[Tfug] Intel vs. Atheros WiFi driver performance/stability?

[Jim March]

Ehhh...right now the Intel card is running with whatever drivers
Ubuntu threw at it :).

I assume it's the open-source driver as Ubuntu is NOT listing it among
"restricted drivers" which they'd do by policy if it was a binary
blob.

How do I tell for sure now?

Update: after a few days of use, this Intel card is still kicking
massive amounts of ass :).  Works GREAT.  Best Linux WiFi card I've
ever had.

Jim

On 9/11/07, Jeremy D Rogers <jdrogers at optics.arizona.edu> wrote:
> The card Jim is talking about uses ipw2200 which my wife's laptop has
> and it sorta just works. But for the intel ABG cards, are you using
> ipw3945 or iwlwifi drivers? I switched to iwlwifi to try out the new
> opensource driver and I actually found it was more stable. You loose
> the LED activity light for now, but it works for me and no regulatory
> daemon (no binary blob aside from firmware).
> http://intellinuxwireless.org/
>
> JDR
>
> On 9/9/07, John L. Sackett <jsackett5 at cox.net> wrote:
> > That's Atheros 5008 vice 5800.
> >
> > John L. Sackett wrote:
> > > In the 'Doze world, I have the opposite experience. The Intel Drivers
> > > -especially 2-3 years ago (intel pro set) were and are terrible, BSOD's
> > > and Hardware and Memory faults.
> > > In addition under M/S products, the Intel drivers are chatty, and set
> > > off our IDS due to a high amount of association probes. That's the 2200,
> > > and latest Intel ABG nic.  Transfers of large files are impossible to
> > > accomplish >500MB (CD ISO's).  Outdoor use is horrible due to limited
> > > range.
> > > We just got some Atheros 5800 series NIC's and it's like night and day
> > > outdoor range.  We are using Cisco AP's - Cisco uses Atheros.
> > > At home I use a Dlink 520 PCI card as an AP with FreeBSD. Works great.
> > > TKIP and WPA. Old Cisco 350b/abg nics are Atheros and use the same
> > > driver/Utility as Atheros with a Cisco logo.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim March wrote:
> > >
> > >> Big question off the bat: on a Mini-PCI WiFi card, there's "main" and
> > >> "aux" antenna inputs.  In the laptop there's white and black cables.
> > >> Anybody got a clue which is which?
> > >>
> > >> :)
> > >>
> > >> As most of you know, my Atheros-based factory WiFi Mini-PCI card in my
> > >> low-end Acer laptop was the victim of cruel circumstance at a TFUG
> > >> meet.  It's sad demise was determined at autopsy to be "death by coke
> > >> drowning" :).
> > >>
> > >> I've been running since on a decent little $30 PCMCIA Atheros-based
> > >> Taiwanese card from SWS.  Works OK, but doesn't have the range of the
> > >> late mini-PCI card with it's plug-in antenna connections heading off
> > >> towards the screen.
> > >>
> > >> Well today I was selling a fellow TFUGer the carcass of my old Fujitsu
> > >> laptop for cheap.  He needed a 15.4" 1280x800 screen and the old Fuji
> > >> died of motherboard issues.
> > >>
> > >> In showing him how the Fuji came apart, we found I had an Intel-based
> > >> Mini-PCI card in the Fuji.  And since his HP laptop had the same
> > >> thing, we had no problem dropping the price on the Fuji carcass by $10
> > >> (down to $40 <grin>) so I could pull the Intel WiFi card - a
> > >> PRO/Wireless 2200BG.
> > >>
> > >> Just got it working.  Signal strength bars, performance under
> > >> speedtest.net and general "feel" are all improved over the Atheros
> > >> chipset - either the original Mini-PCI or the PCMCIA replacement.
> > >> With the original internal Atheros card, signal strength 1 foot from
> > >> my router was about 68%, with the PCMCIA it was worse, with Intel it
> > >> reads 99%.  And it feels noticeably faster as well.
> > >>
> > >> I know the "MadWiFi" driver project for the Atheros chipset is a bit
> > >> of a mess (shows up under Ubuntu under "Restricted Drivers" for
> > >> example) but seeing it side-by-side with the Intel driver, the
> > >> difference is almost startling.
> > >>
> > >> Remember, I'm plugging the Intel card into the factory-original
> > >> in-the-screen-shell antennas...so performance shouldn't be a big jump
> > >> like I'm seeing.
> > >>
> > >> What else...the dead Fujitsu this came out of was new as of...April
> > >> '05 I think.  The Intel card is supporting WPA no problem.  I assume
> > >> it's a 54b/g type.  A quick EBay search:
> > >>
> > >> http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=PRO%2FWireless+2200BG&category0=
> > >>
> > >> ...shows cards like this are going for less than $20 "buy now" - I
> > >> think I'm going to score an Intel card for my buddy's Toshiba -
> > >> another MiniPCI Atheros card right now.
> > >>
> > >> So.  Upshot from that coke spill so far: for $40 total I have a spare
> > >> Atheros-based PCMCIA card I can use for diagnostics, etc. and an
> > >> upgraded internal WiFi setup.  I can cope with that :).  Worth it just
> > >> to see the difference the Intel card seemed to make.
> > >>
> > >> Very interesting.
> > >>
> > >> Jim
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> > >> Subscription Options:
> > >> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> > > Subscription Options:
> > > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> > Subscription Options:
> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>