iPhone 7 Plus Qualcomm LTE Modem Outperforms Intel LTE Modem by Significant Margin

[bbplayer5]

I really couldn't care less about these numbers. Ive tried my AT&T connection loading pages, and it is literally the same as my 155mb home internet. There is no benefit from the higher throughput unless you are tethering. Each speed will support streaming perfectly.

My concern is battery life. If it is a double whammy, that would be pretty upsetting.

 

[mithion]

I wonder if this is driver issue. As far as I know, Qualcomm has a lot more experience producing cellular modems than Intel does and it's possible their driver stack is just more mature. Hopefully Intel can improve their drivers and close the performance gap with future iOS releases.

 

[bbplayer5]

How can you tell which you have?

If you have AT&T or TMOBILE, you have the intel chip.

 

[millertyme007]

Why oh why doesn't Apple single source these key components,

Nothing ticks off a customer more than the feeling that their phone is performance-disadvantaged to other same model iPhones due to chance.

Say a tsunami or earthquake hits the region where the single sourced component comes from. Then your entire product lineup is screwed. With multiple sources you keep the products coming in which is better for bottom line.

 

[richard371]

aren't the Qualcomm CDMA models only sold in the USA? What problem would those traveling overseas have as they all have the same LTE/GSM bands short of maybe a slightly better signal with the qualcom?

 

[tooltalk]

Apple is all about supply chain competition. They try to have at least two suppliers for every component and will drop one of them if they underperform.

For example, in the iPhone 6S half the CPUs were made by Samsung and the other half by TSMC.

It is about user experience. The TSMC processors have measurably lower power consumption... and Apple's response is to have TSMC manufacture all iPhone 7 CPUs – along with rumours of renewed negotiating with Intel.

It's all about user experience. The differences between TSMC and Samsung likely didn't exist in prototype units - they only would have occurred in mass production.

If what you are saying is true, why didn't Apple start with TSMC in the first place? TSMC has been around since late 1980's, while Samsung just started custom-fab business in mid-2000's and had just one notable customer, Apple. TSMC's always had vastly superior tech, large customer base, and experience; yet Apple chose Samsung over TSMC for almost 10 years. Are you telling me that Apple just found out TSMC two years ago -- especially when Samsung finally surpassed TSMC in node size race for the first time?

Just think about it. It doesn't make any sense at all, right?

 

[TroyBoy30]

guess its a good thing im i always have full bars

 

[ilfn143]

good job LNA team at qualcomm

 

[wigby]

Why oh why doesn't Apple single source these key components,

Nothing ticks off a customer more than the feeling that their phone is performance-disadvantaged to other same model iPhones due to chance.

They do single source components. One is from Intel and one is from Qualcomm. But neither one alone makes enough to satisfy the total demand for iPhones built.

 

[dampfnudel]

Why oh why doesn't Apple single source these key components,

Nothing ticks off a customer more than the feeling that their phone is performance-disadvantaged to other same model iPhones due to chance.

Yeah, if Apple has to double source, make damn sure they perform almost identically. Maybe years ago they could get away with it, but by now Apple should be very aware of the scrutiny every component that goes into their iPhones gets. This is a significant difference and some users are already aware of it.

 

[Crzyrio]

One could say some information was available at the time of purchase, in the same way fine print is available at the bottom of a very long contract. Apple was clearly eager to hide the information. The issue
1) They did not say the intel modem had inferior performance
2) They were (and are) very unclear about on which networks and in which countries the Intel version works. There is lot's of confusion about it, just see the various discussions on the forums. It is still not clear to me where my phone will work. I will have to wait and see when I travel. Again, Apple has been trying to hide information about this.

What Apple should have said: You can choose an intel version or a Qualcomm version. The Qualcomm version has superior speeds and works on all networks worldwide, the Intel version is slower and works only on some networks. Who wants the Intel version at the same price? That would have be honest information, but of course they didn't provide that. Nobody in their full frame of mind would have taken the Qualcomm version. It's like selling a car, but not being upfront about all the issues.

Cars have parts from different manufactures too and some are inferior to others as well. Are you going to go through every part, do the research on it and make sure you are getting the better product?

Heck car manufactures have more variance in suppliers than Apple does.

They actually stated which bands each version supported. It is up to you to go through the countries and find which carriers support the bands you have on your phone. Apple SPECIFICALLY STATES on their website which models supports which bands. http://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/

It is actually VERY Clear lol. Just scroll down to the cellular & wireless section.

 

[ahostmadsen]

They do single source components. One is from Intel and one is from Qualcomm. But neither one alone makes enough to satisfy the total demand for iPhones built.

How do you know that? I'm very sure Qualcomm, as the world's primarily cellular chip company, could deliver all Apple wanted. It's about Apple saving a few dollars.

 

[coolsean20]

I thought GSM was the world standard, though?

 

[xmonkey]

They do single source components. One is from Intel and one is from Qualcomm. But neither one alone makes enough to satisfy the total demand for iPhones built.

I'm pretty sure the iPhone 7 isn't selling more than the iPhone 6 did (or will) and that phone didn't have two different modem manufacturers.

 

[OC513]

If you have AT&T or TMOBILE, you have the intel chip.

I dont believe this is necessarily true. I am getting 45-50 download speeds (using Speedtest). I am on a MB AT&T 128GB 7+......BUT I purchased it at Target. From some reading it seems that Target and Best Buy get the 1660 line of phones which are not the phones you get from AT&T. Seems Target & Best Buy sell the "Verizon" phone but they lock once they start them up with an AT&T sim card. I have read that if you activate ths phone FIRST with a Verizon sim card and then use the AT&T sim, the phone would be essentially unlocked. However if you activate with the AT&T sim first then it is locked to AT&T.

 

[luigi408]

I can tell the difference compre to my 6S+ and my 7+. On my way to work (same route on the train) I never use to get significant drops of LTE at all for the past year using my 6S+. Same route now with my 7+ I often get messages that there is no cell connection or goes down to 4G too often. I'm certainly affect and it sucks. I hope they can improve on the firmware or something cause at this time Intel sucks.

 

[ghostface147]

If you have AT&T or TMOBILE, you have the intel chip.

Unless you purchased the SIM-free model.

 

[NT1440]

How do you know that? I'm very sure Qualcomm, as the world's primarily cellular chip company, could deliver all Apple wanted. It's about Apple saving a few dollars.

So you have information on fab plant utilization from Qualcomm? I'd be shocked if you did....

Money doesn't tool factories, adequate time and available space do in conjunction with adequate funding. If Qualcomm had enough inactive fab space to actually support an iPhone exclusively we would have heard about how Qualcomm was in dire straights, because that just wouldn't make sense.

But hey, I guess logistical analysis is too hard when you can just state it's a matter of Apple throwing money around and not have to think critically at all.

 

[blackberrycubed]

I can tell the difference compre to my 6S+ and my 7+. On my way to work (same route on the train) I never use to get significant drops of LTE at all for the past year using my 6S+. Same route now with my 7+ I often get messages that there is no cell connection or goes down to 4G too often. I'm certainly affect and it sucks. I hope they can improve on the firmware or something cause at this time Intel sucks.

Amen brother.

 

[ahostmadsen]

Cars have parts from different manufactures too and some are inferior to others as well. Are you going to go through every part, do the research on it and make sure you are getting the better product?

Heck car manufactures have more variance in suppliers than Apple does.

They actually stated which bands each version supported. It is up to you to go through the countries and find which carriers support the bands you have on your phone. Apple SPECIFICALLY STATES on their website which models supports which bands. http://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/

It is actually VERY Clear lol. Just scroll down to the cellular & wireless section.

Again, yes, you can dig out the information. Perhaps if Apple had said upfront: there are two versions of the phone. Go to our website and check it out. But to parse the information, you have to be an expert on wireless. I still do not know, based on their information, if I can use my iPhone 7 in the countries I travel to.

The point, is if they had been upfront about this: there are two versions of the phone, a better and a worse one, at the same price, nobody would have chosen the Intel version. So, they HAD to obscure that fact. It's common sense.

 

[tooltalk]

Say a tsunami or earthquake hits the region where the single sourced component comes from. Then your entire product lineup is screwed. With multiple sources you keep the products coming in which is better for bottom line.

that doesn't sounds like a good answer. Take for instance, Apple's recent decision to ditch Samsung over TSMC. Most TSMC made chips are manufactured in Taiwan while Samsung has multiple fabs in Austin, Texas, Pyeongtaek, South Korea. In addition, Samsung also had technology/customer agreement with Global Foundry in Upstate, New York, as a backup. Taiwan, as you probably know, is far more earthquake prone than Texas or New York. So at one point, most Apple A* chips by Samsung were actually manufactured in US, now it's all made in Taiwan.

It doesn't sound like Apple makes their supply decisions based on those consideration so much.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I have the Intel modem. Maybe I have a clunker, but speeds are way worse in real world use. Almost as bad as bad 3G when I have LTE on both. Side by side using the same SIM card, I'm lucky to get 1mbps up and down on the 7. I get 12 down and 1 up on my 6+ which is good enough.

Phone is going back, if the replacement doesn't improve, I'm keeping my 6+.

Just ran the Netflix "Fast" app on mine and speed is right where I've come to expect for this area/network and slightly ahead of my iPad Pro. How about you post screen shots?

 

[ahostmadsen]

So you have information on fab plant utilization from Qualcomm? I'd be shocked if you did....

Money doesn't tool factories, adequate time and available space do in conjunction with adequate funding. If Qualcomm had enough inactive fab space to actually support an iPhone exclusively we would have heard about how Qualcomm was in dire straights, because that just wouldn't make sense.

But hey, I guess logistical analysis is too hard when you can just state it's a matter of Apple throwing money around and not have to think critically at all.

It's called Occam's razor. Choose the simplest explanation. We don't know anything about the internal workings at Qualcomm and Apple. But consider this: Qualcomm was the sole supplier for previous iPhones. iPhone 7 was not expected to be a blockbuster. Why suddenly would Qualcomm not have the capacity? So, the more likely explanation is that it was for Apple to save a few dollars by pitting suppliers against each other.

 

[blackberrycubed]

It's called Occam's razor. Choose the simplest explanation. We don't know anything about the internal workings at Qualcomm and Apple. But consider this: Qualcomm was the sole supplier for previous iPhones. iPhone 7 was not expected to be a blockbuster. Why suddenly would Qualcomm not have the capacity? So, the more likely explanation is that it was for Apple to save a few dollars by pitting suppliers against each other.

QC holds the patents the CDMA patents and is the sole provider of CDMA radios. I am sure they charge a premium for this. Apple must have tried to get them to lower their price and they did not want to OR they will ask next time around for next phone if QC rather have all modem orders at lower price then split with intel. This is just speculation but make NO MISTAKE this helped apple lower the cost (even if it was only on the GSM only versions) and at the end of the day more profit for them.

 

[twocents]

The 128gb Jet Black Verizon iPhone 7 Plus it is! As much as I loathe AT&T and Verizon, at least the phone itself is the best i can ask for. #chipgate2 #slow32gbgate /s