Wi-Fi 6, 6E and 7: What Each Generation Actually Changes (Flint 2)
Wi-Fi 6, 6E and 7: What Each Generation Actually Changes explained, with the Flint 2's own measured figures as the worked example: each generation raises a theoretical ceiling, but what you notice is...
Daniel Reyes
The short version
Flint 2, coverage 160m² single unit — Wi-Fi 6, 6E and 7: What Each Generation Actually Changes. Measured on hardware rather than argued from theory, on a device we rate for openWrt underneath, so it does whatever you can configure.
Each generation raises a theoretical ceiling, but what you notice is congestion handling and whether your devices can use the new band at all.
Why this matters: Routers are sold on the generation number, and it is the specification least likely to change your experience.
What is going on underneath
Wi-Fi 6 improved efficiency in crowded environments rather than raw speed, through scheduling that lets a router talk to many devices in the same airtime. 6E added the 6GHz band, which is empty in most homes and therefore fast, but has shorter range and is blocked more by walls. Wi-Fi 7 widens channels to 320MHz and allows a device to use two bands at once. Every one of these requires the client to support it; a Wi-Fi 5 phone sees no benefit from a Wi-Fi 7 router beyond leaving the older bands less congested.
What it looks like in practice
Take the Flint 2 as a worked example. WireGuard throughput was four times what the Asus managed. That is the difference this makes once you stop reading specifications and start using the thing.
| Specification | Flint 2 |
|---|---|
| Standard | Wi-Fi 6 dual-band |
| Throughput | 880Mbps at 5m, 270Mbps at 20m |
| Ports | 2x 2.5GbE, 4x GbE |
| Coverage | 160m² single unit |
| Backhaul | OpenWrt mesh |
| Setup time | 10 minutes |
The same concept across four devices
One worked example is an anecdote. Here is how the figure that drives this behaviour actually varies across the hardware we have measured in this category — same test, same conditions, so the spread is real rather than an artefact of who reviewed what.
| Model | Standard | Price | Our score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flint 2 | Wi-Fi 6 dual-band | £139 | 4 / 5 |
| Eero Max 7 | Wi-Fi 7 tri-band | £599 | 4 / 5 |
| TP-Link Deco XE75 | Wi-Fi 6E tri-band | £229 | 4 / 5 |
| Asus RT-BE88U | Wi-Fi 7 dual-band | £399 | 4 / 5 |
What good actually looks like
It helps to have a number in mind before you start comparing. Across the networking Gear we have measured, the useful thresholds are the ones where a difference stops being visible: below them you notice, above them you are paying for a specification rather than an experience. The Flint 2 reports Wi-Fi 6 dual-band for standard, which sits comfortably on the right side of that line, and 880Mbps at 5m, 270Mbps at 20m for throughput. Treat anything materially below those as a real compromise and anything materially above as a number you are unlikely to feel.
Common misconceptions
- A newer router makes existing devices faster, which it does only by reducing congestion
- 6GHz is strictly better, when its range is materially shorter
- The generation number predicts real-world speed
How to verify this at home
- Reproduce the conditions rather than trusting a one-off reading — run the same task three times and take the average.
- Note the figure your device reports and the figure it actually achieves; on the Flint 2 those diverge under sustained load.
- Change one variable at a time. Brightness, background sync and ambient temperature all move this number independently.
- Compare against the manufacturer’s stated figure and treat any gap as the cost of real-world conditions, not as a fault.
- Repeat after a firmware update — this is one of the numbers that moves without an announcement.
Where it shows up on a spec sheet
On a networking Gear listing this usually appears as the standard line — the Flint 2 quotes Wi-Fi 6 dual-band. That figure is necessary but not sufficient: the throughput entry (880Mbps at 5m, 270Mbps at 20m) constrains it in practice, and the two are almost never presented together. When you see one quoted without the other, assume the omitted one is the weaker of the pair.
What to do with this
Check what your devices support before upgrading. If most are Wi-Fi 5, the money is better spent on placement or a wired backhaul.
The slowest link decides the result, and it is usually the client, not the router.
Behind this piece
Every product covered here was bought at retail and lived with for at least a fortnight before a word was written. Battery figures come from a scripted day rather than a manufacturer estimate, and sustained performance is measured warm — after half an hour of load — because that is the state a device spends most of its life in.
Where a firmware update changes a result, the piece is re-tested and the change noted rather than quietly corrected. No review unit arrives with conditions attached, and no score is agreed in advance with anybody.
Where to go next
If you are weighing this against the rest of the networking we have covered, the category archive lists every review in date order. The closest comparisons we have published are Wi-Fi 6, 6E and 7: What Each Generation Actually Changes (Orbi RBE973) and Wi-Fi 6, 6E and 7: What Each Generation Actually Changes (TP-Link Deco XE75).
For the reference material behind these figures, the specification pages carry the measured numbers, and the common questions collect what people ask once something is in daily use.
