Gigabyte B450 Aorus Pro wifi - Slow Wifi speeds with Bluetooth

D

DWD1961

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
1,314
B450 wifi pro

I just now got around to some preliminary testing om wifi and right off, it's giving me about half the bandwidth I get with my old 2013 laptop using it's internal Atheros wifi chip

Using Okla speed test, my laptop is hitting 58Kbps.

The Giagabyte board's wifi is doing about 33Mbps max.

The Giagabyte board's Ehternet, it's hitting 90Mbps

WTF?
Thanks

Edt: I did some testing and it seems like when I am using my BT connection, the speed goes way down. This is a combination wifi/Bt M2 card, I think. I'm not sure if it is a card or chipped directly to the board. I was under the impression I could unscrew the wifi antenna mount, and there would be an M2 card under it that I could replace. When I'm not transmitting using the BT connection, I'm hitting the same download speeds at Ethernet. Start transmitting with BT and it gets cut by half or more.

So yeah, anyway, does anyone know why I would get such poor wifi speeds when the BT is in use? I'm just using the BT to transmit music to my BT receiver. This is something I contemplated before buying this board, which was will the BT/Wifi conflict with each other and cause slow downs. Ironically, I can use my laptop's BT connection at the same time as the wifi and get the same down load speeds over the laptop's wifi internal chip. Using BT on my laptop does not slow down the wifi connection.
 
Last edited:
I have found a way to free up twice as much bandwidth when using BT. In my modem settings, I switched from the 20Mhz to 40Mhz option for 2.4Ghz band.

I also had to change channels from Auto Manual and pick a channel. Then I set the 40Mhz channel to Lower Channels. Leaving the 2.4Ghz channel selection to Auto DID NOT solve anything. I had to manually make the choices.

I am now getting an average of 75Mbps download. Not nearly as nice as when I am not using my BT connection at 90Mbps+, but more than enough. It still shouldn't interfere like that.

I read also that if you have a dual band modem (2.4/5Ghz) you can use the 5Ghz channel, and since BT defaults to 2.4, you have full speed. My modem isn't dual band.
 
Last edited:
yeah i ran into the same problem with the mitx version of that board for a work build for a family friend. drove me nuts til i realized i had connected to the wrong SSID on my router. once i switched it was perfectly fine with BT devices connected to it. either way time for you to join 2020 and upgrade that router to 802.11n or AC. :)
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
yeah i ran into the same problem with the mitx version of that board for a work build for a family friend. drove me nuts til i realized i had connected to the wrong SSID on my router. once i switched it was perfectly fine with BT devices connected to it. either way time for you to join 2020 and upgrade that router to 802.11n or AC. :)
Click to expand...
It is an N version:
MOTOROLA MG7315
N450 single band (2.4 GHz) Wi-Fi

It just isn't dual band. It would be nice to have the Dual band AC. Next, I'm going to do some network polling tests betwen my machine and the router to see if I'm getting any latency issue when BT is in use.

Edit:BT streaming is adding lag spikes, which isn't great, but they aren't devastating. Other than that, it doesn't seem to be degrading the connection. I tested while refreshing web pages until the ping finished.

Without BT streaming:

C:\Windows\system32>ping 192.168.0.1 -n 20

Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 7ms, Average = 1ms

With BT Streaming:

Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.18363.720]
(c) 2019 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Windows\system32>ping 192.168.0.1 -n 20

Pinging 192.168.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 12ms, Average = 2ms


Not optimal. I would think Intel would have sorted that shit out.
 
Last edited:
There’s only two antennae leads on m.2 WiFi/BT cards (there’s a card in there, no one is making boards with the chip literally onboard).

I expect running Bluetooth at the same time, on the same frequency as your WiFi, is just going to cause interference. You probably didn’t see this on your laptop for a couple of reasons - the antennae inside the laptop are wired further apart from each other and / or shielded better, or maybe it was one of those weird designs where the atheros chip only provided WiFi and the laptop got Bluetooth from something else (I assume it actually has Bluetooth).

you could try a different external antenna for the system, if you’re just using the two little ones it comes with it might do better with one with longer cables you can sit on top of the case for instance.

you could also turn off the WiFi on your modem device, which I assume your isp gave you or you could just replace it, and get an 802.11ac dual band WiFi router / access point.
 
deruberhanyok said:
There’s only two antennae leads on m.2 WiFi/BT cards (there’s a card in there, no one is making boards with the chip literally onboard).

I expect running Bluetooth at the same time, on the same frequency as your WiFi, is just going to cause interference. You probably didn’t see this on your laptop for a couple of reasons - the antennae inside the laptop are wired further apart from each other and / or shielded better, or maybe it was one of those weird designs where the atheros chip only provided WiFi and the laptop got Bluetooth from something else (I assume it actually has Bluetooth).

you could try a different external antenna for the system, if you’re just using the two little ones it comes with it might do better with one with longer cables you can sit on top of the case for instance.

you could also turn off the WiFi on your modem device, which I assume your isp gave you or you could just replace it, and get an 802.11ac dual band WiFi router / access point.
Click to expand...
Good to now about the card. The modem is my own Motorola, but it's not a dual band. BT uses the same frequency as 2.4 wifi, so I have no choice unless I want to buy another router/modem with the 5Ghz channel. The MB came with one antenna with two plugs, and the cable is long enough to set it off 24" or so any direction. Are you suggesting buying a different another antenna for perhaps less interference?
 
Ah, no, I thought maybe it just came with two little antennae to connect directly to the back.

Do you know what model Atheros WiFi you had in your old laptop? Did it also have Bluetooth? I remember you walking about BT for audio in your other thread so I’m assuming it did, but a lot of the Atheros WiFi cards I’ve seen didn’t also include BT.

A lot of laptop designs from that time used bigger cards too (a 2013 laptop might have been mini PCI express card, which is larger than an m.2 2230 card like what is used today) so it’s possible the solution had a third antennae specifically for BT as well.

if it’s possible to replace your modem (if you only want one device) with one that is dual band capable you could do that. If you’d rather not replace it and don’t mind having a second device, you can just get a cheap dual band WiFi 5 (802.11ac) router/access point.

or just use the Ethernet and not the WiFi - I assume since you said you tested it the system is close enough to your modem device to do this, so the WiFi isn’t necessary.
 
I’d just upgrade your modem. Things have come a long long way since n 450 was a thing. If the bandwidth and speed matters, I’d upgrade. Also it may just be my mind, but when I went from N to AC I noticed a major decrease in latency on WiFi.
 
deruberhanyok said:
Ah, no, I thought maybe it just came with two little antennae to connect directly to the back.

Do you know what model Atheros WiFi you had in your old laptop? Did it also have Bluetooth? I remember you walking about BT for audio in your other thread so I’m assuming it did, but a lot of the Atheros WiFi cards I’ve seen didn’t also include BT.

A lot of laptop designs from that time used bigger cards too (a 2013 laptop might have been mini PCI express card, which is larger than an m.2 2230 card like what is used today) so it’s possible the solution had a third antennae specifically for BT as well.

if it’s possible to replace your modem (if you only want one device) with one that is dual band capable you could do that. If you’d rather not replace it and don’t mind having a second device, you can just get a cheap dual band WiFi 5 (802.11ac) router/access point.

or just use the Ethernet and not the WiFi - I assume since you said you tested it the system is close enough to your modem device to do this, so the WiFi isn’t necessary.
Click to expand...

It came with an "antenna" with two wires coming out of the back, but the antenna "unit" is a single unit without two separated antennas on it. It could possibly be one of the wires in BT and one Wifi - I don't know how they wire those things.

Yep, the laptop uses the Qualcomm Atheros Blue Tooth Adapter AR3012 and the wifi is the Qualcomm Atheros AR9485WB-EG wireless adapter. One reason I bought this board is because I need a wifi connection and a BT connection and I can't use Ethernet in my current situation. I mean, I can plug it in for testing purposes, but it is impractical.

You mean get a cheap router for the 5Ghz band, then use the bypass setting in my Motorola combo Modem / Router in order to use the new dual band router?
Thanks for your reply.
 
deruberhanyok said:
Ah, no, I thought maybe it just came with two little antennae to connect directly to the back.

Do you know what model Atheros WiFi you had in your old laptop? Did it also have Bluetooth? I remember you walking about BT for audio in your other thread so I’m assuming it did, but a lot of the Atheros WiFi cards I’ve seen didn’t also include BT.

A lot of laptop designs from that time used bigger cards too (a 2013 laptop might have been mini PCI express card, which is larger than an m.2 2230 card like what is used today) so it’s possible the solution had a third antennae specifically for BT as well.

if it’s possible to replace your modem (if you only want one device) with one that is dual band capable you could do that. If you’d rather not replace it and don’t mind having a second device, you can just get a cheap dual band WiFi 5 (802.11ac) router/access point.

or just use the Ethernet and not the WiFi - I assume since you said you tested it the system is close enough to your modem device to do this, so the WiFi isn’t necessary.
Click to expand...
jmilcher said:
I’d just upgrade your modem. Things have come a long long way since n 450 was a thing. If the bandwidth and speed matters, I’d upgrade. Also it may just be my mind, but when I went from N to AC I noticed a major decrease in latency on WiFi.
Click to expand...
I had to get the one I have now because of cost, and even now they are 100.00!

I mainly use the internet to stream music/videos and play online games. Even at 30Mbps, that would be fine, and I don't use the BT connection when I'm playing games. I can make it work. It just doesn't seem right when you use the 2.4Ghz channel that the card should take a 60% hit in performance when using BT, or even teh best I can tweak it, a 30% hit in performance.

Is three any setting to reduce the BT transmit power separately from the WIFI transmit power?
 
Last edited:
I looked it up and it looks like the card in your old laptop was mPCIe, so it would be larger than the m.2 cards used now. Any number of things could be causing the interference, including the way the antennae were wired inside your laptop, antennae sharing between the two protocols, or even just the distance between two leads on the PCB. Or maybe your old one was only using one of the leads for wifi and the other for bluetooth. Not a lot of documentation on the older ones out there and I honestly can't remember how they usually worked - I remember some of the older Intel ones even had three leads on them.

At any rate, 2.4GHz is crowded these days, and putting your systems on 5ghz wifi would bypass all of that interference. I'm not familiar with the settings in your modem's configuration, bypass mode or whatever. Most home networks are set up with just the "modem" device, gateway, whatever the ISP has provided, and the wifi it includes, like you have done. But those things rarely get upgraded, so if you want faster wifi for your home network, the solution is to buy a router or wifi access point, plug it in to your modem and use that instead. Just turn off wifi and whatever else is on it. If "bypass" mode just sets the modem up as a dumb passthrough to whatever device is connected, then yes, I guess that would do it.

Something like the Asus RT-ACRH13 might be about right? They're currently $65 on Amazon. Should provide all the oomph you need.
 
deruberhanyok said:
I looked it up and it looks like the card in your old laptop was mPCIe, so it would be larger than the m.2 cards used now. Any number of things could be causing the interference, including the way the antennae were wired inside your laptop, antennae sharing between the two protocols, or even just the distance between two leads on the PCB. Or maybe your old one was only using one of the leads for wifi and the other for bluetooth. Not a lot of documentation on the older ones out there and I honestly can't remember how they usually worked - I remember some of the older Intel ones even had three leads on them.

At any rate, 2.4GHz is crowded these days, and putting your systems on 5ghz wifi would bypass all of that interference. I'm not familiar with the settings in your modem's configuration, bypass mode or whatever. Most home networks are set up with just the "modem" device, gateway, whatever the ISP has provided, and the wifi it includes, like you have done. But those things rarely get upgraded, so if you want faster wifi for your home network, the solution is to buy a router or wifi access point, plug it in to your modem and use that instead. Just turn off wifi and whatever else is on it. If "bypass" mode just sets the modem up as a dumb passthrough to whatever device is connected, then yes, I guess that would do it.

Something like the Asus RT-ACRH13 might be about right? They're currently $65 on Amazon. Should provide all the oomph you need.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what it seems to do is just bypasses whatever specific thing you plug into it. I'll read technical stuff on it again to see how it works. I'm actually going through the Windows settings now for the wifi card also, and testing those to see if I can get a workaround, but I've improved it enough. I mean 50Mbps+ is plenty to game on, and if I need the extra bandwidth for a large download, I can just pause the playback on BT. It's really not a big deal now that I can get 65% of the full speed out of it using both BT and Wifi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top