Killer Wi-Fi 6 AX1650x

No reason to get the Killer-branded card when the Intel AX200 is the exact same thing. Also, there is the updated AX210 that supports WiFi 6e. The only thing the Killer offers is support for "OMFG SUPERGAMING WTFBBQ!!!!!FACTORAL!!!!!!" software that really does nothing except maybe fudge the ping numbers.

That card can technically be installed in desktop m.2 slots (provided the keying doesn't clash) and the WiFi portion should work (still gotta rig up a couple antennas). However, AFAIK few if any desktop mainboards support USB to any m.2 slots, which is required for the card's bluetooth interface. Desktop kits that use these cards will either have a USB chip on the PCIe adapter, or require running a line to it from one of the mainboard's own USB headers. Also, you may possibly come across cards that are m.2 but support CNVio instead of PCIe/USB, such as the AX211. These will almost certainly not be supported in a desktop except maybe some OEM systems with built-in WiFi.

Also, WTF is "HighZer0 Electronics"? Looks to me that at best they're pulling OEM cards and selling them as new, or could be counterfeit.

(edit: link to AX210, CNVio note.)
 
Last edited:
No reason to get the Killer-branded card when the Intel AX200 is the exact same thing. Also, there is the updated AX210 that supports WiFi 6e. The only thing the Killer offers is support for "OMFG SUPERGAMING WTFBBQ!!!!!FACTORAL!!!!!!" software that really does nothing except maybe fudge the ping numbers.

That card can technically be installed in desktop m.2 slots (provided the keying doesn't clash) and the WiFi portion should work (still gotta rig up a couple antennas). However, AFAIK few if any desktop mainboards support USB to any m.2 slots, which is required for the card's bluetooth interface. Desktop kits that use these cards will either have a USB chip on the PCIe adapter, or require running a line to it from one of the mainboard's own USB headers. Also, you may possibly come across cards that are m.2 but support CNVio instead of PCIe/USB, such as the AX211. These will almost certainly not be supported in a desktop except maybe some OEM systems with built-in WiFi.

Also, WTF is "HighZer0 Electronics"? Looks to me that at best they're pulling OEM cards and selling them as new, or could be counterfeit.

(edit: link to AX210, CNVio note.)
Hey thanks. I manly want this card because of BT's 5.2 spec that includes the LC3 audio codec, and I can get it free with a program I'm in. But, I have to act fast because it's about to leave my queue. I'd be replacing the Intel® Wi-Fi 6 AX200 that came with the board. I just noticed the AX 200 says BT 5.2 also, but it was released in 2019, before teh LC3 codec specification taht says all BT 5.2 branded must support the LC3 codec. It's replacing SBC as the default BT codec.

I've tried to find information on Intel WiFi/BT cards before, and finding what BT protocols they support is virtually impossible.

You probably knew this, but Killer is now Intel. It's now branded INTEL Killer xxx. Yeah and I've read about how the "killer" part is ridiculous. It's jsut free to me, but if I really want LC3 I can fork out 30 bucks to bypass 'killer' bullshit.

Does anyone know of the AX200 card actually supports LC3? It does say BT 5.2 on the Intel site.


"HighZer0 Electronics" Oh dude, come on now. Everyone has heard of "HighZer0 Electronics!" It's a Shinzhen cult company. LMAO!
 
AFAICT there's nothing requiring BT 5.2 devices to support BT LE Audio/LC3. It would be weird (and probably unenforceable) if that were the case, given that BT LE Audio was only just recently completed while BT 5.2 has been around for years.

Given that the AX1650 and AX200 are essentially exactly the same thing, the chances that either of them will support BT LE Audio are pretty much identical and subject to Intel's whims. It'll come to those if they decide to update the drivers. I can't imagine any reason to side-grade from the former to the latter.

FWIW, according to this the AX210 does support BT LE Audio.

If sound quality is the issue for you, there are already better options than SBC (and possibly LC3). AAC is widely supported because that's what iPhones use. AptX is supported by pretty much anything that uses a Qualcomm chipset, and LDAC is starting to become more common since Sony let it go for free.
 
AFAICT there's nothing requiring BT 5.2 devices to support BT LE Audio/LC3. It would be weird (and probably unenforceable) if that were the case, given that BT LE Audio was only just recently completed while BT 5.2 has been around for years.

Given that the AX1650 and AX200 are essentially exactly the same thing, the chances that either of them will support BT LE Audio are pretty much identical and subject to Intel's whims. It'll come to those if they decide to update the drivers. I can't imagine any reason to side-grade from the former to the latter.

FWIW, according to this the AX210 does support BT LE Audio.

If sound quality is the issue for you, there are already better options than SBC (and possibly LC3). AAC is widely supported because that's what iPhones use. AptX is supported by pretty much anything that uses a Qualcomm chipset, and LDAC is starting to become more common since Sony let it go for free.
The way I read the BT 5.2 specification is that any BT 5.2 implementation after the LC3 specifications were released had to include LC3 codec, but now I se I am wrong. So, your point is prescient. But BT 5.2 hardware being manufactured after the release of the new LC3 specifications would have it, just like all BT manufactured have SBC? I guess manufactures could say to hell with it and only support the older codecs, like SBC?

I'm currently using the AX200 and even though Intel doesn't publish it, I think it does support AptX. (I'm also using an AptX HD BT receiver.) There is a huge debate about whether or not the older card, the card right before the AX200 (I think the 7960?) supported AptX, etc, which is what I had in my old Gig B450 board. Many people said it did. But, implementation was up to Windows. What I did was install a Dell driver that activated or at least would report if any AptX was being used. On the older 7960 Intel Wifi/BT card, it sure was. So it did have the AptX chip on it. I have no idea why Intel would not say if it did or not. Maybe it was due to licensing issues with companies like Dell, which required software to enable it. But I checked again after uninstalling the Dell driver, using an AptX receiver that would report through its LCD screen which codec was being use, and sure enough, the older Intel card showed AptX.

Now that you pointed out that the new AX210 does support LC3, that's great.

The reason I want the LC3 codec is that it just pretty much negates having AptX receiver or transmitters. For instnace, if you have a BT amp, it will always have SBC because that's the default codec for BT. Likewise, the new BT 5.2 amps, and other hardware, will support LC3 because it's replacing SBC as the default codec. From what I have read, under normal listening conditions, such as in you home (not in a sound room), you can't tell the difference between LC3 and nonCompressed audio. That's good enough and gets rid of external AptX receivers.
 
I'm currently using the AX200 and even though Intel doesn't publish it, I think it does support AptX. (I'm also using an AptX HD BT receiver.) There is a huge debate about whether or not the older card, the card right before the AX200 (I think the 7960?) supported AptX, etc, which is what I had in my old Gig B450 board. Many people said it did. But, implementation was up to Windows. What I did was install a Dell driver that activated or at least would report if any AptX was being used. On the older 7960 Intel Wifi/BT card, it sure was. So it did have the AptX chip on it. I have no idea why Intel would not say if it did or not. Maybe it was due to licensing issues with companies like Dell, which required software to enable it. But I checked again after uninstalling the Dell driver, using an AptX receiver that would report through its LCD screen which codec was being use, and sure enough, the older Intel card showed AptX.
aptX is only supported natively in Windows 10 (but no AAC support). Windows 11 now supports only SBC and AAC by default, requiring the installation of third-party software just to add aptX support.
 
aptX is only supported natively in Windows 10 (but no AAC support). Windows 11 now supports only SBC and AAC by default, requiring the installation of third-party software just to add aptX support.
No shit? Well, that's probably why Intel never fessed up about their 7960 card having AptX on it. Where can you get software to enable it? The ony thing I see is the old Dell driver from 2015.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top