The HTC 10 Review
by Joshua Ho on September 19, 2016 8:00 AM ESTWiFi Performance with Ixia IoT
As previously discussed, RF testing has always been a major unknown to some extent because environmental factors make it extremely difficult to tell exactly what is going on with the system. I don’t think it really needs to be said but previous reviews and any controversy regarding the quality of RF has always lead to a ring of confusion and back and forth with no clear-cut answers, at least in the public domain. The Transformer Prime and Pixel C reception issues have all been cases where I’ve seen a lot of confusion over whether a problem really existed in the hardware, software, or with the end user.
Most people really don’t have any understanding of how wireless transmission works, probably because it’s not really something you can see. As far as I know, no one is capable of seeing radio waves, even at high frequencies like 60 GHz. Of course, the problem is that for quite some time our testing was also not really ideal for seeing the quality of an RF implementation. While iPerf does provide some useful data, free space testing means that we’re dealing with channel conditions that inherently cannot be controlled. As a result, the only sensible test we could do with iPerf was focus on maximum throughput in the best conditions we could provide. The only thing that this can highlight is the upper bound of efficiency for WiFi due to the carrier sense multiple access scheme in most cases, and rarely detects a whole class of problems that affect user experience on WiFi.
In order to test these things we’ve moved to using a proper testing system that is actually used by at least a few OEMs today, namely Ixia IoT. While we discussed the possibilities for testing, at this time due to the RF isolation chamber used we are limited to AP simulation only, so we can’t properly simulate clients in the channel without restricting ourselves to a single spatial stream for both the AP and client. This wouldn’t be a very useful test if set up in this manner as most devices today that we’re testing have support for two spatial streams, and many routers have three or even four spatial streams at this point.
The first set of results we can talk about that will be of interest is rate vs range. This is a fairly simple test at a conceptual level, as it simply tries to see how well a device can maintain its performance in the face of reducing signal to noise ratio for a given modulation and coding scheme. This is a good high level test of how well a device can maintain a connection as reception degrades. In this test the HTC 10 had an initial RSSI of -28 dBm while the GS7 was at -21 dBm and the iPhone 6s at -22 dBm, which allows us to calculate the path loss and determine the RSSI as a function of the transmit power.
The results of this test are interesting to say the least. Off the bat, every device had different RSSIs measured, so this meant that everything had different levels of path loss. The HTC 10 seemed to have the most path loss, while the Galaxy S7 and iPhone 6s were functionally identical. However it looks like RSSI is really an insufficient metric here because while the iPhone 6s was able to reach maximum throughput using NSS 2 MCS 8, the HTC 10 and Galaxy S7 did its best at NSS 2 MCS 4 or 5. I suspect this may be just due to placement as device positioning strongly affects MIMO as receive-side spatial correlation reduces the gains that MIMO can provide. Regardless, the HTC 10 somehow manages to beat the Galaxy S7 through much of the curve, but for some reason suffers from a reduction in throughput at higher transmit power. It's worth mentioning though that this test doesn't allow for testing of antenna gain or similar tests. Given various levels of futzing about with the device positioning in the test chamber I'm fairly confident that the Galaxy S7 is consistently better with regard to path loss, so even if it doesn't perform as well at a given RSSI it tends to have a higher RSSI than the HTC 10 by about 5 dBm which is fairly significant. I'm hoping to get some true antenna efficiency measurements with 3D plots in the near future so we can really give some real data on everything relevant here but for now this test highlights fairly well how WiFi performance varies.
Finally, the other test that we can run at this time is the roaming latency test, which tests how well a device can hop from one access point to another as the received transmit power rises and falls. If you ever rely on WiFi to work as you walk around any building larger than a single apartment unit, you’re going to feel the effects of high roaming latency as VOIP calls or any real-time network application will either experience interruption or drop altogether if roaming is not implemented properly.
Like the Galaxy S7, the HTC 10 really struggles with WiFi roaming as it seems almost universal that Android OEMs aren't really paying attention to anything that we don't test. The HTC 10 tended to not fail handover as often as the Galaxy S7 with only one failure out of 64 trials and fairly consistent latency around 110ms though. This is a bit of a surprise considering that the HTC 10 is generally considered in the broader discourse to have worse WiFi across the board compared to the Galaxy S7. Considering how much smaller HTC is this is really kind of strange to see. Just about anything will outperform the Pixel C though. Either way, HTC still should improve here, especially when considering how most schools and offices need good WiFi to make up for areas with cellular coverage gaps.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
183 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
The only worthwhile android device is a $100 android device like the Moto G Play or something. Why waste money on something that is going to lose all its value in a year to get virtually the same experience.I don't get the concept behind premium android devices. Just makes no sense. The most expensive one I've ever considered is perhaps the $300 OnePlus.
Murloc - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
I guess taking decent pictures or playing 3D games.I don't do that, so I don't buy high end phones.
Murloc - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
this isn't any different for iOS or WP devices btwphilehidiot - Tuesday, September 20, 2016 - link
I can absolutely see your point. But conversely my girlfriend bought a cheap Android phone and regretted it massively. Granted it was a crap one but she ended up using my 3 year old flagship device which still works brilliantly. The difference is that now she will use her phone for a lot more, including navigation (which destroyed the battery on the old device and couldn't keep up), youtube (useful for reference when doing something on the car or cooking and you don't have a laptop handy) as well as the much better camera. When previously she wouldn't have bothered using the smartphone camera she now does because a) it's not shite and b) the high quality screen means it's actually worth looking at and sharing photos on the phone. The other thing to remember is that the cameras on many a high end smartphone are approaching what you'd get in many compact cameras (albeit without optical zoom) according to Which? magazine here in the UK. Whilst this is debateable by photography nuts it does mean for the average Joe we get a decent enough camera in our pockets all the time. Not only does this mean you always have a decent camera but it means you don't have to buy one - the savings of which you can add to your device budget. You also have the added advantage of your photos being backed up to the cloud and so if your phone does get nicked then you still have the data. This is not something most stand alone cameras can do as they don't have a mobile data connection.I can see your point but when you have a high end phone and use it for a while it's unlikely you'll want to go back. Myself I go through two whole battery charges a day on my M9 (multiple factors but screen on time is the biggest) and that's simply because I use it for reference during work, emails, reading and editing presentations (try watching a powerpoint presentation with attached videos on a low end device), youtube and web browsing at lunch time and a massive mix of things in between including reading in the pub which isn't exactly pleasant after a while on a low end screen. The other advantage to a high end phone is it's more likely to be supported with security and OS updates throughout the product's lifespan. Partly because it has the power to run the newer features (like split screen multitasking - something I'm looking forward to) and partly because that's what the extra profit margin paid towards. You'll also find that, as software is developed based on the average specs out in the wild, as the average phone spec rises you'll be left behind - this means that applications are updated (mandatorily), you'll often find them slowing down over time as they are aiming for higher and higher specifications over the couple of years you own the device.
Whilst there are some damned good low-mid range Android phones out there, I feel that they are ultimately let down by screen, camera, R&D and long term support. I use my phone to such an extent that it's worth every penny to get something that works properly.
Sorry for the long post but I thought you made such a good point about lower end devices that you deserved someone who does invest in a high end model justifying their reasons why.
darkich - Tuesday, September 27, 2016 - link
^ great post, with which I agree completely, aside from the part about understanding the point to which you replied to.I really doubt Samus has used a true high end Android device enough to warrant an credible opinion.
And he's obviously missing the whole world-changing paradigm of computing that's happening before his eyes.
I suggest him to go read the first and last paragraphs of the Note 7 review on the Verge..that guy simply nailed it.
And that's exactly why myself, after using a Note 3 for three years as my main computer, camera, media and gaming device (still serves me amazingly well but the physical wear and tear started to show, the camera and GPU have become outdated, as well as the battery endurance), am now left waiting for the Note 7 re-release.
There's just no alternative for me.
londedoganet - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
Oh, is that why every second comment on any article is "where's the HTC 10 review, Anandtech has sold its soul and become Apple shills, even Anand has gone to work for Apple"?jfallen - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
All this in-depth review of the display but not once did you care to look at it though a set of polarized glasses...If you did you'll note that they polarized the display so that the screen appears black when holding the phone in the normal up-right position while wearing polarized sunnies... UNFORGIVABLE!!! design decision and that's why I don't one.
Still rocking the HTC ONE M7 with it's unpolarised screen, MHC and dual front speakers. The original and still the best ;)
ToTTenTranz - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
I suffer from this issue with my HTC Butterfly 3 (exclusive japanese model that is pretty much what the M9 should've been), which seems to have this very same 5.2" 1440p screen.I have to say it really bothers me having to hold the phone in landscape if I'm wearing my polarized Oakleys.
Demi9OD - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
I use a matte screen protector and don't have any problems.ChronoReverse - Monday, September 19, 2016 - link
After I put on my TGSP (Orzly), the polarization issue was resolved for mine (Tianma panel)