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.
Qualcomm's and Intel's Latest LTE Modems for Smartphones Exceed Gigabit Speeds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed about modem bottlenecks, but not sure about 20Mb! I'd argue that "good enough" means most consumers wouldn't notice a difference past a certain threshold. 20Mb isn't that quick. Especially with HD video becoming ubiquitous, videos which aren't particularly long start at a few hundred MB and easily hit GBs. The difference just between 20Mb and 50Mb when streaming will be very noticeable.
I have little doubt that approaching a 450Mb bottleneck will come around sooner than we anticipate!
I've said it here before,you are wrong.
If you download a document/photo/textfile this would be the case, even downloading a video from for instance youtube you are right but there are sites which download your whole video instead of just parts of it.
Now, lets say you start watching a Youtube video which is 1 GB on a 20 Mbit connection, it will cache only a part of it, after 10 seconds you decide it's a crap video and stop watching it, you downloaded only lets say 25 MB.
Now, on another site which does not cache but just downloads until finish it on a 1 Gbit connection it dowloaded the whole video.
Just yesterday I was on a MR thread here, someone had a WWDC video link in his post https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ios-10-3-to-developers.2033590/#post-24325157, the one about APFS, my Mac downloaded the whole 40 minute video instead of stopping when I stopped watching the video.
So, you see if you do this on a capped Mobile data connection you will download more data.
I see your point in this. Coverage definitely plays a large role when your factoring speeds. It doesn't matter how fast or efficient something is or phone for that matter, it really comes down to you overall coverage. Because if your coverage is subpar, speed can't contribute to being throttled when your coverage is limited.
I do think coverage and Throttled speeds are misconstrued often. Where is usually one or the other, but I do agree that coverage is definitely part of the problem and some tend to not fully understand the differences or which to blame.
Unless data significantly decreases in price, I really don't need to be able to consume my shared 20GB data plan in a matter of minutes...
Spending most of my time in Manhattan/San Francisco/Los Angeles this is meaningless to me as I'd never have network support to match. Oh well. I suppose that statement is even more true anywhere in the midwest though.
#CoastalProblems
#CoastalProblems
There are many cases where mobile Internet faster than 20 Mbps is very noticeable:
- Downloading and updating apps
- Safari: You'd be surprised just how heavy many websites are, even with content blockers
- Sharing videos
- iTunes purchases
- Video streaming with far less (often to the point of nearly non) buffering delays
- Offline video streaming (Amazon, Hulu, Netlfix, etc. support offline mode)
I'm using 1Gbps internet in my home. My iPhone 7+ is also connected to the 1Gbps WiFi. Am I using more data? No. Could I browse internet more fast? No. Could I watch youtube more fast? No. LTE speed in my home ranges 50-60Mbps. I couldn't notice the difference between LTE and 1Gbps WiFi
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Ahhh but the likes of AT&T, Verizon, etc are likely jacked up on the potential profits of people accidentally doing that frequently.
I can actually see most Americans eventually using LTE for their home internet instead of cable/DSL. As most people know, Google's significantly scaled back their FTTH deployments in favor of wireless due to the latter being way more cost effective (considering the regulatory environment and the current monopolies). If Qualcomm's modem means a reliable 50mbps connection for everyone on a tower, the major carriers could provide the competition that's so desperately needed, making prices drop dramatically.
(For reference, I pay $80/mo for 200/20 at home. Google Fiber is about that much for 1 gigabit, not to mention that gigabit fiber in other countries is half that price.)
Australia already has a network with these speeds (the speeds in the video are obviously lower than 1,000 Mbps, but it was achieved.
Why doesn't intel and Qualcomm work with the carriers to maximize the speeds that are so called "theoretical"
Qualcomm will be using TSMC's "10nm" process. TSMC takes some liberties with their process nomenclature.
For example, TSMC's "16nm" process is really truly closer to 20nm.
The TSMC "10nm" process is probably about the same gate size as Intel's true 14nm process.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I started reading this thread and the questioning of faster speeds for mobile devices.
This will enable people to finally cut the cord once and for all and use wireless networks to get all their content. This will significantly reduce the stranglehold that cable providers have over a vast majority of the population that has high speed internet. Wireless carriers will be able to go head to head with cable companies, eliminating their monopolies. I think prices overall will come down and speeds and caps will go up. A win-win for consumers.
Again - in all cases where wireless speeds are mentioned, it is the total network capacity. All clients share that capacity; and that capacity needs to be further split between receiving and transmitting.
For example. If we have a 1gbps wifi network with just two clients, and both are sending and receiving data simultaneously - their maximum (theoretical!) download speed is 250mbps. Not 500mbps, not 1gbps.
Why don't we quite the 250mbps number? Because the number of clients is unknown. With 4 clients for example, its 125mbps instead. With 10 clients, 50mbps.
In short - your speed is (over simplified) Modem Capacity / Number of Clients. Improve modem capacity, and you will get an improvement of speed.
This is (one of) the reasons wired networks are always much faster in practice. Not only is capacity generally measured and used exclusively, but unlike Wi-Fi sending and transmitting is also exclusive. 1gbps ethernet is actually 1gbps up + 1gbps down (for 2gbps total).
kewl 
.. Gigabit speeds.. so much for the NBN then. Looks like mobile technology is actually the future, not fixed line connections anymore. in term of speed..
While it's still shared, the same can be said for fiber. Tethering caps are just caps,but that's a user issue. You don't have to tether always.
.. Gigabit speeds.. so much for the NBN then. Looks like mobile technology is actually the future, not fixed line connections anymore. in term of speed..While it's still shared, the same can be said for fiber. Tethering caps are just caps,but that's a user issue. You don't have to tether always.
Right! Is like, if you increased the size of your mouth and throat then your appetite will increase somehow and you would consume the meal of the month in one go!
Yes, let's kick out Intel and finally hand Qualcomm the modem monopoly that they have been working towards, so that we get all the great advantages that come with a monopoly, such as increased prices, decreased innovation, etc.
Myopia is so great, because you never have to worry about what's coming.
[doublepost=1487748599][/doublepost]
You mean you want Intel and Qualcomm to send technicians to upgrade the carriers' base stations? I would have thought that would be the responsibility of the base station vendors.
Off topic there mate. I'm not advocating a monopoly , I want equal or better performance , I don't care what brand it is. I mentioned intel cause compared to my 6S plus my 7 has inferior reception.....for £1000! Is equal reception for £1000 a bad expectation?? Given my 6S was cheaper....
i have virtually unlimited data plan (100GB/mo). i do all the way streaming videos/audio when travelling to work. that makes 2-3hrs a day. i do tethering when i am off from home or office, if i can i do all my calls over facetime. i update my apps as they are needed, i don't wait for wifi coverage. yet i don't use more than 15gigs a month in average. there's no real use case for multi-100Gbps mobile wireless rates for smartphones. even the crystal clear 4k video (that you can not make any use of even on a 5.5" device) is less then 30Mbps. and i think this is today's killer app.
one doesn't really have mass storage in the mobile devices, and if you do, probably the content providers will not allow you to save the content to the flash. memory is even more limited, and OS will not allow apps to yank it all.
and it's not just like that. neither the cell nor the mobile backhaul can sustain multiple continuous 100Mbps+ communication.
the speed that one may experience on a mobile device depends on so many factors, and yes i admin, bandwidth is one of them. but to have a decent browsing experience for example, you need quick rendering, quick js execution, fast tcp connection set-up rate thoughout the whole mobile access incl the packet gateway and various DPI installments what those dirty mobile operators put there to ruin the experience, and probably many more.
just throwing on high bw on its own certainly helps, but does not address all the issues.
however heavy iCloud users will applaud, as multimegabyte keynote presentations will sync quicker.
one doesn't really have mass storage in the mobile devices, and if you do, probably the content providers will not allow you to save the content to the flash. memory is even more limited, and OS will not allow apps to yank it all.
and it's not just like that. neither the cell nor the mobile backhaul can sustain multiple continuous 100Mbps+ communication.
the speed that one may experience on a mobile device depends on so many factors, and yes i admin, bandwidth is one of them. but to have a decent browsing experience for example, you need quick rendering, quick js execution, fast tcp connection set-up rate thoughout the whole mobile access incl the packet gateway and various DPI installments what those dirty mobile operators put there to ruin the experience, and probably many more.
just throwing on high bw on its own certainly helps, but does not address all the issues.
however heavy iCloud users will applaud, as multimegabyte keynote presentations will sync quicker.
Of course, you meant to say de-prioritized. There's no throttling unless the cell you're on is saturated, and then only during the time that's necessary.
(Granted, in dense city locations, that could be often.)
Yep, Verizon (and others) have said that they see 5G as replacing home cable in the near future.
It'll make it much quicker and easier to deploy high speed internet service to any area.
Verizon already started testing 5G for phones a year ago with Samsung:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Verizon-partnering-with-Samsung-starts-5G-trials_id78682