I don’t think anyone thought Apple would come out and beat the seasoned modem chipmakers with their first release…
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Android Phones With Qualcomm Modems Top iPhone 16e in New 5G Test
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mmWave is widely deployed throughout downtown areas and stadiums, arenas, and airports in many large cities by Verizon. It's also widely deployed in airports and venues by AT&T. It's T-Mobile (of the big three) that mainly relies only on their midband spectrum in dense areas (which, to be fair, is decent enough for most use cases).
Bit of perspective. Qualcomm has been making SoC/modems since what 2006? and Apple's C1 is literally the first iteration.
Not that I am disputing the results on this, but I feel like this at least raises questions regarding the objectivity of this test…
Last edited:
The C1 only supports 3X carrier aggregation, so it's not surprising it's being outperformed by Qualcomm modems on T-Mobile's network, when T-Mobile has widely deployed 4X Carrier Aggregation (normally n71, n25, and two channels of n41) and will be rolling out 5X carrier aggregation in areas they have c-band/n77.
The C1 performed well on AT&T and Verizon because they mostly have 3 or fewer channels being aggregated (AT&T usually has n5 and two channels of n77, while Verizon usually has two channels of n77).
The study even says they couldn't confirm (on page 4) if the iPhone supported 4X carrier aggregation like the Qualcomm modems, but it's widely known that it doesn't.
The C1 performed well on AT&T and Verizon because they mostly have 3 or fewer channels being aggregated (AT&T usually has n5 and two channels of n77, while Verizon usually has two channels of n77).
The study even says they couldn't confirm (on page 4) if the iPhone supported 4X carrier aggregation like the Qualcomm modems, but it's widely known that it doesn't.
Last edited:
It's all over Los Angeles and Phoenix.
I'm sitting in my West Hollywood apartment connected to it.
Newer modems are faster than older modems. More at 11.
“A new report commissioned by Qualcomm”… hm I wonder what the result will be.
Are you sure you're not just thinking of general Ultra Wideband (which can be extremely fast)? mmWave is not really "all over" anywhere. By definition, the science of it prevents it from easily being deployed in large scale, especially in big cities with so many obstructions.
I don’t know that I’d even consider mmWave a factor anymore. The biggest difference is likely that the x75 and x80 both do 5G Advanced and the C1 doesn’t. The iPhone, using the x71 in the standard/pro model, seems like it will always lag behind that marker because of its release schedule (September) since Qualcomm is only starting to ramp production on the newer models in the 2nd half of each calendar year, despite always announcing in February. If the 17 is using Qualcomm still, I’d imagine you’ll see the x75, not the 80, for example.
It's common sense but there are plenty of "Apple people" that feel everything Apple does is the best out there.
With their track record of breaking WiFi ant BT in every other upgrade to any of their OS's, I don't want to be the first with an Apple 5G modem in my phone.
Here in San Diego, my iPhone 16 PM is more often on 5G UW than not. As a matter of fact, in the little town I live in, there is a 5G UW tower right up the street. Makes for fast speeds if I need cellular at home.
To add some clarification here for some of these answers...
Verizon refers to both mid-band 5G and high-band 5G as "Ultra Wide Band" which has created some confusion across the board (not just on Verizon). I think T-Mobile does the same with their "Ultra Capacity" label.
mmWave is high-band, and is NOT easy to impliment beyond small neighborhoods and sites like stadiums because it doesn't reach far at all. Plus, a leaf on a tree can hinder it (only a slight exaggeration). But, it is crazy fast.
Mid-band 5G, however, is what has made all the difference in 5G, making it an actual leap from 4G/LTE overall. It's not quite as fast as mmWave, but still very fast, has much wider reach, and isn't easily blocked by obstructions. It's why T-Mobile excels at 5G (they were the first to deploy it en masse). It's why Verizon is MUCH better now after deploying theirs a couple of years back, but still catching up to T-Mobile in terms of speeds. And it's why AT&T is a little behind both of them in 5G speeds.
Regardless of carrier, high-band (mmWave) requires its own mmWave antenna; mid-band 5G does not. The iPhone 16e can handle mid-band just fine, which is really the main one that matters as it's extremely fast AND has broad reach.
Verizon refers to both mid-band 5G and high-band 5G as "Ultra Wide Band" which has created some confusion across the board (not just on Verizon). I think T-Mobile does the same with their "Ultra Capacity" label.
mmWave is high-band, and is NOT easy to impliment beyond small neighborhoods and sites like stadiums because it doesn't reach far at all. Plus, a leaf on a tree can hinder it (only a slight exaggeration). But, it is crazy fast.
Mid-band 5G, however, is what has made all the difference in 5G, making it an actual leap from 4G/LTE overall. It's not quite as fast as mmWave, but still very fast, has much wider reach, and isn't easily blocked by obstructions. It's why T-Mobile excels at 5G (they were the first to deploy it en masse). It's why Verizon is MUCH better now after deploying theirs a couple of years back, but still catching up to T-Mobile in terms of speeds. And it's why AT&T is a little behind both of them in 5G speeds.
Regardless of carrier, high-band (mmWave) requires its own mmWave antenna; mid-band 5G does not. The iPhone 16e can handle mid-band just fine, which is really the main one that matters as it's extremely fast AND has broad reach.
Last edited:
I don’t need more speed, I need more efficiency and thus battery life. Apple will be king of performance per watt again. Wait until the C2 and C3 launch.
I think you're referring to mid-band 5G, not actual mmWave.
It's shocking, shocking, that a Qualcomm sponsored study chose conditions where its modem could always beat Apple's C1 modem to make a comparison. A true 'scientific' study for sure.
This part is surprising, and makes me wonder if there was some issue with the test or iOS bug.
I don’t think anyone is surprised that Qualcomm modems outperform the C1, we always knew this was going to be the case. But Apple claims that the C1 is the most power-efficient 5G modem, so it certainly shouldn’t be getting noticeably hot during testing.
You also have to remember that the Android cellphone tested--if they are using the Samsung Galaxy S25 models--are using the latest current production Qualcomm Snapdragon X80 5G model, which is arguably the most advanced radio modem chip in the world for digital cellular access.
Yeah, it's not surprising at all. Apple will probably need a decade to fully catch up. Then again, their first attempt at their own desktop/laptop chips, the M1, was incredibly performant and successful right out of the gate (including good performance for the built-in GPU component), although it was built on the relatively mature foundation of ARM. And the M1 was being compared to Intel chips, which had fallen hopelessly behind in power management and release schedules, so the bar was low.
Apple doesn't really want to pay the fees though. That's only fair when it's them doing the gatekeeping.