Asus reveals quad-band Wi-Fi 6E gaming router, priced at $649

midian182

Posts: 7,903   +82
Staff member
What just happened? Asus’ ROG Rapture series of routers are known for their raw power, aggressive looks, and often wallet-destroying price. The ROG Rapture GT-AXE16000 it just unveiled at CES is no exception, but then it is the “world’s first quad-band Wi-Fi 6E gaming router.”

As noted by The Verge, Asus’ statement is true to an extent; the GT-AXE16000 isn’t the world’s first quad-band WiFi 6E router—Netgear introduced a quad-band Orbi mesh router system last year—but it is the first one designed specifically with gamers in mind.

The Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE16000 broadcasts a total of four wireless bands: one 2.4GHz, two 5GHz, and the new 6GHz. The 5GHz and 6GHz bands offer up to 4.8Gbps throughput, while the 2.4GHz tops out at 1,148Mbps. Those are all theoretical maximum speeds that you’re not going to see, of course, but it still shows just what this router is capable of.

Owners will also be able to use the 5GHz or 6GHz bands as a backhaul when setting up a home mesh networking with other compatible Asus AiMesh routers, leaving the other bands free for device connections.

There are plenty of options for those going wired. The Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE16000 features two 10Gbps RJ45 Ethernet LAN ports for lightning-fast network connections and a 2.5Gbps WAN port to make the most of any speedy ISPs. It also comes with four 1Gbps LAN ports, a USB 3.2 gen 1 port, USB 2.0 input, and is powered by a 2.0GHz quad-core 64-bit CPU alongside 1GB of DDR4 RAM.

Being a quad-band Wi-Fi 6E router means paying a premium, $649 in the case of the GT-AXE16000, which arrives in the first quarter of this year. It's still cheaper than Netgear’s $1,500 Orbi system, though that model does come with three mesh routers.

For those who want a cheaper Wi-Fi 6 router, Asus also showed off the ROG Rapture GT-AX11000 Pro (above), a refreshed version of the Wi-Fi 6 GT-AX11000. It’s very similar to the GT-AXE16000, featuring the same quad-core, 64-bit, 2GHz CPU, but is missing the 6GHz band. It will cost $399 when it launches in Q2 2022.

Permalink to story.

 

umbala

Posts: 605   +1,011
$650 for a butt ugly router that probably won't improve anything beyond what you already have. Yeah, hard pass.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,364   +5,591
All this, and they will plug it into their 100 Mbps cable internet provider and wonder why their games dont run any faster. The only interesting thing here is the dual 10 Gbps, but for $650?

I paid $200 for a dual 10Gbps+4 2.5 Gbps switch, and you can jus tplug anormal $100 wifi router into that and get the same thing.
Yes I understand there are plenty of places where wired cable isn't an option, but I'd rather wire.
Wired is always superior. Wireless is all about convenience first and foremost, not performance. Same with mice, keyboards, ece.

My house is wired for ethernet, and I wouldnt have it any other way.
 

human7

Posts: 43   +30
I have the GT-AX11000. It's not bad, but ASUS needs to improve their software interface and support significantly. There's lots of little gotchas and bugs that I did not expect to have when I paid as much as I did for the router. However, now that I've figured out the kinks and have it working to my liking, I have great Wifi performance.

Nice to see that their line of tri band is getting cheaper with the AX11000Pro, and enough devices support it now that it's worth going tri band. Still, it's a bit too soon to get a quad band router unless you plan on upgrading all of your devices. I wouldn't even do it for future proofing, I would wait a couple of years for the hardware to mature a bit, maybe for the GT-AXE16000Pro (or equivalent). Besides, at these price points I would want VLAN support the next time I make a purchase.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,640   +2,418
"The Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE16000 features two 10Gbps RJ45 Ethernet LAN ports for lightning-fast network connections and a 2.5Gbps WAN port to make the most of any speedy ISPs."

For the price I want a single 10Gbps Wan port. Then another 10Gbps Lan port on the back and the rest can be 2.5Gbps. And give it 2GB of DDR4.

That would future proof the device even more.
 

ScottSoapbox

Posts: 329   +587
"The Asus ROG Rapture GT-AXE16000 features two 10Gbps RJ45 Ethernet LAN ports for lightning-fast network connections and a 2.5Gbps WAN port to make the most of any speedy ISPs."

For the price I want a single 10Gbps Wan port. Then another 10Gbps Lan port on the back and the rest can be 2.5Gbps. And give it 2GB of DDR4.

That would future proof the device even more.
I'd like to see my AT&T fiber at least get close its claimed gigabit speed before I bother with a faster WAN port.

You would probably need an "up to 5 gigabit" plan before your ISP used all of a 2.5 Gbps port.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,640   +2,418
I'd like to see my AT&T fiber at least get close its claimed gigabit speed before I bother with a faster WAN port.

You would probably need an "up to 5 gigabit" plan before your ISP used all of a 2.5 Gbps port.
What speeds do you normally see?

That is usually more ISP specific and due to their routing. I know when you compare Google Fiber vs AT&T they tend to get more consitent speeds due to better peering and routing across the US.
 

ScottSoapbox

Posts: 329   +587
What speeds do you normally see?

That is usually more ISP specific and due to their routing. I know when you compare Google Fiber vs AT&T they tend to get more consitent speeds due to better peering and routing across the US.
Usually 600-750 Mbps, but sometimes only 300 Mbps on my "Gigabit" plan.

With so little broadband competition in the USA, there is little incentive to deliver anything more than the bare minimum to not get into trouble for false advertising. And the "up to" provides a lot of leeway in US law.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,640   +2,418
Usually 600-750 Mbps, but sometimes only 300 Mbps on my "Gigabit" plan.

With so little broadband competition in the USA, there is little incentive to deliver anything more than the bare minimum to not get into trouble for false advertising. And the "up to" provides a lot of leeway in US law.
I'm on fiber and you are still doing better than most of the country stuck on Cable and Dsl.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 606   +502
For most consumers, this is an over priced and over specced router that won't appeal to most. In most countries, most people don't use anything more than a 1 Gbps connection. In actual usage, it may not even reach anywhere close to 1 Gbps. The price of routers have been increasing steadily over each generation, and I feel this one is simply priced into "outer space". The router itself costs as much as a decent phone or even a laptop, and most of the specs now is just nice to have, and no practical usage.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,705   +6,651
Usually 600-750 Mbps, but sometimes only 300 Mbps on my "Gigabit" plan.

With so little broadband competition in the USA, there is little incentive to deliver anything more than the bare minimum to not get into trouble for false advertising. And the "up to" provides a lot of leeway in US law.
I agree. I don't want to sound like I'm bragging (unfortunately, it probably will :cold_sweat:), but to give an example of what having real competition can do to an area, I live in an area that used to be served solely by Time Warner - now Spectrum - cable internet. Over the years, I've experienced TW's :poop: customer service in incidents (among other incidents) like slamming my elderly Mother onto their phone service, and telling an older, non-technically inclined brother that he needed their 50Mbps service to stream - wait for it - Professional Wrestling :facepalm: .

About five or six years ago, a small company that was providing fiber to businesses in the area started rolling out FTTH to select areas in the region. I put myself on their waiting list, and last year about this time, they finally got my home hooked up. When I first got on their waiting list, the promised service was asymmetric at 500Mbps down - 10Mbps up or something like that for $50/Month compared with Spectrum's 20 Mbps down asymmetric service at $65/mo. Shortly before they announced that they were finally going install the fiber at my home, the fiber company announced that they were now making their service symmetric - 500Mbps down/up for the same price $50/mo.

In the meantime, I had played hardball with Spectrum and dumped them for a while in favor of 4G LTE virtual network provider over T-Mobile that delivered 30 Mbps for slightly more than Spectrum was charging. When I heard that the fiber provider was coming in the near-term, I went back to Spectrum and got 100Mbps down (which actually played out to about 120Mbps down) for about the same price I was paying before $65/mo. Note that my neighbor at the time, was on 10Mbps down and Spectrum NEVER increased his speed.

When the fiber provider finally installed fiber at my home, I called Spectrum to gladly tell them what to do with their ISP service. The rep tried to scare me into staying by saying crap like "you have to be careful, they have contracts" to which I said, "I am aware of the terms, and there is NO CONTRACT. I am through with Spectrum."

Then, a couple of days later, I got a letter in the mail from Spectrum that said something like "Congratulations! We have increased your internet speed to 230Mbps at no extra charge!" All I could think was "Yeah? I got 5 times the 100Mbps you were providing for LESS cost." 🤣

The long and short of it is that now, I get that 500Mbps symmetric service - I've speed tested it several times over the months since I got it. The bigger take-away is that the competition has finally forced Spectrum to stop being pi$$a$$es and virtually every customer in the area now also enjoys that 230Mbps service - unless, of course, they are able to get FTTH where they live.

IMO, the serious competition between ISPs in the area has done nothing but good for ISP services in our region. Barring Jacka$$ politicians making Jacka$$ laws, I expect it to do the same thing where there is serious competition.

I also note that my FTTH service has been far, far more reliable than Spectrum - where I had to almost regularly reboot my cable modem to "restore" my WAN speeds.

I have an earlier WiFi router, and I get 500Mbps to/from the internet over it. The top speed of the fiber provider is something like 2.5Gbps for $200/mo, but I would never use that; however, I expect that this router would likely take advantage of that speed if I had both.