Hi,

We noticed RB750G is EOL and replaced by the 750GL which contains double memory.
We were full of joy untill we noticed the CPU was clocked down (and probably software locked) to 400MHz. Why is that?

I don't understand the approach of doubling the ram and at the same time downgrade the cpu frequency while 750G and 750GL contain exactly the same cpu.

Kind regards
B

the RB750G uses AR7160 680Mhz and new RB750GL uses AR7242 (400mhz)

the RB750G uses AR7160 680Mhz and new RB750GL uses AR7242 (400mhz)

Ok, that clears up the fact that it isn't the same cpu, I didn't really investigate, just used "/system routerboard print" which showed the same cpu model.
But still, it would have been a much more nice device with a 680MHz cpu and I don't understand why a lower clocked model was chosen for this.

Kind regards,
B

Because it's a cheaper part, making the hardware cheaper and lowering the price for the end user.

Because it's a cheaper part, making the hardware cheaper and lowering the price for the end user.

Yes, but it also lowers performance and I don't think the price difference between those two cpu's is that big.
I would be happy to pay a few $$ more if the device was equipped with a faster cpu like the one in RB750G

I believe the RB750GL has much larger MTU capability that the RB750G.
Even though the clock speed might be less, I'll bet the transfer speed efficiency will make up for it. Just a guess though.




-tp

I believe the RB750GL has much larger MTU capability that the RB750G.
Even though the clock speed might be less, I'll bet the transfer speed efficiency will make up for it. Just a guess though.

-tp

This assumes that the network is using an MTU higher than 1500, which is usually not the case anyway.

Are there any comparisons of the AR7242 and AR7160 out there?

It also creates better separation between the 750G and the 450G lines.

400MHz is still a lot of power in one of these devices. If you really need something stronger, bumping up to a 450G isn't a far stretch.

Unfortunately, on streakwave the price difference for us between the 750g and 750gl is only $5. Not hardly worth the reduced speed imo.

Unfortunately, on streakwave the price difference for us between the 750g and 750gl is only $5. Not hardly worth the reduced speed imo.

+1.

While more CPU is always nice, based on the CPU usage graphs which show the max % used in the single digits there's a lot of headroom to spare.

I bought over a hundred 750g and only few 750 the last year, the cpu upgradable to 800mhz is not comparable to the new 750gl sorry but this product is not necessary, for me is only a 100/1000 switch, the cheapest 750 will be for now my choice.

I bought over a hundred 750g and only few 750 the last year, the cpu upgradable to 800mhz is not comparable to the new 750gl sorry but this product is not necessary, for me is only a 100/1000 switch, the cheapest 750 will be for now my choice.

Indeed, like I said, the RB750GL would have been a great product improvement if the cpu was left unchanged.
@tjc: This depends heavily on what you do with it. If you have lots of shaper queues you will notice the difference!

@tjc: This depends heavily on what you do with it. If you have lots of shaper queues you will notice the difference!

True enough, power users can almost always find ways to use more cycles if they're available.

On the other hand, what % of the RB750G's out there never use more than 5-10% of the available CPU? My SWAG would be at least 75% and probably more like 90+%. Since they still have other options for those who need the extra speed it seems like a smart move.