I came across this while reading CWNA study guide, Chapter 19 802.11ax:
Which is better, 4x4:4 access points or 8x8:8 access points? 8x8:8 APs will initially be more expensive and require more power. The main advantage of 8x8:8 APs is to take advantage of MU-MIMO capabilities, which 802.11ax clients will need to support. Regardless of stream count, all APs will support the same number of 802.11ax OFDMA clients. There is no real advantage to an 8x8:8 AP over a 4x4:4 when using
the multi-user OFDMA technology.
I don't quite understand why "Regardless of stream count, all APs will support the same number of 802.11ax OFDMA clients", can anyone pls elaborate?
My original longer response disappeared.
For brevity, the number of streams is an antenna and Radio (count) factor. Client capacity is more of a memory, and CPU-horsepower limitation.
Although more expensive AP's usually provide more value, value is subjective. Which factor is more desirable to the most people ? It's hard to say.
OFDMA is still an unproven commodity, from a marketplace perspective. I would not expect manufactures to go all out given the effects the CCP virus has imposed on the worlds economy
For comparison, many interesting features in 802.11 have bitten the dust, because either no customers wanted them, because they didn't really work that well in practice, or a combination of both. My favorite, and most recent example so far, has been the Greenfield option.
No recent additions to the forum, so I thought I'd make a remark about OFDMA performance.
And that is about something often glossed over in the early discussions. People made a big point about mutl-user throughput being so much higher.
And that is true, but in situations with only one client on the network, the performance is actually worse than pure OFDM.
This isn't meant as a condemnation, just an observation.