These speeds were probably reached in "controlled laboratory conditions" with access points and devices placed within very close proximity with no obstructions between, and with no background radio interference. This means that in the real world, we will not be seeing anything close to these speeds, and for any serious computing where top speeds are necessary, Ethernet is still the go-to. As Wi-Fi speeds get faster, so do wired speeds and wired network connections will ALWAYS be faster and more stable then Wi-Fi.
The first smartphones that support Wi-Fi 7 could start coming out as soon as the second half of 2024, according to a new report from DigiTimes that cites IC backend houses and inspection labs.
Wi-Fi 7 is able to use 320MHz channels and it supports 4K quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) technology, ultimately providing up to 2.4x faster speeds than Wi-Fi 6 with the same number of antennas.
Positioned as the next major generational Wi-Fi technology evolution, Wi-Fi 7 is expected to provide speeds of "at least 30" gigabits per second and could even hit 40Gbps, according to the Wi-Fi Alliance. It will offer speeds fast enough for next-generation AR/VR, 8K video streaming, and gaming devices.
Wi-Fi 6 features speeds of up to 9.6Gb/s, and WiFi 5 maxed out at 3.5Gb/s, so WiFi 7 will be a notable improvement when it launches. There is no word as of yet on when Apple might implement Wi-Fi 7, but it is worth noting that Apple has not even adopted Wi-Fi 6E, which has been available since 2019.
Apple devices are still using Wi-Fi 6, and there is a possibility that Apple will stick with Wi-Fi 6 until the launch of Wi-Fi 7, skipping Wi-Fi 6E entirely. DigiTimes suggests that with the launch of Wi-Fi 7 on the horizon, Wi-Fi 6E is "just a transitional technology."
Wi-Fi 7 will come first to routers and notebooks before making its way to smartphones. In January, MediaTek demoed Wi-Fi 7, and Intel has said that it plans to adopt Wi-Fi 7 in PC laptops by 2024, with the technology appearing in major markets in 2025. Qualcomm is also working on Wi-Fi 7 chip options that are expected to appear in the same time frame.
Article Link: First Smartphones With Faster Wi-Fi 7 Coming as Early as 2024
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.
First Smartphones With Faster Wi-Fi 7 Coming as Early as 2024
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd love going back to the iPhone 6s days, instead of these increasingly bricky generations. I'm still at 85% battery at the end of the day, I could drop some capacity in return for a thinner lighter phone.
True but that's always been the case. They put on the box the maximum combined theoretical throughput of all antennas simultaneously. That's always been ridiculous.
Congratulations! A small tip. Your speed might increase a bit if you connect it to a phone line and power.Why Fi?
I'm running Apple 1200 baud and it's fast enough for me, especially compared to my old Hayes 300 baud.
View attachment 2073763
/S
/sAgain. 6E is no different than 6. 160 mhz of spectrum for Wi-Fi 6 is identical in speed to 160 mhz in 6E. It’s the same air interface, different spectrum. That’s it. We have Wi-Fi 6, we are not behind.
As with all WIFI speed claims....your actual speeds may vary. Usually lower...usually MUCH lower.
Exactly the only time I might want more than 25-50mbps is for the occasional large download. Wish you could just rent a higher speed for a time period when you wanted it.
The big question is mesh networks and actual router support.
Because for now AC is pretty much standard most places, AX... some have it, some don't, 6E is kinda sorta better but not really worth the investment.
The really big question, or actually two - is what companies will release capable enough routers to take full advantage of the standard, which routers will (if at all) have dedicated backhaul because 6/6E almost none exists, and bonus question since I doubt people are ready to just strip out all old gigabit cables out of their homes for wired backhaul if if there's even a point in going for copper cables in the future. This is not the last standard to be released, and this will be by all practical means the "wired LAN killer". But what will be the wired backhaul later on? Because dedicated wireless backhaul is just a pain and especially where multiple networks exists it will just clutter the channels, but at the same time no router mfg is talking about having fibles as backhaul... because that's really the way to go. Gigabit ethernet is kinda ok, but 10gigabits is pricy. Plus the cables eventually run out of bandwidth even with newer eqpt at both ends. So IMHO the router manufacturers should really think about this because the backhaul is running out of backhaul bandwidth unless something is done.
Another thing is power consuption in devices - for laptops, tablets, desktops having a big power draw is ok. But then there's the component cost (and Wifi7 will be a beast), and power consuption. While Bluetooth especially with latest standard focuses on power consuption WiFi... not so much. Having transponder circuitry working on such extremely wide channels with frequencies that are even more prone to signal loss (higher frequency = more easely stopped by walls and what not) means higher power consumtion, and this is becoming a slippery slope.
Besides replacing ethernet cables for laptops/desktops there's really no point or gain here.
Because for now AC is pretty much standard most places, AX... some have it, some don't, 6E is kinda sorta better but not really worth the investment.
The really big question, or actually two - is what companies will release capable enough routers to take full advantage of the standard, which routers will (if at all) have dedicated backhaul because 6/6E almost none exists, and bonus question since I doubt people are ready to just strip out all old gigabit cables out of their homes for wired backhaul if if there's even a point in going for copper cables in the future. This is not the last standard to be released, and this will be by all practical means the "wired LAN killer". But what will be the wired backhaul later on? Because dedicated wireless backhaul is just a pain and especially where multiple networks exists it will just clutter the channels, but at the same time no router mfg is talking about having fibles as backhaul... because that's really the way to go. Gigabit ethernet is kinda ok, but 10gigabits is pricy. Plus the cables eventually run out of bandwidth even with newer eqpt at both ends. So IMHO the router manufacturers should really think about this because the backhaul is running out of backhaul bandwidth unless something is done.
Another thing is power consuption in devices - for laptops, tablets, desktops having a big power draw is ok. But then there's the component cost (and Wifi7 will be a beast), and power consuption. While Bluetooth especially with latest standard focuses on power consuption WiFi... not so much. Having transponder circuitry working on such extremely wide channels with frequencies that are even more prone to signal loss (higher frequency = more easely stopped by walls and what not) means higher power consumtion, and this is becoming a slippery slope.
Besides replacing ethernet cables for laptops/desktops there's really no point or gain here.
Sorry, no. The article you posted is wrong. Here are articles from Cisco and TP Link, who actually make money from selling hardware. You’d think faster speeds would be something they’d want to use as a selling point, no? It offers more channels, which could mean more simultaneous streams at maximum speed. But the maximum speed is identical to 6. In fact, they make specific mention that the speed benefit is due to not needing to share spectrum with AC legacy devices as 5 ghz does, and the channels don’t overlap.
What Is Wi-Fi 6 vs. Wi-Fi 6E?
Wi-Fi 6E builds on the latest generation of the Wi-Fi standard, Wi-Fi 6. Yet only Wi-Fi 6E devices and applications can operate in the 6-GHz frequency band.
www.cisco.com
What’s the difference between WiFi 6 and WiFi 6E | TP-Link
Going by the terminology, WiFi 6E appears to be an incremental update to WiFi 6, but you are probably left wondering how WiFi 6 and WiFi 6E differ from each other.
You still don't get it, 6Ghz is opened up for clients on 6E, it's only for backhaul on 6. and 6Ghz is faster, plus you have the other bands and fat channels, and less traffic (on the 6Ghz band, which Apple devices can't use) -- and there are 6E capable devices, even if Apple is too stupid to update.Sorry, no. The article you posted is wrong. Here are articles from Cisco and TP Link, who actually make money from selling hardware. You’d think faster speeds would be something they’d want to use as a selling point, no? It offers more channels, which could mean more simultaneous streams at maximum speed. But the maximum speed is identical to 6. In fact, they make specific mention that the speed benefit is due to not needing to share spectrum with AC legacy devices as 5 ghz does, and the channels don’t overlap.
What Is Wi-Fi 6 vs. Wi-Fi 6E?
Wi-Fi 6E builds on the latest generation of the Wi-Fi standard, Wi-Fi 6. Yet only Wi-Fi 6E devices and applications can operate in the 6-GHz frequency band.www.cisco.com
What’s the difference between WiFi 6 and WiFi 6E | TP-Link
Going by the terminology, WiFi 6E appears to be an incremental update to WiFi 6, but you are probably left wondering how WiFi 6 and WiFi 6E differ from each other.www.tp-link.com
Yes, that is true. However, the end user doesn't care how, they want advertised even when it's impossible due to several limitations.
You don’t seem to get it. Wi-Fi 6 is the ax air interface, E is extending the spectrum to 6 ghz. At the maximum Channel width of 160 mhz, it has a limit to its maximum speed - that being 1200 Mbps per stream, up to a 4x4 configuration that will give you 4800. A 160 mhz channel on 5 ghz provides this exact same maximum throughput as a 160 mhz channel on 6 ghz. 6 ghz is greenfield, so it doesn’t need to potentially share that spectrum with an ac (5) device that could potentially introduce interference. It isn’t faster.
And there’s like… 5 whole phones that have 6E. And then a whole lot of nothing else. Because it requires totally new hardware all around - which, you’ll be better served just waiting to do a full replacement when 7 comes out next year.
Dangit, I do disagree with your physics since you're not correct, but like I said, whatever you say, I'm out.
I am correct. The maximum speed is the maximum speed is the maximum speed. The channel it's on matters not. A 160 mhz spectrum channel works the same no matter if it's a channel in 5 ghz or 6 ghz. It's really... not a difficult concept.
On Apple Watch, why?
I’d rather NOT have a significant battery drain on a merely 1.5/barely 2 day Apple Watch.
Clearly implied iPhone. I don't think anyone was thinking Apple Watch nor hoping for it either.