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.
mmWave vs. Sub-6GHz 5G iPhones: What's the Difference?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not arguing against it - just genuinely asking what I'd need it for *now* (where I'd care about getting it in my next phone, not my next-next phone). All of those technologies were actually blazing fast for their uses during their heyday. I'm all for stretching the horizon and growth in technology, knowing there will eventually be a need for the capacity - I'm just not clamoring for it quite yet because I don't have a use for it, and won't be going out of my way/pocket for it (yet!)
Now if it helps with congestion and coverage... I'm sold.
Last edited:
I’ve always understood mmWave to be implemented in stadiums where 4G gets so congested it’s unusable. If mmWave can provide everyone with a stable connection, even if it’s not break neck speeds, I think that would be great. Otherwise, sub 6Ghz should be fine in general terms.
Historically, available bandwidth is soon matched by file sizes. The bigger the pipe that's built, the more crap that will be forced through it.
It's like a garage (most people's garage). No matter how big it is, it ends up getting filled w junk. Just like hard drives: build them bigger and people will fill them up with larger sized files.
Not very long ago, a 2GB hard drive was the standard BIG drive. Today, it's more like 2TB.
We may not need 5G now, but once the big fat pipe becomes ubiquitous, content providers will most assuredly fill it to the brim with larger files (less compression). The days of streaming 8K and 16K will eventually come. That right there will fill up the pipe, requiring faster download speeds
It's like a garage (most people's garage). No matter how big it is, it ends up getting filled w junk. Just like hard drives: build them bigger and people will fill them up with larger sized files.
Not very long ago, a 2GB hard drive was the standard BIG drive. Today, it's more like 2TB.
We may not need 5G now, but once the big fat pipe becomes ubiquitous, content providers will most assuredly fill it to the brim with larger files (less compression). The days of streaming 8K and 16K will eventually come. That right there will fill up the pipe, requiring faster download speeds
1.) Very nice article, good job !
2.) There are issues with the choice of the Analog Front End (AFE); IMO, that should be researched by MR staff, & added to the article as an Update.
3.) As an EE who has worked @ Qualcomm, I highly recommend anyone considering one of the iPhone 12 models to make sure you can Upgrade AFTER one year ! ... this will enable you to get a potentially much-improved, much-more-integrated 5G solution !
4.) 5G is NOT the BIGGEST potential change this year, ~6 GB of LPDDR5 DRAM (in select models ?) will have the biggest impact, followed by the 64 Mpx image sensor in the Back Wide Camera (in ALL models ?).
2.) There are issues with the choice of the Analog Front End (AFE); IMO, that should be researched by MR staff, & added to the article as an Update.
3.) As an EE who has worked @ Qualcomm, I highly recommend anyone considering one of the iPhone 12 models to make sure you can Upgrade AFTER one year ! ... this will enable you to get a potentially much-improved, much-more-integrated 5G solution !
4.) 5G is NOT the BIGGEST potential change this year, ~6 GB of LPDDR5 DRAM (in select models ?) will have the biggest impact, followed by the 64 Mpx image sensor in the Back Wide Camera (in ALL models ?).
Great article, thanks @jclo.
For those saying LTE is fast enough, I suspect one of the real benefits to 5G may be increased bandwidth. I believe it natively allows more data to pass in the same frequency spectrum, and of course faster speeds means less people tying up the network with data transfer at any particular time. So hopefully that translates to the phone not getting tied down in congestion as frequently.
I wonder, is there an expectation that mmWave will ever be widely deployed? It sounds like the issues at the high frequencies would make it impractical outside of dense urban spots or places like airports/stadiums?
I'm actually hoping 5G may make wireless home internet more practical. I know T-mobile has said they plan to push it once they are fully deployed. The cable companies need some real competition in this space.
For those saying LTE is fast enough, I suspect one of the real benefits to 5G may be increased bandwidth. I believe it natively allows more data to pass in the same frequency spectrum, and of course faster speeds means less people tying up the network with data transfer at any particular time. So hopefully that translates to the phone not getting tied down in congestion as frequently.
I wonder, is there an expectation that mmWave will ever be widely deployed? It sounds like the issues at the high frequencies would make it impractical outside of dense urban spots or places like airports/stadiums?
I'm actually hoping 5G may make wireless home internet more practical. I know T-mobile has said they plan to push it once they are fully deployed. The cable companies need some real competition in this space.
LOL. The cable companies have been claiming wireless data is competition for years. It will great if someday that were to be true.
Of course it is unreasonable to think it ever will be. I have the 'free' internet provided by my HOA fees and I am averaging about 840-860 Mbps today. I am not getting that on my phone in the next 2 years.
Exactly.
So will 5G provide more coverage than 4G does? I'm not so sure.
mmWave 5G is completely ridiculous by basically requiring line-of-sight in a fixed area. It may give better coverage for a stadium (the oft used example) but it won't do much for regular mobile users on the go. And it won't solve your office problem.
Even sub-6ghz 5G still has a vastly higher frequency signal than 4G. And higher frequencies travel less distance and have worse penetration. So that doesn't sound like an improvement for you either.
If you're in an area with poor 4G coverage now... I'm not seeing how it will be improved with 5G.
Some places still don't have good 4G yet in 2020. What makes you think they will bother installing good 5G?
Because the telecom companies are using it convince people that they need to replace their phones. This is really the last technology wave they can ride before their marketing efforts starts to sputter.
Last edited:
4G is going to be plenty fast for a few years at least, long enough for that many new iPhone gens to replace this one.
None of the U.S. phone companies have provided widely available home internet because it has bene impractical. T-mobile for one, claims 5G will change that because they will have much more bandwidth available, and they will be offering nationwide home internet when that happens. Time will tell...
Around here, Spectrum (Charter) charges $65/month for 100/10 Mbps connections. If I could get 50 Mbps reliable for $50, I would probably switch.
There are two reasons carriers push new devices so hard, and it's not because they are making money off handset sales. They push them because
1. contracts (now called payment plans) deter switching
2. customers with newer devices report higher satisfaction, and are less likely to switch.
Those of us from the days of 5 major carriers likely remember having to sign contracts for plan changes.
Right, my point is that the cable companies will move the bar to provide a better option. It sounds like for you 100/10 works - but I already feel constricted with 40 up. I would need my wireless option to be reliably near what Dan was demoing in that video.
I don't care how many Gs are in the next iPhone - let's just get 4G everywhere first!
Nice overview.
For me, in my hometown I get 4-5 bar signal strength and 1-2 mbps down load speed, I have annoyed up to 100mbps whole traveling... the infrastructure needs to be there and that will take years, just like LTE.
IF I were going to get a new iPhone, I would want it to be equipped with full 5G so I could take advantage where the network exists. But I have no plans to upgrade my 11ProMax this year...
For me, in my hometown I get 4-5 bar signal strength and 1-2 mbps down load speed, I have annoyed up to 100mbps whole traveling... the infrastructure needs to be there and that will take years, just like LTE.
IF I were going to get a new iPhone, I would want it to be equipped with full 5G so I could take advantage where the network exists. But I have no plans to upgrade my 11ProMax this year...
25 GByes/sec is the equivalent of 200 times the speed of 1 gigabit internet. No, you can't download enough data to fill a 128GB phone in a few seconds. At 100 Mbps it would take about 3 hours to fill 128 GB of storage.
5G should introduce more useful features such as cell density, in cities. When were you last in a city and due to the number of phones vying for attention of the local cell, everyone's speed fell to zero. 5G needs to solve this problem i.e. higher cell capacity rather than raw bandwidth.
Apple might only put both in the top end model - with hopes more people will get that.
BUT - at least in my case - I will not bother to get a new phone until it has both - as I would not be getting the top end model either way.
So - how much will this cost Apple in overall Iphone sales?
BUT - at least in my case - I will not bother to get a new phone until it has both - as I would not be getting the top end model either way.
So - how much will this cost Apple in overall Iphone sales?
It's difficult for me to understand those LTE speeds. Download speed 35 to 53 Mbit / second? In a city? Those networks must be so very, very bad.
Don’t buy the iPhone for the 5G buy it for the phone itself
5G mmWave will take several years to get up to par where the extra speed makes a difference The big question is whether the carriers intend to update all their towers
Another Way of saying it is you’ll have 4G lite augmented by 5G
depending where you live
5G mmWave will take several years to get up to par where the extra speed makes a difference The big question is whether the carriers intend to update all their towers
Another Way of saying it is you’ll have 4G lite augmented by 5G
depending where you live
But "rich websites" are part of the web, the domain of PCs and devices using wi-fi on regular wired home internet connections. Those connections are still limited in the same speed range as LTE simply because that's how fast residential internet service is. Note: to someone who's about to reply about how fast their Verizon FiOS/Google Fiber is -- you're a niche group. The vast, vast majority of people in the U.S. are only able to get much lower (<100 Mbps) speeds of service. No one is going to be rolling out "content-rich websites" that require high speed connections to work, because they will be limiting their reachable customer base to a very small group of people. It wouldn't make any business sense.
So until you see broadband penetration take a huge step up (lol), or mobile carriers raising usage caps/throttling and allowing people to run their entire home off a 5G wireless data connection, there's not going to be any real market for web content that needs 5 Ghz mobile service.
Indeed. A lot of us may not experience it right now but cell congestion is a real and growing problem and it was going to increase a lot over the next few years. This is the real problem 5G ameliorates. It's not about top speed, it's about everybody continuing to have good average speeds. Secondly it's also a more robust protocol which may help some of those on the countryside on edge of low freq channels.
People here saying "4G is good enough" may be right from their personal perspective, but they're also missing a big part of why 5G is important.
Last edited:
Verizon has been heavily running new commercial with ‘Ultra Wideband 5G’. Must be backing off mm wave marketing knowing they can’t deliver much of that. Not much going on with their sub 6 either.
