Is AX1800 Flint slower than Brume?

Does Flint have weaker hardware? Reading the details, I thought this one should be a bit faster. Is that the case?

The configuration page is slow to open. With Adguard enabled, there is only 11% memory left. At the same time, no VPN is enabled yet.
In direct comparison with Brume, I am not happy with the Flint at all. Previously I had the Mudi, this was not to use at all because much too slow.

(Initial setup with the Flint only with network cable or app is a bad joke).

Flint is faster but is running chaos calmer 15.05.1 and custom GL-iNet packages. It can achieve about double the the speed of brume using wireguard. OpenVPN is about the same with Flint edging slightly ahead Brume is running on dual core Openwrt 19.XX.xX or 21.XX.XX while flint is a quad core 1.4ghz it has a separate network processor.

What is holding Flint back is it use a processor that is not widely used and is lacking support for the most current OpenWRT.


And don’t forget the RAM… 512 MB RAM is simply not enough, when only 384 MB is usable.

The Brume also has faster DDR4 RAM while the Flint is using DDR3L (low energy).

1 Like

Thanks for the comments. So the Flint should be faster but has less and slower memory? But even the expensive ASUS routers have only 512 MB. I don’t know if DDR3 or 4.

Then I hope for a firmware that at least has beta status.

thank hansecreat

I was about to point that out. It more depends on how you want to use it. If you are trying to run a complex set up with a bunch of inspection tools for Internet Of Things (IOT) and have a bunch of low speed devices Brume is better by far. Brume is also limited in that you have a usb 2.0 limiting adapters. If you want super fast VPN cause you in a restricted country or want watch US netflix, HBO Nordic or watch a Pay-per-view fight out of Singapore for free and have a bunch of wireless devices connect flint is better I think. I know someone that has a brume connect to a wireless self powered wifi 6e access-points. He said the same setup from dell server would have been $2500+ and he did it for $839 $700 of which was the access-points from ubiquiti.

Similar to your friend, I would also like to do it.

I am on a boat and have always alternately connected to the Brume a 4G router (NETGEAR Nighthawk M1 MR1100) or a WiFi amplifier (Ubiquiti BULLET-M2-HP). In addition, 7 devices on the W-LAN from Brume (which will soon become more).

Problem is with already slow wifi still VPN to use. Mudi does not work at all, Brume so to some extent. I had hoped that Flint would be a little faster.

1 Like

Flint is faster than Brume in VPN speed, NAT speed an WiFi speed.

Brume has more storage and RAM.

1 Like

So you can’t go any faster then the Netgear MR1100 your(WWAN) will go (real 4G speeds are 100Mbps average theoretically 300Mbps) Being on a boat your a subjected to 3-axis more then on land witch could lead to packet loss degrading the signal. the Ubiquiti Bullet-M2-HP is designed for stationary use (not being swung around) I might be wrong about that but from the directions I read its meant to be used in stationary deployment. the M2 is also limited by it using cat5 Rj-45 10/100 Mbps

What is the effect of more storage and RAM?
The Flint shows 9%, 11 MB free storage space. Adguard and USB stick/file sharing are enabled.

Mullvad I reach all servers only with the APP. In the UI, when setting up Mullvad, the bottom servers are not loaded, USA.
Could this be due to memory?

I connected the 4G router alternately to the Brume and Flint and did speed test. Brume was faster in download (18 instead of about 12 on Flint). However, this varies a lot.

I use the Ubiquiti Bullet-M2-HP to boost the wifi from restaurants. Only 2.4. Works quite well, many RVs use this as well.
In this case I want to use Adguard together with VPN.

One more question, what is the “Sync” button on the side for? For WPS? I didn’t find anything about it in the documentation.

See explanation in this thread:

1 Like