Here's How the iPhone 16e's C1 Modem Stacks Up Against the iPhone 16 Qualcomm Modem

[name99]

I wonder if Apple 🍎 will software tweak the modem in the future?

Given that they are still tweaking the firmware of the wireless charger, I think that's guaranteed!

The more interesting question is whether the tweaks will affect anything we care about. My guess is yes (ie the tweaks will likely [slightly] improve battery life, performance, and fix various minor and country-specific inconsistencies, probably also various [hopefully minor] weird security cases).
I say this simply because every project runs out of time, with a the least significant bugs left unresolved. Each successive modem release will be more polished; but being the least polished modem at release time also means the most scope for fixes.

 

[GeoStructural]

Great results, excellent work by Apple on the C1!

Took them long enough, they had been working on this chip since at least 2019.

And I am interested to see how it compares to something like Qualcomm X85.

 

[Nozuka]

The only time i notice "speed" is when i have bad reception somewhere and it is slow. And C1 performs better there. Interesting.

 

[jarman92]

While these numbers might look nice in favor of the C1. I’m missing the information that the modems used in the 16/16 pro are at least two generations older than what Qualcomm is delivering. And most models of Android phones that can be compared with the iPhone 16/16 Pro are using Qualcomm’s latest modemchips.

So when reading those numbers, keep this in mind.

That makes the C1 look even better, since it’s achieving as good or better results with “older” technology.

 

[ttyRazor]

I’m far more interested in the average and weaker signal results than the maximum. That’s what most people will experience and notice. Better upload performance looks promising too. At the very least it’s not obviously worse unless those faster low end scores just mean it drops off of usability faster.

 

[jarman92]

... attributing the iPhone 16e's longer battery life to the C1 modem and not because the 16e has a larger battery than the iPhone 16

iPhone 16e's Battery Capacity Revealed in Real-World Battery Life Test

In its announcement video for the iPhone 16e, Apple said the device features a new internal design that allowed for a larger battery. Apple does...

www.macrumors.com

• iPhone 16 Pro Max: 4,685 mAh
• iPhone 16 Pro: 3,582 mAh
• iPhone 16 Plus: 4,674 mAh
• iPhone 16: 3,561 mAh
• iPhone 16e: 4,005 mAh

Apple has confirmed that the C1 is more power-efficient and contributes to the longer battery life of the 16e.

 

[Thehangmn]

X85 was just announced and won’t be available until December at best. So it leaves us with just one newer generation for Qualcomm. Would indeed be great to compare c1 with x80.
It is impressive performance nevertheless given how problematic intel modems were.

There are already people comparing C1 to X80 and the Exynos 5400, peak download speeds are lower than QCOM and Samsung but the C1 often performed better at low signal. I think C1 is respectable and anyone that freaks out about the marginal difference between C1 and the latest QCOM flagships are missing the point.

 

[bodonnell202]

I was mostly interested in how it performs when connectivity is poor as that's really the only time I actually notice download speeds (and was my biggest complaint with the last iPhone I had that came with an Intel modem) and based on this it looks like Apple has engineering a modem that I wouldn't be concerned using in my day to day life.

 

[jz0309]

Took them long enough, they had been working on this chip since at least 2019.

And I am interested to see how it compares to something like Qualcomm X85.

In that case you’d get better comparison with the C2 or even later, plus, different OS will fog the results, plus energy efficiency will be next to impossible to compare.

 

[neuropsychguy]

... attributing the iPhone 16e's longer battery life to the C1 modem and not because the 16e has a larger battery than the iPhone 16

iPhone 16e's Battery Capacity Revealed in Real-World Battery Life Test

In its announcement video for the iPhone 16e, Apple said the device features a new internal design that allowed for a larger battery. Apple does...

www.macrumors.com

• iPhone 16 Pro Max: 4,685 mAh
• iPhone 16 Pro: 3,582 mAh
• iPhone 16 Plus: 4,674 mAh
• iPhone 16: 3,561 mAh
• iPhone 16e: 4,005 mAh

That statement could have been phrased better, but previous analyses show the C1 is about 20-25% more power efficient:

A summary in English here: https://www.tomsguide.com/phones/ap...r-the-iphone-16e-heres-where-it-really-shines

"With a high 5G signal, the iPhone 16’s power draw was 0.88 watts, while the iPhone 16e drew 0.67 watts. In a low signal test, the figures were 0.81 watts and 0.67 watts, meaning that the C1 modem drew between 17% and 24% less power — not far off the 25% improved efficiency that Apple reported itself."

The larger battery helps, but so does the more efficient modem.

 

[gridlocked]

X85 was just announced and won’t be available until December at best. So it leaves us with just one newer generation for Qualcomm. Would indeed be great to compare c1 with x80.
It is impressive performance nevertheless given how problematic intel modems were.

The x75 and x80 are the two generations. The x71 used in the 16 Pro is based on the x70.

 

[9081094]

That makes the C1 look even better, since it’s achieving as good or better results with “older” technology.

That’s Apple goal with all things they do lately. Give the people the assumption they’re the best while hiding the relevant factors 😂

 

[jarman92]

That’s Apple goal with all things they do lately. Give the people the assumption they’re the best while hiding the relevant factors 😂

What? I think you’re confused about both the article and my comment. The C1 appears to be as good as or better than the latest Qualcomm modems, despite using (according to you) older technology.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

That subset of people who make phone purchasing decisions based largely or exclusively on cellular bandwidth capabilities can probably do that themselves. It seems unlikely that those people would be considering a 16e.


“Cellular bandwidth is super important, do I go with the 16e without mmWave? I need to look at some articles”

The only people that care about mmWave are dorks, and the only reason they care is because www.speedtest.net told them to.

 

[hans1972]

I don’t care much either but those numbers are misleading in favor of Apple.

How is that a problem?

Don't you want Android, Google and Samsung to loose?

 

[DrWojtek]

It’s comparing them with a two generations older modem chipset from Qualcomm 😂

Yeah, first gen modem ever from a company that does not even have modems as main business, is on par with 2 years old modem from company who’ve done modems for decades, while being more efficient. Apple is absolutely pwning.

 

[Howard2k]

... attributing the iPhone 16e's longer battery life to the C1 modem and not because the 16e has a larger battery than the iPhone 16

iPhone 16e's Battery Capacity Revealed in Real-World Battery Life Test

In its announcement video for the iPhone 16e, Apple said the device features a new internal design that allowed for a larger battery. Apple does...

www.macrumors.com

• iPhone 16 Pro Max: 4,685 mAh
• iPhone 16 Pro: 3,582 mAh
• iPhone 16 Plus: 4,674 mAh
• iPhone 16: 3,561 mAh
• iPhone 16e: 4,005 mAh

It is more efficient AND it has a larger battery. Both can actually be true.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1iz8qbu/geekerwan_iphone_16e_indepth_review_does_apples

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Seems like a solid first generation chip.

 

[User 6502]

It’s comparing current Apple offerings.
Most smartphone users haven’t even heard the name Qualcomm and are very happy with their cellular connectivity.

So well done Apple for using outdated technology? Very weird take on this. That being said I know many people who are unhappy about iPhone’s reception. They might have never heard about Qualcomm, but they’re very aware they have slower internet (or no internet at all) than their friends using android phones.

 

[jz0309]

So well done Apple for using outdated technology? Very weird take on this. That being said I know many people who are unhappy about iPhone’s reception. They might have never heard about Qualcomm, but they’re very aware they have slower internet (or no internet at all) than their friends using android phones.

it is their first modem, it does not support mmWave - what exactly is "outdated technology" in this context?
and a generic comparison like yours between some iPhone and Android users - that is indeed a weird take on this.

 

[BrianM_CAN]

The only time i notice "speed" is when i have bad reception somewhere and it is slow. And C1 performs better there. Interesting.

That was exactly my thinking mid to low signal is when it matters the most. Faster speeds with good reception may matter to some people - but I'm more often in mid to low reception areas.

 

[Zerlina]

for a weird reason the international model version of the iphone 16e has better capabilities with 5g than the USA model. because it supports bands (14, 29, 53, 71). The usa does not

 

[mannyvel]

The upload speed is interesting, because it's across all carriers.

 

[Zerlina]

I wonder if Apple 🍎 will software tweak the modem in the future?

they already do each major firmware update apple updates the "modem firmware" under about section on settings

 

[1BadManVan]

It’s comparing them with a two generations older modem chipset from Qualcomm 😂

It’s comparing them to the latest iPhone. Which comparison would be relevant to an iPhone buyer? A modem not used in the latest iPhone or the one that is? Or we just complaining for the sake of whining at this point?