v8bait

My mistake, I thought the broadcom was also used for cellular and not just Wi-Fi. I guess this makes sense, as the gs3 doesn't utilize the on chip Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/fm in the 8960 instead using a separate chip compared to the one x, although this doesn't seem to affect battery much. And I'm almost positive the LG ls970 was confirmed via leaked tech specs to have the apq 8064 with the mdm9615 modem (both 28nm) in July, maybe it's wrong to believe that but from Qualcomm's own timetable it fits well... although all this is speculation at this point still, and my post was all simply based on my experience with those phones and is not in any way scientific.

Don't get too caught up on the modem not being on the chip. The shrink in size is huge... think of it like this:

OG Evo 4G: 65nm CPU/65nm baseband. 4-5hours battery heavy use.

OG Epic 4G 45nm CPU/65nm baseband, 5 hours battery heavy use.

Epic Touch 32nm dual core CPU/65nm baseband, 6 hours battery heavy use

Razr LTE 45nm dual core CPU/45nm baseband, 6 hours battery heavy use

Galazy S3/Evo LTE 28nm dual core CPU/28nm baseband same chip, 8-9 hours

The older phones almost all used the Broadcom BCM4329 65nm baseband, and battery life got better with CPU die shrinks (partially offset by the change to dual cores). Especially interesting was the RAZR I had, it had a worse CPU die size, but smaller baseband, and was nearly identical to the more efficient CPU in the epic touch with bad basebane. FWIW... when I turned WiMax off on the Epic Touch, battery life was REALLY good (like 10 hours), vs LTE off on the Razr didn't help as much. The fact that the Galaxy S3 is so good isn't just that the modem is on the same chip, but the modem is ALSO 28nm. Whether or not it's on the same chip with the CPU or not I feel will make less difference than the die shink to 28nm, so the LG phone will do great. It will be hurt by the quad core too though, but I would expect battery life between the GS2 and GS3 with a good battery (2000+mah). Just my $0.02

GREAT article!!! Thank you for saying this!!

On another note, Houston is covered by WiMax and now is getting LTE, and while I understand how people may be upset about WiMax area's getting LTE first in some cases, let me tell you about WiMax...

It is horrible. I never used it, and I had two phones that were WiMax capable. Battery life was non existent, and connections were REALLY tempermental. In two years, I was never able to consistently use WiMax (well, once, in an airport). As soon as you entered any building the signal would drop from 4 bars to nothing and put you right back onto 3G. LTE with under 40% deployment is already more consistent than a full rollout of WiMax ever was for me in Houston, without battery sacrifices either.

I think you have the wrong idea to begin with in your arguement, you are presuming that WiMax is worthy of calling a 4G network in the first place. While I don't blame Sprint for choosing WiMax initially, almost anybody that has attempted to use it would agree it's bad. Handoff to 3G is bad, and handoffs between WiMax towers I don't even think are possible. If I were sprint, I would not even pay attention to WiMax maps when choosing where to deploy LTE.