Skip to content
Jan 27 / Greg

Mikrotik R52Hn

Looks like MTK has put out a new high power version of their N card. See specs below. Looks like they will be retailing for around $50 over at Baltic.

Looks like a wireless card to me

  • Dual band IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n standard
  • Output Power of up to 25dBm @ a/g/n Band
  • Support for up to 2×2 MIMO with spatial multiplexing
  • Four times the throughput of 802.11a/g
  • Atheros AR9220, chipset
  • High Performance (up to 300Mbps physical data rates and 200Mbps of actual user throughput) with Low Power Consumption
  • 2 X MMCX Antenna Connector

    leave a comment
    1. Tim Payne / Jan 27 2010

      I’ve had a lot of disappointment with MikroTik “N” so far. Probably due to a lack of industry standard. It seems it works great if you are using a Tik-to-Tik link, but not so well when I use my iMac to Tik. In that regard, 802.11g works better. As nice as the features on that card look, I’ll wait till there is some real AP-to-Client connection metrics before I purchase anymore “N” radios. Glad to see they are embracing MMCX connectors.

    2. Greg / Jan 27 2010

      As odd as it sounds, you are the first person I know that has attempted to do client to tik on N…hehe. Most of the people I know are using it only on backhauls. It almost sounds weird to think you are trying it…hehe.

    3. Jimmy / Jan 27 2010

      Nice, I have been debating getting a R52n for a while now for the house (this just makes the decision harder). I have a R52H already, but my laptop has a N card, so I figured I might as well take advantage of it.

    4. Greg / Jan 27 2010

      indeed. Looks like your mileage may vary.

    5. Tim / Jan 27 2010

      Weird as it may seem to you, with the availability of “N” capable routers on the consumer market shelves, why wouldn’t I try a AP-to-Client link with a Tik? They’re the ones who have pushed this to the market claiming wonderful, astounding performance, yet no where have I read, even in the fine print, that advertised performance will only be achieved through the use of point-to-point links or performance goals will not be achieved by using it as a local AP. If this is their goal (point-to-point) market, then that’s ok but they should say so or at least offer up some performance reality or guidance when using it for a local AP don’t ya think? (hehe)

    6. Greg / Jan 27 2010

      Fair point Tim.

      What I was trying to imply is that I forget that people use MTKs as common APs. I get so used to them being backhaul radios or CPEs, that I forget you can use them as a standard AP. To that I have to say “This IS Africa.”

      I don’t know that there is any compatibility testing done by MTK either…

    7. Greg / Jan 29 2010

      While this has nothing to do with the R52Hn…it is crazy fun…hehehe.

    8. Holden / Jan 30 2010

      Yeah, I was in a bit of rush when I posted the game link and didn’t bother to search for your Trebuche post. Anyhow, I figured you’d enjoy this timewaster!

    9. Greg / Jan 30 2010

      HA, you know it fool!

    Leave a Comment