But this is only on the switch, and not sure if this would have impact unless you have some extreme load on your network or a very slow connection and all devices creating the load is behind this switch… Or that they might have some logic her in software for compensating for some quite poor processing power for the switch?

Could be that is something put there as it “looks good in marketing”. Instead buy a better switch…

The ports have different traffic priority. Green = High, Yellow = Medium, Grey = No priority.

In addition to the router having an USB-port, it need to have support for sharing the USB-storage device in software.

My ISP gives out two public IPv4-addresses. It is not that common for ISPs to provide multiple IPv4-addresses today.

On the other questions here, No.

(Remember that IPv6 is a different story…)

Well, in a way, a WiFi 6E-routers can sort of have three PCI-E WiFi-cards, but in addition there are a lof of older components (SoC, RAM, NAND Flash, antennas, large PCB, switch, ports, casing, packaging) and a quite advance software-stack that needs to be maintained for years. And the manufacturer of the router have a support responsibility, and maybe also an app that was developed and needs to be maintained. There was also an initial design cost, and each modell usually sell a much lower volume than many of the WiFi-cards.

If you look into some older routers, where was actually a PCI/PCI-E-card for 5GHz in quite a few of them. Also remember that the WiFi 6E card can use one frequency at the time. A router will need the possibility to use 2,4, 5 and 6 GHz in parallel, so there are three controllers/radios.

Also remember that some of the newer Intel WiFi-cards depends heavily on features already in the motherboard chipset. F.eks. AX211 is cheaper than AX210, but AX211 depends on stuff in the motherboards chipset and is more a simple controller and a radio. So some of the cost have been moved.

Remember also that each controller/radio in a good router is more advance. E.g. a WiFi-card in a laptop will normally be 2x2, while a router can be 4x4 - even on all radios. So more antennas, more FEMs and you also need to design this in a way that components don’t interfer with eachother, even if the radios themself don’t operate on the same frquency etc.

Can you make your own solution? Yes, but not likly to be cheap. And also remember that the SoC is designed for this special purpose in routers, and have hardware offload.

There are routers that don’t have a local management web page, but instead are fully and only managed through the ISPs CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) management system. It can here be that the ISP have a “my page” on their web or an app for changing the settings on the router.

There are some good reasons for doing this. Looking back the last 10 years+, quite a lot of the security issues that have been on routers have been related to local interfaces (webpage/APIs). So there is a security element in this. You can also deploy changes to the management interface here quite easily, or even add/remove features, without having to change anything in the firmware for the CPE.

Could be that there are quite a few domain-providers that does not have an API to easily change the config directly at their service.

Personally I use a script and cron to check if the public IP have changed, and if it has changed, it updates my settings at the domain-provider with just a curl-command.

Do the color here indicates filters? Or could this just be attenuators to reduce the signal strength?

That is correct. E.g. a 500 Mbps subscription is configured as e.g. 540 Mbps, so that overhead will not impact a speedtest.

But with a 1Gbps connection, setting 1.1Gbps might not be possible as the modems/routers can have a 1Gbps port, so there is a “hard limit” on 1 Gbps. Because of overhead, you will typically only get around 950 Mbps on a 1 Gbps connection.

As for Fast, I have seen the same thing as OP. I can get 1.1Gbps on a 1Gbps connection that normally is “limited” to 950-isj Mbps on other speedtests. The modem internally supports more than 1 Gbps, but is limited by the Ethernet-port.