2 ms·

>Okay, but does my mobile device NEED to be able to pull 12Gbps speeds? I’ll take a solid reliable 20-50Mbps of LTE on a power-sipping SOC. What if Qualcomm to

by ksec 2y ago

>Okay, but does my mobile device NEED to be able to pull 12Gbps speeds? I’ll take a solid reliable 20-50Mbps of LTE on a power-sipping SOC. What if Qualcomm told you 12Gbps 5G downloading 5MB uses less energy than 50Mbps LTE? Getting faster and more efficient 5G is how you can use lower energy per MB transferred. Except most of the time the faster connection the more content the internet wants to push to you.

acdha 2y ago
This also assumes that you have enormous buffers. If the data isn’t available when you start, you’re not going to see the lower benefits of transmitting everything at the highest rate and then going into low-power mode. I suspect that most usage other than, say, backing up your photo library is bursty enough to push that into diminishing returns.
daneel_w 2y ago
That would only be true if the total power envelope was same or lower, and that's not necessarily true. Just because your switch has a GbE port and you have a GbE NIC does not mean there's a full Gbit available for you at the remote end or even in your immediate network. The most common complaint from end-users moving up to 5G is that it's a "drainer" despite no change in personal usage pattern - and the "surprise" is that the Internet doesn't push content to you, you pull content from it. The scenarios where some application "intelligently" adapt to you (e.g. streaming bandwidth for video content) don't entirely equate to power savings on network activity the way they do for downloading a huge file on a fast versus a slow connection. This marketing material from Qualcomm, in the context of cell phones, is purely an inflationary numbers race.
- ksec 2y ago
  > Just because your switch has a GbE port and you have a GbE NIC does not mean there's a full Gbit available for you at the remote end or even in your immediate network. I was comparing the cellular tech only. i.e not limited by the backbone. Most people compare it with the best iteration of LTE, full spectrum available while on the other than 5G is still on NSA, less spectrum, and RAN not even optimised.

by ksec 2y ago

acdha 2y ago

This also assumes that you have enormous buffers. If the data isn’t available when you start, you’re not going to see the lower benefits of transmitting everything at the highest rate and then going into low-power mode. I suspect that most usage other than, say, backing up your photo library is bursty enough to push that into diminishing returns.

daneel_w 2y ago

That would only be true if the total power envelope was same or lower, and that's not necessarily true. Just because your switch has a GbE port and you have a GbE NIC does not mean there's a full Gbit available for you at the remote end or even in your immediate network. The most common complaint from end-users moving up to 5G is that it's a "drainer" despite no change in personal usage pattern - and the "surprise" is that the Internet doesn't push content to you, you pull content from it. The scenarios where some application "intelligently" adapt to you (e.g. streaming bandwidth for video content) don't entirely equate to power savings on network activity the way they do for downloading a huge file on a fast versus a slow connection. This marketing material from Qualcomm, in the context of cell phones, is purely an inflationary numbers race.

ksec 2y ago
> Just because your switch has a GbE port and you have a GbE NIC does not mean there's a full Gbit available for you at the remote end or even in your immediate network. I was comparing the cellular tech only. i.e not limited by the backbone. Most people compare it with the best iteration of LTE, full spectrum available while on the other than 5G is still on NSA, less spectrum, and RAN not even optimised.