Is the AGN adapter worth it?!

I am wondering whether to get the AGN wireless or just ABG is sufficient? I don't really care about bluetooth, nor the higher speeds of N (internet connection is limited by DSL speed, not the adapter / router), but I am considering the distance it would allow me to go from the router.

I am thinking the distance would be decided by the router, rather than the adapter. So if a N-router goes further through walls etc, then even if I have the G-adapter, I will still be able to reap the distance benefits. Is this accurate?!

Trying to decide what is better - the N adapter ($35) or bumping the processor from T7250 to T7500 ($50) with increased 4MB Cache?!

Thanks!

 

You do know you can share files wireless with the bluetooth without the need for access point/router. My brother and I was transferring files and it's a cool feature, and you can control up to 7 devices.

Wireless G is 55 mbps, whereas pre-N is 108 mbps or something. It's not the distance but rather the speed increase, good for large files at a faster pace! I read it improves 20% further/distance coverage.

I upgraded to everything because I didn't want to add it later or use the USB port with the devices sticking out from the side.

 

That's good to know about bluetooth. Though, I don't need to share files as much as the greater range for internet. Was reading some review on pre-N routers, and it seems the range is increased even with G on the computer side (though speed at long distance is surely affected by whether it is G or N).

In that case, how drastic would be the impact of jump in cache from 2 to 4 MB? Will it be noticeable with normal everyday stuff like Office apps, DVD rendering, heavy surfing etc? I also work on some heavyweight financial modeling on Excel with macros etc - would those be any better with extra cache, or does it not really matter?!