Slashdot Mirror
iPhone 7 Plus Qualcomm LTE Modem Significantly Outperforms Intel LTE Modem, Study Finds (macrumors.com)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
They were holding the Intel-modem phone wrong when they ran the test.
So a GSM-only modem is compatible with less networks than a GSM/CDMA modem...
Who exactly is surprised by this?
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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