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.
Broadcom Announces New 5G 802.11ac Wi-Fi Chip for Smartphones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Uh? Yes. Megabits per second. I use almost all of my 450Mb connection speed that my router provides. So I would love to have a faster connection, and have my phone be able to make use of that speed. Do your research. And you wouldn't have misunderstood me.
You say its for marketing. I ask, marketing against whom?
Consumers will never see the name, and no engineer will confuse their '5G' with the cellular '3G' '4G'. You wouldn't last very long in the profession doing that.
Heck, if you're looking at wifi chips - you'd assume it references the 5GHz spectrum, because its presence or absence is an important differentiator (dual-band chips are much more expensive to make). Its a hell lot shorter to write and faster to read than writing out "dual-band", which is what all phones, tablets, and computer specs will say. (alternatively mention 802.11a).
Last edited:
pffft, ac wifi? I'm waiting for 802.11ad! 7Gbit/s speeds 
I wanna see Apple push for this and leave Samsung behind with their puny ac speeds... despite the fact in the real world there will be negligible to no difference in speed because its the bandwidth of the provider which is the limit...
Still... it 7Gbit/s might actually make Safari feel snappier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11ad
I wanna see Apple push for this and leave Samsung behind with their puny ac speeds... despite the fact in the real world there will be negligible to no difference in speed because its the bandwidth of the provider which is the limit...
Still... it 7Gbit/s might actually make Safari feel snappier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11ad
It's sad that we will have faster access via our smartphones then the residential cable/fios connections. Too bad we have data caps on our phones.
Google Fiber is about 10 min north of me. I wish I could get it at my apt. Luckily Comcast stopped the 250GB monthly cap. And now I know why. They don't want to lose customers to Google Fiber or TWC.
Google Fiber is about 10 min north of me. I wish I could get it at my apt. Luckily Comcast stopped the 250GB monthly cap. And now I know why. They don't want to lose customers to Google Fiber or TWC.
This whole percentage thing irks me. 25% of what? What was the previous power consumption on standby? What about when in use?
----------
Some do. Google Fiber for example.
However, I can saturate a wireless N network at home very easily. I'm sure I can saturate an AC network too. That's why I run a lot of wired devices for my home entertainment on business-class switches.
I have my data network separated from my device network. This prevents any data saturation when the two storage devices are syncing. Granted the illustration is much simpler than what I actually have, but this gives you an idea. I'm using a TB to GBe adapter. I wish the Mac Mini Servers would include at least 2 ethernet ports (redundancy), and preferably 3 or 4 (the 3rd for backup and 4th being for management).
Attachments
Last edited:
Considering the 30 Mbps you were referring to before was their internet speed, and that they have an 802.11n router (which typically gives at least 150-300 Mbps within a home network), I logically assumed you were also talking about internet speed and not home networks.
There's no need to call it anything but its actual part number or series if you don't care what consumers think about the name or branding. Yet they still chose to.
I got a dozen of this same response...while it is true...how much more does one need beyond 300 Mbps for anything other than actual file transfer from one device to another?
N is more than fast enough for AirPlay, Home Sharing, etc..
And any file transfers I do at home are happening over Ethernet connected devices/routers.
And, I don't do (and don't imagine others doing) lots of bulk file transfers from here to there. It just isn't realistic. All the the other types of in network transfers Yes I use daily...and again, N is more than fast enough to eliminate buffering and load times entirely.
Why is it every time wifi networking gets faster the first thing people say is "whats the point my internet isn't this fast..."
Oh ok then, lets ditch all our wired gigabit ethernet connections so our home and business networks are super slow cos we only get 10mb internet.
Oh ok then, lets ditch all our wired gigabit ethernet connections so our home and business networks are super slow cos we only get 10mb internet.
Very true...but my iPhone 4S still is HORRIBLE at streaming a basic 2 minute iPhone-created-movie-clip to my AppleTV on my dual band gigabit router. Terrible...like buffering for 45 seconds, playing 20 seconds, then stopping again to buffer again...and without going into all the details here, it's not my router or network or setup...it's Apple.
Unless Apple improves the communication between AirPlay devices (such as direct to each other rather than over my network), it's really pointless to have an iPhone with anything faster than G connectivity.
Someday Apple will figure this out...we've been complaining for years about Airplay/ATV/iPhone streaming. I guess Apple just doesn't care.
This is good for large transfers....
If your not transferring over LAN, then you may not see much benefit, but people will point out that there is a improvement even after going over internet...
Is that a feasible reason to update ? Unless its all local ? I don't think so.
If your not transferring over LAN, then you may not see much benefit, but people will point out that there is a improvement even after going over internet...
Is that a feasible reason to update ? Unless its all local ? I don't think so.
Whether it's 25% overall (with some defined duty cycle) or 25% while in use, what does it matter? It's a big savings which would be worthwhile.
I could be wrong but I think the new Samsung Galaxy S5 has this, or close to it.
How do you know its big?
So the 25% savings could be of 1mAh or 0.000001mAh
25% of one is a lot more than the other. At least it could be a noticeable difference or not at all.
Almost all routers in use these days are at least 2x2 MIMO, if not 3x3:3 or better.
An example with tweaked numbers to make nice and easy.
Lets say the old 1x1 chip consumed 450mW of power, and maxed out at 450mbps... 450mbps transmitted using 450mW. Transmit power efficiency of 450mbps/450mW=1 (1mbps per 1mW)
The new 2x2 chip can run 900mbps... what does it's power draw have to be to raise it's efficiency to 1.25 (1.25mbps per 1mW)? 900mbps / X mW = 1.25
X = 720mW.
900 mbps / 720 mW = 1.25 mbps / 1mW
720mW > 450mW. 720mW is MORE power than 450mW!
It doesn't matter what those power numbers actually are. you can plug them into anything, and the ratio will eventually come out to be +60% overall power. Even *IF* they claim 25% increase in power efficiency, it's still...
60% MORE POWER DRAIN on your mobile battery.
You are all being fooled by Broadcom's marketing department, carefully crafted *marketing speak*.
So you have to ask, do you want to take a 60% power hit on your network components... in order to get more than a 450mbps link to your iPhone.... I don't.
But not on mobile devices, hence the benefits of bringing 2x2 to mobile, even though computers and routers mostly have 2x2 or 3x3.
Right. This will basically be the biggest improvement to WiFi that the iPhone has ever seen.
Let's break this down for the less technically inclined here:
-The iPhone 4 added 802.11n with a MAX THEORETICAL bandwidth peak of 72Mbps(?) on the 2.4GHz range. In real life, with overhead and interference, throughput is actually way lower than that.
-The iPhone 5 added 5GHz 802.11n, with a MAX THEORETICAL peak of 150Mbps. But because of the limitations of 5GHz 802.11n, you basically have to be in the same room as the router to use this frequency, so in reality, still max 72Mbps theoretical peak.
-This new technology, on top of the other improvements MIMO brings, is upping us immediately to 802.11ac, which will get us much better range, 867Mbps theoretical peak, and 150Mbps theoretical peak on the 802.11n range.
This will improve both your range, Internet speeds, and web application response times. The why for those later two items can be saved for another day.