Jump to content

Exynos processors and LTE question


Recommended Posts

There have been numerous sites that state the reason why AT&T went with a 1.5 Ghz Snapdragon S3 Qualcomm MSM8660 processor in the Galaxy Note instead of the dual core 1.4Ghz Exynos 4210 processor found in the International version is because their LTE does not work well with it.

 

So two questions...

 

1-Why doesn't the Exynos processor work well with LTE (and by LTE I am referring to both the AT&T/Verizon)

 

2-Would the Sprint LTE have the same issue with Exynos processors?

 

Reason I ask is because Sprint is suppose to get the Galaxy Note, (as per rumored highly reliable) sources have mentioned. But no one would knows what the internal components would be. If Sprint were to get the European processor which by all test results is better than the US version, I feel it would have an advantage over AT&T and Verizon. Thus bringing in more customers.

Edited by davianny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been numerous sites that state the reason why AT&T went with a 1.5 Ghz Snapdragon S3 Qualcomm MSM8660 processor in the Galaxy Note instead of the dual core 1.4Ghz Exynos 4210 processor found in the International version is because their LTE does not work well with it.

 

So two questions...

 

1-Why doesn't the Exynos processor work well with LTE (and by LTE I am referring to both the AT&T/Verizon)

 

2-Would the Sprint LTE have the same issue with Exynos processors?

 

Reason I ask is because Sprint is suppose to get the Galaxy Note, (as per rumored highly reliable) sources have mentioned. But no one would knows what the internal components would be. If Sprint were to get the European processor which by all test results is better than the US version, I feel it would have an advantage over AT&T and Verizon. Thus bringing in more customers.

 

Not at my computer so I can't check right now. But i hadn't herd that those chips didn't work with lte...

If the Note has the MSM S3 chip then it also has an MDM chip for the lte as that's how they did it with thunderbolt...

 

At this point if it had an lte chip I would expect it to be S4 based and then it'll be 10x better than the current exynos used in world notes...

 

Though I don't follow much on that Exynos chips I'm surprised to hear no lte support...does the galaxy nexus have Qualcomm chip in it too?

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at my computer so I can't check right now. But i hadn't herd that those chips didn't work with lte...

If the Note has the MSM S3 chip then it also has an MDM chip for the lte as that's how they did it with thunderbolt...

 

At this point if it had an lte chip I would expect it to be S4 based and then it'll be 10x better than the current exynos used in world notes...

 

Though I don't follow much on that Exynos chips I'm surprised to hear no lte support...does the galaxy nexus have Qualcomm chip in it too?

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

 

The Galaxy Nexus has a TI OMAP 4460 running at 1.2ghz.

 

The same CPU also powers the Motorola RAZR.

 

Both devices are more or less on-par with the Exynos Galaxy S2 and are far better performers than the Qualcomm S3 powered variants.

Edited by RoccoM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i am only going by what i read thus the question for the experts here. I figure you guys know the LTE system much better.

 

These are the links where its been mentioned that AT&T went with Snapdragon instead of Exynos due to it not working well with their LTE network.

 

phandroid

"The AT&T version uses a dual-core Snapdragon for better 4G LTE capabilities where the international version uses Samsung's dual-core Exynos but features no compatbility with LTE."

phonedog

"The Galaxy Note comes to the States with a 1.5 GHz dual-core Qualcomm Snapdragon processor in place of Samsung's Exynos chip (due to it not supporting LTE technology). "

engadget

"We were a bit concerned when we learned that the AT&T Galaxy Note would not be rolling with Samsung's own 1.4GHz Exynos processor and would instead have a 1.5GHz Snapdragon chip inside. The clock speed may be higher but the performance is indeed lower. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other forums comments such as this was made...

AT&T forum

"Main advantage of the Qualcomm platform compared to Exynos platform is faster network data transfer, Qualcomm chipset allows network downloads up to incredibly 42 Mbps while Exynos platforms allows half of that. On the other side, Exynos has GPU advantage, Adreno 220 GPU isn’t a match for the Mali 400MP GPU.

So Qualcomm has stronger CPU, clocked at 1.5 GHZ with chipset that offers faster 42 Mbps network downloads, on the other side it has slower GPU but it will still run every game smooth and little if any visible lag compared to the International version. "

 

 

 

androidspin

The processor switch probably has something to do with LTE/GSM. There's only been a little bit of coverage about it. but apparently the Samsung Exynos processor doesn't play nice with LTE/GSM, especially the higher-speed variatns of GSM. That's why T-Mobile's Galaxy S II has a Sanpdragon processor, while Sprint has the Exynos.

 

So I don't know, even MobileTechReview made a mention of it in their video. But like i said I wanted to pass the question to you guys which I think would know more about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats deff interesting there...ima qualcomm fan personally so i tend to follow their stuff pretty close. the first time i realized anyone doing this was with HTC OneX and i figured the ONLY reason they even did the Tegra3 at all was just to be able to say they had a quad-core phone as the dual-core S4 Qualcomm is better chip imho anyway as its a newer better process chip than the older tegra3...

 

crazy seeing Samsung using 3 different chip makers when they have their own line themselves....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Qualcomm, it seems to support both FDD and TDD LTE. in this article about China delaying 4g LTE and how it impacts Sprint and Clearwire, it states that of the two types of LTE,

FDD (frequency division duplex) and TDD (time division duplex), FDD is favored by GSM operators (such as Verizon and AT&T), TDD is what Clearwire is using if I am not mistaken, yet Sprint is also going for a FDD setup. That right there confuses me, but still, I feel the article is interesting none-the-less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Qualcomm, it seems to support both FDD and TDD LTE. in this article about China delaying 4g LTE and how it impacts Sprint and Clearwire, it states that of the two types of LTE,

FDD (frequency division duplex) and TDD (time division duplex), FDD is favored by GSM operators (such as Verizon and AT&T), TDD is what Clearwire is using if I am not mistaken, yet Sprint is also going for a FDD setup. That right there confuses me, but still, I feel the article is interesting none-the-less.

 

Problem I have with that article is that it states "...sprint created clearwire..." which is not the truth from what i understand.

Clearwire was created way back in 2003/2004...and not by Sprint. It wasn't till 07 when sprint announced their partnership with clearwire...

 

Don't think the China thing will effect sprint one bit. Only thing it might of helped was $ with clearwire overall and maybe help fund their buildout over here some? ...

 

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...