this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
30 points (87.5% liked)

Google Pixel

5852 readers
1 users here now

The World's Google Pixel community!

This community is for lemmings to gather and discuss all things related to the Google Pixel phone and other related hardware. Feel free to ask questions, seek advice, and engage in discussions around the Pixel and its ecosystem.

We ask you to be polite when addressing others and respect Lemmy.world's rules.

NSFW content is not allowed and will immediately get you banned.

It also goes without saying that self-promotion of any nature and referral links are not allowed. When in doubt, contact the mod team first.

Also, please, no politics.

For more general Android discussions, see [email protected].

This community is not in any way affiliated with Google. If you are looking for customer support regarding your Pixel phone, look here instead: https://support.google.com/pixelphone/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

So according to an FCC filing the Pixel 8 and Pixel 8 Pro will support Wi-Fi 6E but not the newer Wi-Fi 7.

For a comparison, you can get a max speed of 9.6 Gb/s with Wi-Fi 6E, while Wi-Fi 7 can reach a speed of 46 Gb/s.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, if speed is the only reason to upgrade what would be the point? A phone can never make use of 6E speeds it's entirely pointless to have even faster.

Are there some other benefits it's missing out on?

Honestly though by the time wifi 7 is out in the world enough to be utilised the majority of Pixel 8 phones will be on the scrapheap.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

But I want the bigger number!!!! (Pouts)

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm just going to put this information here: the use case for 46Gb WiFi is going to be extremely niche. There is nearly no legitimate use case where you can achieve that speed on your phone.

The problem here is that:

  1. The majority of internet traffic is TCP
  2. TCP protocol processing is atomic (i.e. your speed is bottlenecked by a single CPU)
  3. The bottleneck is the receiver (i.e. downloader)
  4. TCP is too complex for efficient receiver-side hardware offloads (i.e. can't workaround this issue by adding more special hardware)

What does this mean?

Your connection speed on a wifi 7 device WILL be bottlenecked by your single-core CPU speed, even if you are doing absolutely nothing except transmitting data. This assumes you are only using a TCP single connection (e.g. downloading a file from a website). But that's the majority of use cases unless you are running a server (in this case on your phone).

I haven't checked what CPU the Pixel 8 uses. But my Pixel 7 has a Cortex A-78. I also don't have the raw data handy for the 3Ghz A-78, but I do have data from the 2Ghz A-53 connected to a 100Gbps Ethernet NIC which is around 8-9Gbps. The A78 generally outperforms the A53 by 1.5x (At least that's the characteristics on the Nvidia Bluefield DPUs). So we can assume 12-14Gbps max for a single connection with Wifi 7 running on a state-of-the-art ARM CPU.

That is still nowhere near 46Gbps. It's like mounting a Vulcan Minigun on a bicycle.

To use the full wifi bandwidth, you would need to have multiple connections running on different cores. That's also not including the switches/servers connected to the wifi AP. Unless you are running a Redis server on your phone, I see no reason why Wifi 7 would be needed unless the remaining hardware is upgraded significantly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

To use the full WiFi bandwidth you'd probably also need to connect your phones antennae to the access points antennae via coax.

Nobody's ever going to get 46Gb/s with 7 just like nobody actually gets 1gigabit with AC. Real speeds tend to be vastly lower than rated, and splitting the airwaves with other stations is reason enough to minimize transmit time in any case. A busy area is going to benefit from phones having Wi-Fi 7 even if those phones can't process a 46gbps tcp stream.

It really annoys me when people look at max rates of networking technologies as though they're minimums for that technology to be useful. You don't have to use all 10gigabits of 10gbps for the upgrade from gigabit to be worthwhile, same with all others.

[–] zephyreks 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's no way the in order A53 from 2012 gets even close to the performance of the OoO A78 from 2020.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Didn't know one is in-order and the other is OoO. The A53 is still being used for new products by Nvidia in 2020 (Bluefield-2). So there must be some merit to it or Nvidia is cheaping out on stuff

The BlueField-3 uses the A78 and unfortunately I don't have one to test. I'm basing everything I know based on conference talks. I do know apparently the A78 does not have working performance counters for perf which makes it a pain to debug.

That being said, a 2023 Mid-end Xeon gets you up to 60Gbps TCP single flow (100Gbps ConnectX-6 NIC) So maybe that's a better comparison? Might need to account for all the other x86 optimizations

Also, I think the bottleneck for TCP processing is branching, not memory access. So I'm not sure if OoO execution would help much. Would the A78 have improved branch predictors?

[–] zephyreks 3 points 1 year ago

A53 is used for low-power and low-cost applications... It's a "good enough" CPU that has really good performance/area.

Perfect performance counters for OoO is really hard.

OoO also makes BP more useful. An OoO processor without BP isn't very useful because there aren't that many instructions between branches... So, generally, modern OoO processors dedicate far more resources to BP.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

My home internet tops out well below 9.6 Gb/s. I'm Canadian, so it's unlikely my ISP will provide that at a reasonable price. Hence, this is unlikely to affect my buying decision.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it's a flagship phone and the other flagships are shipping with the chipset that is wifi 7 then it's a bad mark against Google.

However in real terms it's unlikely to impact the majority of users. Considering there's no routers with wifi 7 in existence and no Internet companies are capable of 46gbs.

Google should be future proofing devices. If they reduce price for an older modem then that would be beneficial. They won't but it would be nice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no Internet companies are capable of 46gbs.

IDGAF about the pixel phones but i see this kind of argument all over the place and it's infuriating. ISPs don't have to offer 46gbps for wifi6 to be your bottleneck. Imagine having 2gbps internet, talking about how you need to upgrade away from gigabit, and someone goes "well you don't need 10gigabit(or 2.5 or 5), your ISP isn't giving you 10gbps." Sure it isn't, but it's still offering more than my current network can enable

Not to mention, wifi never, ever, ever hits advertised speeds. I have wifi 6 and it is a bottleneck on my 2gbps internet with a single device. Imagine having multiple devices!

And even if your internet wasn't bottlenecked by your wifi, the internet isn't the only thing your phone can communicate with on a network.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Fair enough. I would always push for advancement and future proofing. But I'm not even pushing 100 mbs down. So 46 is just insane. Even at whatever the maximum number of devices connected.

Reach for the stars

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah but is that future within the next 2-5 years?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

My home internet is 25/5. I just upgraded the home network to Wi-Fi 6E, after years of Wi-Fi 4. While 7 would be nice to have for future consideration, it's still too expensive for me to adopt it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago