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.
Other New iPhones: intel or Qualcomm?
- Thread starter slowlife
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are intellectually dishonest. The cellular insights study even says that at a near perfect signal strength on an unloaded carrier, the speeds are virtually identical. This can happen in the real world, I've come across it occasionally, but it's certainly not the norm. So if you find a site somewhere that's got a crapload of backhaul and a virtually unloaded 20x20, and stand 500' from the site with direct LOS, the Intel and Qualcomm iPhones will get virtually the same speeds. Great. That tells us nothing about real world usage, just like the fact that my Honda Civic can go over 100mph in a straight line down a hill with the pedal flat to the floor tells us nothing about how it drives in normal driving conditions.
When you get farther away from the tower, the speeds will start to vary more. As you get even farther, the Intel iPhone will lose service completely while the Qualcomm iPhone is still cruising along with DSL-like speeds. When you're on the subway, the Intel iPhone will take much longer than the Qualcomm iPhone to reconnect to the network, leaving you with little or no service during the ride, while the Qualcomm iPhone will have service much of the time.
It's *possible* that Intel will have almost caught up to the Qualcomm X20 with this year's modem, but highly unlikely. It's even less likely that they will match the Qualcomm X16, which was already an excellent modem.
If I had to bet my own money, I'd bet on it not even reaching the level of the Qualcomm X12, which was a great modem in it's day, it's just looking a bit dated now next to the X16 and X20.
You just don't get it. Sure, it won't matter 95% of the time. But that 5% of the time is still very, very important. I can think of several instances where my Qualcomm X12 was beaten by another AT&T phone with a Qualcomm X16 that it was right next time on one trip this summer. I can also think of several other situations where I was right on the edge of coverage and no coverage, or bouncing between Faux G and nothing, or weak LTE and strong EDGE roaming, and a Qualcomm X20 modem likely would have made all the difference. Given that the Intel iPhone 8's performance is inferior to the Qualcomm X12, the Intel iPhone would have been out of service even more than my Galaxy S7. That is just the reality of cell phone coverage. I can't even count the number of time that I've had 0-1 bars in a building, at a park, or whatnot, and Verizon was six of one, half a dozen of another.
Because getting a signal and data is literally the second most important thing a phone can do after having a functioning battery that's charged.
[doublepost=1537063204][/doublepost]
Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but the simple FACT of the matter is that a LOT of places simply don't have service, or have weak service at best. This is a simply, physical reality. If you live in a town with great reception and never leave that town, then great, you'll never hit a dead spot, but if you travel anywhere, you WILL hit dead spots. This is simply reality.
I probably shouldn’t even respond to your post. I’ve probably had too much to drink tonight. I suggest you have a few strong drinks yourself. You come off as someone who has really lost it. So, 5% of the time, in your scientific, expert experience, the Qualcomm iPhones are outperforming the Intel iPhones in some way that you haven’t really specifically described. Ok, if you say so. Spotted many Bigfoot’s or aliens recently?
All kidding aside, I’m sure there are some marginal differences in performance between Qualcomm and Intel modems in prior iPhone models. Any time you have two different manufacturers of an item, there is going to be some differences. But, you’re not really providing any scientific evidence of any significant difference - just your anecdotal opinion. Whatever. Buy whatever phone you want. I’m not worried about the Xs I just ordered regardless of whether Qualcomm or Intel manufactured the damn modem.
This is the first time I have ever thought someone needed a hug here at MacRumors. Such anger.
Apparently you haven't read basically anything I've written, as I was very clear in exactly HOW Qualcomm iPhones outperform Intel iPhones:
1. Most of the time, they are significantly faster. Not when you are 500' from a tower, looking at it, and it's got an uncongested 20x20, but the vast majority of the time. Most people don't really care, because what's 70mbps vs. 50mbps? Nothing.
2. When re-connecting to LTE networks like when you're on the subway or going in and out of a building, the Qualcomm iPhone will re-connect MUCH more quickly than the Intel.
3. When in weak signal areas, the Qualcomm iPhone will have a signal, and the Intel iPhone won't.
The Qualcomm iPhones are outperforming the Intel iPhones at least 95% of the time, it's probably 5% of the time where an Intel iPhone has no service but the Qualcomm iPhone does, and quite possibly more often that the Qualcomm iPhone has LTE and the Intel iPhone is on Faux G, or soon, with the new ones, Verizon 1x or 3G.
It's very significant when the Intel iPhone has No Service significantly more often than the Qualcomm one.
[doublepost=1537068788][/doublepost]
I enjoy debating people online, but it pisses me off when people are intellectually dishonest, and blatantly ignore facts.
I’m dishonest?
WTH.
You keep comparing a 2018 modem to a 2017 one, then proceed to label the 2017 modem inferior. You claim that as fact, it’s not, It’s fud pure and simple.
You get called out and what do you do but double down and start with the personal attacks.
Unbelievable.
I have Verizon, and sometimes the phone falls back to 3G - even 1x. I'm in a pretty big market, and it happens more often than I'd like to admit.
[doublepost=1537088869][/doublepost]
I have a problem reconnecting to LTE, when I lose it. This is with an iPhone 8 I purchased unlocked (Qualcomm) from Apple. I usually have to goggle airplane mode to get LTE back.
Maybe dial back the harshness of your response to the poster you responded to because Verizon uses CDMA when LTE isn't available.
[doublepost=1537090250][/doublepost]On Apple's page listing the tech specs for the new Xs phones, it only lists two models. I assumed that this was for the different sizes of the phone, and not the internals. If there were different models, for different carriers, with different modems, wouldn't there be more part numbers (models)?
Last edited:
You don’t have a clue how the new phones are going to perform yet.
I am not the one with the problem, "Dude." And I never said there were not dead spots for phones. You said there were more reception issues with my phone than others and I have not experienced this. You were talking out of your backside and when I called you out on it, you now have started changing to the argument that all phones have reception issues in dead spots and I agree, but that wasn't your initial assertion and you know it.
"Dude", as I said in an earlier post, I travel the country and overseas quite a lot and I have failed to have the reception issues other than any other phone would have. Again, all phones having dead spots is not what you were arguing. You were arguing that that only Intel phones have issues over Qualcomm and specifically tried to argue that my Intel phone , of which you know nothing about and have no experience with, is worse than a Qualcomm phone and that just isn't true. That is a FACT.
Someone who actually gets out of the city once and a while and goes into the mountains, lakes, rivers, wilderness, etc. 1x/3G is still very much prevalent in these areas.
You cherry picked the data by using a speedtest under the only conditions where the Intel and Qualcomm radios will perform similarly. In every other condition, the Qualcomm beats the Intel by an increasing margin as the signal strength drops.
Again, you're being intellectually dishonest by cherry picking. I've also compared the Qualcomm iPhone 8+ to the Intel iPhone 8+, where Qualcomm had "only" the X16 and 2x2 MIMO, and still blew Intel out of the water.
Yup, and the same thing happens with AT&T and Faux G. Both are CDMA-based, and have a more resilient air interface than LTE, and provide more voice/text coverage The flip side is that for data, LTE is pretty much either on or off, whereas 3G becomes too slow to use long before you drop LTE.
In one way, I'm sad that CDMA and HSPA+ are going away (Verizon CDMA much sooner than AT&T HSPA+), but at the same time, we have to move on. Even though spectrum isn't an issue in rural areas, it's simply too expensive to keep old technologies alive forever. I predict that be EOY 2025 at the latest, AT&T will shut down HSPA+ as well, and join Verizon in being an LTE-only network.
Interesting.
Patrick Barnes was suggesting that the only difference between the new Intel radios, the Qualcomm X20 was not having CDMA on Verizon, which is both incorrect, and not the issue at hand. As you mention, Verizon still relies at a certain extent on CDMA/1x for voice coverage, although the clock is ticking on that.
There's only one model, with an Intel radio that now does CDMA BC0/1/10 in addition to universal LTE banding. Reducing those SKUs has allowed them to offer more color and storage options without the number of SKUs blowing up out of control.
You are apparently the one with the problem, as you're on here spouting nonsense. It is simply a fact that an Intel iPhone will lose service more often than a Qualcomm iPhone. That's just a fact of physical reality. If you've never compared it to a Qualcomm iPhone, then you just don't know what you're missing. It doesn't magically make your Intel iPhone any better at getting service.
I didn't change the argument at all. You were suggesting that there are no weak spots, and thus weak reception doesn't matter, but that's simply not the case. There are in fact dead spots, which means that there must be weak spots in-between good coverage and the dead spots. You're trying to twist my words to support the nonsense that you are spouting.
You just don't know how bad your reception is, since you don't have a phone with good reception to compare it to. If you had a Qualcomm iPhone, much less a Galaxy S9+, you'd realize how bad the iPhone is.
You can't claim that YOUR Intel phone is different than every other Intel phone on the market and somehow magically gets better service. That is a total load of dishonest, nonsensical bull feces. Every Intel iPhone in the world has relatively weaker service than Qualcomm iPhones. That's just a fact of physical reality. You simply can't claim that you have great reception on an Intel iPhone, because you don't.
[doublepost=1537112293][/doublepost]
As is HSPA+ on the AT&T side. Unfortunately, come January 1, 2020, you will have less coverage. You might have working data more often, but you'll have less voice/text coverage. Technology moves forward, but there will be winners and losers. From what I've heard, CDMA-based technologies bend over mountains and through valleys better than OFDMA-based LTE, so there are huge areas of CDMA and HSPA+ coverage that are off of towers with LTE in mountainous area. Like NH and ME.
You and I are done. Until you learn what a fact means, you have no argument. It is not a fact that the Qualcomm is better at reception than the Intel. It is not a fact, it is your opinion. I won't respond to your biased nonsense any longer.
Go ahead, get the last word in...I know you want to.
Bottom line, you are making an assumption about the new modem that you have no data on. You are being “intellectually dishonest”. Argument over, let’s all move on.
No.
Comparing a 2018 Qualcomm modem to a 2017 intel without disclosing model years and proclaiming intel is”crap” is the definition of bias and is beyond dishonest.
You got called out.
2017 Intel modem:
Your assertion that I have my own private mast in central london to conduct tests and cherry pick results are absurd and delusional.
This conversation is now over.
Looks promising, but I already knew it would be fine 
For those not so sure...
https://twitter.com/SpeedSmart/status/1041709860331683840
For those not so sure...
https://twitter.com/SpeedSmart/status/1041709860331683840
I previously had a X with the intel modem that was switched out for the Qualcomm model. My fiancé has the x with intel modem. We’re both on at&t. I have not noticed a tangible difference between the two models. We travel often and are actually visiting Europe currently. Speedtests in areas with moderate to low reception have been very variable with wins for both phones.
The greatly enhanced data transfer statistics comes thanks to new Gigabit-class LTE with 4x4 MIMO technology and LAA. With iPhone X, Apple employed two LCP FCPBs to power 2x2 MIMO, while the iPhone 8 series used a single LCP module. The integration of 4x4 MIMO standards with iPhone XS and XS Max delivers much improved bandwidth capable of supporting higher throughput.
I particularly like your qualcomm.com source as a shining non-biased source of why qualcomm is better.
Yeah I am waiting for some teardown for confirmation. Qualcomm said they "believe", but that to me doesn't mean 100%.
Wrong poster, that was the BIGGAW’s source.
I circled the modems to highlight the blatant biases of comparing a 2018 Qualcomm modem to the 2017 and 2016 intel modems.
I labeled the Qualcomm source as “more fud”
Last edited: