09-25-2017 10:00 PM
This is just to satisfy my curiosity, but why is the NBE-5AC-Gen2 faster than the PBE-5AC-Gen2? Here are the specs as far as I know (just for CPE):
XC hardware: 720MHz CPU / 128MB RAM
WA hardware: 535MHz CPU / 64MB RAM
Gen2 XC hardware:
Gen2 WA hardware:
Gen1 XC hardware:
Gen1 WA hardware
Between the PBE-5AC-Gen2 and the NBE-5AC-Gen2 it seems odd to me to pay $20 more and end up with half the memory and 3/4 the CPU. I guess part of it is because the PBE-5AC-Gen2 is an upgrade of the PBE-5AC-400 and the NBE-5AC-Gen2 is an upgrade of the NBE-5AC-19 so they just inherited the original CPU/memory. As the highest end NanoBeam the NBE-5AC-19 had the faster hardware, same thing in the PowerBeams, the two top end ones have faster hardware than the two bottom end ones.
Maybe a better question to ask is why would you need a faster CPU and more memory? My small PtP links all hover around 10% CPU and 35% memory for XC, 65% for WA radios. I can understand an AP needing more horsepower but a CPE? I'm sure there are use cases that made people ask for the XC in the NBE-5AC-19 and then the Gen2 (otherwise why wouldn't Ubiquiti just save the $ / lower the price on the radio) but I just don't know what they are.
09-26-2017 06:49 AM
The higher cost of PBE models over the NBE seems obvious to me given the larger quantity of non-electronic materials used along with associated materials handling.
I'm also curious about the decision as to which chipset goes in which products, but it's not new.
First generation NBE-5AC-16's and PBE-300 & 400 were/are WA.
First generation NBE-5AC-19's and PBE-500 & 620 were XC, as are the Gen2 versions. I'm still curious about the decision to drop the numeric portion of the names from Gen2 CPE models.