My question, still, is how are we seeing lower bandwidth numbers with phones of lower hardware grades? I suppose we can refernce the example a couple posts above with an underclocked CPU. This general trend is noted in real world situations when comparing phones too. That other factors may be at play here when, on paper, it seems like a correlation with the Cpu clock speed?
Correlation is not causation. If I was looking at the numbers, it looks like standard network fluctuations. To be honest, the variation is with in normal parameters for a standard network. If you actually download a 10gig file, you will see the network flow like a wave. It will peak and fall. IF you hit the network at a peak, you get really good speeds, 10 seconds later you get a dip and get really bad speeds.
Medion said:
998mhz - T1: 6950/3390, T2: 7133/3402
768mhz - T1: 6227/3392, T2: 6435/3376
576mhz - T1: 6596/3362, T2: 3838/3341
384mhz - T1: 8035/2613. T2: 5872/2912
256mhz - T1: 6567/1867, T2: 5451/2013
There is no standard deviation in that graph.
7041, 6331, 5217, 6953, 6003 average. Did this in my head so number might be off. That is not a a downward trend, that is a well curve.
Your right for the most part. However, many routers do MUCH more than 25 Mhz. My old Linksys WRT54G and Buffalo WHPG54 both use almost identical Broadcom chipsets, and the both run at 200 Mhz. And these aren't even wireless N routers. These have technically 5 year old hardware.
It IS possible that a strained processor can cause slower data transfers though. A modern browser makes many connections and each one takes time to open and start. Most newer Androids probably never hit that though. Something like my Eris would, but it doesn't take a lot to max out the processor usage on that.
200mhz are mainly found in usb enable router and power over ethernet. Yes, if you load a thousand apps on the handset, you are going to bog it down. But only factoring for operating normalcy, you should not see a problem with hardware induce network problems until way into the 1gbps connections.
I do not know much about the hardware of the aforementioned phones, but networking is my thing. Is it possible that the manufacturers of the phones with lower hardware specs also cut costs and used cheaper/slower radios?
Grant.
Yes, the number one problem with almost any cellophone is bad antennas. Poor construction and placement of an antenna can cut your network speed to a crawl. Cheap parts can cause everything from feedback to interference issues.
But if I was going to guess why the cheaper phones have problems, software. They have been either software disabled or firmware disabled. This is not related to cpu or any hardware stats, even using inferior parts that have a high failure rate and have been low binned chips would exceed the data specs for a 3g/4g connection. They could be software crippled, firmware or driver. Which is what they did for the htc evo. Even though it can go up to 15mbps, the phone does throttle itself down to 4-8mbps.
Combine a low binned part, add on firmware restrictions and software management for network and battery, it is possible to reduced the speed.
But that is social engineering not hardware engineering. Hardware is what we are talking about. Which is designed to go as fast as possible.
