I wouldn't be confusing an AF5X with an AF24... Have been using AF24 for rooftop to rooftop links since firmware v1.0. They get nice and warm if you put a palm to their heatsink and it certainly feels like 50W. :-)
I do have a brand new pair of AF24 here with v3.2.3 on them, just for fun I checked, and with max Tx power an AF24 with an active link measures as 55W from the wall using a kill-a-watt. I'm assuming the factory default ubnt PoE injector is about 84% efficient, so if powered from a dc-dc poe injector with slightly less loss in the DC conversion, the load is probably right at 50W. On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke > *Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions? > > > > Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before they go > out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and maybe I'm not > remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X use less power than the > older ones. > > > > This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a kill-a-watt is > measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going through it, but as I recall an > AF5X uses pretty much the same amount whether or not it's under load, since > the AF architecture is constantly sending/receiving frames whether or not > they have an ethernet data payload. > > > > >
