iPhone 7 Plus Qualcomm LTE Modem Significantly Outperforms Intel LTE Modem, Study Finds (macrumors.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPhone 7 Plus Qualcomm LTE Modem Significantly Outperforms Intel LTE Modem, Study Finds (macrumors.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday October 20, 2016 @02:10PM from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mac Rumors: With the iPhone 7 and the iPhone 7 Plus, Apple elected to use LTE modems from two different sources, Qualcomm and Intel. The A1778 and A1784 iPhone models use a GSM-only Intel XMM7360 modem while the A1660 and 1661 iPhone models use a GSM/CDMA-compatible Qualcomm MDM9645M modem. Apple's decision has already caused some disappointment among customers because the GSM-only Intel modem is not compatible with as many carrier networks as the GSM/CDMA Qualcomm modem, and now independent testing conducted by Cellular Insights suggests there are some significant performance differences between the two modems, with the Qualcomm modem outperforming the Intel modem. Using an RS TS7124 RF Shielded Box, two RS CMW500, one RS CMWC controller, and four Vivaldi antennas, Cellular Insights created a setup to simulate LTE performance at different distances from a cellular tower using two iPhone 7 Plus devices, one with an Intel modem and one with a Qualcomm modem. The goal of the test was to measure the highest achievable LTE throughput starting at a Reference Signal Received Quality of -85dBm (a strong signal) and gradually reducing the power level to simulate moving away from a cellular tower where signal is weaker. Three LTE bands were tested: Band 12, Band 4 (the most common band in North America), and Band 7. In all three tests, both the iPhone 7 Plus models offered similar performance in ideal conditions, but as power levels decreased, Cellular Insights saw "unexplainable sharp dips in performance" in the Intel modem, finding a gap "north of 30%" in favor of the Qualcomm iPhone 7 Plus. In the charts, the Qualcomm modem maintains noticeably higher throughput speeds than the Intel modem as signal strength decreases. According to Cellular Insights, in every single test, the iPhone 7 Plus with a Qualcomm modem "had a significant performance edge" over the iPhone 7 Plus with an Intel modem.

44 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:16 · Score: -1

How 'bout those darkie jigaboo yard ape n.iggers? Will they be getting Qualcomm modems for their knee-grow Obamaphones?
1. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:27 · Score: -1
  
  I bet Hillary Clinton will be raising taxes on the rich (as she said in the last debate) so ALL of the knee-grows can have Qualcomm iPhone 7's, while the rich fucks will be forced to have Intel iPhone 7's. I hope she bleeds the rich people dry, and then they end up getting partial birth abortions because they can't afford to have children anymore.
  By the way, partial birth abortions, which Hillary Clinton said in the debate she wants to legalize, involves killing the baby AFTER the mother has given birth. The doctor spanks the baby on the butt to make it cry, then the doctor slams it stomach down on a sterile table, and uses a scalpel to make an incision on the back of the neck. Then a vacuum is inserted, turned on, and then the baby's brains get sucked out. At this point the mother has the option of either having the doctor throw her baby in the garbage can, or donating it to science.
  I support Hillary Clinton, and I hope the children of rich people die HORRIBLE FUCKING DEATHS. Vote for Hillary Clinton.
2. Re:So by ArylAkamov · 2016-10-20 14:37 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  By the way, partial birth abortions, which Hillary Clinton said in the debate she wants to legalize, involves killing the baby AFTER the mother has given birth.
  I'm actually curious, is there any truth to this? Sounds horrific, but I wouldn't be surprised at this point.
3. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  Oh she flipflopped on that issue? In July she was doing the opposite raising taxes on the middle class and more loopholes for the rich. Warren Buffet stood next to her and cheered her on. Too lazy to find the speech on youtube. She was in Omaha giving the speech if you care to watch it.
4. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:04 · Score: -1
  
  They pull the baby half way out with a giant forceps then crush the skull in a vise. Technically it's not a living being yet because it's not fully out.
5. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  you are an ignorant fucktard
6. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  He's actually correct, but the vise in question is actually a fairly complicated device. It is housed within a box that maintains an ideal 73 degree fahrenheit temperature, for the comfort of the baby, and before the baby's skull is crushed, a doctor administers an injection that is composed of 50% capsaicin, and 50% ephedrine, so that the baby feels barely anything at all. This is considered by many to be acceptable, and your dislike of the procedure suggests that you are an ignorant motherfucker. You probably think Trump won the last debate. Anyway, the box covers approximately half of the child, and a computer controlled device delicately squeezes the skull of the tranquilized infant until it dies. This is considered an appropriate end for many children, according to Hillary Clinton. And Margaret Sanger, who created Planned Parenthood in order to eradicate the negro race.
7. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  Why doesn't Hillary speak out against crushed baby heads? Why does she like crushed baby heads?
But does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 14:18 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Apple iPhones are a status symbol, not a workhorse. Nobody buys an iPhone to do real work. It's to show off your wealth and your bling to all those dirty, filthy plebs that have Obamaphones.
1. Re:But does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  Most people I know who use iPhones have them because their employer gave them as a work phone.
Supplier contracts. by 0100010001010011 · 2016-10-20 15:10 · Score: 0

This is going to fall on the shoulders of Intel.
1. Re:Supplier contracts. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2016-10-20 16:52 · Score: 2
  
  Only if Intel misrepresented their product to Apple. If they did lie; that's going to be one unhappy conference call; but if they were chosen for being an adequate second source to reduce Apple's reliance on Qualcomm, rather than for being an equal or superior performer, this doesn't necessarily suggest that Intel failed to deliver what they promised.
2. Re:Supplier contracts. by kangsterizer · 2016-10-20 17:26 · Score: 2
  
  given antennagate and all the shit before then, i dont doubt for one second that apple tested how exactly these modem perform and decided they are satisfactory.
  if there is a public outcry though apple will blame intel of course (they'd be stupid not to - and being ethical is not trendy these days)
3. Re: Supplier contracts. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 17:41 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder how att and T-Mobile feel when their flagship phone is deliberately handicapped vs competition...
4. Re:Supplier contracts. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  And if they try to shift the blame to Intel, I'm sure Intel will shift their marketing subsidy money somewhere else. They bought their way into the product, and that is supposed to include Apple grinning and bearing it. And buying up the new modem Intel produced this year instead of the 2015 model they chose to use.
5. Re:Supplier contracts. by arglebargle_xiv · 2016-10-20 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  They were holding the Intel-modem phone wrong when they ran the test.
6. Re: Supplier contracts. by emil · 2016-10-20 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  Intel should also approach Qualcomm for patent cross-licensing and boundary duties. Qualcomm has been pursued for antitrust abuse. Relieving that pressure, and perhaps getting access to the best semiconductor foundaries in the world, might be worth a 10% loss of market share.
7. Re: Supplier contracts. by unixisc · 2016-10-21 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not a bad idea. If one is a Verizon or Sprint customer, one knows for a fact that s/he has the Qualcomm modem phone rather than the Intel one. If one is w/ AT&T or T-Mo, it could be either.
  If Intel's chipsets supported the same features as Qualcomm, then Verizon or Sprint wouldn't be more limited w/ their supplies than AT&T or T-Mo, and there would presumably be less of a price pressure on them
8. Re: Supplier contracts. by networkBoy · 2016-10-21 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Intel did try to license the tech. Qualcom refused.
  It was touch and go inside Intel's mobile groups for quite a long time after it was clear that WiDi lost and LTE was the winner. Trying to engineer around the Qualcom patents is what likely lead to this.
  Intel knows the performance is lacking.
  That it works at all is better than where they were this time last year.
  -nb
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
9. Re: Supplier contracts. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-22 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Let me explain why.
  Qualcomm doesn't license its technology to other chipmakers. It licenses the technology to the OEMs. The royalties it charges are based on the wholesale price of the phone. Don't believe me? Check out any of Qualcomm's quarterly results, especially the slides that accompany the press release.
  Not only so, but several other chip vendors are shipping CDMA chips already. MediaTek does, and so does Huawei. They've been shipping phones with this already. And Intel bought a CDMA modem from VIA.
iTard denial incoming in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 15:12 · Score: 0

Intel is the new synonym for courage.
Still Catching Up by nateman1352 · 2016-10-20 16:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

It looks like Intel is still playing catch up in the modem space. Interestingly, it looks like for the 2016 iPhone, Apple is using either the Intel XMM 7360 or the Qualcomm X12. Both of these modems were released in 2015. Qualcomm hasn't shipped a new generation since then, but Intel did release the XMM 7480 in February. It would be interesting to see how much progress Intel has made in a year.
Either way, the fact that Intel's modem exists is good for everyone... except Qualcomm. Without it, Qualcomm would be the only LTE modem supplier. There is no doubt Apple is aware of the Intel modem's shortcomings. My guess is Apple is willing to turn a blind eye to that for the "1st gen" product and use the new revenue as a carrot to get Intel to direct its engineering efforts to the features that Apple wants, probably stuff like CDMA for example.
1. Re:Still Catching Up by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 16:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually not only did Qualcomm announce a follow-on to the X12, which is called the X16 modem, it's already shipping it: http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/10/17/13306814/qualcomm-gigabit-5g-x16-x50-modem
  Oh and it does gigabit speed. Yeah. Intel's follow-on 7480 is still capped at 450, just like their 7360. So two generations behind with no progress on performance, and half the speed of the competitive Qualcomm modem.
2. Re:Still Catching Up by fintux · 2016-10-20 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well how about MediaTek, Broadcom, Speadtrum, Samsung LSI, Marvell and Nvidia?
3. Re:Still Catching Up by evilviper · 2016-10-20 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  My guess is Apple is willing to turn a blind eye to that for the "1st gen" product and use the new revenue as a carrot to get Intel to direct its engineering efforts to the features that Apple wants, probably stuff like CDMA for example.
  If Apple knew the Intel chipset was inferior and chose to sell it anyway, why is there no rhyme or reason to which of the models each of the carriers use? Surely the 2nd rate one would only go to carriers who want cheaper phones in exchange for compromised performance? Instead T-Mobile and AT&T both sell the Intel chipset version. Meanwhile, the cut-rate MVNO services of those same carriers, like MetroPCS and Cricket are getting the (better?) Qualcomm chipset.
  As others have shot-down your other claims, I don't see that anything you've posted makes any sense...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
4. Re:Still Catching Up by glennrrr · 2016-10-20 21:48 · Score: 2
  
  So the high performance iPhone is the 7+ 256GB SIM Free with its faster SSD, more RAM, and faster modem.
5. Re: Still Catching Up by emil · 2016-10-20 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon, Sprint, and U.S. Cellular still maintain sizable CDMA infrastructure. They cannot use Intel's gsm-only modem.
6. Re:Still Catching Up by jittles · 2016-10-21 00:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It looks like Intel is still playing catch up in the modem space. Interestingly, it looks like for the 2016 iPhone, Apple is using either the Intel XMM 7360 or the Qualcomm X12. Both of these modems were released in 2015. Qualcomm hasn't shipped a new generation since then, but Intel did release the XMM 7480 in February. It would be interesting to see how much progress Intel has made in a year.
  Either way, the fact that Intel's modem exists is good for everyone... except Qualcomm. Without it, Qualcomm would be the only LTE modem supplier. There is no doubt Apple is aware of the Intel modem's shortcomings. My guess is Apple is willing to turn a blind eye to that for the "1st gen" product and use the new revenue as a carrot to get Intel to direct its engineering efforts to the features that Apple wants, probably stuff like CDMA for example.
  Not only did Apple know, but there were public discussions about it the very same day that they announced the iPhone 7. I don't have the links in front of me, but some people on Reddit did a very technical overview of the differences between the two modems. the TL;DR version of the story (assuming my memory serves me correctly) is that the Qualcomm chip can handle 4 LTE bands at once and the Intel only two or some such thing. To my knowledge, no cellular network provides speeds that the Qualcomm version of the iPhone 7 can take advantage of that the Intel version cannot. Not to say that will change, but this test is all theoretical anyway. It's lab based.
7. Re: Still Catching Up by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  How about you stop the brain dead practice of buying phones from carries and buy them from the manufacturer instead?
8. Re:Still Catching Up by unixisc · 2016-10-21 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Intel is not a true 2nd source for Qualcomm to Apple here. The phones w/ Intel GSM-only chipsets can only go to AT&T, T-Mo, Cricket and other GSM carriers. The Qualcomm could go to anybody, but Verizon and Sprint are likely to be first dibs for that just b'cos they can't use the Intel chipset models.
9. Re:Still Catching Up by limaxray · 2016-10-21 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming this is a problem with the IC. It could be a flaw in the PCB layout or a firmware bug. The two parts probably have different layout requirements and external components, and aren't drop in replacements of each other - it is very possible there is a problem with the PCB layout using the Intel part. For example, the antenna trace may take a slightly different path that causes an impedance mismatch or coupling of switching noise from a nearby circuit.
  
  Actually, assuming both parts have similar specs, I think such a large and sudden drop off in performance is indicative of a design flaw somewhere, but it'll take more testing to know the cause. In my experience though, it's almost always the PCB's fault; it's such a significant and sudden drop in performance that I would think Intel would have caught it in their reference designs and fixed before mass production. Or maybe not and Intel really fucked up.
  
  Also note that Intel isn't new to making radios and have been producing digital RF comm parts for quite a while. They may not be Qualcomm, but I see no reason they shouldn't be able to produce a properly functioning modem.
10. Re:Still Catching Up by Type44Q · 2016-10-21 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Either way, the fact that Intel's modem exists is good for everyone...
  ...except their customers. :)
11. Re:Still Catching Up by edxwelch · 2016-10-21 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  I have a theory that what Apple really wants is to integrate the modem into their SoC (integrated modems are more power efficient). But Qualcomm weren't willing to give Apple access to their IP, so then they got talking to Intel and Intel was more flexible. In other words, the iPhone 7 is a field test for the Intel modem, in the next version it'll be integrated.
12. Re:Still Catching Up by imgod2u · 2016-10-21 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  The carriers that need CDMA (MetroPCS and Cricket both piggyback on Sprint/Verizon) get the Qualcomm modem. The ones that only need GSM get the Intel modem.
  Without having to support CDMA, the cost of the modem likely is lower. Qualcomm themselves own the patents to CDMA but others would have to pay a licensing fee to make a CDMA chip, which would increase the cost of their modem solution.
13. Re:Still Catching Up by evilviper · 2016-10-21 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  The carriers that need CDMA (MetroPCS and Cricket both piggyback on Sprint/Verizon) get the Qualcomm modem. The ones that only need GSM get the Intel modem.
  Congratulations on making a complete and total fool of yourself...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
14. Re: Still Catching Up by evilviper · 2016-10-21 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon, Sprint, and U.S. Cellular still maintain sizable CDMA infrastructure. They cannot use Intel's gsm-only modem.
  Where in my comment did I mention any of them, let alone suggesting they should get one or the other.
  HINT: I've worked as a senior engineer for one of those companies...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
15. Re:Still Catching Up by evilviper · 2016-10-21 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon and Sprint are likely to be first dibs for that just b'cos they can't use the Intel chipset models.
  Except they don't, as I already explained in my comment you're replying to.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Imagine AMD doing an LTE modem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 18:20 · Score: 0, Troll

It would be 3rd world all over again. It would need thrice the power source and be half the usefulness of what American's would expect, and demand.
Shocked by crimson+tsunami · 2016-10-20 22:05 · Score: 1

So a GSM-only modem is compatible with less networks than a GSM/CDMA modem...
Who exactly is surprised by this?
1. Re: Shocked by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell are you talking about? The story here is that the GSM-only modem has significantly worse GSM performance than the GSM/CDMA modem.
MODEMGATE! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-20 23:19 · Score: 0

I am totally shocked that a GSM/CDMA modem is compatible with more networks than a GSM-only modem. SHOCKED. Someone needs to investigate and get to the bottom of MODEMGATE and determine why this was allowed to happen!
Last-link syndrome by mwvdlee · 2016-10-20 23:41 · Score: 1

Somewhat off-topic, but why is it that in Slashdot summaries, the link to the actual source is usually the very last link in the entire summary?

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So? by ilsaloving · 2016-10-21 04:20 · Score: 1

LTE is already pretty darn fast, so losing a little performance isn't going to make that big of a deal. It's not as if you can torrent to your hearts content without killing your cell phone bill.
What I *really* want to know, is if the Intel chip has a comparatively lower power draw compared to the qualcomm. Getting more battery life is of much more value to me than needing to wait one additional second to download that new kitten video everyone is raving about.
The issue isn't (just) speed - it's (also) range. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-10-21 07:46 · Score: 1

LTE is already pretty darn fast, so losing a little performance isn't going to make that big of a deal. It's not as if you can torrent to your hearts content without killing your cell phone bill.
The issue isn't just speed. It's also range.
At any given speed, the Qualcom can support it at substantially lower signal levels. 6ish dB in a lot of cases, a bit less in some, enormously more in others.
Look at the graphs in TFA. In addition to some specific pathologies that penalize the Intel chip farther, the bulk of the graph has the drop off looking similar but with the Qualcom shfited 5 or 6 dB to the right. (Those squares are 5 dB wide.)
6 dB is four times the effective signal strength, which corresponds to twice the range. That maps into four times the area served at that speed from a single cell tower (important in sparsely-served areas), deeper penetration into buildings and the like (in more heavily-covered areas). It can also map into more data pushed before a given area and channel allocation's bandwidth is saturated. 3 dB corresponds to twice the effective signal strength, 1.4ish times the radius, twice the area served.
If the modems were equivalent and the problem just the layout of the board and antenna, you'd expect the two curves to be the same shape but just offset. The shape is substantially different, so (board issues or not) something else is going on.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way