802.11ac Wave 1 vs Wave 2: Definitive Technical Comparison for Industrial IoT and Enterprise Deployments

The IEEE 802.11ac standard, marketed as WiFi 5 by the Wi-Fi Alliance, remains one of the most widely deployed wireless networking technologies in industrial and enterprise environments as of 2026. Despite the emergence of WiFi 6 (802.11ax) and WiFi 7 (802.11be), WiFi 5 continues to power millions of embedded wireless modules, industrial IoT gateways, enterprise access points, and legacy infrastructure due to its mature ecosystem, competitive cost structure, and proven reliability.

However, within the 802.11ac standard itself, there exists a critical generational divide: Wave 1 (2013–2015) and Wave 2 (2015–2017). These two phases are frequently misunderstood, misrepresented, or conflated in the procurement and engineering communities. Overseas wholesale buyers, OEM/ODM manufacturers, embedded hardware engineers, and enterprise network administrators must understand the precise technical distinctions to make cost-effective, future-compatible procurement decisions.

This article provides a rigorous, data-driven comparison of 802.11ac Wave 1 versus Wave 2, grounded exclusively in IEEE 802.11ac-2013 official specifications, Wi-Fi Alliance certification requirements, Qualcomm QCA9880/QCA9984 and MediaTek MT7612E/MT7615D reference design实测 data, and 2026 global spectrum regulatory status. No WiFi 6/6E/7 content is mixed in. Every parameter cited is verifiable against published chipset datasheets or standards body documentation.

For a complete overview of WiFi 5 and later generations, see our WiFi module complete guide.

1. Standards Evolution: Why Wave 1 and Wave 2 Exist

The IEEE 802.11ac standard was ratified in December 2013. However, the Wi-Fi Alliance recognized that not all features defined in the standard could be implemented simultaneously by silicon vendors at the time of ratification. To accelerate market adoption while maintaining forward compatibility, the alliance introduced a phased certification approach:

• Wave 1 (2013–2015): Mandatory features only. Devices certified under Wave 1 supported up to 80 MHz channel bandwidth, up to 3 spatial streams, 256-QAM modulation (3/4 and 5/6 coding rates), and single-user MIMO (SU-MIMO). Downlink MU-MIMO was explicitly excluded from the mandatory feature set.
• Wave 2 (2015–2017): Optional features introduced. Wave 2 certification added mandatory support for 160 MHz channel bandwidth (contiguous or non-contiguous via 80+80 MHz), 4 spatial streams, and Downlink MU-MIMO (DL MU-MIMO) supporting up to 4 simultaneous client transmissions. Transmit Beamforming (TxBF) became mandatory for Wave 2 certification, whereas it remained optional in Wave 1.

This phased approach is analogous to the USB 3.0/3.1 Gen 1/Gen 2 segmentation, where market timing forced a split in feature delivery. As of 2026, the overwhelming majority of 802.11ac chipsets in production are Wave 2 capable, but a significant aftermarket and legacy OEM channel still sources Wave 1 modules for cost-sensitive and application-specific deployments.

2. Core Technical Specifications: Side-by-Side Comparison

The following table presents the definitive parameter comparison between 802.11ac Wave 1 and Wave 2, based on the IEEE 802.11ac-2013 standard, Wi-Fi Alliance certification guidelines, and Qualcomm QCA9880 (Wave 1 reference) and QCA9984 (Wave 2 reference) chipset datasheets.

Technical Parameter	802.11ac Wave 1	802.11ac Wave 2
IEEE Ratification	December 2013	December 2013 (features phased through 2015–2016)
Max Channel Bandwidth	80 MHz	160 MHz (contiguous or 80+80 MHz non-contiguous)
Max Spatial Streams	3 (3×3:3)	4 (4×4:4)
Max Modulation & Coding	256-QAM, MCS 8–9 (3/4 & 5/6 coding rate)	256-QAM, MCS 8–9 (identical to Wave 1)
Theoretical Peak PHY Rate	1.3 Gbps (3 streams, 80 MHz, 256-QAM 5/6)	3.47 Gbps (4 streams, 160 MHz, 256-QAM 5/6)
Real-World TCP Throughput (Enterprise AP)	400–600 Mbps (3×3:3, 80 MHz)	600–900 Mbps (4×4:4, 80 MHz); 800–1200 Mbps (4×4:4, 160 MHz)
MU-MIMO Support	Not supported (SU-MIMO only)	Downlink MU-MIMO, up to 4 simultaneous clients
Transmit Beamforming (TxBF)	Optional (explicit TxBF)	Mandatory (explicit TxBF with null data packet)
Max Client Capacity (Per Radio)	~30–50 concurrent clients	~50–100 concurrent clients (with MU-MIMO efficiency gains)
Guard Interval Options	800 ns (long), 400 ns (short)	800 ns (long), 400 ns (short) — identical
Typical Transmit Power (5 GHz)	17–20 dBm per chain (varies by region)	17–20 dBm per chain (identical regulatory limits)
Operating Temperature Range	-20°C to +70°C (industrial grade)	-20°C to +70°C (industrial grade); extended -40°C to +85°C available on select chipsets
Typical Chipset Power Consumption	~2.5–4.0 W (3×3:3, active TX)	~3.5–6.0 W (4×4:4, active TX with MU-MIMO)

3. Theoretical Peak Rate vs. Real-World Throughput: The Gap Explained

One of the most persistent misconceptions in WiFi 5 procurement is the conflation of theoretical PHY (physical layer) peak rate with achievable TCP/IP throughput. The distinction is critical for industrial and enterprise deployment planning.

3.1 Theoretical PHY Rate Calculation

The IEEE 802.11ac PHY rate is calculated as follows:

For Wave 1 at 80 MHz bandwidth with 3 spatial streams, 256-QAM (8 bits per subcarrier), 5/6 coding rate, and 400 ns short guard interval: PHY Rate reaches 1.3 Gbps.

For Wave 2 at 160 MHz bandwidth with 4 spatial streams, identical modulation and guard interval: PHY Rate reaches 3.47 Gbps.

3.2 Real-World Throughput Deration Factors

In actual enterprise and industrial deployments, achievable TCP throughput is typically 30–50% of the theoretical PHY rate. The following factors account for the gap:

• Protocol Overhead (15–25% loss): The 802.11 MAC layer introduces frame aggregation (A-MPDU, A-MSDU), acknowledgment frames, and interframe spacing overhead. Even with A-MPDU aggregation enabled (up to 256 frames per PPDU in Wave 2), the MAC efficiency rarely exceeds 75–80%.
• Channel Contention and Co-Channel Interference (10–30% loss): In the unlicensed 5 GHz band, co-channel interference from neighboring APs, radar detection (DFS), and overlapping BSS (OBSS) scenarios force rate adaptation downward. Qualcomm’s field tests in dense enterprise environments (QCA9984 reference design) show average PHY rate retention of 65–75% under moderate interference.
• Client Limitation (20–40% loss): The vast majority of WiFi 5 client devices (smartphones, laptops, legacy sensors) support only 1×1:1 or 2×2:2 configurations. A Wave 2 access point operating in 4×4:4 mode will fall back to single-stream or dual-stream rates when serving typical clients. In mixed-client environments, the effective system throughput is gated by the weakest client.
• TCP/IP Stack and CPU Bottleneck (5–15% loss): Embedded systems often process TCP segmentation, NAT routing, and encryption (AES-CCMP for WPA2) on the host CPU. The Qualcomm IPQ8064 (dual-core Cortex-A15 at 1.4 GHz) used in Wave 2 enterprise APs demonstrates a TCP throughput ceiling of approximately 1.2 Gbps under full-duplex conditions, even when the PHY is capable of 2.5+ Gbps.

3.3 Measured Performance Benchmarks

Based on published benchmarks from Qualcomm’s QCA9880 (Wave 1, 3×3:2 client-to-AP bridge) and QCA9984 (Wave 2, 4×4:4) reference platforms:

Test Scenario	Wave 1 (3×3:3, 80 MHz)	Wave 2 (4×4:4, 80 MHz)	Wave 2 (4×4:4, 160 MHz)
TCP Downlink (single client, close range)	520 Mbps	720 Mbps	1,050 Mbps
TCP Uplink (single client, close range)	480 Mbps	680 Mbps	950 Mbps
TCP Downlink (4 concurrent clients, moderate load)	320–440 Mbps (aggregate)	580–720 Mbps (aggregate with MU-MIMO)	750–950 Mbps (aggregate with MU-MIMO)
TCP Downlink (10 concurrent clients, high density)	180–260 Mbps (aggregate)	400–560 Mbps (aggregate with MU-MIMO)	500–680 Mbps (aggregate with MU-MIMO)
Industrial IoT 100-packet latency (95th percentile)	8–15 ms	6–12 ms	5–10 ms

Source: Qualcomm QCA9880/QCA9984 Reference Design Application Notes (2016); validated by third-party testing from SmallNetBuilder (2017–2018). Results normalized to 5-meter distance, line-of-sight, DFS-channel free environment, WPA2-AES encryption enabled.

As detailed in the complete WiFi module guide, PHY rate differences between WiFi generations depend on spatial streams, channel bandwidth, and modulation scheme.

4. MU-MIMO: The Defining Differentiator

Multi-User Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MU-MIMO) is the single most significant technical differentiator between Wave 1 and Wave 2. It fundamentally changes how the access point manages concurrent client transmissions.

4.1 How MU-MIMO Works

In Wave 1 (SU-MIMO), the AP transmits to only one client at a time per radio channel, even if the AP has multiple antennas. Each transmission frame occupies the entire channel bandwidth for the duration of the transmission to a single client. All other clients must wait in the contention window.

In Wave 2 (DL MU-MIMO), the AP can transmit to up to four simultaneous clients using spatial separation. The AP’s transmit beamformer precodes each client’s data stream such that the spatial signatures are orthogonal at the receiver locations. This is accomplished through explicit sounding and feedback: the AP transmits a Null Data Packet (NDP) announcement, each client measures the channel and reports a compressed beamforming matrix back to the AP, and the AP applies the corresponding steering vectors.

4.2 Practical MU-MIMO Efficiency Gains

It is critical to note that MU-MIMO does not increase the peak throughput of any single client. Its benefit is aggregate system capacity in multi-client environments. Based on MediaTek MT7615D (Wave 2 4×4:4) reference testing — detailed in our Wave 2 module review and selection guide:

• 2 concurrent clients: 1.5–1.7x aggregate throughput improvement over SU-MIMO
• 4 concurrent clients: 2.0–2.5x aggregate throughput improvement over SU-MIMO
• 8+ concurrent clients: Diminishing returns, as MU-MIMO group size is capped at 4 clients per transmission opportunity; additional clients must time-share MU-MIMO groups

Important limitation: MU-MIMO in 802.11ac Wave 2 is downlink only. Uplink MU-MIMO was not introduced until 802.11ax (WiFi 6). Inherently, Wave 2 MU-MIMO provides no improvement for uplink-heavy applications such as video surveillance uplink or sensor data aggregation.

4.3 MU-MIMO Client Compatibility

MU-MIMO requires client-side support to function. A Wave 2 AP with MU-MIMO enabled will fall back to SU-MIMO operation when serving legacy Wave 1 or non-MU-MIMO clients. Industry estimates from the Wi-Fi Alliance indicate that as of 2024, approximately 70–80% of WiFi 5 client devices in active use support MU-MIMO, but actual MU-MIMO utilization in mixed-deployment enterprise environments typically ranges from 30–60% depending on client population composition.

5. Channel Bandwidth and Spectrum Availability

5.1 80 MHz vs. 160 MHz: The Real-World Reality

Wave 1 is limited to 80 MHz channel bandwidth. Wave 2 introduces 160 MHz (contiguous) and 80+80 MHz (non-contiguous) options. However, the practical availability of 160 MHz channels in the 5 GHz UNII band is severely constrained by regulatory and interference factors:

• United States (FCC): Only two contiguous 160 MHz channels are available in UNII-1 (5.15–5.25 GHz) + UNII-2 (5.25–5.35 GHz) bands, plus one in UNII-2e (5.47–5.725 GHz) and one in UNII-3 (5.725–5.85 GHz), totaling approximately 4 non-overlapping 160 MHz channels. However, DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) requirements in UNII-2 and UNII-2e bands force channel avoidance when radar is detected, potentially reducing usable 160 MHz channels to as few as 2 in dense urban environments.
• European Union (ETSI): The 5 GHz band (5.15–5.725 GHz) must share spectrum with radar and satellite services. DFS requirements are stricter. ETSI EN 301 893 mandates that devices must detect and vacate channels upon radar detection within 10 seconds. Practically, only 2–3 non-overlapping 160 MHz channels are available, with up to 50% risk of DFS triggering in outdoor industrial deployments.
• China (SRRC): The 5.725–5.85 GHz band (UNII-3 equivalent) is the primary licensed band for WiFi in China, offering limited 160 MHz contiguous channel availability. The 5.15–5.25 GHz band is restricted to indoor use only.
• Japan, South Korea, India: Similar or more restrictive regulations apply. Many Asia-Pacific markets limit 160 MHz operation to indoor, low-power scenarios.

yuneng recommendation: For global OEM/ODM designs, do not rely on 160 MHz channel availability as a primary selling point unless the target deployment geography is known and confirmed to support wide-channel operation. In most real-world enterprise and industrial deployments, Wave 2 modules operate at 80 MHz bandwidth for compatibility and reliability, negating a significant portion of the theoretical peak-rate advantage.

5.2 DFS and Radar Detection Impact

Both Wave 1 and Wave 2 devices operating in the 5.25–5.35 GHz (UNII-2) and 5.47–5.725 GHz (UNII-2e) bands must implement DFS per IEEE 802.11h. When a radar signal is detected, the AP must vacate the channel within 10 seconds and switch to an available channel. For Wave 2 devices operating on 160 MHz channels, a DFS event forces a fallback to an 80 MHz or 40 MHz channel — or a complete channel switch — causing a service interruption of 30–120 seconds during channel availability check (CAC). In Wave 1, the smaller channel width (80 MHz) provides more flexibility for DFS avoidance and faster channel switching.

6. Coverage, Wall Penetration, and Interference Resilience

6.1 Indoor Coverage Comparison

At the same transmit power (17–20 dBm per chain) and equal spatial stream count, Wave 1 and Wave 2 exhibit nearly identical RF propagation characteristics. The 5 GHz band’s higher path loss (compared to 2.4 GHz) dominates coverage behavior, independent of Wave generation.

Wave 2’s mandatory Transmit Beamforming (TxBF) provides a measurable improvement at cell edge. In Qualcomm QCA9984 test results, explicit TxBF yielded a 2–4 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) gain at 30-meter indoor range, translating to approximately one MCS rate improvement (e.g., MCS 7 → MCS 8 at the same location). This is equivalent to a 10–20% throughput improvement at the cell edge compared to Wave 1’s optional TxBF implementation or non-beamformed operation.

6.2 Interference Resilience

Wave 2’s 160 MHz channel width is a double-edged sword in interference-heavy environments. A wider channel provides higher potential throughput but is more susceptible to partial-band interference. When a 160 MHz channel encounters interference on any portion of its spectrum, the entire channel may experience rate degradation or require fallback to 80 MHz or 40 MHz operation. In crowded spectrum environments (enterprise campuses, industrial parks, apartment complexes), Wave 1’s 80 MHz channels often demonstrate more stable throughput because they occupy a narrower spectrum footprint and are less likely to overlap with interfering signals.

yuneng field data from 47 industrial WiFi deployments (2019–2025) shows that in environments with 5+ visible BSS on the same channel (common in industrial parks), Wave 2 modules operating at 80 MHz achieved 15–25% higher sustained throughput than when operating at 160 MHz, due to reduced OBSS contention.

7. Power Consumption and Thermal Management

Power consumption is a critical factor for embedded and industrial IoT designs where devices are battery-powered, passively cooled, or deployed in sealed enclosures.

Operating State	Wave 1 (3×3:3) — QCA9880	Wave 2 (4×4:4) — QCA9984	Wave 2 (2×2:2) — MT7612E
Active TX (max rate)	3.2 W	5.1 W	1.8 W
Active RX (idle link)	1.5 W	2.3 W	0.9 W
Sleep (802.11 power save)	0.25 W	0.35 W	0.15 W
Deep Sleep	0.05 W	0.08 W	0.03 W

Source: Qualcomm QCA9880 Datasheet (Rev. G), Qualcomm QCA9984 Datasheet (Rev. B), MediaTek MT7612E Datasheet (v1.2). Note: values at 5 GHz, 20 dBm per chain, 80 MHz bandwidth.

Key insight: A Wave 2 4×4:4 module consumes approximately 60–70% more power than a Wave 1 3×3:3 module in active TX state. For battery-powered industrial IoT devices, this difference can reduce operational lifespan by 30–50% if duty cycle is unchanged. However, a Wave 2 2×2:2 implementation (e.g., MediaTek MT7612E) consumes significantly less power than either, making it the preferred choice for power-constrained embedded designs that still require MU-MIMO compatibility.

8. Industrial IoT, Embedded Device, and Legacy System Adaptation

8.1 When Wave 1 Is the Right Choice

• Legacy device upgrades: If the target product is an update to an existing 802.11n or early 802.11ac design, Wave 1 modules offer pin-compatible or drop-in replacement options with minimal PCB redesign. The Atheros AR9580-to-QCA9880 migration path is a well-documented example.
• Cost-sensitive, single-client bridges: For point-to-point wireless bridges or single-client IoT gateways where MU-MIMO provides no benefit, Wave 1 delivers 400–600 Mbps real throughput at a lower hardware cost with simpler PCB design requirements.
• DFS-heavy environments: Industrial deployments near airports, military zones, or weather radar installations benefit from Wave 1’s narrower channel width and faster DFS channel switching.
• Battery-powered sensors: Where power budget is below 2 W maximum, Wave 1 2×2:2 or 1×1:1 designs are strongly preferred.

8.2 When Wave 2 Is the Right Choice

• Enterprise access points and high-density venues: Stadiums, convention centers, university campuses, and enterprise office buildings with 50+ concurrent clients per AP benefit from Wave 2’s MU-MIMO capacity gains. The aggregate throughput improvement of 2–2.5x in multi-client scenarios directly translates to better user experience and lower AP density requirements.
• Industrial gateways with multi-protocol aggregation: When a single gateway must serve Modbus TCP, EtherNet/IP, MQTT, and video streams concurrently, Wave 2’s 4×4:4 configuration with MU-MIMO provides the necessary headroom.
• OEM/ODM designs with 3+ year lifecycle: For new product designs entering production in 2025–2026, Wave 2 is the baseline recommendation. Wave 1 silicon availability is gradually declining as foundries shift to newer nodes, making Wave 2 the more future-proof supply chain choice.
• Backward compatibility requirements: Wave 2 APs are fully backward compatible with Wave 1 clients, 802.11n, and 802.11a clients at 5 GHz. There is no compatibility risk in deploying Wave 2 infrastructure.

8.3 Industrial Temperature Considerations

Both Wave 1 and Wave 2 modules are available in commercial (0°C to +70°C) and industrial (-20°C to +70°C) temperature grades. Extended temperature (-40°C to +85°C) is available on select Wave 2 chipsets such as the Qualcomm QCA9886 and MediaTek MT7615VN. For outdoor industrial IoT deployments in extreme environments, verify the specific chipset’s temperature rating — not all Wave 2 modules support extended range.

9. OEM/ODM Procurement and Bulk Sourcing Guide

9.1 Key Decision Matrix

Selection Criterion	Choose Wave 1	Choose Wave 2
Maximum concurrent clients per radio	≤40	≥50
Peak throughput requirement (TCP)	≤600 Mbps	≥700 Mbps
Power budget (active TX)	≤3.5 W	≤6.0 W acceptable
160 MHz channel availability (target market)	Not required	Required for peak rate
Product lifecycle requirement	1–2 year legacy maintenance	3+ year new design
Operating temperature requirement	-20°C to +70°C	-20°C to +85°C available

9.2 Supplier Verification Checklist

When sourcing WiFi 5 modules for OEM/ODM projects, verify the following with your supplier:

1. Confirm chipset generation: Request the exact chipset part number. Common Wave 1 chipsets: Qualcomm QCA9880, QCA9882, QCA9886; MediaTek MT7610E, MT7612E. Common Wave 2 chipsets: Qualcomm QCA9984, QCA9994, IPQ8064; MediaTek MT7615D, MT7615VN; Broadcom BCM4366.
2. Verify MU-MIMO certification: Check the Wi-Fi Alliance certificate. Wave 2 devices certified after 2016 will list “MU-MIMO” under the feature set. Older chipset firmware may support MU-MIMO but not be Wi-Fi Alliance certified.
3. Request throughput benchmark data: Ask for measured TCP throughput at 10-meter, 30-meter, and 50-meter distances in line-of-sight and obstructed conditions. The supplier should provide this data from their reference design.
4. Confirm 160 MHz regulatory certification: For Wave 2 modules, verify that the module has passed regulatory certification (FCC, CE, SRRC, etc.) for 160 MHz operation in your target markets.
5. Check driver and SDK support: Wave 2 modules require MU-MIMO-aware drivers. Verify that the Linux kernel version (typically 4.4+ for ath10k, mt76 driver) supports MU-MIMO group management, NDP sounding, and beamforming feedback.

10. Engineering Conclusion: Practical Takeaways

After examining the IEEE 802.11ac Wave 1 versus Wave 2 comparison across 10 technical dimensions — channel bandwidth, spatial streams, MU-MIMO, real-world throughput, coverage, power consumption, interference resilience, thermal management, industrial IoT adaptation, and procurement requirements — the following engineering conclusions emerge:

1. Wave 2’s theoretical peak of 3.47 Gbps is misleading for most real-world deployments. Achievable TCP throughput at 80 MHz bandwidth (where Wave 2 operates in >70% of actual deployments due to 160 MHz unavailability) is 600–900 Mbps — only 30–50% higher than Wave 1 at 400–600 Mbps. The advantage is meaningful but not transformative.
2. MU-MIMO is the single most valuable Wave 2 feature for enterprise and industrial multi-client environments. In deployments with 15+ concurrent clients, aggregate throughput gains of 1.5–2.5x make Wave 2 the clear choice. For single-client or low-client-count applications, Wave 1 provides equivalent performance with simpler system integration.
3. Power consumption is a first-order constraint for embedded designs. Wave 2 4×4:4 modules draw 5–6 W in active TX — potentially exceeding the thermal budget of passively cooled industrial enclosures. For battery-powered IoT devices, a Wave 1 2×2:2 or Wave 2 2×2:2 implementation is the practical choice.
4. 160 MHz channel availability is market-dependent and often disappointing. Do not design a product that depends on 160 MHz operation unless you have confirmed regulatory and spectrum conditions in your target markets. At 80 MHz bandwidth, the Wave 1 vs. Wave 2 gap narrows considerably.
5. For new OEM/ODM designs in 2025–2026, Wave 2 is the baseline unless hardware or power constraints dictate otherwise. Wave 1 silicon is being phased out; lead times for QCA9880-series modules have extended to 12–16 weeks as of Q1 2026, while QCA9984 and MT7615D remain at 6–8 weeks. See our OEM/ODM customization guide for WiFi 5 PCBA modules for detailed hardware adaptation and mass production workflow.

Choose Wave 1 when legacy compatibility, tight hardware constraints, or power budgets below 3.5 W are dominant. Choose Wave 2 when multi-client concurrency, future-proofing, and aggregate throughput above 600 Mbps are non-negotiable. For bulk procurement decisions affecting 1,000+ units, yuneng recommends Wave 2 as the standard default, with Wave 1 reserved for specific low-power or legacy upgrade applications.

For a full comparison across WiFi 5 through WiFi 7 with form factor and chipset details, refer to the WiFi Module Complete Guide: WiFi 5 to WiFi 7, Form Factors, Chipsets & Selection.

11. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Authoritative References

1. IEEE Standards Association. “IEEE 802.11ac-2013 — IEEE Standard for Information Technology — Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between Systems — Local and Metropolitan Area Networks — Specific Requirements — Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications — Amendment 4: Enhancements for Very High Throughput for Operation in Bands Below 6 GHz.” December 2013.
2. Wi-Fi Alliance. “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED ac: Wi-Fi’s Fifth Generation.” White Paper, 2016. https://www.wi-fi.org/zh-hans/file/wi-fi-certified-ac-quanqiuzuishouhuanyingdejishushixianzhongdaxingnengtisheng-2016
3. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. “QCA9984: 4-Stream 802.11ac Wave 2 MU-MIMO Solution.” Datasheet (Rev. B), 2016.
4. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. “QCA9880: 3-Stream 802.11ac Solution.” Datasheet (Rev. G), 2014.
5. MediaTek Inc. “MT7615D: 4×4 802.11ac Wave 2 Dual-Band Wi-Fi SoC.” Product Brief (v1.2), 2017. https://www.mediatek.cn/products/broadband-wifi/mt7615
6. European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). “ETSI EN 301 893 V2.1.1: 5 GHz RLAN; Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of Directive 2014/53/EU.” 2017.
7. SmallNetBuilder. “802.11ac Wave 2 Access Point Roundup: Performance Testing.” 2017–2018.