Differences between Intel AX211 vs AX210 WiFi 6E/Bluetooth v5.2

[Almighty1]

Does anyone know what the differences are between the two models as I noticed the AX211 mentioned in the wireless drivers as a supported model.  Thanks!

[n_scott_pearson]

This is the exact same thing that you have seen with Ethernet and other hardware stacks for many, many years. The MAC (media-independent) portion (sub-layer) of the hardware stack is implemented in the chipset (PCH) and only the PHY (media-dependent) portion (sub-layer) needs to be implemented in a separate IC. The two portions are connected via the LCI Bus in LAN architectures. In Wi-Fi, this is the CNVi bus, which has (unfortunately) two implementations, CNVio and (now) CNVio2.

I don't see this architecture as being evil necessarily. But (a very big 'But'!), I do not like the fact that a M.2 Type E socket supporting CNVio or CNVio2 cannot be used with/for generic M.2 Type E devices. That is, if you have a motherboard with a CNVio-based M.2 Type E socket, you can *only* install a Wireless-AC 9461, 9462 or 9560 module. Similarly, if you have a motherboard with a CNVio2-based M.2 Type E socket, you can *only* install a Wireless-AX AX201 or AX211 module. When I say '*only*', I mean that installing anything else may cause the motherboard to not  even power up.

[Edit:] Oops, forgot to answer the other question - No, inserting the wrong module should not cause any damage; it just won't work - and, as I mentioned, the motherboard may not even power up.

...S

[JDKAP]

thank you n_scott

Are you sure about this , please ?

"Similarly, if you have a motherboard with a CNVio2-based M.2 Type E socket, you can *only* install a Wireless-AX AX201 or AX211 module."

Is there no backward compatibility ? Can't a motherboard with a CNVio2-based M.2 Type E socket use CNVio (I mean CNVio1)   ?

Is Intel joking  with WiFi technology  ?

Edit :

2nd question : can a motherboard with a CNVio2-based M.2 Type E socket use non CNVio wifi card like AC 9560 ?

[n_scott_pearson]

No, it is not backwards compatible. This is stated in the documentation.

CNVIO sockets support *only* CNVIO modules.

CNVIO2 sockets support *only* CNVIO2 modules.

Reality bites,

...S

[MegaIO]

Again, history repeats itself as with Intel AX211 and AX210! Intel please tell me what is the difference between Intel AX411(CNVIO) and AX211(CNVIO). In the comparison table, the possibilities are completely identical. It is impossible to indicate in the product what is the difference compared to the previous generation. How can you plan your equipment selection?

Unfortunately, the twin brother AX410 Wi-Fi(PCIe)+BT(USB) has not yet been announced, which, for objective reasons, is in any case more versatile, compatible, and therefore the preferred choice for purchase.

[Spacefish]

AX411 has CDB (Concurrent Dual Band) AX211 not..
Intel calls it DCT (Dual Connect Technology) in their marketing slang..

Basically the AX411 is able to stay connected to two bands simulataniously, like 2,4GHz and 5GHz

Intel internally calls the wifi core with CDB "gf4" and the one without "gf"..

Have a look in their linux driver to see all the different SKUs and how they differ: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/8efd0d9c316af470377894a6a0f9ff63ce18c177/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c#L690

The "gf4" cores load another firmware image as well..
Guesswork: Maybe GF4 is just a revision of the GF core, where they initially planned for CDB but it was broken in the first revision or something like that..

As far as i can tell, there are no GF4 devices without CNViO today, so no offerings for non-intel platforms..
Maybe the upcomming "Bz" Device will work with non-intel.. At least it has a "gf4" core and is called:

const char iwl_bz_name[] = "Intel(R) TBD Bz device";

TBD = To be discussed?! So it´s probably not released yet.

There is another unreleased core "fm4" which also supports CDB..

In the end, there are a lot of SKUs as these wifi things get integrated into a lot of different devices, some are probably the same chip but with different fuses set, but there is a wide variety of use cases for such wifi / BT chips, so there is a lot of SKUs to fit that.

CDB seems to be rarely implemented even on the unreleased SKUs, so i guess it needs some extra filterting / a second RF-Chain or something "expensive".. So it´s reserved for the premium SKUs.

[MegaIO]

Yes, but Intel does not write about this on the official website, that's the problem. And there are confusions. Unless the AX standard allows to do aggregation? This was promised only in WIFI7.

[n_scott_pearson]

And again, to be accurate, the AX411 utilizes CNVio2, not CNVio.

Only the Wireless-AC 9461, 9462 and 9560 utilized CNVio.

The AX201, AX211 and AX411 all utilize CNVio2.

...S

[MegaIO]

It goes without saying that CNVio2 was implied, even Intel simply writes CNVio.

[Spacefish]

Yes sorry for that.. Did not know that there is a difference between CNVio and CNVio2 / that they are not compatible.

Not really fit with Intels mobile platforms, as i never owned a machine with an Intel CPU and probably never will.
Next one will be ARM or RISC-V based.

So only the non-AXxx1 versions are intersting to me

Didn´t even understand the big difference, is the MAC integrated into the CPU for the CNVio(2) versions? Or is this just a marketing / software limitation thing to sell more Intel Platforms?

[MegaIO]

to buy versions of AXxx1, it is reasonable and prudent!!!!

[n_scott_pearson]

In both the CNVio and CNVio2 cases, the MAC is integrated into the PCH (chipset) component and only the PHY is necessary on the card. This model reduces the cost and complexity of the circuitry necessary on the card and creates commonality that lowers the cost and complexity of the software/drivers, (in theory) increasing their reliability as well. The same model has been used for years for LAN; the MAC is in the PCH and only a PHY component specific to media (Ethernet, for example) is necessary on the motherboard.
The difference in this case is that the CNVio link between the PCH and the card is different. I don't know why this was necessary nor why Intel's documentation of this not-so-subtle difference is so crappy.
The other ugly issue to bear in mind is that, for some unknown reason, M.2 sockets with CNVio support will, more often than not, not support the use of non-CNVio adapters. That is, a board with support for CNVio cards like the 9560 cannot be used for cards like the AX200 or AX210.
...S

[MegaIO]

Practice shows that there is no particular difference in the production of these modules. The complexity and labor costs in the production of a chip are almost the same. Even the price of modules on the xx1 and xx0 market is the same. There is nothing good in CNVio2 interface! It's just vendor lock, consumer slavery. All this only leads to more market segmentation and confusion.

[SpecOPSzebra3]

Purchased an Asus F512JA which comes with a i3 10th gen. processor ( i3-1005G1) which includes the OEM intel AC-9462 AC (E-key) M.2 2230 433Mbps max wifi card which I replaced with a faster CNVio-1 card the intel AC-9560 with much faster speeds (1.7Gbps) but was unstable and would stop functioning after about an hour of use, nothing could bring it back to life short of removing the wifi card then rebooting the laptop and re-installing the 9560, not even network resets, remove & re-installing drivers or shutting off power saving wifi settings in Windows 10 could stop this occurrence from happening again, so this option was highly unstable and unworkable.

  Now what I find strange is the Asus F512JA laptop sports an intel i-3 10th gen processor so what is a CNVio-1 card doing in this laptops M.2?   I thought all intel gen 10 processors included CNVio-2?   According to intels own site info the ax211, ax201, ac9560, ac9462 and the intel ac9461 are all wifi cards in the same family of CNvio wifi cards.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000026155/wireless.html

I am totally confused with these intel wifi cards and it appears I am not alone and it is due to intels poor or lack of documentation clarifying this conundrum and I have already wasted money on the ac9560 replacement and am now waiting on a ax211 in route from China..

It's all a guessing game and frankly tiring that a company the size of intel hasn't clarified this mess and keeps pumping out more wifi cards without issuing specification for existing products.

[n_scott_pearson]

Let me be very clear about one thing: You CANNOT replace the AC9560 with the AX211 (nor with the AX201 or the AX411). The AC9560 has NO replacement (well, other than the much slower AC9461 and AC9462).

Here's the important factors:

• The AC9560 module uses the CNVio protocol to communicate with the chipset.
• The AX201, AX211 and AX411 modules, on the other hand, use the CNVio2 protocol.
• The CNVio and CNVio2 protocols are NOT compatible.
• In some cases, systems that support CNVio won't even power on with a CNVio2 module installed.
• In some cases, systems that support CNVio (or CNVio2) will not work with the (non-CNVio) AX200 or AX210 modules installed (and this may also be the case for the AX410 module if we ever see one).

Hope this helps,

...S

[bpassmore]

Comparison and Compatibility of Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 and Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX210

The Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 and Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX210 are both cutting-edge wireless network adapters designed by Intel, aiming to provide superior internet connectivity by leveraging the latest Wi-Fi standards. These adapters are pivotal in enabling high-speed internet access, supporting modern Wi-Fi protocols, and enhancing the overall wireless connectivity experience. Below is a comprehensive comparison and exploration of their compatibility, performance, and installation considerations.

Feature Comparison

Wi-Fi Standard

AX211: Supports Wi-Fi 6E, extending into the 6 GHz band for additional bandwidth and reduced latency.

AX210: Supports Wi-Fi 6 over the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, enhancing data rates and capacity without 6 GHz support.

Performance and Compatibility

AX211: Optimized for environments where the 6 GHz band can be utilized, offering potential for higher speeds and reduced interference.

AX210: Provides substantial improvements over Wi-Fi 5 with features like OFDMA and 1024-QAM across the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands.

Future-Proofing and Use Cases

AX211's support for 6 GHz makes it more future-proof, ideal for high-bandwidth applications like streaming and gaming in supported areas. The AX210 is suitable for current high-demand applications with the benefits of Wi-Fi 6 technology, without 6 GHz support.

Regulatory Approval

Use of the 6 GHz band (AX211) is subject to regulatory approval, which varies by country, potentially affecting its usability. The AX210 is more universally compatible without relying on 6 GHz band regulations.

Hardware Installation and Connector Differences

Both the AX211 and AX210 typically use the M.2 2230 form factor for compatibility with modern laptops and desktops. Keyed for A and E slots, they support PCIe and USB interfaces, making them interchangeable in systems with appropriate M.2 slots. However, considerations such as BIOS/UEFI support, antenna connections, and driver support are crucial for compatibility. Especially for AX211, device and operating system support for Wi-Fi 6E is necessary to utilize the 6 GHz band.

[Almighty1]

What you posted is not even accurate, atleast the source is wrong.  The AX200 and AX201 are WiFi6.  The AX210 and AX211 are WiFi6E.  The last digit being 0 means it's non-CNVio while the 1 means CNVio.