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.
Broadcom Launches New 650Mbps 802.11ac Wi-Fi Chip for Mobile Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For those wondering about if a high speed network really exists that can use this chip....
I go to grad school at MIT... and they have an 802.11ac network that connects at ~500 Mbit/s on my Macbook Pro.
Speedtest.net shows the internet connection to be 250 Mbit/s for both up _and_ down... which is just insane. I haven't tested raw speed to any internal server... but I have no reason to suspect that it can't get close to that ~500 Mbit mark.
Also: I have Verizon FIOS at home and I get 75 Mbit/s for both up and down... which is pretty awesome. As I type this I'm downloading some OSX updates at ~10 MB/s (that's a big B).
If I wanted to shell out the cash Verizon does show that I can get a 500 Mbit/s (bidirectional) plan for ~$200 a month (which really isn't that bad!). This new chip could certainly come in handy if you do a lot of computational science work at home (like I do) and you buy into that fat pipe...
Basically: even though these types of pipes aren't widespread yet... they do exist... and some people do use them.
I go to grad school at MIT... and they have an 802.11ac network that connects at ~500 Mbit/s on my Macbook Pro.
Speedtest.net shows the internet connection to be 250 Mbit/s for both up _and_ down... which is just insane. I haven't tested raw speed to any internal server... but I have no reason to suspect that it can't get close to that ~500 Mbit mark.
Also: I have Verizon FIOS at home and I get 75 Mbit/s for both up and down... which is pretty awesome. As I type this I'm downloading some OSX updates at ~10 MB/s (that's a big B).
If I wanted to shell out the cash Verizon does show that I can get a 500 Mbit/s (bidirectional) plan for ~$200 a month (which really isn't that bad!). This new chip could certainly come in handy if you do a lot of computational science work at home (like I do) and you buy into that fat pipe...
Basically: even though these types of pipes aren't widespread yet... they do exist... and some people do use them.
I'm buying an AC router once I get an AC compatible device. So probably soon if the iPhone 6 has it. I have a 2010 AirPort Extreme that I'm not too thrilled with. Namely I'd like to be able to lock down devices by MAC address on my network and a few other advanced things. Plus my current AirPort Extreme has had issues connecting lately, requiring reboots. Reception is also weak from one diagonal of my modest-sized home to the other. Should I upgrade to the newest AirPort Extreme or buy something else? My current one, though fading, has still lasted longer than any other router I've had. But for the money I'd hope for longer than four years!
Also wanted to mention you don't need crazy fast (RE: Google Fiber) internet to take advantage of newer WiFi chips. My cable speed is now at 100Mbps (fast but not crazy) and my Retina iPad Mini can only get half that. My rMBP, usually closer to the base station and with a faster rated N chip can max it out around 107. More bandwidth also means more speed further away from the base station. Faster speed also means the WiFi chip can complete the download faster, which I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) uses less power overall.
The other thing is that cities are getting fiber now at a faster pace. I'd check online to see if yours is getting 1Gig soon. Ours is rolling out (not a very big town), but not in our neighborhood yet. I'm sure we'll have it before my iPhone 6 contract is up, so very useful.
Also wanted to mention you don't need crazy fast (RE: Google Fiber) internet to take advantage of newer WiFi chips. My cable speed is now at 100Mbps (fast but not crazy) and my Retina iPad Mini can only get half that. My rMBP, usually closer to the base station and with a faster rated N chip can max it out around 107. More bandwidth also means more speed further away from the base station. Faster speed also means the WiFi chip can complete the download faster, which I presume (correct me if I'm wrong) uses less power overall.
The other thing is that cities are getting fiber now at a faster pace. I'd check online to see if yours is getting 1Gig soon. Ours is rolling out (not a very big town), but not in our neighborhood yet. I'm sure we'll have it before my iPhone 6 contract is up, so very useful.
"You'll never need more than 640KB of memory..." -Bill Gates
That's about 0.00984 seconds of transmission time.
That's about 0.00984 seconds of transmission time.
And what will be the point of that? Its always a question to ask.
Are you doing remote microsurgery on your Ipad or Iphone ?
It is the reduced latency and the fact that these chips will be idle almost all the time (which wll save battery.), which is the most important.
Last edited:
LAN speeds = WAN speeds
There's a misconception that your wifi speeds don't need to be faster than your internet connection. " Why would I need 500mb/s wifi speeds if my ISP is only giving me 50 ". They do. There is obviously a threshold in terms of the difference between the two where you will stop noticing a difference.
Press releases tend to focus on speed but a lot of the real benefits are signal strength, bandwidth, and lower power consumption.
edit: LAN speeds DONT = WAN speeds
There's a misconception that your wifi speeds don't need to be faster than your internet connection. " Why would I need 500mb/s wifi speeds if my ISP is only giving me 50 ". They do. There is obviously a threshold in terms of the difference between the two where you will stop noticing a difference.
Press releases tend to focus on speed but a lot of the real benefits are signal strength, bandwidth, and lower power consumption.
edit: LAN speeds DONT = WAN speeds
I've mentioned earlier, 500Mbps peak throughput isn't something you should expect getting over the wireless, even when using the latest Airport Extreme which is 3x3 MIMO.
I've tried 500Mbps FiOS with Extreme AC and the latest rMBP which is 3x3 MIMO, and the throughput simply isn't gonna be there even with high SINR, RSSI, uncorrelated streams, etc. There are way too many variables that will interfere with the wireless transmission and quickly cut that data rate in half.
Also, iPhone 6 or any other flagship device in 2014 may have 2x2 MIMO at best, so don't get your hopes too high on achieving high spectral efficiency with that form factor.
The problem in this is not that speed is not needed, it is that its not needed for the reason people think its needed.
Even if people just do stream HD, and not UHD on their phone because you know... You need to use all that potential bandwidth...
They'll still see improvement because, lets face it, because you have so many people on WIFI these days that you seldom can use it all yourself. In many homes you have many WIFI devices active at the same time (not to mention all the other weaker networks all around), these newer chips can help solve this issue.
Allowing more people to be able to have more throughput, less latency, is a huge improvement regardless if you actually max out the line personally. Everybody will also get better battery life.
As for the 640K thing, that was a crazy affirmation on the face of it and probably taken out of context. Even then, there was plenty of potential for needing more memory even for people with little imagination. I was 18 in 1985 and remember and got my first DOS machine in 1983 I believe, also had a C64 that year.
Your Retina IPad mini can break 100 on 2x2 5ghz N.
Mine has done such, even my old iPhone 5 runs 76 which is more than half.
"up to', meaning "you'll never see it attain this speed in your lifetime"
Sure would be nice if they would include what we can expect to see during normal use.
----------
I haven't ever seen anything faster than 2.2 Mbps at any Starbucks.
802.11ac is (currently) quite useless in the home setting. Chances are you don't have fast enough connection to your ISP to gain any benefit from even 802.11n, much less 802.11ac. A home LAN streaming 1080p video is also not going to benefit from 802.11ac. You'd need a truly huge number of devices all streaming HD video simultaneously before 802.11n will be insufficient for your needs at home.
What's good about 802.11ac is that your devices capable of it will do much better on the road, in high-traffic areas. Faster speeds allow your traffic to get out of the way faster, and everyone else's traffic will get out of your way faster, too. You'll have less dropped packets, probably some battery savings (though it really depends on the chip you're using), and a very large network will be able to make more efficient use of its internet connection. If you attend large conventions or sporting arenas that offer a wifi connection, you should hope they'll have 802.11ac, and your devices can use it.
Now, when 4K video becomes commonplace, and individual devices are better able to utilize extremely high bitrates, then 802.11ac will definitely feel right at home. I think it's safe to say most of us will still be unlikely to get fast enough internet speeds for that to make a difference. But until any of that happens, I wouldn't go out and buy new home routers unless you've got a lot of close neighbors interfering with your signal. 802.11ac will certainly be welcome in any heavily populated areas where interference mitigation is more important than sustained bandwidth.
What's good about 802.11ac is that your devices capable of it will do much better on the road, in high-traffic areas. Faster speeds allow your traffic to get out of the way faster, and everyone else's traffic will get out of your way faster, too. You'll have less dropped packets, probably some battery savings (though it really depends on the chip you're using), and a very large network will be able to make more efficient use of its internet connection. If you attend large conventions or sporting arenas that offer a wifi connection, you should hope they'll have 802.11ac, and your devices can use it.
Now, when 4K video becomes commonplace, and individual devices are better able to utilize extremely high bitrates, then 802.11ac will definitely feel right at home. I think it's safe to say most of us will still be unlikely to get fast enough internet speeds for that to make a difference. But until any of that happens, I wouldn't go out and buy new home routers unless you've got a lot of close neighbors interfering with your signal. 802.11ac will certainly be welcome in any heavily populated areas where interference mitigation is more important than sustained bandwidth.
Seems cool.. not sure how USEFUL it'd be in every day real life, though....
The inverse of faster WiFi/cellular speeds is lower power consumption with a fixed amount of data to be transferred since it finishes sooner. Of course, since it does finish sooner, you might want to transfer more (thus people think battery life doesn't improve when it actually does).
----------
I beg to differ. In an apartment/condo setting where it's easily possible to see 20 different WiFi networks, 802.11ac will help a LOT in that case because you're data transfers faster and doesn't have to compete with spectrum as often from slower 802.11g and 802.11n networks.
What does the carrier have to do with WiFi?
WiFi at my work *and* home is 1300 Mbps.
Now, I don't think I need anywhere near that kind of bandwidth on a phone, but it should still help (better speeds or more reliable connection at lower power, etc).
the /s <-- was sarcasam, a joke that is no longer funny because i am having to explain it. i was making fun of sprints SUPER slow service. as in 'Yo, your service so slow that even wifi speeds are slow"
I'm sure that won't be a problem with all the i antennas they have already in the current iPhone. Now we have more space to work with 4.7" 5.5"
There is a reason why they say since 2013 and not last year, apart from the obvious reason to make things feel like it happened long time ago. The reason for this s to make the writing correct and understandable for years to come. "Since last year" is only correct in 2014 and not after that. If you read this story in 2015 for any reason and you read since last year you would assume it happened on 2014. But if you read it in 2020 and it says since 2013 you will receive the correct information.
This.
And that's the reason why I have gigabit ethernet in my apartment, so my Apple TV in connected to the internet and to my Mac via ethernet, it is much better than using wi-fi. I can see about 15 wi-fi networks in my apartment and is quite difficult to find a free channel.
802.11ac better make it to to next iPhone and iPad, they already support this standard in Airport extreme and Mac so is quite obvious they need to port it on the iOS devices
Q3 launch in shipping products. What other than iPhone is launching before October?
Also - for the NFC, could Apple use that antennae as dual use? Get that metal Apple logo connected to the NFC antennae to also do wifi possibly? They've used the Apple symbol as a cut out to have antennae behind on Macs after all.
Also - for the NFC, could Apple use that antennae as dual use? Get that metal Apple logo connected to the NFC antennae to also do wifi possibly? They've used the Apple symbol as a cut out to have antennae behind on Macs after all.
Last edited:
There is a reason why they say since 2013 and not last year, apart from the obvious reason to make things feel like it happened long time ago. The reason for this s to make the writing correct and understandable for years to come. "Since last year" is only correct in 2014 and not after that. If you read this story in 2015 for any reason and you read since last year you would assume it happened on 2014. But if you read it in 2020 and it says since 2013 you will receive the correct information.
That's understandable if this was some sort of professional publication. But MR is neither of those.