hii..
I don’t know about “Most stable”, but I use Ubiquity SR2, SR5, XR2, and XR5 extensively and I feel that they are solid and stable. The R52 is also a very good card, but many people have had issues with the R52H. I’ve also had good results with the Senao 8602-S Plus (standard 8602 is lower power and has known issues with certain RB models).
but some people state that few cards give thier best in point to point applications and not in Point to multipoint .while few cards work great in point to multipoint applications but they show retarted performnce when we configure them for PTP applications…is it so?
I haven’t seen anyone competent say that. And no, it is not so.
Since most current wireless cards are based on the same chipsets (Atheros) and many are built following Atheros reference designs, there is not really much difference between most radio cards.
The differences usually come down to version of the Atheros chip set (current is AR5414) and amp designs if added on for more power.
The R52H is basically an R52 with an amp added. That takes the standard Tx power from 79mw to 350mw. The R52 is an AR5414 design. The complaint that people have about the R52H is that the amp blows and the tx power drops way down. That can happen with any card with an amp.
Ubiquity has made a name for itself by taking the basic Atheros chipset and adding amps, MMCX connectors instead of Ufl, and improving the receive sensitivity with better filters. This comes at a price though. Generally their older SR series is based on Atheros AR5213 and the XR series is based on the AR5414. They also have supposedly made their cards stand up to static discharge better than the reference designs but the success of that is debateable.
My preference right now is to use Ubiquity cards for APs and R52 where they work, R52H when more power is needed and Ubiquity if you can’t get it donw with the R52H.
Tom
I have used sr5 and cm9 cards with RBs. Haven’t had major problems with either and consider them both reliable.
CM9 uses less power, meaning there is little worry about the RB being able to supply power. This was sometimes a problem with the 532 boards with multiple high power cards, but never with CM9.
CM9 is smaller, meaning you can put them on a 433 and the combination still fits in an indoor 433/333 case.
CM9 does both 2.4 and 5 ghz!
CM9 is not super powerful. This is not important on most ptp links where big antennas and quality coax are to be used.
CM9 has the inferior, but common, ufl connector.
SR5 has the better (mmcx) antenna connection, more output power.
Power draw and physical space requirements are sometimes a problem