Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

215kbps??!!

J

jt999

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 11, 2007
192
9
According to Engadget the iPhone 3g achieved speeds of 215 kbps.
How can the iPhone 3g speeds be so slow?

I thought AT&T was supposed to offer the fastest 3g network?
It is scary to think that 215 Kbps might actually be the speed under ideal conditions. With edge I am averaging over 150 Kbps.

Before I got my iPhone I had a Palm Treo with Sprint and I averaged 325 kbps. I know that the iPhone renders pages very nicely and efficiently; but 215 Kbps?!

Has anyone heard of slower 3g speeds?
 
I think standard UMTS 3G (the oldest and first version) peaks at 384kbps, while the latest HSDPA 3G networks are running at 7.2mbps with the capacity to go much higher when the networks allow.
 
jt999 said:
According to Engadget the iPhone 3g achieved speeds of 215 kbps.
How can the iPhone 3g speeds be so slow?

I thought AT&T was supposed to offer the fastest 3g network?
It is scary to think that 215 Kbps might actually be the speed under ideal conditions. With edge I am averaging over 150 Kbps.

Before I got my iPhone I had a Palm Treo with Sprint and I averaged 325 kbps. I know that the iPhone renders pages very nicely and efficiently; but 215 Kbps?!

Has anyone heard of slower 3g speeds?
Click to expand...

They were deep indoors, and 3G speed can vary by location. I wouldn't get worked up about it. They still said that web pages, etc loaded nearly as fast as over wi-fi.
 
gloss said:
They were deep indoors, and 3G speed can vary by location. I wouldn't get worked up about it. They still said that web pages, etc loaded nearly as fast as over wi-fi.
Click to expand...

They didn't get any real useful info on the GPS as it was underground, so as gloss says, don't fret. Review is coming from Walt Mossberg at allthingsd *before* july 11th, so he'll have a handle on rates.
 
Mossberg's going to review the phone 'before 7-11'? Hmmm.... how much before? Is there a delay? Will he share features we don't know about & talk about this in his review?

(Signed - member of the 'we might see more features' club)
 
gloss said:
They were deep indoors, and 3G speed can vary by location. I wouldn't get worked up about it. They still said that web pages, etc loaded nearly as fast as over wi-fi.
Click to expand...
Additionally, 3G speeds are affected by the load on the local tower. Can you imagine how many folks were hitting the 3G on the tower(s) in downtown San Francisco during a normal business day with the added load from the WWDC? (HINT: Lots!)
 
edesignuk said:
I think standard UMTS 3G (the oldest and first version) peaks at 384kbps, while the latest HSDPA 3G networks are running at 7.2mbps with the capacity to go much higher when the networks allow.
Click to expand...


Well, AT&T has updated their iPhone 3G page and they say the max speeds you can get are 1.4mbps which is slower than what I was expecting. I was kind of hoping for closer to 3mbps but whatever. :(

"AT&T's super-fast mobile broadband network puts iPhone 3G in the broadband fast lane with download speeds of up to 1.4 Mbps."
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...?wtSlotClick=1-0013IU-0-1&WT.svl=calltoaction
 
It seems so odd to me that conditions would not be set up so that the primary feature of the new iPhone 3g could be presented in a more favorable light.

I appreciate everyone's comments and reassurances about speed; but in the back of my mind I have concerns that the actual performance may not live up to the hype.
 
jt999 said:
I appreciate everyone's comments and reassurances about speed; but in the back of my mind I have concerns that the actual performance may not live up to the hype.
Click to expand...
It's rare that anything ever lives up to hype, you have to get over it. 3G is a step up, rest assured. Also, as it's uptake increases so the networks will boost their capacity. It's all good.
 
Simple:

If web page loaded 2.8x faster and edge was giving 90 kbits (which has been my average on edge in good conditions) thats 252 kbits.

That's 252 kbits actually rendered time not "how much data it can download" since we see in the keynote it downloads an attachment 3.6 times faster which would be 324 kbits.

Most likely the major impediment to the iphones "speed" is rendering time NOT 3g network just like over wifi on a 10mbit connection your webpages don't load in 2 seconds they take time to render.

The difference between 15 seconds and 42 seconds is night and day for me. It may look small when you say 90 vs 252 but in actual use it's night and day.

Want to see? If you have a router limit your IP to 100 kbits of data then limit it to 300 kbits of data and see how fast 300 feels vs 100.

Tim
 
The definitive thing for me was the comparison to N95 and Treo 750.

I know for a "Fact" I got 600 kbits/sec on my old treo... not LOADING TIME but in pure "kbits per second" so... what do we measure stuff in? Pretend kbit/sec ratings of "actual time to load content."

I care about the total time to load content. As it stands the 3g iphone will be the fastest mobile e-mail and browsing phone on 3g even when compared to other "great" full 3g phones.

Galidin
 
timmciglobal said:
The definitive thing for me was the comparison to N95 and Treo 750.

I know for a "Fact" I got 600 kbits/sec on my old treo... not LOADING TIME but in pure "kbits per second" so... what do we measure stuff in? Pretend kbit/sec ratings of "actual time to load content."

I care about the total time to load content. As it stands the 3g iphone will be the fastest mobile e-mail and browsing phone on 3g even when compared to other "great" full 3g phones.

Galidin
Click to expand...

Well... Apple's marketing is BS as usual. Of course they want to make the comparison with web pages that includes flash content. That way iPhone doesn't need to load & render as much as N95 for example.

Let's try N95 with Opera that doesn't load flash (HSDPA used).

nationalgeographic.com
iPhone: 21 seconds.
N95: 10 seconds.

lonelyplanet.com
iPhone: 20 seconds.
N95: 8 seconds.
 
-Trinity- said:
Well... Apple's marketing is BS as usual. Of course they want to make the comparison with web pages that includes flash content. That way iPhone doesn't need to load & render as much as N95 for example.

Let's try N95 with Opera that doesn't load flash (HSDPA used).

nationalgeographic.com
iPhone: 21 seconds.
N95: 10 seconds.

lonelyplanet.com
iPhone: 20 seconds.
N95: 8 seconds.
Click to expand...

DOH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back