Related
2G vs. 3G
2G Advantage:
• way better battery life
3G Advantage:
• faster data connection
This is a subjective question> Is it worth it at the expense of increased battery consumption?
I have an HTC Diamond with a small 900 mAh battery. So for me, I mostly put mine into 2G and switch to 3G when I use my data connection.
Question: is 2G = 3G when it comes to voice quality? (I can't tell the difference)
...and are there any other 3G advantages that I have missed?
Technically 3G is used for voice as well, but whether you're on GPRS/EDGE/3G I don't think there's a noticeable difference. As for if 3G is worth it? Without question. I'm a huuuuge fan of Android, and I'm dying to get a phone that works with AT&T 3G... Obviously I was greatly disappointed when the Agora Pro was delayed. The G1 seems like the perfect phone for me in every way (except maybe build quality), GPS, WiFi, capacitive screen... But I refuse to buy any phone that doesn't give me 3G, EDGE is painful when you're used to HSPA.
"• can make/receive a call/txt while connected to the Internet (never miss a call)"
thats not a 3g thing thats a cell-phone operator equipment thing
i never lost a call because of grps
thats the real reason that grps was invented to replace
old cell-phone data traffic where you had to call the isp to get
Internet
I don't think it's the right question to ask.
besides the fact that it's individual, 3G and 2G are completely different.
2G provides the regular services which you don't need anything more for.
3G provides services which 2G does not and you will use only if you need them.
so the question is "what do you need?"
I have a polaris on 2G ALL the time... unless I want to connect to the internet.
(just a for instance)
btw, 3G is WAY "less healthy"
for instance, in israel, 2G broadcasts make your phone cast 0.042mW/kb
3G makes it cast 0.43mW/kb. it's like swimming in an ocean of endless EM waves.
that's of course, for an average phone, for full signal
nir36 said:
I don't think it's the right question to ask.
besides the fact that it's individual, 3G and 2G are completely different.
2G provides the regular services which you don't need anything more for.
3G provides services which 2G does not and you will use only if you need them.
so the question is "what do you need?"
I have a polaris on 2G ALL the time... unless you want to connect to the internet.
(just a for instance)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah well, 3G is a data transfer speed. If you're not using data, there's no reason to have 3G.
Ok, then should the question be.........
E vs. 3G.....regarding call quality & battery consumption
Is there a difference?
or
What radio mode will consume the least amount of battery, Edge or 3G?
Edge consumes a lot less battery than 3G.
Call quality is the same....
Ok, so I will stick with Edge as my basis and switch when I need to use my data connection.
you don't need Edge either for calls. call quality doesn't change from 2G to Edge to 3G to 10G. voice is sampled in 44kHz at best. let's say 22kHz. 22kHz is nothing compared to what 2G can transfer. even if you use Shannon's formula you still get a very high value for 2G data transfer. Edge isn't better than 2G unless you want faster data transfer rate... edge can transfer up to 237kbps per 4 time slots. you need no more than 48kbps.
btw.. just as a general remark. human speech moves between... 20hz to about 3khz. 22khz/48khz is required to transfer music through your phone.
nir36 said:
voice is sampled in 44kHz at best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both 2(.5/.75)G and 3G uses GSM encoding (with a very low sampling frequency); that is, the audio quality is exactly the same with the two.
galaxys said:
Edge consumes a lot less battery than 3G.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is particularly true when actively transferring data, and (to a much lesser degree) when just using the phone. I've measured huge (~50%) differences on contemporary handsets - see my dedicated articles if interested.
nir36 said:
3G is WAY "less healthy"
for instance, in israel, 2G broadcasts make your phone cast 0.042mW/kb
3G makes it cast 0.43mW/kb. it's like swimming in an ocean of endless EM waves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have any links on this? This is quite big a difference and I'd say, at least under "normal" circumstances, the difference shouldn't be that big.
As CDMA is somewhat more battery-friendly than TDMA (it can transfer the same info using less power), the difference is mostly because of the difference between the carrier (850/900 MHz vs. 1700+ MHz; the higher the freuency, the more power you require to traverse the same distance with the same SNR). That is, with a GSM operator operating at much higher frequencies than 900 MHz, there shouldn't be much difference.
(And, of course, a lot of other factors should also be considered: does the operator use the same radio turn to put all their aerials on etc. If, for some reason, you have a far better 3G SNR than GSM SNR, then, your handheld should use much lower transfer power.)
This is a matter of choices
Each one of us will pick a phone (and a band and a carrier) based on our own needs
In my personal usage, I need FAST INTERNET, so I chose 3G (HSDPA)
I also chose the Xperia X1 because it has a BIG battery
Now I have 3G SPEED and 1.5 days battery life with heavy usage
Menneisyys said:
Both 2(.5/.75)G and 3G uses GSM encoding (with a very low sampling frequency); that is, the audio quality is exactly the same with the two.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's great to hear. Well to conserve power, my choice will be to disable 3G using Communication Manager. When I do this, the 3G icon in the task bar switches to E.
Will switch to 3G only when I need to use the internet.
Perfect ! Thanks for helping me with this everyone
Menneisyys said:
Do you have any links on this? This is quite big a difference and I'd say, at least under "normal" circumstances, the difference shouldn't be that big.
As CDMA is somewhat more battery-friendly than TDMA (it can transfer the same info using less power), the difference is mostly because of the difference between the carrier (850/900 MHz vs. 1700+ MHz; the higher the freuency, the more power you require to traverse the same distance with the same SNR). That is, with a GSM operator operating at much higher frequencies than 900 MHz, there shouldn't be much difference.
(And, of course, a lot of other factors should also be considered: does the operator use the same radio turn to put all their aerials on etc. If, for some reason, you have a far better 3G SNR than GSM SNR, then, your handheld should use much lower transfer power.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first of all, let me correct my mistake. it's not 0.43 for 3G it's 0.23mW/kb. but that's still VERY high.
I'll try to look it up as i got this info from a friend who worked in orange. but this obviously depends on many factors other than your device. the more relays you have spread around your area, the less power your phone needs to retrieve a normal signal. they're not ALL arranged according to the hexagon method... or the Threeway method.
I'm talking about average power. the closer you are to the relay, the less power you need, but your brain is fried from the relay itself so you can't really run away from it.
FORTUNATELY, power dissipates by 1/r^2 so if you're about 60-70cm away from your phone the effect will be extremely minimal.
"Yeah well, 3G is a data transfer speed. If you're not using data, there's no reason to have 3G."
here we can also use it for video calls directly to another phone number as in not real internet
but nobody use it i think
maybe the problem is that females will spend ½hour freshning up before answering their phones jk
video calls are only different by requiring faster data transfer and much higher signal to noise ratio.. which 3G provides. again, it's not a consideratoin whether to use 3G or not. only if you need to use a video call should you switch to 3G
2G vs 3G......What about (Edge vs 3G)
Wow, some good feedback has been generated here.
Phone use:
• 3G.......is NOT worth it here unless you are video calling
Data Connection:
• 3G.......is worth it here (way faster) even though battery consumption increases nicely
Before concluding with the above, would like to clear up what Edge is:
EDGE can be considered a 3G radio technology and is part of ITU's 3G definition,[1] but is most frequently referred to as 2.75G
Based on the definition here, does anyone believe that using Edge is best when using the phone for the sake of decreasing battery consumption? I believe it should be. Any thoughts?
Actually, EDGE can't be considered as 3G techwise.. and it doesn't have the same data transfer rate as 3G provided by an HSDPA connection.
this is from wikipedia
High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA) is a 3G (third generation) mobile telephony communications protocol in the High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) family, which allows networks based on Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) to have higher data transfer speeds and capacity. Current HSDPA deployments support down-link speeds of 1.8, 3.6, 7.2 and 14.4 Mbit/s. Further speed increases are available with HSPA+, which provides speeds of up to 42 Mbit/s downlink.[1]
EDGE only gets to 430kbps AT BEST. the AT BEST part NEVER comes
it's true that EDGE consumes less battery
and it's true that 3G is much faster
but it's also true that this all depends on your needs.
Orange Israel doesn't support EDGE. if they did i would be using it all the time instead of 3G when i need an internet connection.. since i don't need 1.8Mbps..
eventually, i believe there's no debate about what to use.
2G is the best way to go when you do everything but using the internet and video calls.
and then choosing between EDGE and 3G(HSDPA, UMTS.. or whatever you wanna call it) depends on how fast you want your internet connection to be while considering that EDGE consumes MUCH MUCH less battery power.
btw, if you asked me, i woldn't think twice whether you should have a 3G phone or not. having 3G support on your phone nowadays costs nothing more than having a reulgar 2G phone.. so having the option whether to use 3G or not is obviously better than not having it.
band27 said:
EDGE can be considered a 3G radio technology and is part of ITU's 3G definition,[1] but is most frequently referred to as 2.75G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
tehcnically, EDGE (which is a plain TDMA technology, as is GSM) in no way can be compared to 3G technologies, which are all CDMA.
Hello,
I'm desperately seeking an app, registry entry, or custom Raphael Radio that will allow me to *reduce* the maximum Tx (transmit) power of the main GSM/3G antenna.
My dream is to have a more safe device. I don't mind getting poor reception in concrete elevator shafts, when my phone would be transmitting at maximum power. Instead I would love a reduced maximum Tx power.
The same goes for Wifi. Nokia devices have been able to adjust their Wifi maximum Tx power for years. Even on the very first S60 3rd edition devices that came out in late 2000. 9 Years later, this option is still included with every S60 3rd/5th device out there. 4mW, 10mW and 100mW Are all options for the Wifi antenna.
I dream of the day this would come to out on the Raph. Both increased battery life (with respect to wifi) and increased safety / reduced radiation when it comes to the GSM/3G antenna.
Let's get this working.
There are anti-radiation stickers based on some magnetic technology that absorb the radiation and produce heat.Search in the online shops(I saw them in ebay) for these stickers.
Don't be pushing stickers buddy... You might as well be pushing daises.
The information concerning mobile phones and health are increasing every day. A recent study in Switzerland showed an increase of 240% of brain cancer on the same side that the phone was used on over a period of just 10 years.
A reduction in the amount of Wifi power through the registry or software is very possible, however the amount of SAR emitted from Wifi is negligible in comparison to that from the main GSM/3G antenna. For Wifi on the Raphael the SAR measurement is just 0.05, an average for many mobile phones.
However, the main antenna is a much more concerning 0.31 (850Mhz 3G) or 0.74(1900Mhz 3G) for data operations. For GPRS the Raphael has a very alarming value of 1.34. This is 84% of an already too high legal limit for radiation absorption into us.
How would one edit the radios to reduce the maximum permitted Tx (Transmit) power from the main GSM/3G antenna? It would be great if we could figure this one out!
Thank you for the information.Do you know more for these anti-radiation stickers ? I know that the sticks are based on some magnetic technology and transform the radiation into heat.
Okay, needless to say, operating systems like iOS and Android are improving plus the new processors heading to dual core. However, battery technology is way behind I think. What improvements are needed in this field to get a smartphone working for a week on one charge (not realistic but ideal)?
Fuel cells?
New alloys?
What would work to help our battery technology which is falling behind?
Battery technology is far behind but it has been for over 100 years. For electric cars Toyota claims to have a new battery with 2-3x the power density of current batteries. Although for general purpose I believe Lithium Phosphate is still the current state of the art technology.
Fuel Cells are neat technology but not yet that practical just like 10year miniature nuclear cells.
The biggest problems in my opinion are
1. phone size (everything is getting so thin or small in general) leaving less room for a battery
2. screen size (huge touchscreen = big power draw), and other things too that impact battery life.
3. things that run in the background keeping the phone cpu in something other than its lowest power state
4. screen brightness. Seems trivial but can make a big difference and I think all phones should have ambient light sensors are change automatically.
5. internet connectivity. It goes along with #3 in that it wakes the cpu, but also the current wireless chipsets don't seem all that energy efficient. Using any connectivity cellular, wifi, or bluetooth really eats the battery. Many report turning off wifi, bluetooth, and using 2g when possible significantly improve battery life.
Personally I have the biggest battery I could get for my phone and my laptop too. My 17" laptop runs 4.5 hrs at lowest brightness and 3 hrs at the brightest setting. Most phones aren't much different.
Sorry long rant...... does that break down your question correctly?
landoftheeskimos said:
Battery technology is far behind but it has been for over 100 years. For electric cars Toyota claims to have a new battery with 2-3x the power density of current batteries. Although for general purpose I believe Lithium Phosphate is still the current state of the art technology.
Fuel Cells are neat technology but not yet that practical just like 10year miniature nuclear cells.
The biggest problems in my opinion are
1. phone size (everything is getting so thin or small in general) leaving less room for a battery
2. screen size (huge touchscreen = big power draw), and other things too that impact battery life.
3. things that run in the background keeping the phone cpu in something other than its lowest power state
4. screen brightness. Seems trivial but can make a big difference and I think all phones should have ambient light sensors are change automatically.
5. internet connectivity. It goes along with #3 in that it wakes the cpu, but also the current wireless chipsets don't seem all that energy efficient. Using any connectivity cellular, wifi, or bluetooth really eats the battery. Many report turning off wifi, bluetooth, and using 2g when possible significantly improve battery life.
Personally I have the biggest battery I could get for my phone and my laptop too. My 17" laptop runs 4.5 hrs at lowest brightness and 3 hrs at the brightest setting. Most phones aren't much different.
Sorry long rant...... does that break down your question correctly?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It sure does for me thanks
nova display and amoled plus is good for battery
li-po is more efficient than li-ion
dual core is more efficient about 40% than single core (in ginger bread)
Hey there everyone,
Apologies in advance if this have been covered someplace, I've been searching forums and came up with nothing.
For some reason I had better reception (more bars) with Oxygen OS than CM 12, but my friend who also has his Oneplus on CM 12 who was sitting right beside me has more bars also. I don't know why that would possibly be... but I'd like the best signal I can get, is it possible to flash a modem in case something went wrong with the update?
I had one bar of LTE in my office, and he had a consistant 2 or 3 bars, same carrier, same phone, both the newest generation of sim cards, and both phone extremely well taken care of.
Any suggestions would be amazing. Thank you in advance!
Forget about the bars, they're unreliable. There's no standard, so you're really just seeing arbitrary measurements that can change from phone to phone, ROM to ROM. The only way to accurately measure your signal strength is by going to Settings/About Phone/Status and you'll see your signal strength there measured in dBm. You must remember though, dBm is measured in negative values, so -115dBm is lower strength than -55dBm.
Transmitted via Bacon
timmaaa said:
Forget about the bars, they're unreliable. There's no standard, so you're really just seeing arbitrary measurements that can change from phone to phone, ROM to ROM. The only way to accurately measure your signal strength is by going to Settings/About Phone/Status and you'll see your signal strength there measured in dBm. You must remember though, dBm is measured in negative values, so -115dBm is lower strength than -55dBm.
Transmitted via Bacon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So the closer to zero you are, the better reception you get (taking into consideration negative values)?
I got a Pixel 7 Pro, my first phone with a pressure sensor, which I thought I'd use in an app to compute the current altitude.
The sensor returns values around 1000, as expected at a pretty low altitude.
I logged a lot of values during several walks, and they weren't quite what I expected: What I find strange is there are periods with pretty accurate readings, where the difference between consecutive readings is around 0.01, alternating with periods where the difference between consecutive readings is around 2, which translates to some 15 meters, which is huge for readings taken less than half a second apart. So the latter readings are pretty much useless, unless processed to smooth the values, which is what I'm trying to do now.
I'm attaching a chart, with the readings from one walk, which should help illustrate the issue.
So I wonder if this is something that happens on other (Android) phones (ideally other Pixel 7's, but there aren't too many of these).
Yes. These are cheap uncalibrated sensors designed for mass production and are by no means intended by be accurate.
V0latyle said:
Yes. These are cheap uncalibrated sensors designed for mass production and are by no means intended by be accurate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks!
My issue isn't as much that they are not accurate, but that accuracy changes suddenly and hugely from time to time.
When translated to altitude, the accuracy is around 15 centimeters for several minutes (which I think is good enough for many applications), and then suddenly jumps to 20 meters, and after a while it's back to 15 centimeters, without at least going gradually from one state to another.
ciobi said:
Thanks!
My issue isn't as much that they are not accurate, but that accuracy changes suddenly and hugely from time to time.
When translated to altitude, the accuracy is around 15 centimeters for several minutes (which I think is good enough for many applications), and then suddenly jumps to 20 meters, and after a while it's back to 15 centimeters, without at least going gradually from one state to another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's pretty normal, when you consider the fact that barometric pressure drops about 1 PSI (6.9kPa) for every 2300 feet (698m) of altitude. This means that 20 meters (65 feet) of altitude would be a tiny, tiny difference, enough to be lost in the rather large drift inherent to inaccurate devices.
V0latyle said:
That's pretty normal, when you consider the fact that barometric pressure drops about 1 PSI (6.9kPa) for every 2300 feet (698m) of altitude. This means that 20 meters (65 feet) of altitude would be a tiny, tiny difference, enough to be lost in the rather large drift inherent to inaccurate devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I don't think I was able to express my question well enough, so I'll try one last time:
My question isn't about accuracy, but about consistency, namely the lack of consistency.
I get it that these sensors are not that accurate, and I'm fine with 20 meters errors, as long as they are consistent.
What puzzles me that I get 1000 consistently inaccurate readings over several minutes, followed by another 1000 of accurate readings, without any change in the environment. It's the same app, continuously getting pressure notifications and storing them, and the values I get switch between these 2 states every once in a while (could be 1 minute, could be 30, I didn't find any pattern).
Real data from a run, where new values come some 10 times a second:
In the accurate state: 996.58, 996.56, 996.54, 996.51, 996.51, 996.53, 996.54, 996.53, 996.53, 996.53, 996.55 ... (variations of at most 0.03 between a value and the next)
In the inaccurate state: 994.92, 996.03, 998.74, 994.57, 997.03, 996.06, 999.36, 994.96, 995.61, 995.20, 996.15 ... (variations as large as 4.4 between a value and the next)
ciobi said:
Sorry, I don't think I was able to express my question well enough, so I'll try one last time:
My question isn't about accuracy, but about consistency, namely the lack of consistency.
I get it that these sensors are not that accurate, and I'm fine with 20 meters errors, as long as they are consistent.
What puzzles me that I get 1000 consistently inaccurate readings over several minutes, followed by another 1000 of accurate readings, without any change in the environment. It's the same app, continuously getting pressure notifications and storing them, and the values I get switch between these 2 states every once in a while (could be 1 minute, could be 30, I didn't find any pattern).
Real data from a run, where new values come some 10 times a second:
In the accurate state: 996.58, 996.56, 996.54, 996.51, 996.51, 996.53, 996.54, 996.53, 996.53, 996.53, 996.55 ... (variations of at most 0.03 between a value and the next)
In the inaccurate state: 994.92, 996.03, 998.74, 994.57, 997.03, 996.06, 999.36, 994.96, 995.61, 995.20, 996.15 ... (variations as large as 4.4 between a value and the next)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, this is normal. The sensors are neither accurate nor precise. This means that the pressure measurements may drift constantly.
Think of it as resolution as well as stability. They aren't sensitive enough to detect small changes in atmospheric pressure, and they aren't stable enough to deliver consistent readings all the time. They're cheap mass market consumer devices.
V0latyle said:
Again, this is normal. The sensors are neither accurate nor precise. This means that the pressure measurements may drift constantly.
Think of it as resolution as well as stability. They aren't sensitive enough to detect small changes in atmospheric pressure, and they aren't stable enough to deliver consistent readings all the time. They're cheap mass market consumer devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But they are quite accurate and plenty sensitive for some periods of time. As you can see in the attached chart, when I'm lucky to catch it in an accurate state, I can absolutely tell based on the sensor data when the phone is placed on a chair vs. on the table or on the floor, let alone when I move to a different floor.
I gave you the most reasonable educated answer I could come up with. If you don't accept that answer, it's up to you to find your own.
Cheers