Android Phones With Qualcomm Modems Top iPhone 16e in New 5G Test

[johnsawyercjs]

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.

Good info. I wonder if some people who think their phone is connected to an mmWave tower are seeing “5G UWB” in their phone's status bar, without realizing that Ultra Wideband includes the lower-frequency, non-mmWave band. mmWave is essentially a subset of 5G Ulra Wideband. I'm guessing that a phone's status bar has to specifically say “mmWave" for it to be connected to the high-frequency, short-range kind of 5G.

 

[urungus]

Good info. I wonder if some people who think their phone is connected to an mmWave tower are seeing “5G UWB” in their phone's status bar, but Ultra Wideband includes the lower-frequency, non-mmWave band. mmWave is essentially a subset of 5G Ulra Wideband. I'm guessing that a phone's status bar has to specifically say “mmWave" for it to be connected to the high-frequency, short-range kind of 5G.

I am 100% sure that the people posting here claiming that they are connected to mmWave are mistakenly interpreting “5G UW” as mmWave. There is no notification of mmWave in the iPhone status bar, they only way to tell is to call a special diagnostic phone number *3001#12345#* and dig into the results, refer to

How Fast is mmWave 5G? 2000Mbps! See if Your iPhone Supports mmWave | ZE3kr

Original articles, videos and pictures relevant to technology, programming, and photography.

www.ze3kr.com

and

https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/17uvzf1/how_can_i_tell_if_im_connected_to_mmwave_or_cband

 

[iBluetooth]

I have an iPhone 16 Pro for personal use and a Google Pixel Pro for work. Both on the Verizon network. The Pixel is so much faster it’s freaking unreal! I also love the photo quality. So stunning, and the pics don’t look “touched up” or fake like they do on my 16 Pro.

I’ve been an iPhone user since 2008 (iphone 2), but for the first time ever, I’m seriously tempted to switch. My iPhone just feels really boring now, and the photos are meh compared to what I get with the Pixel.

The survey was on the modems, but nice to hear your opinion on this. For me boring is good

 

[Powerbooky]

This is just flame war bait. Even if a network actually does support the latest 5G iteration and if there's capacity available, on average most people barely use those very high speeds. When people stream movies or TV series, depending on the service, they consume 5 to 35Mbps on average - even on 4G easy to do.

I'd care more about a modem that maintains a stable connection even with low signal strength.

 

[HiRez]

This is just flame war bait. Even if a network actually does support the latest 5G iteration and if there's capacity available, on average most people barely use those very high speeds. When people stream movies or TV series, depending on the service, they consume 5 to 35Mbps on average - even on 4G easy to do.

I'd care more about a modem that maintains a stable connection even with low signal strength.

Totally agree, when it was 2G -> 3G, it was an incredible leap. 3G -> 4G a nice boost. But we've gotten to the point with 5G where it's really hard to tell the difference. Hell, at home I get 1 Gbps down, but I have no wired devices except the Playstation (only because it's right next to the modem). Phones and tablets and laptops and desktops in the house all get a maximum of about 300 Gbps over a last-generation Eero mesh, which is more than enough for anything, even with multiple users. I'm not even tempted to upgrade.

I could see for a home office you might want the fastest possible speeds if you're shipping ProRes files around or something, but what can you even do with that bandwidth on a phone? All the AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile ads about how life-changing 5G is with people singing and dancing and bragging about their "incredible speeds" are complete b***s***.

Low latency, low jitter, better signal coverage and strength, all good and can keep getting better. The speed, not so much.

 

[ZipZilla]

I don't think most people care how fast their modem is in their phone. if it's "good enough."

I wouldn't get a C1 because I would be concerned about low signal areas. by the C2 apple should have it right and then they don't have to pay the Qualcomm extortion

 

[ksec]

Apple's focus was power efficiency, not speed (and to not have to pay licensing fees)

Yes. Apple do not have to pay Qualcomm a single dollar! /s

 

[johnsawyercjs]

All the AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile ads about how life-changing 5G is with people singing and dancing and bragging about their "incredible speeds" are complete b***s***.

Since reliable mmWave coverage is limited to short distances, such as inside a stadium, maybe the draw is supposed to be that you can transmit 8K resolution video of your friends dancing in one area of the stadium, to your friends in another part.

 

[testing1236]

Meh, fast enough for anyone's usage....

 

[golgo1313]

I would like to see power-draw numbers... I'll gladly trade a little speed for battery life...

 

[Octavius8]

Wait until version 6…

 

[ddtmm]

... I’ve been an iPhone user since 2008 (iphone 2), but for the first time ever, I’m seriously tempted to switch. ...

Never heard of an iPhone 2. Can you post a picture?

 

[rnizlek]

I think you're referring to mid-band 5G, not actual mmWave.

No, he's definitely talking about mmWave. It's heavily deployed in NYC and all over DC (where I live) including in plenty of residential neighborhoods. Also all over Baltimore (perhaps even more so than DC, because Verizon has not deployed Fios there and is relying on mmWave to compete against Comcast for home internet). At least for Verizon, mmWave is in use all over the place in major cities. mmWave cells can be seen everywhere, typically mounted on streetlights and telephone poles. Here's an example near my home (and I'm not in a particularly dense area of DC as far as things go):

However, T-Mobile deploys mmWave a lot less as far as I'm aware (I know the least about their network of the big 3), and for the speed tests were done indoors, mmWave would definitely not be a factor unless you were by a window (and it would be helpful it was open). So I'm in agreement that it is less a factor in this test, but for all those saying mmWave is just stadiums and downtowns, that's not really correct - Verizon deploys it heavily across all major cities, even in a lot of less dense sections. That's in part due to their use of it for 5G Home Internet, but any mmWave-capable device can benefit.

 

[svish]

Not surprised. For a first generation chip, the C1 does a very good job. I am sure that the future versions will perform even better and will definitely be able to beat the chips from competitors.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Testing was conducted with T-Mobile's sub-6GHz 5G network in New York City....

What a coincidence that a Qualcomm sponsored study would only test T-Mobile and only in one city. Ookla reported that Apple's C1 modem performs better on AT&T and Verizon than the iPhone 16 does, excluding mmWave connections (which the iPhone 16e does not support). Ookla's data was from all 3 networks and across the country.

The report also found that the iPhone 16e frequently became hot to the touch during testing, but it could not confirm if this directly impacted performance.

I noticed this too, but I haven't noticed it since iOS 18.5. There was an Apple C1 firmware update in 18.5, so my anecdote might have some validity.

The two Android smartphones were priced at $619 and $799 in the U.S., the report said, while the iPhone 16e starts at $599.

That's another strange choice. Why not pick an Android smartphone that costs the same or less than the iPhone 16e costs? It's reasonable to expect a more expensive smartphone to offer certain advantages. But many people prefer to spend less on a smartphone if (when) they don't sufficiently value the purported differences.

Based on its findings, Cellular Insights concluded that the Qualcomm-powered devices "hold a clear edge" over the iPhone 16e for individuals seeking "consistent, high-throughput 5G performance."

In New York City, on the T-Mobile network, compared to two more expensive Android smartphones. Allegedly. (And if you live in or frequently visit New York City, and if you value higher throughput mobile data, you may want to buy an iPhone 15 or 16 which supports mmWave.)

Apple's C1 modem achieved equal to faster performance than some Qualcomm modems in some earlier tests, but a Qualcomm spokesperson said this study is the "only comprehensive, scientific" comparison completed on a U.S. network so far.

Scientific we can quibble about, but "comprehensive" is the opposite of testing one mobile network in one city.

 

[OGdrknight]

Oh really? A company that's been doing radio chips for decades is going to outperform the company that just dipped its toes into radio chips?

That’s exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Howard2k]

Does it really matter?
MMWave is barely available outside of some stadiums and college campuses, and as far as I know, has never been available on an iPhone outside of the US.

It has been available outside the US but in a limited environment. All the same, your point still stands. C1 is marketed as being power efficient. mmWave is about performance.

 

[Howard2k]

except mmWave is >6 GHz

They're not the same thing. 5G is fifth generation cellular. 6GHz is a frequency. You're comparing oranges and screwdrivers.

 

[bryanck]

I'm much more interested in low-signal performance, and other tests have shown the Apple modem to be superior in that regard. Getting a burst of throughput because you happened to be positioned just right isn't very interesting to me.

 

[johnsawyercjs]

No, he's definitely talking about mmWave. It's heavily deployed in NYC and all over DC (where I live) including in plenty of residential neighborhoods. Also all over Baltimore (perhaps even more so than DC, because Verizon has not deployed Fios there and is relying on mmWave to compete against Comcast for home internet). At least for Verizon, mmWave is in use all over the place in major cities. mmWave cells can be seen everywhere, typically mounted on streetlights and telephone poles. Here's an example near my home (and I'm not in a particularly dense area of DC as far as things go):
View attachment 2514259

However, T-Mobile deploys mmWave a lot less as far as I'm aware (I know the least about their network of the big 3), and for the speed tests were done indoors, mmWave would definitely not be a factor unless you were by a window (and it would be helpful it was open). So I'm in agreement that it is less a factor in this test, but for all those saying mmWave is just stadiums and downtowns, that's not really correct - Verizon deploys it heavily across all major cities, even in a lot of less dense sections. That's in part due to their use of it for 5G Home Internet, but any mmWave-capable device can benefit.

Interesting. There's a big mix of anecdotal, outdated, and actual current info floating around.

 

[zoomcrypt]

let's be honest here there's two user bases for the 16e:
- budget conscious apple users. android phones that are targetting the similar group don't have x75 or x80 modems in them now. they have x65's or equivelent at best, none of the options at this price level support mmwave either
- SE asia users, where there is almost no mmwave at all

so this is basically a bunch of llama drama. Apple is doing great creating a beachhead in the cellulaar chip modem by addressing the lower range first.

 

[johannnn]

who cares about 5G download/upload speeds? I care more about their effiency. Espacially if we're gonna get them on the Apple Watch

 

[bollman]

Apple's focus was power efficiency, not speed (and to not have to pay licensing fees)

Oh, you can bet they pay licensing fees to QC anyways. QC hold many standard essential patents (SEP).

 

[artifex]

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.

I don't think they'll take 10 years. Maybe 3-5. The hardest part was probably being able to field a minimum-viable 5G chipset without violating Qualcomm patents, which it looks like they finally accomplished. Now they iterate on that. Eventually, they'll have enough experience to explore privately some extensions to later propose for next generation protocols. They're very good at doing stuff like that.

They have good reason not to ever do it with their CPUs, but imagine if Apple started licensing its modem parts to other manufacturers. Cheaper and lower power is more important than total throughput for a wide swath of applications.

 

[falainber]

I don't think they'll take 10 years. Maybe 3-5. The hardest part was probably being able to field a minimum-viable 5G chipset without violating Qualcomm patents, which it looks like they finally accomplished. Now they iterate on that. Eventually, they'll have enough experience to explore privately some extensions to later propose for next generation protocols. They're very good at doing stuff like that.

They have good reason not to ever do it with their CPUs, but imagine if Apple started licensing its modem parts to other manufacturers. Cheaper and lower power is more important than total throughput for a wide swath of applications.

There is no chance Apple was able to do it. They certainly used FRAND patents and not just from Qualcomm.

imagine if Apple started licensing its modem parts to other manufacturers.
Qualcomm is not the only modem vendor. There are cheaper alternatives. There is zero chance that Apple suddenly becomes OEM.