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.

  • o_oli@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • Vigge93@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        But that would require 1. The console to support >10 Gbps transfers, 2. Your internet infrastructure to support >10 Gbps in every step of the chain, and 3. The streaming actually using >10 Gbps.

        Either one of these conditions is very unlikely to be fulfilled, let alone all of them.

        • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Seriously this. The next gen routers are pretty expensive.

          I can see in the next 3-4 years where it’s more affordable. For most of the population, they absolutely not ready for this.

      • o_oli@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean 10gb/s is already like 20x more than you would need for that and probably more.

        Having near 50gb/s is like, the bandwidth of an entire university campus going into your phone or something. Like just so overkill. You could stream 4K netflix over 3000 times over literally. Like, what could the use for that ever be? You couldn’t even write or store that much data on your phone lol.

        It’s like saying you are disappointed because your new car is speed restricted to 50000 mph. Like…cool? It ain’t gonna reach that so we’re fine.

        Which is why I asked if it had other benefits like better range or something, presumably that would be the benefit to be hyped over if any.

        • StarDreamer@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s overkill, but 50Gbps is not enough for a Public University these days. A single core switch in NYC can see an average of 2.6Tbps of traffic. You’ll probably need at least 200-400Gbps for an entire university.

          But yeah, still overkill for a phone.

      • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Name a console that has WiFi 7 compatibility. It’s none.

        PS5 has WiFi 6, not even 6E. Xbox Series X has WiFi 5.

        Both have only been around for 2 years and have another 5-6 left before a new gen is released.

        The phone having WiFi 7 is irrelevant if nothing else you have has it.

      • Yttra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wi-Fi 4 (~150mbps max) would probably handle a 4K local stream over remote play just fine if all that mattered was bandwidth, I think…

        Latency/ping is gonna be the real killer, right? Hopefully they’ve made some big improvements along with raw bandwidth

  • StarDreamer@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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.

    • 2nsfw2furious@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months 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@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

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

      • StarDreamer@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months 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.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months 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.

  • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • 2nsfw2furious@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months 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

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

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

  • what_was_not_said@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months 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.