Being an AT&T customer, I don't think this matters as AT&T's consumer networks are pretty disgusting slow. I'm sure even this chip will never run at full speed.
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.
Apple to Use Intel Modems in AT&T iPhone 7, Qualcomm Modems for Verizon and China
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Being an AT&T customer, I don't think this matters as AT&T's consumer networks are pretty disgusting slow. I'm sure even this chip will never run at full speed.
Lol, ok- PLEASE put me in my place!!!
Show a market that exceeds 450mbps LTE speeds & would benefit from a peak of 600.
Oh, you can't because Singapore tops the list with a whopping 38mbps? Ok, then...
I guess I'll stick with "technologically inept" as a descriptor, then bite my tongue with regards to my further opinion of you, based on your willingness to storm out, guns blazing- devoid of information on the topic, running on sheer ego, cocksuredness, & braggadocio.
No matter what Apple does the measurebators will argue over theoretical performance while most users will never see any difference. A difference that makes no difference is no difference; by the time networks can match the modem's theoretical maximums we'll be on the iPhone10 or higher.
Last edited:
Sorry but I prefer the comfy chair with the ottoman option. Makes sipping the provided beverage easy.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
There are two aspects to "better modem".
- The less interesting aspect is the high end feature support. If the modem supports a bunch of features that have not yet been rolled out by US (in particular AT&T) carriers, and that are not scheduled to be rolled out for two or more years, then their absence is not really a big deal for most people. Yes, if you plan to use your phone in South Korea (or whatever wonderful place has rolled out these leading edge features) you might care. Yes, if you plan to hold onto your iPhone for five years you might care [but people who care about cellular speeds and specs DON'T hold onto their phones for five years...].
- The more interesting aspect is that there are significantly different algorithms that can be applied to the problem of extracting the desired digital signal from the (very noisy) analog radio signal that is received. These algorithms differ in how much hardware they utilize, how much power they utilize, how long they take to run, how complicated they are to encode in a chip, etc etc. QC has been in the business a long time, and what *I* mean when I say that QC has good modems is that their implementations of these algorithms are remarkably good.
The question I would consider far more important than what specs the Intel modem supports is the quality of their decoding algorithms. The generous possibility would be to say that Intel is well aware of how important this is, and has thrown a vast number of resources at creating algorithms and implementations every bit as good as, or better than, QC. The cynical possibility would be to say that it took Intel years to implement the best known algorithms in various aspects of their CPUs and memory controllers, and that sort of cheap "do the minimal possible job you can get away with" attitude is baked into the company's DNA. Certainly the stream of rumors over the past few years regarding Intel's modem business is substantially more of the "OMG, what a cluster****" variety than of the "Damn, that's impressive" variety.
My suspicion is that the Intel modems ARE subpar (though not enough subpar for it to matter to most users) and that Apple is taking a hit here for a larger goal; that larger goal being a substantially closer relationship with Intel that allows Apple to specify what they want in future modems, and even to license the modems for direct inclusion on future A# SoCs. (So essentially to create as close a relationship with their modem vendor as Apple has with Imagination and the PowerVR GPU. QC seems unlikely to grant that, whereas Intel is desperate enough to be a lot more flexible.)
Uh, did YOU read that article. It says NOTHING about the actual network capabilities of the relevant asutalian telco. All it says is that you can buy this box (which sounds pretty useless, IMHO) that supports Cat11; it says nothing about the ability of the network to support that box.
I don't follow Australian telcos, so I have no idea what the state of the art there is; but certainly the article you reference does nothing to prove your supposed point. As far as I can tell with a quick web scan
- 450Mbps (ie what the Intel modem supports) is available in a few very limited Australian markets
- 600Mbps has been demonstrated (big deal, of course it has) and one day will be rolled out.
http://gsacom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/151013-Evolution_to_LTE_report.pdf
scroll down to page 25
Probably the same radio as AT&T.
Intel has had QA issues so good luck to those on AT&T, Tmobile, etc.
IMO the carriers will still use this technical fact against each other by way of advertising, even though it won't matter to any of us in the real world.
Lol, touché!
Well.... from that video; most footage was in a lab, NOT in the wild. I have a REALLY hard time believing that Google tells me Singapore is the fastest "real world" LTE speeds, but it's actually Australia by over fifteen times the speed!!!
That video is quite likely showing how you can reach the "theoretical max" in "theoretical conditions".... a lab.
I believe that my point stands!
If it turns out that the one & only place in the world where LTE is over 15 times faster than everywhere else on the planet is Australia (seems unlikely... given the land mass); I will GLADLY concede that in that area, the unit with Qualcomm would have a slight edge.
Edit:
Hmmmm, I might have to take that back.
Thinking hard about what you can do on an iPhone; I guess the MOST bandwidth intensive function is currently live video chat- & no matter what; there would definitely be no discernible difference in quality between 450/600mbps.
Lol, Skype recommends 8mbps, if you have 7 people on a video call!!!!
https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA1417/how-much-bandwidth-does-skype-need
Last edited:
First of all, the GSA report you pointed to is woefully outdated. Here's the latest one. Look at page 87 onwards. Everywhere you see "256-QAM" or "Cat 11" or "Cat 12" you'll see the networks that are using the capabilities of the 600 Mbps modem:
http://gsacom.com/download.php?id=2698
Second, the network in Australia is live, and there's a number of smartphones and Wi-Fi hotspots (including the Netgear hotspot with the Snapdragon X12 modem) that you can buy and use today. Here's a review for example of the Netgear hotspot:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/09/t...nds-on-with-the-first-600mbps-mobile-hotspot/
This is way more than a demo.
And the same goes for the Korean networks. And several networks in Europe.
But it's not just about the download speed. The Snapdragon X12 modem supports faster upload speeds as well. And people with the LG G5 can experience it today in Korea (since the LG G5 has the X12 modem):
The best part of course is that feature that gets you from 450 to 600 Mbps is a software upgrade to the network. Operators just have to flip the switch. And if you have the right phone, you'll see a 33% boost to your download speeds.
[doublepost=1465585284][/doublepost]
OK are you ready for my next counter-argument?
Again, keeping in mind that this is *not* about peak speeds, but rather about the relative gains in real world performance...
Let's say you're in a very crowded environment. Like, super crowded. Airport. Baseball game. Mall. You have great signal but damn there's a whole bunch of people trying to download or watch a video or video chat a the same time. It's so bad that you're barely getting 3-6 Mbps.
The difference between 450 Mbps and 600 Mbps is how many bits of data the tower can cram into the same amount of MHz of bandwidth. If you have many people sharing the tower at the same time, each phone gets only a small slice of spectrum (quite literally by the way). If you have a phone that supports 600 mbps, the tower could give you higher speed out of a smaller amount of spectrum, because it can pack 33% more bits into every LTE signal it sends you. So in a crowded place, your speed goes from 6 mbps to 8 Mbps...you go from not being able to stream a high quality video to being able to do it.
[doublepost=1465586417][/doublepost]
The delta is quite drastic. 20-30% throughput difference on LTE Advanced, 30% difference on voice power, ~200% (!!) difference on HSDPA.
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/snapd...-4-reasons-why-snapdragon-modems-are-superior
Why would China get all the Qualcomm modems? Are their networks more advanced and able to make use of the better specs than most of the ones we have here in the US? Just wondering. The last time I was in any part of Asia the only kind of portable phones that existed were the rare ones wired into automobiles. I have no idea what the rest of the world has going on.
Weird, on my devices YouTube only preloads to a certain point, and only loads more as I go along. In the marginal use case you're suggesting (download speeds that are slow enough that there is a significant data cap savings over 30 seconds compared to the faster speed), yes you'll use slightly more data, and if you're on a tight data budget, that may be a negative result, as opposed to all the positive results of battery life saving and faster response time for every other function.
Really if this marginal use case happening a lot to affect your data cap maybe LTE data isn't for you, perhaps 3G would be better (that way you could enjoy the much slower loading while essentially previewing for less at the cost of time and battery live, luckily there's a toggle for that to enable when browsing crappy YouTube videos) or Binge ON from T-Mobile, since it uses no data on your cap anyway.
Got a source that backs up what you're saying that isn't from Qualcomm which says that Qualcomm modems are better? (Wow. Imagine that.)
It's like Samsung saying they make the best and most innovative products and then they use Samsung marketing material to support their conclusion.
Love the snark. But it's unwarranted in this case. Because external sources do exist.
How about the votes by the OEMs who actually build phones...who vote by choosing which modems to include? Snapdragon LTE modems have racked up more than 1,500 phone models. Intel's LTE modems have racked up...less than 10. There's a reason for this.
How about benchmarking by Signals Research Group, the pre-eminent authority on cellular technology testing and benchmarking? Feel free to browse their reports here: http://signalsresearch.com
Depends on whether they get the SIM-free version or the versions assigned to their carriers. It's the same today. Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint use the same model of iPhone 6S. AT&T and the smaller carriers use a different model that adds support for LTE Band 30.
As long as both support 3xCA and the same bands (particularly bands 2, 4, 12 AND 13 on both models.. I'm on Verizon which uses 2/4/13 but I want to switch to T-Mobile so I want bands 2/4/12) then I don't really care... 3xCA is starting to be used in SOME places so I do want it, but 2xCA is pretty rare as it is anyway, so I guess it won't matter *too* much...
I am very curious about what the unlocked SIM-free iPhone will have, as well. The "better" or "worse" modem. I am just assuming it will have all the necessary bands or else it would be dumb to sell it as SIM-Free, it might not work for whatever SIM you put in there. Like, "It's a SIM-Free iPhone for AT&T and T-Mobile, you're out of luck if you use Sprint or Verizon". I doubt that will be the case.
I am very curious about what the unlocked SIM-free iPhone will have, as well. The "better" or "worse" modem. I am just assuming it will have all the necessary bands or else it would be dumb to sell it as SIM-Free, it might not work for whatever SIM you put in there. Like, "It's a SIM-Free iPhone for AT&T and T-Mobile, you're out of luck if you use Sprint or Verizon". I doubt that will be the case.
I'd guess that in the US the SIM-free model will be the AT&T model if it supports Band 30 and the other versions do not.
I want both moderns in my phone with the ability to select between them depending on network conditions and performance reports. And a headphone jack. And four gigs of ram. And selectable between TSMC and Samsung processors. Or I ain't buying it.