Home / Explore Technology / Phones / Gigabit LTE: Where Do Top Phones (and iPhone X) Stand?

Gigabit LTE: Where Do Top Phones (and iPhone X) Stand?

Potential iPhone owners, take note: Having the latest chips in your smartphone doesn't mean it's going to be the fastest phone possible.

As we wait for Apple to announce its upcoming iPhone X, we had Milan Milanovic, Ookla's Technical Evangelist, examine some of the top smartphones on the market sporting Qualcomm Snapdragon X16 gigabit LTE modems, the fastest modems available. As we saw in our Fastest Mobile Networks tests earlier this year, the modem in your phone really matters. While nobody's getting truly gigabit speeds from "gigabit LTE" phones in the real world, we've seen distinct differences in speeds and connectivity between phones supporting gigabit LTE technologies and phones that don't.

Gigabit LTE requires a bunch of technologies that have to be turned on both by the handset manufacturer and the wireless carrier. In the US, a phone needs to support at least three-channel carrier aggregation, which bonds together different slices of spectrum to make one broad highway. It needs four-branch antenna diversity and four physical antennas laid into the phone to support 4×4 MIMO, which boosts the capacity of a connection. And it needs 256QAM down and 64QAM up, advanced forms of encoding that can pack more bits into a radio pulse.

Essential PH-1

Milanovic has a key piece of equipment we don't have in-house. As well as their invaluable engineering support, Rohde & Schwarz also supplied CMWflexx test equipment consisting of two R&S CMW500s and one R&S CMWC controller, and a TS7124 RF Shielded Box equipped with four Vivaldi antennas for up to 4×4 MIMO, ensuring high reproducibility of OTA MIMO measurements.

Milanovic looked at four phones all packing the Qualcomm Snapdragon X16 modem, which supports Gigabit LTE. He found that while the Moto Z2 Force and Samsung Galaxy S8 run the table on gigabit technologies, the Essential PH-1 and Sony Xperia XZ Premium both fall short in the US for different reasons.

The Essential, it turns out, lacks the physical antennas to support 4×4 MIMO. Sony's sin is stranger: while it has all of the components for gigabit LTE, it only set them up for frequency bands that aren't used in the US. (bands 1, 3, and 7.) It looks like the US was just an afterthought for Sony's development team.

There are other upcoming gigabit LTE phones that we didn't include here. The LG V30 and Sony XZ1 aren't out yet. The Samsung Galaxy Note 8 has the same modem features as the S8, and we don't have an HTC U11 unit right now.

Snapdragon
X16?
4-branch
antenna
diversity?
4×4
MIMO?
256/64QAM? Gigabit
LTE?
Maximum
Speed
Essential PH-1

Yes

No No Yes No 600Mbps
Motorola Moto Z2 Force Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1Gbps
Sony Xperia XZ Premium Yes Yes No No No 450Mbps
Samsung Galaxy S8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1Gbps
iPhone X ? ? ? ? ? ?

What This Means for the iPhone X

The iPhone X will likely use a mix of the Intel XMM 7480 modem and Qualcomm's X16 modem.

The 7480 supports 4-carrier aggregation and 256/64QAM, but not 4×4 MIMO. That restricts that modem to 600Mbps rather than gigabit speeds. It also lacks support for Verizon and Sprint's CDMA network. So Qualcomm's modem is likely to appear on Verizon and Sprint models, whereas Intel's modem will likely appear in other phones.

Related

In the iPhone 7 generation, Apple turned off any features on Qualcomm's modem that were more advanced than Intel's so it could offer consistent performance across the iPhone lineup. (Even with those features turned off, the Qualcomm models showed superior performance, as Cellular Insights' analysis showed last year.)

It'll be very interesting to see what Apple chooses to do this year. We'll find out tomorrow at the iPhone announcement in Cupertino.

Read more

Check Also

Apple rebukes Australia’s “dangerously ambiguous” anti-encryption bill

Apple has strongly criticized Australia’s anti-encryption bill, calling it “dangerously ambiguous” and “alarming to every Australian.” The Australian government’s draft law — known as the Access and Assistance Bill — would compel tech companies operating in the country, like Apple, to provide “assistance” to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in accessing electronic data. The government claims that encrypted communications are “increasingly being used by terrorist groups and organized criminals to avoid detection and disruption,” without citing evidence. But critics say that the bill’s “broad authorities that would undermine cybersecurity and human rights, including the right to privacy” by forcing companies to build backdoors and hand over user data — even when it’s encrypted. Now, Apple is the latest company after Google and Facebook joined civil and digital rights groups — including Amnesty International — to oppose the bill, amid fears that the government will rush through the bill before the end of the year. In a seven-page letter to the Australian parliament, Apple said that it “would be wrong to weaken security for millions of law-abiding customers in order to investigate the very few who pose a threat.” “We appreciate the government’s outreach to Apple and other companies during the drafting of this bill,” the letter read. “While we are pleased that some of the suggestions incorporated improve the legislation, the unfortunate fact is that the draft legislation remains dangerously ambiguous with respect to encryption and security.” “This is no time to weaken encryption,” it read. “Rather than serving the interests of Australian law enforcement, it will just weaken the security and privacy of regular customers while pushing criminals further off the grid.” Apple laid out six focus points — which you can read in full here — each arguing that the bill would violate international agreements, weaken cybersecurity and harm user trust by compelling tech companies to build weaknesses or backdoors in its products. Security experts have for years said that there’s no way to build a “secure backdoor” that gives law enforcement authorities access to data but can’t be exploited by hackers. Although Australian lawmakers have claimed that the bill’s intentions are not to weaken encryption or compel backdoors, Apple’s letter said the “the breadth and vagueness of the bill’s authorities, coupled with ill-defined restrictions” leaves the bill’s meaning open to interpretation. “For instance, the bill could allow the government to order the makers of smart home speakers to install persistent eavesdropping capabilities into a person’s home, require a provider to monitor the health data of its customers for indications of drug use, or require the development of a tool that can unlock a particular user’s device regardless of whether such tool could be used to unlock every other user’s device as well,” the letter said. Apple’s comments are some of the strongest pro-encryption statements it’s given to date. Two years ago, the FBI sued Apple to force the technology giant to build a tool to bypass the encryption in an iPhone used by one fo the the San Bernardino shooters, who killed 14 people in a terrorist attack in December 2015. Apple challenged the FBI’s demand — and chief executive Tim Cook penned an open letter called the move a “dangerous precedent.” The FBI later dropped its case after it paid hackers to access the device’s contents. Australia’s anti-encryption bill is the latest in a string of legislative efforts by governments to seek greater surveillance powers. The U.K. passed its Investigatory Powers Act in 2016, and earlier this year the U.S. reauthorized its foreign surveillance laws with few changes, despite efforts to close warrantless domestic spying loopholes discovered in the wake of the Edward Snowden disclosures. The Five Eyes group of governments — made up of the U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand — further doubled down on its anti-encryption aggression in recent remarks, demanding that tech companies provide access or face legislation that would compel their assistance. ‘Five Eyes’ governments call on tech giants to build encryption backdoors — or else

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Disclaimer: Trading in bitcoins or other digital currencies carries a high level of risk and can result in the total loss of the invested capital. theonlinetech.org does not provide investment advice, but only reflects its own opinion. Please ensure that if you trade or invest in bitcoins or other digital currencies (for example, investing in cloud mining services) you fully understand the risks involved! Please also note that some external links are affiliate links.