Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wi-Fi transfers seems to top out at around 70MB/s using Wi-Fi 5 AC locally with an iPhone 11 - has anyone had any better speeds with Wi-Fi 6 AX Transfers locally using a 12/13?
 
They really should care, at least a little, it might spread. And given how it easy it is to communicate globally, even for us normal people, you do not want it to spread.
Apple is several years (decades) into social media, I’m sure this feedback is seen and evaluated and prioritized.
 
THIS is why I'm holding out for the iPhone 15 models in 2023, likely the first models to use the same USB Type C port as the current iPad Air and Mini models (up to possibly 40 watts initial charging rate per PD 3.0 spec, Thunderbolt 3/USB 3.2 Gen 2 data transfer rate of 10 gigabits per second).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex_Mac
You may stay assured that Apple has been developing designs for USB-C iPhones for many years now.
They're just delaying as much as possible.
Of course. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
 
9.6 Gbps Theoretical only with 4 streams @ HT160 (160 MHz width)…

Not even the MacBook Pro has more than 2 streams let alone HT160. You are looking at 2 streams with HT80 on the iPhone and MBP. Theoretically 1.2 Gbps with actual/real world peak probably averaging 600-700 Mbps so less than 2x USB2 speeds and only a fraction of the basic USB3 speeds.

Most client devices top out at 2 streams with some Android phones and most of the Windows laptops sold with Intel 92XX-AX2XX and some MTK7291 also cards having HT160 support.
Thank you. How do you find this out?
 
Apple is milking this for all its worth. Either they are working on something better than USB C, planning to go completely wireless or they just don’t care anymore. Oh, on second thought, purchase more iCloud storage.

The MBA’s have spoken I guess.
And while you're at it, may as well sub to Apple One ;)
 
Thank you. How do you find this out?
You can go to Apple’s site and under specs for the iPhone it will say:
  • Wi‑Fi 6 (802.11ax) with 2x2 MIMO
2x2 just means 2x Receive and 2x Send
(2 total streams/antennas).

They don’t advertise lack of HT160 support, but you’d know once connected to any capable router and it’s only linking at “1200 Mbps” link rate even in ideal conditions, rather than “2400” (Max link @HT160 for two streams). Link rates don’t mean you will get said speed (only theoretical), max sustained speeds are always significantly less than the link rate like maybe 60-70% of connected rate at peak.

To have a 9.6 Gbps link you’d need 8x streams @ HT160, you’d be mostly looking at routers for something like that, I know of no client side device that has that many streams/antennas. Even most routers also top out at 4x streams per band. The NETGEAR RAX120 /Asus AX89X which use the same Qualcomm chipset support 8x streams on a single 5Ghz band but only @ HT80. Having that many streams makes more sense router/AP side as they can connect to multiple clients at once using MU-MIMO, which Apple clients don’t support, probably because the difference wasn’t night and day and Broadcom chipsets had issues with MU-MIMO earlier (at the time of Wi-Fi-5 aka AC), unlike Qualcomm or Intel Wi-Fi chipsets.
 
Last edited:
AirDrop is super fast and easy. Why in the world would anybody move image files via wired connection?

I guess insisting on using a wired connection for moving photos provides a whine-worthy opportunity to be aggrieved.
Um what if you have a windows device? I looked up how to airdrop from iPhone to windows and the steps are ridiculous. No typical person can figure that out.
 
You can go to Apple’s site and under specs for the iPhone it will say:
  • Wi‑Fi 6 (802.11ax) with 2x2 MIMO
2x2 just means 2x Receive and 2x Send
(2 total streams/antennas).

They don’t advertise lack of HT160 support, but you’d know once connected to any capable router and it’s only linking at “1200 Mbps” link rate even in ideal conditions, rather than “2400” (Max link @HT160 for two streams). Link rates don’t mean you will get said speed (only theoretical), max sustained speeds are always significantly less than the link rate like maybe 60-70% of connected rate at peak.

To have a 9.6 Gbps link you’d need 8x streams @ HT160, you’d be mostly looking at routers for something like that, I know of no client side device that has that many streams/antennas. Even most routers also top out at 4x streams per band. The NETGEAR RAX120 /Asus AX89X which use the same Qualcomm chipset support 8x streams on a single 5Ghz band but only @ HT80. Having that many streams makes more sense router/AP side as they can connect to multiple clients at once using MU-MIMO, which Apple clients don’t support, probably because the difference wasn’t night and day and Broadcom chipsets had issues with MU-MIMO earlier (at the time of Wi-Fi-5 aka AC), unlike Qualcomm or Intel Wi-Fi chipsets.
Thank you. Very informative. Do you have any WiFi 6E routers that you like/recommend?

Are their any USB-c clients that will do WiFi 6E that you know of?

Presumably iFixit tells the chipsets used for WiFi in the iPhones and the MacBooks.
 
Thank you. Very informative. Do you have any WiFi 6E routers that you like/recommend?

Are their any USB-c clients that will do WiFi 6E that you know of?

Presumably iFixit tells the chipsets used for WiFi in the iPhones and the MacBooks.
USB-C itself has nothing to do with WiFi.

If you already have a decent (2nd gen WiFi-5/AC router) like the NETGEAR R7800 or Asus AC86U you should be fine probably both not worth upgrading to AX/WiFi-6 yet. AX nearly doubles 2.4 GHz throughput but 5 GHz on WiFi-6 in real world is about 20-25% faster when compared to the best WiFi-5 models. Right now only the latest Windows laptops and Android phones support 6E (6Ghz band).


The NETGEAR RAXE500 or Asus GT-AXE11000 are pretty decent WiFi-6E models if you really want one but are pricey. I usually have the latest router only because I get them free for beta testing.


One last thing is I would not buy a new router till about 6 months to preferably a year into release (to iron out issues) or you will end up being essentially a paid beta tester and may be dealing with angry family members lol…. Regardless of brand


As for WiFi chipsets Apple uses Broadcom in all its devices as far as I know. Qualcomm is usually better at actually implementing advertised features in a more functional way ie MU-MIMO but more expensive and probably not worth cost from Apple’s perspective for minor features/with little gain for most users.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SFjohn
USB-C itself has nothing to do with WiFi.

If you already have a decent (2nd gen WiFi-5/AC router) like the NETGEAR R7800 or Asus AC86U you should be fine probably both not worth upgrading to AX/WiFi-6 yet. AX nearly doubles 2.4 GHz throughput but 5 GHz on WiFi-6 in real world is about 20-25% faster when compared to the best WiFi-5 models. Right now only the latest Windows laptops and Android phones support 6E (6Ghz band).


The NETGEAR RAXE500 or Asus GT-AXE11000 are pretty decent WiFi-6E models if you really want one but are pricey. I usually have the latest router only because I get them free for beta testing.


One last thing is I would not buy a new router till about 6 months to preferably a year into release (to iron out issues) or you will end up being essentially a paid beta tester and may be dealing with angry family members lol…. Regardless of brand


As for WiFi chipsets Apple uses Broadcom in all its devices as far as I know. Qualcomm is usually better at actually implementing advertised features in a more functional way ie MU-MIMO but more expensive and probably not worth cost from Apple’s perspective for minor features/with little gain for most users.
I was thinking about getting a WiFi 6E client that would plug into the USB-C port and then use the 6E router. The Netgear router you mentioned is nearly 2 years old, I'd think it would be stable enough by now.....

Thank you for time answering my questions.
 
Before the iPhone 14 launch event, someone on this forum argued that "USB-C is unnecessary" "USB 3.0 speed is unnecessary" and "No one uses iPhone Pro for serious photo/video shoot out"...

Yeah...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex_Mac
That 75% number is not correct. There is a 30% loss versus average wired charging, yes.

That's not ecologically great, but neither is the production, shipping, and recycling (which never happens, they all end up in a landfill) of cables that continually change and everyone hangs on to. When you decouple charge from data, you experience MUCH less churn in standards and connectors. Our cars having Qi pads in them = two less cables for my wife and I, our desks, same.

This transition is not at all without its own footprint, no doubt, but the amount of damn charger/cable junk you can reduce by removing ports is pretty high (and I am actually pro-wired data transfer...for now).

And, if you're charging using upcoming "clean energy" features, etc the efficiency is much less of a concern.
Do you even know what wireless chargers are? They are coils – the materials used for a single wireless charger could produce dozens of wires and on top of that they have wires themselves. So you have succesfully substituted a wire with a wire, a coil and a circuitboard. All of which will be obsolete fairly quickly because wireless charging is an infant technology. I hope they snuff it out before it gets too bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex_Mac
I wonder how much they make off certified third party cables

I think I read somewhere that the money Apple receives from third parties is basically offset by the components sent to them for the construction of these lightning cables. In short, it’s not just free money for Apple. There’s actually work and deliverables expected on Apple’s end as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and SFjohn
So what exactly is the recommended way to transfer from iPhone to Mac with ProRes videos? I just tried using simply Wireless but it was still limited to 25 MB/s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex_Mac
So what exactly is the recommended way to transfer from iPhone to Mac with ProRes videos? I just tried using simply Wireless but it was still limited to 25 MB/s.
That’s really slow. We have a Netgear router & cable modem (not 6E) and we get 10 to 20 times that transfer speed.
 
This is totally unacceptable in 2022, they've had years to get this right.
This is why I don't want Apple Car and Apple VR. Apple has shown it cannot focus enough attention on more than one thing at once. Macs got stale and frustrating between 2013 and 2019/2020 when they apologized as PR/legally as they could. Apple has been knocking it out of the park with M1 systems, and now iPhones are starting to lack and get stale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex_Mac
That’s really slow. We have a Netgear router & cable modem (not 6E) and we get 10 to 20 times that transfer speed.
He said 25 MB/s which is the same as 200 Mbps - Megabytes vs Megabits, you aren’t getting ten times that, it would be impossible. The iPhone has a 2 stream Wi-Fi setup at HT80. At the max 1200 Mbps link rate you probably peak at around real world 800–850 Mbps (100 MB/s) in ideal conditions.
 
He said 25 MB/s which is the same as 200 Mbps - Megabytes vs Megabits, you aren’t getting ten times that, it would be impossible. The iPhone has a 2 stream Wi-Fi setup at HT80. At the max 1200 Mbps link rate you probably peak at around real world 800–850 Mbps (100 MB/s) in ideal conditions.
I will trust your science on that, however downloads to computers and transferring files around the house (not on the iPhones) go faster still.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.