You had me in stitches this morning Paternot
(though is very different from tough)
No hard feeling, sorry if I was brusque but a clean lab shows the potential, outside the lab shows Potential - X.
Understand the equipment is capable as stated but its limited by other factors when deployed.
Nevermind. And, Yes - tough and though are quite different. "Though titties" is something like "your problem, not mine" - or "too bad", ironically speaking.
Yes, that's the value. Anything else would be on a case by case basis - as latency, dropped packets and anything else would affect it. Since we can't know the quality of the link beforehand, the next best thing is the lab. At least we would know what is the best case scenario, and save time instead of chasing something that isn't possible.
So. IF the hAP AC2 can do 700Mb Wireguard on the lab, I would say that the 5009 would do more than 1Gbps. I can't say if 1,2Gbps or 2,5Gbps, since I don't know how the CHACHA20 processing power of them compare to each other. Yes, I know: they do it in software - and that's exactly the problem: Is the 5009 faster routing because the CPU is just faster? Or does it have several hardware accelerators, just to deal with network packets? Is it the same with the hAP AC2? This could seriously skew the results, one way or the other.