BlackBerry Torch 9800 Review: Keeping RIM's Flame Alive
by Brian Klug on September 1, 2010 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Torch
- BlackBerry
- Mobile
Signal
Signal attenuation due to holding devices is now a very present concern. As usual, we’ve measured the BlackBerry Torch in three different positions and found that the Torch drops around the same amount of signal as other devices, and of course less than the iPhone 4.
The cellular antenna on the Torch is at the bottom, as is the case for most devices. You can see the flex PCB which houses the antenna at the bottom quite easily right here. It's that different color black area at the bottom of the device:
Unsurprisingly, holding the device with the battery cover off and getting as much of my hand in contact with the insulated black surface of antenna as I can (something you wouldn’t ever do in regular use), I can make it drop as much as 21 dB. That's just an example of how getting super close to the radiative surface will attenuate signal - iPhone 4 style. We went through the usual gamut of tests and found that the Torch doesn't drop lots of signal, rather sticking to normal levels of around 15 dB cupped as tightly as possible with the back case on.
| Signal Attenuation Comparison in dB - Lower is Better | |||||||
| Cupping Tightly | Holding Naturally | On an Open Palm | |||||
| BlackBerry Torch | 15.9 | 7.1 | 3.7 | ||||
| Dell Streak | 14.0 | 8.7 | 4.0 | ||||
| Droid X | 15.0 | 5.1 | 4.5 | ||||
| iPhone 4 | 24.6 | 19.8 | 9.2 | ||||
| iPhone 3GS | 14.3 | 1.9 | 0.2 | ||||
| HTC Nexus One | 17.7 | 10.7 | 6.7 | ||||
As an aside, remember that you can quickly change the bar visualizations to numerical strength in dBm and back by holding alt and typing n m l l on the keyboard.
Like other BlackBerries, strength doesn’t go above -70 dBm on UMTS, to see higher signal power, you have to switch to 2G for some reason.
| BlackBerry Torch 9800 Network Support | |||||
| UMTS | 2100 / 1900 / 850 / 800MHz | ||||
| GSM/EDGE | 1900 / 1800 / 900 / 850MHz | ||||
| HSDPA/HSUPA | 7.2Mbps / 384Kbps (UMTS) | ||||
WiFi Performance
Because the BlackBerry browser still doesn't open PDF files directly, and we've been using an 87 MB PDF loaded over WiFi and stored locally to test performance, I had to get a bit creative.
I've shared my love for the "yes" unix command before, and I'll share it again. It's a magical tool that simply prints "y" and a newline. Pipe yes to /dev/null, and you've got an instant CPU benchmark. Pipe it to a text file, you've got a disk benchmark. Do it for a while, and you'll have a positively gigantic file. Did I mention it's also compressible?
For this test, I generated a similar size file using "yes", hosted it like I would the PDF, and loaded it in the BlackBerry browser. Note that the BlackBerry doesn't seem to immediately render the page until the file is fully loaded, as a result we're getting basically the entire WiFi subsystem here, not just how fast the browser loads.
The Torch supports 802.11b/g/n, and I saw it handshake and negotiate at 65 megabits/s with my Airport Extreme. That's just under the usual 72 megabits/s I've seen for 802.11n smartphones. In the test itself, average data rate was a consistent 9.8 megabits/s.
Range on the Torch is almost exactly the same as the other smartphones I've tested, I can make it all the way to the street before losing signal from my AP. That's the same as the Droid X and iPhone 4. It's interesting that the BlackBerry BIS link takes a bit of time to switch to WiFi - it seems like it really wants better signal to hop on, than to hop off. For example, the BlackBerry would join at -7 (RSSI), and hold on to the connection until signal was at -8 (RSSI).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Kamen75 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
Rim needs two different BB lines to meet the needs of the two different types of customers they are selling to. They should have a BlackBerry Professional version of there os for corporate clients and then a "fun" version to sell to the average consumer. These two os's only need differ on a few security points and each gets a different ui, one to look business like and one to look flashy and bright. Underneath they would be the same os and run the same apps. Their current middle of the road, one size fits all approach is turning all customers away.Add in some decent hardware and you would have a competitive BB again. Two year old hardware specs impress nobody.
Zensen - Thursday, September 2, 2010 - link
that's what themes are for...RIM just needs to work on better tools for developers since what they've managed to do on the business level is second to none and I feel the overall improvement of OS 6 has done just enough to grab enough of the spotlight to be fresh yet familiar without being burdened by the lower specs that have dogged it since the its release.
There are still quirks in the OS 6 model that needs addressing such as in the social feeds but nothing that can't be solved via updates and UI changes. OS 6 has thrown away utilitarian menus and brought it up to speed with the other Operating systems. It hasn't leaped over like a triple axel but it's more like a combination of moves that will culminate in a much more successful Blackberry phone in the eyes of the average consumer, hopefully dispelling some of the noise that RIM can't do a touchscreen phone to save themselves.
I'm glad anandtech have finally covered this phone. Good or bad you can rely on these guys for great technical review without putting in ridiculous remarks or bias towards a product that reviews like engadget have seemingly perfected.
zorxd - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
I am disapointed that Acanac fell into the Apple marketing trap which is PPI. Who cares about PPI? Do you really think that it's better to have a 1" 320x480 display than a 4" 480x800? The first one have higher PPI.Apple started to talk about PPI (even before pixel count) when they realized that the competition was going with larger displays. Larger display, with the same resolution, means lower PPI, even if it's better.
What looks sharp is not PPI. It's pixel count. Just hold your 4" 480x800 farther away if you think that pixels are too big. A 1x1 pixel 1000000000000 PPI display is useless.
So please, stop making graphs about the useless metric which is PPI and start comparing what we actually care about: brightness, size, resolution, etc.
raulr - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
Have you actually looked at the iPhone 4 display. It really is quite fantastic. And especially since this review is about the Torch, your display size argument is pointless since the torch is both physically smaller and lower resolution. The point they were making is that the Torch display, while not bad, really doesn't stack up with the current generation of devices.zorxd - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
The iPhone 4 display is one of the best, I agree. Why? Because it has the highest resolution. The PPI have nothing to do with that. The iPhone display would be even better if it was larger, even if that would mean lower PPI.Of course, the phone would probably get larger too, which is a downside.
What I mean is that the highest PPI is never, or at least should never be an priority for any consumer.
The iPhone display would suck if it was 2" instead of 3.5".
MacTheSpoon - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
He is right, though -- nobody cared about PPI before Apple started their marketing. Now suddenly it's the standard by which screens are judged. Weird.I have looked at the iPhone4 screen and while it's nice, it's nowhere near as nice as all the marketing and buzz make it out to be. I cannot read all that sharp yet incredibly tiny web page text without a magnifying glass. I'd say it's about 20% as nice as all the hype. A large screen that lets you see more of your web pages in an actually readable way is certainly nice, too, probably a little bit nicer -- and yet for some reason the iPhone4 gets a pass on this readability issue from all the reviewers, just as Apple hoped. Honestly, having seen the iPhone4 screen, its main benefit is in browsing photos, which look really smooth, but who uses their phone mainly for browsing photos? Not that many people, I'm sure.
I believe that the whole PPI thing came about because Steve Jobs realized his 320x480 screen was getting long in the tooth compared to other phones but a) didn't want to change the dimensions of the current iPhone and b) wanted to make the existing iPhone layout and apps easy to port by simply doubling the screen resolution. So he pushed the PPI angle hard and zombie reviewers got in line.
bplewis24 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
Great post.Brandon
synaesthetic - Friday, September 3, 2010 - link
Lots of people care about PPI, just not so much on smartphones.I hope Apple's obsession with PPI and the Retina Display pushes the trend into *laptops,* so I can finally stop seeing 15.6" laptops with 1366x768 horrible LCDs.
Jabroni444 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
I'm confused by conflicting statements in this review. Half way through the conclusion he says, "I’ve described the Torch as anywhere from a quarter to a half generation behind - I think that’s the best way to describe performance." But, the last sentence is, "The Torch is what RIM should have launched years ago in their stead."Combined with the fact that the Torch both statistically and measured performance wise is no better than the iPhone 3GS or other last-gen phones I don't get the quarter to half generation behind comment.
I'm not sure whether even hardcore RIM users are going to be able to accept weak attempt at getting up-to-date.
tech6 - Wednesday, September 1, 2010 - link
A very balanced review. This device isn't for techno snobs or people who like to show off apps - it's still a business communication device. While anecdotal, I know a number of BB users which looked at Apple and Android but decided to go with the Torch instead. Without exception they are happy as it gives them the new functionality they wanted but without leaving the BB strengths and advantages behind.