It’s not uncommon to run a webserver on the router, this uses a lot of threads and processes.
And as i wrote, across the board the MT3000 is superior, just in wifi and 2.5gbit port alone, both future proofing the router and speed between wifi devices. NAS to devices over wifi is a common use case, with new devices all being Wifi 6. Double the wifi speed helps with that.
Color me skeptical, but I doubt many people are running webservers from a 512mb ram device. I certainly wouldn’t call it common. nginx or haproxy to an internal server? More likely, but still uncommon I wager. My guess is that VPN traffic is the most common CPU intensive task (possibly samba, but I think that is also single threaded).
Package download statistics say another story about webserver usage 
. Things like Grafana are very useful with IOT devices and other home automation tasks. It can use a lot of CPU collecting data from many sources.
SQM/QoS or just showing client download/upload stats are very CPU intensive tasks that a lot of users are running as well.
So again it will depend on what you are using the router for. If you are doing the above, then the AXT1800 is better, but you will suffer with the smaller flash size. Users have circumvented this with extroot without much issues though.
For a home router with nothing of the above, the wifi will still be better, which is what a router is mainly used for. VPN is already so fast that for most people this makes no difference between the 2. You will max out any provider without issues (depending on location, if you are next to the VPN server on a main network node, then maybe not).
I think we agree that for most people there will not be a substantial day-to-day difference between the two. I also agree that for most people the difference between 300mbps and 550mbps of VPN traffic is not functionally different in daily usage. (or, honestly, 150mbps vs 550mbps).
I think my take (and where we might disagree) would be that if the MT3000 isn’t powerful enough for you, the AXT1800 probably won’t be either. Users who need more power than either of these devices offer are probably better served by stepping up into a low-end x86 platform running either OpenWRT or pf/OPNSense.
p.s. I routinely get 800-900mpbs over my IPSec links to work with about 20% CPU util. But not with a GL-iNet product 
Interesting discussion. I have the Slate AXT1800, one of the things that I don’t like so much is the power draw and size (I still have a TP-Link WR902AC which ran off ‘3 electrons’) but I guess quad core needs more power (even though you can actually run it on lower amps, as I understand from other threads - if you are not using too many devices like disks on the USB port etc.).
So, end result gleaned from the above would be that for the average (travel) user who wants occasional VPN usage, strong Wifi usage, small device, lower power, doesn’t use the SD Card, the MT3000 is (by far) the better bet?
Based on the above link, the MT3000 should be basically the same size as the Beryl/Slate Plus. That’s still quite a bit bigger than the original Slate, and certainly larger than the WR902AC, but it’s also close to 10x faster on OpenVPN, which seems like an acceptable tradeoff to me. Of course, I’d love something the size of the original AR750, but somehow I don’t think that’s happening any time soon.
For a travel router, the size and weight combined with basically equivalent performance makes the MT3000 much more compelling from my standpoint. At the end of the day both of them are probably going to require a decent USB-C source, so I’m not sure that is a huge selling point between them.
To me, aside from the size/weight, the underlying software support is the biggest differentiator between the two. I certainly would take an MT3000 running a more modern kernel with a chance of real upstream OpenWRT support soon over the current situation on the AXT1800. The loss of the microSD card is a little disappointing, but overall it’s certainly a tradeoff I can live with given the various benefits.
I think the price will be the most interesting. Is there already something known?
I upgraded to GL-AXT1800 from previous Beryl GL-MT1300 because I very depend on WireGuard and speed of WireGuard connection is the most important factor for me.
The change in size and weight wasn’t noticeable for me.
I smell a crowd funding source for a GL-MT3000 based on the GL-AR750S / Slate case design in Metal aluminum?
The removal of the SD card slot is diasppointing.
I’d love to have the extra LAN port - but it’s wishful.
I just got the old Beryl from Amazon yesterday and tried it out.
It’s pretty decent. I saw that the MT3000 is available on pre-order and with the currency exchange, it’s about what I paid for the Beryl from Amazon.
Just wondering if I am feeling buyer’s remorse because I did buy the MT3000 on preorder and maybe should have got the AXT1800 because of the card slot.
I also want to run Tailscale on the router. Hoping that’ll come built in via firmware. Anyone have an idea of the available free space capacity in the MT3000?
Firmware 4.2 will include Tailscale.
If you don’t mind using the USB for a card reader you can still use an SD card with the mt3000. I got it on pre order and so far it’s nice compared to the axt1800 for use as a repeater with Adguard and samba running. I’ve got both but if your mobile the mt3000 is great for the price point
Has anyone used both and can comment on the real world differences in speed? I’m not talking about the wireless speed of data transfer but in terms of handling samba shares with heavy internet traffic etc
No one mentioned about MU-MIMO?
It’s weird that beryl ax doesn’t have MU-MIMO support.
Is it true that Beryl AX does NOT support MU-MIMO?
Yes BUT it supports OFDMA(orthogonal frequency division multiplexing access)
So for Wifi 6 OFDMA is more important than MU-MIMO? Does it make sense to have both?
What about if the client is connected with a wifi 5 device? Then MU-MIMO is then more important? Or again it doesn’t make any difference?
Beryl AX has 2 core cpu, while Slate AX has 4. For OFDMA isn’t important to have 4 cores? In expense of heat maybe…
Without getting into the 20hour Wireless LAN course its how priority is assigned by the Access Point.
I believe the AXT1800 is 2x2 MU-MIMO so you could have 2 full bandwidth clients.
OFDMA is preferred unless you have alot of MU-MIMO client use
It has MU-MIMO. Where did you get the info it does not support Mu-MIMO?
The product official website does not say that it supports MU-MIMO. Where do you get the info that it does??