Adding on some additional information here. In a CPU comparison to a BCM4912 at 2.0GHz, the ARMv7l at 1.1GHz performs fairly well exceeding the BCM in OpenVPN performance but not quite as good in something like wireguard (RC4). The default openssl package on the the Slate 7 along with most consumer routers do include support for ChaCha20-Poly1305 which means you have to use RC4 has a proximal stand-in.
Slate 7
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
rc4 41666.47k 58653.91k 65530.01k 67349.16k 68433.44k 67928.06k
blowfish 23297.35k 30771.65k 33603.98k 34303.66k 34661.20k 34553.86k
aes-128-cbc 73760.02k 234239.25k 500352.26k 718706.90k 818432.68k 829507.13k
aes-256-cbc 69423.91k 198224.14k 364021.76k 467719.85k 511356.15k 512879.27k
BCM4912
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytes
rc4 98352.11k 116165.67k 122359.21k 124112.24k 124160.68k 124188.52k
blowfish cbc 54401.95k 65238.98k 69318.64k 70029.65k 70634.77k 70303.74k
aes-128 cbc 62116.20k 78884.42k 85077.53k 87023.22k 87520.15k 86900.96k
aes-256 cbc 49949.47k 59883.84k 63195.53k 64249.28k 64371.59k 64342.94k
I am wondering which parts of the Wi-Fi 7 specs this device implements as obviously the 6GHz isn't one of them.
Edit:
I realized that sounded overly aggressive while that was not my intention. I am actually trying to figure out, why I would buy this device rather than one of the older slate versions.
I went through the same process, trying to find a reason to get it. Slate 7 is larger, heavier, consumes more power, etc.. To me, it offers no meaningful advantage (and some disadvantages) over Slate AX.
Nope. Nothing specific. I was just looking to replace a travel router which has been permanently “borrowed” within the family and wanted to get the “best” bang for the buck, so I google W-Fi 7 and mostly found stuff about the 6 GHz support. Busy reading up on the rest right now.
Much faster VPN performance, especially for wireguard
CPU is capable of running internal openspeedtest server at nearly full speed (2.5Gbit)
Future proof with wifi 7 (802.11be) support
Killer LCD screen - turn on/off interfaces (internet, VPN, QR codes for Wi-Fi setup) without logging in. For known Wi-Fi networks, setup is practically instant.
With 2 x 2.5GBE ports, 1.1GHz quad core CPU and excellent wifi coverage, this can very easily be a home router replacement in a less power consuming manner
You are right on the downsides:
Size - marginally larger. The MT3000 for example, will physically fit on top of the slate 7 with the 7's antennas raised, so you are talking 8mm in width difference. There is about a 1cm difference in depth. Height difference is nominal. Weight, nominal.
From a power consumption perspective, The Slate 7 under nominal operations at 12v, 0.62A, 7.44W whereas the MT3000 will run on 5v, 0.51A, 2.55W. If you are running your Slate 7 off battery, then it will consume more than 2x as fast. For running on electric mains, the consumption is nominal. Assuming an electrical rate of $0.15/kWh, and running 24/7, you are talking a difference of $6.43/yr ($9.78/yr vs $3.35/yr)
According to GL.iNet, the opposite is true. Slate AX WireGuard max speed is 550Mbps and Slate 7 is SLOWER at 540Mbps. See attached screenshots from GL.iNet.
Slate AX = 550
Slate 7 = 540
Winner, Slate AX. Of course, for most users it doesn’t matter because the slowest link will not be the router.
—-
Moving along - something that turned me off is losing one port. Slate AX, three useful Ethernet ports. Slate 7 - two.
—-
The fancy touchscreen may be useful to some folks. It isn’t useful for me, it’s just something else to hope doesn’t get screwed up in a future firmware “update”.
Future proof is also a bit of a stretch. Slate 7 does not offer true WiFi 7 support. It lacks both the 6GHz band & 320MHz channel width (both are major components of WiFi 7 and they are likely to be commonplace very soon). This will limit Slate 7’s relevance in any network topology that is centered on WiFi 7.
There are also some unexplained shenanigans with power management on Slate 7. For example, USB port behavior. If you power the Slate 7 with a 5V input, you get no USB power output. In contrast, the Slate AX delivers 5V out even when running on a 5V input. Hopefully this can be corrected with firmware, but my suspicion is the defect is hardware-related and thus it will remain uncorrected until a new PCB version comes along.
I have been a long-time fan of Slate AX, despite horrific firmware support - so it is saddening to see it being replaced by a device that seems half-baked, but glazed with a fancy touchscreen.
The listed specs are not accurate. Having personally tested wireguard on the Slate 7, I can confirm you will get in excess of 1400Mbit/s dl and 860Mbit/s ul. This is due to the processor having native support for hardware AES + NEON. The Slate 7/BE3600 is based on Qualcomm's Kryo V2 which is a custom implementation of ARM Cortex-A73/A75-class cores. These are high performance cores that support out-of-order execution, have wider pipelines and faster instruction decode, and have higher IPC than the IPQ6000.
Also, the Slate 7 has 2x memory and 4x flash storage compared to the Slate AX, so things like AdguardHome have a lot more storage to play with for logging
In terms of networks ports, sure if you need an extra network port than that is a loss but for me 2 x 2.5GbE > 3 x 1GbE as I switch from home and travel duty
As for the "shenanigans" with the power management. Sure, if you use a power supply that doesn't come with the router, and it only outputs at 5V, then yes, you will see no power available for the USB-A port. This is indeed a compromise of going from the IPQ6000 to the Kryo V2 processor. A compromise that I am grateful that GL.iNet made due to the enormous benefits this processor has over the Slate AX.
I understand your sentiment of the router being half baked but having now used this router extensively, my assessment is that it's the best yet that I've had from GL.iNet compared to the MT3000 and MT1300. It's been rock solid stable and the performance is unmatched for such a small form factor. Understandably, it isn't for everyone which is why they sell other slower models.
