Meet Flint 4

Router
21

Compare the specs of the Flint 2, Flint 3e, and Flint 3. You'll see GL.iNet cut resources on the essential 2.4 GHz (for IoT devices) and 5 GHz (most used band) bands to make room for a 6 GHz band. This resulted in downgraded speeds and antennas on the lower bands.

You’re essentially getting an underpowered 6 GHz band that most devices don't support, plus fake MLO with no STR. It makes no sense to hype a protocol that can't deliver on its promises. Until we get devices and routers with real Wi-Fi 7 (STR MLO), this protocol isn't worth it.

1 Like
22

But in my case Flint 3 provides for my devices (I do have devices that support 6GHz!) a good 6GHz network. Of course if you do not have any devices with 6Ghz, then indeed Flint 3 is a bad choice.

Back to my situation however: No matter how much resource you throw at 2.4GHz in my place, it will never be fast competing with 20+ SSID across all the channels.

Both 5GHz and 6GHz basically do above 1 Gbps for a big enough area for me and given I currently have only a 1Gbps internet line, that will do very fine for me. 5GHz however drops off quicker, because also there it is competing with a bunch of networks... On 6GHz i'm not competing for air-time, so for ME it works out well until all neighbours start going there as well.

Anyway, Flint 4 hopefully will be better on the areas that you find important for you! If one device fits you better than another, please get one of those! Everybody has their needs and wishes!

Sure I would love to have seen a 4x4 2.4GHz, 4x4 5GHz, and 4T5R 6GHz 10 or 14 antenna awesome huge range monster with huge range, but perhaps OpenWRT Two gets close to that?

1 Like
23

If it’s a combo port as described, which seems very likely, you can’t do this. It’s one or the other, SFP+ or RJ45, you can’t use both.

24

how so?

I believe an SFP copper ethernet module will just act as a interface just like the other network ports?

Brume 3 has the same type of design between wan and lan1 it is just eth0 and eth0.1.

if you look to the back of it you see a symbol to which says it is shared, so I see not a reason why it would be not possible?

sfp, and 10gb wan port share a single switch while the other ports have a different switch.

when I look to the schematics of the Flint 2:

this is what comes in my mind how they could have wired it on the Flint 4 too.

25

Unlike the Brume 3 LAN ports a combo port has no switch. It is one port and enables/disables each side. When a Transceiver is inserted the RJ45 will be disabled and visa versa.

1 Like
26
27

I had to google the term combo port and I think you are right, it is not the same as Brume3 because of the different media types.

Sfp will take much more power so they cannot run simultaneously both together even if so, then the issue will be there is no power left to do so.

28

Nothing to do with power. Regular transceivers e.g DAC or SR/LR 10G use less power than copper.

This is much simpler. Combo is just a single port on the device with multiple physical connectors so only one port only one connector can work.

Something like the Brume 3 or Flint 4 LAN side is multiple ports each with a single connector. They could also be combo ports and each have two physically connectors also if the device was designed that way but they just have one copper connector in this design.

29

it’s a shame there isn’t a 2nd 10GB port.

2 Likes
30

For those a tiny bit excited about Flint 4... I did happen to see:

2 Likes
31

on the new product specs page there’s no clear indication of the SPF and RJ45 port being a combo port, I presume they are going to add this to the marketing

1 Like
32

This pic is very usefull :grinning_face:, this is why many of us think it is a combo port but this pic is from cest event, so it could be a subject to change maybe I don't know how definitive such show model is on such event.

Edit:

Oh... I see what you mean I was not aware of the product page change, interesting :+1:

33

Well spotted. No reference to combo in the specs or images suggest it’s two separate ports now. This would be a positive change indeed. If true is is a shame there isn’t a wired-only Brume 4 version as well

3 Likes
34

I like most of the specs. But I’d rather have DDR4 2GB / eMMC 32GB. I know memory is insanely expensive right now, but having some headroom would be nice.

4 Likes
35

If we can upgrade it ourselves then I think that will be fine

36

You know what would be nice and unconventional for GL.iNet to do? Release a router with user-upgradeable M.2 SSD slot and SO-DIMM.

3 Likes
37

Agree with you. A user upgradeable M.2 slot would be great. The posted specs from GL.iNet on the Flint 4 look very solid. The display is nice eye candy, but generally I would use an app, web interface or uboot for access. Hope Flint 4 is running Linux kernel 6.12 or later in alignment with OpenWRT.

I think GL.iNet is way ahead of their competitors, some of whom are still using an 8 year old Linux kernel with backports and a very old fashioned web interface.

Having functions like Adguard Home and Tailscale baked in is a real bonus.

3 Likes
38

What you want already exists, it’s called a mini pc. I use one and it works fine.

39

Look at the BPI-R4 Pro as an example. You can configure it pretty much however you want.

40

The Flint 4 is almost perfect in so many ways for a 2026 router. I'm just surprised that they're still going to go with 1GB of RAM. Three generations of home WiFi routers stuck at 2GB of RAM. The current crisis is a poor excuse not to give us more RAM. GL.iNet can always use Chinese RAM, and I would still buy it.Maybe GL.iNet will release a Flint 4 Pro with 2-4GB of RAM?! I'll gladly pay for it!

3 Likes