to have wifi you would need some extra circuitry
No heatsink on the IPQ4019 chip?! Is it really that power efficient?
Probably only on demonstration photo. I think that the CPU will have heatsink in serial models of boards.
As total, power consumption is 5Wt - compared to 11 Wt for hAP ac^2
Anyway… near CPU we see 2 holes for heatsink.
The new products sound great, but I wish MT would stop taking model #s that mean one thing and twisting them to mean another. It’s confusing. Please be consistent. RB1xxx has always meant PowerPC. Likewise, RB4xx has always meant MIPSBE. So RB1100AHx4 is nonsensical (expectation is PPC), as is RB450Gx4 (expectation is MIPSBE).
It’s especially confusing since it wasn’t just as though one specific architecture (PPC) morphed into another (ARM). If it was RB1100AHx2 > RB1100AHx4, and then RB850Gx2 > RB850Gx4, it would still be silly, but it would at least make more sense, since in both cases, the migration was from PPC to ARM. But instead the ARM reincarnation of this series is being called RB450Gx4 instead of RB850Gx4, which ties it mentally to the MIPS version instead of the PPC one, for apparently no reason.
RB850Gx2, on the other hand, made complete sense as the name for the successor to the RB450G since RB8xx series has always been PPC, and the 850Gx2 was PPC-based.
Maybe part of the problem is that all of the 3-digit RBxxx model #s have already all been claimed? 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9 are all MIPS (1, 5 are LE & 4, 7, 9 are BE), and 3, 6, and 8 are all PPC. So either make this board (and the RB1100AHx4) an RB3xxx (4-digit), or an all-new 4-digit series (4xxx?).
I don’t understand MT marketing sometimes…oh well, “first-world problems” I guess…
– Nathan
No, they haven’t 
They are product series. Unrelated to architecture. We have a wiki article about it:
https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Product_Naming
In the past, when naming scheme was not yet defined, there were exceptions. Nowadays it it more or less consistent.
But wait a minute, that wiki article existed back when RB850Gx2 was released, and was more-or-less the same back then as it is now, so...
`
…if that’s the case, then even though naming convention was nailed down by that point, why wasn’t the RB850Gx2 called the RB450Gx2 instead, back when it was released? 
Instead it got placed in the 800 series, even though it had the exact same form-factor as the 450G and was treated as its successor. Why? Because it’s PowerPC, right? Are you really going to deny that this was the thought process behind calling it the 850? Come on now.
It’s really not a big deal ultimately, and I do admit that MT has never actually said that specific series always stick to a specific CPU arch, even though you guys mostly tried to keep it that way initially. For us old-timers, it’s just confusing and seems to to make for less distinctions between the series, making them less meaningful overall. I guess I should go tell the kids to get off my lawn…
– Nathan
EDIT: To get this back on track, I hope to have a 450Gx4 to play with soon. Too bad there is no MetaROUTER for ARM, though…makes this less desirable than the prior models in this “series”.
I, as maybe another old-timer here, do expect nothing like that. I do not read the numbers and letters mikrotik uses to describe their devices so strictly. I just expect that last digit shows wifi interfaces or slots, and the digit before tries to say something about the ethernets and that’s all. I use to check specification rather than guess and not expecting that one device is successor of another even its name differs only by revision number.
i tested
live enviroment
-100 queues - sfq
in heavy hours
rb850Gx2 ~~ 40 % cpu
ccr1009 - ~~5-10% cpu
rb450Gx4 - 10-15% cpu
Second scenario
rb450gx4
only pppoe + routing ( no nat)
traffic up to 160 MB/s
cpu 1 - 3 %
All comes without heatsink on cpu,
for me temperature of working 850x2 and 450x4 are the ~~ same
Another question: if series has nothing to do with CPU architecture, then why wasn’t RB3011 instead called RB2011x2?
– Nathan
To keep you guys busy with speculations 
Thank you Maris