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's New N1 Chip in iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone Air Has a Wi-Fi 7 Limitation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you saying that Apple is targeting the users with outdated home networks? They should have said so.
For comparison, Samsung also has in-house CPUs, wireless modems, wifi and BT chips but for their flagship phones they use the best chips available - often from Qualcomm and Broadcom. Apple, on the other hand, prefers its own chips even when they are inferior.
Last edited:
Love all the apologetics for Apple crippling their chip. Maybe it’s ok TODAY for SOME people but what about two or three years from now? Best tech = More longevity = More Competitive. I realize Timmy is in the churn business instead of the “one more thing” innovation. I hope for leadership that puts some fire 🔥 back into Apple.
If they are more energy efficient, they are better where it matters.
Most people care about battery life. Almost no one needs faster WiFi on their phone.
The better battery life on iOS devices is achieved by crippled multitasking not better chips.
I figured that WiFi7 would not only improve speed, but give us other benefits.
But I was asking about the speed.
On a computer I understand why faster speeds will be useful, but on phones in this moment in time faster WiFi speeds seems unnecessary, edge cases only. That will change over time ofcourse.
All the other benefits are most welcome though.
Unless they are in a a low density environment with few or no neighbors, people should set their routers to 80 MHz anyway to be courteous to others.
latency is what I care about. After about 250mbps on WiFi I don’t notice a difference. Latency on the other hand I always want lower.
Almost nobody will be getting a 320MHz spectrum in real life so this is even more useless than mmWave that is practically non-existent.
Steve Jobs Would Never!
*hides all the gimped first gen Apple products released under Steve*
I'm one of 'those' people who like things to have the ability to go fast, including network speed, whether I use it or not. I mean, who complains when Apple releases an iPhone with a faster CPU, even though the CPU in the iPhone 12 is still fast enough for 'most' people's use cases?
My household runs off WiFi 7 APs with a full 2.5gbe backbone. Honestly, it's glorious. Here's a glimpse of a few devices and their channel usage:
I would have liked the iPhone 17 Pro to have 320 MHz capabilities (like my S24 Ultra from last year) as I regularly use wireless syncing with my iTunes library. It won't change my life that much though, unlike my Mac mini M4 which has awful WiFi, (I eventually gave up and ran Ethernet to it via a 2.5gbe TB dock).
My household runs off WiFi 7 APs with a full 2.5gbe backbone. Honestly, it's glorious. Here's a glimpse of a few devices and their channel usage:
I would have liked the iPhone 17 Pro to have 320 MHz capabilities (like my S24 Ultra from last year) as I regularly use wireless syncing with my iTunes library. It won't change my life that much though, unlike my Mac mini M4 which has awful WiFi, (I eventually gave up and ran Ethernet to it via a 2.5gbe TB dock).
Likely a wise decision. Just like mmWave only works well in very specific situations (eg. stadium or transit station).
Channel bandwidth must be tuned to the situation. Higher isn't always better.
This article explains it really well.
computermesh.com
So likely the vast majority of users are not really missing much, as using the 320MHz channel width may result in more interference and therefore a degraded experience anyway.
Channel bandwidth must be tuned to the situation. Higher isn't always better.
This article explains it really well.
WiFi Channel Width - 20 Mhz vs 40 mhz vs 80 Mhz Explained.
Wifi channel width is one of the key network parameters, for example, 20 Mhz vs 40 Mhz or even 80 MHz you can establish to optimize the connection.
computermesh.com
So likely the vast majority of users are not really missing much, as using the 320MHz channel width may result in more interference and therefore a degraded experience anyway.
Such a non-issue for the 99.99% of phone users. But a great bit of clickbait for MacRumors so that the forum members can whine.
Apple is always years behind
The latest iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and iPhone Air models are equipped with Apple's all-new N1 chip for Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6, and Thread connectivity. However, the chip has a Wi-Fi 7 bandwidth limitation.
According to FCC documents reviewed by MacRumors, the N1 chip in all of the new iPhone models supports up to 160 MHz channel bandwidth for Wi-Fi 7, short of the standard's 320 MHz maximum. This limitation means the devices cannot achieve the peak theoretical speeds possible with Wi-Fi 7, but real-world performance is typically already bottlenecked by internet service providers and other factors.
For the vast majority of customers, this is a non-issue, but some iPhone users had wanted to know if the N1 chip offered 160 MHz or 320 MHz channel bandwidth for Wi-Fi 7, so we combed through FCC documents to find the answer.
FCC document showing Wi-Fi specs for iPhone 17 Pro Max
Wi-Fi 7 is still very fast. The standard allows for data transmission over the 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and/or 6GHz bands simultaneously, with a compatible router, resulting in faster speeds, lower latency, and more reliable connectivity.
All of the iPhone 16 models — excluding the iPhone 16e — also support Wi-Fi 7 with up to 160 MHz channel bandwidth. Those devices are equipped with a Broadcom chip for wireless networking, though, leading to hopes that Apple's N1 chip might raise the limit to 320 MHz. Evidently, that is not the case.
There are other benefits, though. Apple said the N1 chip improves the overall performance and reliability of features like Personal Hotspot and AirDrop, and it also contributes to power efficiency improvements in the latest iPhone models.
Article Link: Apple's New N1 Chip in iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone Air Has a Wi-Fi 7 Limitation
this is not the first, nor the last time, Apple will say they support xyz spec, and have its spec missing something. tv can do 4k120 via HDMI, but in a reverse case, they turn off that particular flag. It's a bummer, but that's Apple 🤷♂️
I have a UniFi Wi-Fi 7 system at home, and I don’t run it at 320 MHz. To clarify, 320 MHz channels are only available in the 6 GHz band, which means you need both a compatible router and to be within close range to benefit. In practice, 6 GHz works great when I enable it, but realistically it only delivers that speed and stability in the same room as the access point. Without 320 MHz, Wi-Fi is still so fast on my iPhone 16 Pro Max that I decided it’s not worth the trade-offs for one room of extra high speed.
What often gets overlooked is that 320 MHz channels aren’t just about speed, they also bring some real-world limitations. In most regions, 320 MHz always overlaps DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) ranges, which are shared with radar systems. By regulation, an access point has to check for radar before using those frequencies and must immediately vacate them if radar is later detected. That means potential dropped connections and forced channel changes, which trade peak throughput for instability. Even 160 MHz often overlaps DFS, but 320 MHz makes it unavoidable.
So while the new N1 chip tops out at 160 MHz, that’s not the real disadvantage it might sound like. You avoid constant DFS interruptions, and in practice, 160 MHz already saturates what most home internet connections and even local transfers realistically need.
I’ll still test the two side by side when my iPhone 17 Pro Max arrives, running 320 MHz enabled just to see the difference. But I expect regardless of benchmark results, I’ll leave the setting off day to day. For me, stability, coverage, and consistency are worth more than chasing theoretical max speeds.
If the N1 manages better battery life, that’s a benefit all the time, and it’ll be more than worth the trade off of the lack of 320Hz.
What often gets overlooked is that 320 MHz channels aren’t just about speed, they also bring some real-world limitations. In most regions, 320 MHz always overlaps DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) ranges, which are shared with radar systems. By regulation, an access point has to check for radar before using those frequencies and must immediately vacate them if radar is later detected. That means potential dropped connections and forced channel changes, which trade peak throughput for instability. Even 160 MHz often overlaps DFS, but 320 MHz makes it unavoidable.
So while the new N1 chip tops out at 160 MHz, that’s not the real disadvantage it might sound like. You avoid constant DFS interruptions, and in practice, 160 MHz already saturates what most home internet connections and even local transfers realistically need.
I’ll still test the two side by side when my iPhone 17 Pro Max arrives, running 320 MHz enabled just to see the difference. But I expect regardless of benchmark results, I’ll leave the setting off day to day. For me, stability, coverage, and consistency are worth more than chasing theoretical max speeds.
If the N1 manages better battery life, that’s a benefit all the time, and it’ll be more than worth the trade off of the lack of 320Hz.
I don't care... 😆 😆 😆 Upgrading from the iPhone 13 to the regular iPhone 17 is a huge leap for me...
How fast are you getting on the wi-fi sync? I've only see mine go up to 30 MB/s on ac while syncing even though the connection can go up to 50 MB/s
I'm also like you in terms of wanting the best connection. I'm looking for a self-powered Thunderbolt dock that has 2.5 Gbe via a PCIe Ethernet controller, but that doesn't exist yet.
