The Most Tangible Feature: LTE Support

As the iPad straddles the divide between the smartphone and the notebook, wireless connectivity is a must to maximize its usefulness. In cities where WiFi is plentiful, opting for cellular connectivity isn't absolutely necessary, but in most of my travels I find that having some form of data plan associated with your tablet makes it a far more useful device.

If you already have a wireless hotspot or can create one through your smartphone, the appeal of a cellular modem in your iPad is diminished. There's still the convenience aspect of simply unlocking your tablet and having internet access regardless of where you are, and without having to turn on another device or configure a software based personal hotspot.

If you don't have either of these things however, and you plan on using your iPad regularly outside of your home/office, buying one of the cellular enabled versions is a costly but sensible decision.

In the past the iPad was limited to 3G operation, however arguably one of the most tangible improvements with the new iPad is its support for LTE. Through Qualcomm's MDM9600, a 45nm LTE modem with support for EVDO and HSPA+ (but no voice), Apple brings the most complete set of cellular connectivity options we've seen on the iPad.


Qualcomm's MDM9600 in the LTE iPad, courtesy iFixit

Before we get to the discussion of service plans, performance and the personal hotspot, I must stress just how big of an improvement LTE is on the iPad compared to last year's 3G models. Although LTE on a smartphone is pretty amazing, it's even more shocking on a tablet. Assuming your usage model on an iPad is a closer approximation of a notebook usage model, the inclusion of LTE is akin to always being on an extremely fast cable internet connection. Web pages load up just as quickly over LTE as they do over WiFi at my home (since the iPad's WiFi is limited to around 30Mbps in most cases, which ends up being peak downstream for me on AT&T's LTE network here in Raleigh). At my parents' house, where the fastest internet available is 6Mbps DSL, it's actually even faster for me to browse the web on the LTE iPad than it is using their WiFi. Obviously their home internet offers unlimited data transfers, while the LTE iPad does not, but for non-primary use the performance is absolutely worth the entry fee.

I mentioned the LTE connectivity on the new iPad is the most tangible feature of the tablet because the improvement in web page loading times alone makes the tablet feel much faster than its predecessor. While you can argue about how significant the Retina Display is, there's no debating about how much faster LTE is over the 3G iPad 2 models when out of range of WiFi. It's just awesome.

The LTE Breakdown, Carrier/Frequency Support

In the US, Apple makes three versions of the new iPad available: a WiFi-only device that lacks the MDM9600 and its associated components, a Verizon LTE version and an AT&T LTE version. The pricing between the three options is outlined below:

The new iPad Lineup
  16GB 32GB 64GB
WiFi $499 $599 $699
AT&T WiFi + 4G $629 $729 $829
Verizon WiFi + 4G $629 $729 $829

As has always been the case, these's a $130 adder to enable cellular connectivity on the iPad. Apple is making up for slimmer than usual margins on the 16GB WiFi iPads by charging quite a bit for NAND and cellular upgrades. Unfortunately there's no way around the cost (outside of relying on an external hotspot via smartphone/MiFi) and the added functionality is definitely worth it.

Just as before, AT&T and Verizon offer no-contract data plans for use with the new iPad. These plans don't require any activation fee and can be managed on the iPad itself. You can cancel and re-activate at any time:

iPad Data Plans
  $14.99 $20 $30 $50
AT&T 250MB - 3GB 5GB
Verizon - 1GB 2GB 5GB

AT&T offers the better "deal" at $30 per month although both carriers offer the same 5GB limit for $50 per month. Currently only Verizon enables iOS' personal hotspot option on all of its plans for no additional charge. AT&T claims it is working on enabling personal hotspot, however it is currently not available.

Both the AT&T and Verizon versions support the same GSM/UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+ frequencies and ship carrier unlocked so you can swap in any microSIM and use your iPad on a supported network. The table of bands supported by both models is below:

Cellular Network Support
  AT&T WiFi + 4G Verizon WiFi + 4G
4G LTE 700 MHz, AWS 700MHz
EV-DO Rev. A - 800, 1900 MHz
UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA 850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz
GSM/EDGE 850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz

The premise behind shipping the iPad unlocked is to allow users to purchase and use SIM cards from around the world when traveling. As long as the network you're on is supported by the iPad, your microSIM will work.

LTE support is unfortunately confined to North America only. International support is limited to 3G. And although DC-HSPA+ is supported by the new iPad, T-Mobile customers in the US are mostly out of luck. A T-Mobile microSIM will work but unless you're in a market where T-Mobile has enabled W-CDMA on 1900MHz, you'll be limited to EDGE speeds. In theory, if T-Mobile had two available W-CDMA carriers on 1900MHz in your area you could get DC-HSPA+ but that seems highly unlikely given the limited 1900MHz spectrum T-Mobile has available.

Although both AT&T and Verizon have LTE-FDD deployed on 10MHz wide carriers in the US, many AT&T markets use 5MHz carriers. In a 5MHz AT&T LTE-FDD market, assuming all else is equal in terms of deployment and loading, Verizon's network should be significantly faster. The reality of the matter is far more complex. Verizon's LTE network is (presumably) far more utilized as its been in operation for longer than AT&T's. Verizon's carrier bandwidth advantages can easily be eaten up by an increase in active LTE subscribers. On the flip side, there's also the question of deployment strategies. Take Las Vegas for example. As we found at CES, AT&T had great coverage in key areas (e.g. the Las Vegas Convention Center), however at other hotels around the Las Vegas Strip we typically had better luck on Verizon. It's been my personal experience that AT&T's network is either be great or horrible, with very little in between. Verizon on the other hand tends to deploy much more evenly from what I've seen.

Raleigh, NC, my home town, happens to be a 5MHz market for AT&T. With both AT&T and Verizon LTE deployed here, I ran through a combination of nearly 200 speedtests across two LTE iPads around the North Raleigh area:

AT&T LTE vs. Verizon LTE in Raleigh, NC—Downstream
  Average Max Min
AT&T 11.46 Mbps 25.85 Mbps 1.12 Mbps
Verizon 13.33 Mbps 29.52 Mbps 0.33 Mbps

AT&T LTE vs. Verizon LTE in Raleigh, NC—Upstream
  Average Max Min
AT&T 4.44 Mbps 12.35 Mbps 0.07 Mbps
Verizon 4.52 Mbps 19.67 Mbps 0.01 Mbps

AT&T LTE vs. Verizon LTE in Raleigh, NC—Latency
  Average Max Min
AT&T 72.9 ms 120.0 ms 58.0 ms
Verizon 84.1 ms 217.0 ms 60.0 ms

On average, Verizon was faster than AT&T. I measured a 15% advantage in average downstream speed and a similar improvement in latency. The two were roughly equivalent in average upload speeds, with AT&T managing a small 1.8% advantage. The numbers were closer than expected, given that Raleigh is a 5MHz market for AT&T, but I suspect some of the mitigating factors I mentioned above are at work here.

Subjectively, Verizon did seem to be faster more often although I didn't really have any complaints about the performance of the AT&T LTE iPad. Both iPads indicated they remained on LTE although, as you can see from the data above, performance can get very low before officially falling back to 3G.

In the case of the AT&T iPad, if you don't have LTE coverage you first fall back to HSPA+ which can still deliver respectable performance. Verizon iPad owners will unfortunately fall back to EVDO, which can be significantly slower. If Verizon LTE coverage is good in the places you plan on using your iPad then this difference isn't really a big deal. As with any smartphone carrier decision, you need to factor in where you plan on using the device into your decision.

The Display: In Practice The iPad as a Personal Hotspot: Over 25 Hours of Continuous Use
Comments Locked

234 Comments

View All Comments

  • name99 - Friday, March 30, 2012 - link

    Just to clarify, this is NOT some Apple proprietary thing. The Apple ports are following the USB charging spec. This is an optional part of the spec, but any other manufacturer is also welcome to follow it --- if they care about the user experience.
  • darkcrayon - Thursday, March 29, 2012 - link

    All recent Macs (last 2-3 years) can supply additional power via their USB ports which is enough to charge an iPad that's turned on (though probably not if it's working very hard doing something). Most non-Mac computer USB ports can only deliver the standard amount of USB power, which is why you're seeing this.

    Your Lenovo *should* still recharge the iPad if the iPad is locked and sleeping, though it will do so very slowly.
  • dagamer34 - Friday, March 30, 2012 - link

    I did the calculations and it would take about 21 hours to recharge an iPad 3 on a normal non-fast charging USB port from dead to 100%. Keep in mind, we're talking about a battery that's larger in capacity than the 11" MacBook Air.
  • snoozemode - Thursday, March 29, 2012 - link

    http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/snap...
  • Aenean144 - Thursday, March 29, 2012 - link

    Anandtech: "iPhoto is a very tangible example of where Apple could have benefitted from having four CPU cores on A5X"

    Is iPhoto really a kind of app that can actually take advantage of 2 cores? If there are batch image processing type functionality, certainly, though I don't know if iPhoto for iOS has this type of functionality. The slowness could just be from a 1.0 product and further tuning and refinement will fix it.

    I'm typically highly skeptical of the generic "if the app is multithreaded, it can make use of all of the cores" line of thought. Basically all of the threads, save one, are typically just waiting on user input.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, March 29, 2012 - link

    It very well could be that iOS iPhoto isn't well written, but in using the editing tools I can typically use 60 - 95% of the A5X's two hardware threads. Two more cores, at the bare minimum, would improve UI responsiveness as it gives the scheduler another, lightly scheduled core to target.

    Alternatively, a 50% increase in operating frequency and an improvement in IPC could result in the same net benefit.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • shompa - Friday, March 30, 2012 - link

    *hint* Use top on a iOS/Android device and you will see 30-60 processes at all time. The single threaded, single program thinking is Windows specific and have been solved on Unix since late 1960. Todays Windows phones are all single threaded because windows kernel is not good at Multit hreding.

    With many processes running, it will always be beneficial to have additional cores. Apple have also solved it in OSX by adding Grand central dispatch in their development tools making multithreaded programs easy.

    Iphoto for Ipad: Editing 3 million pixel will demand huge amount of CPU/GPU time + memory. Apple have so far been able to program elegant solutions around the limits of ARM CPUs by using NOVA SIMD extensions and GPU acceleration. An educated guess is that Iphoto is not fully optimized and will be at later time.

    (the integrated approach gives Apple a huge advantage over Android since Apple can accelerate stuff with SIMDs. Google does not control the hardware and can therefore not optimize its code. That is one of the reasons why single core A4 was almost as fast as dual core Tegras. I was surpassed when Google managed to implement their own acceleration in Andriod 4.X. Instead of SIMD, Google uses GL, since all devices have graphics cards. This is the best feuture in Android 4.x.)
  • name99 - Thursday, March 29, 2012 - link

    [/quote]
    Apple’s design lifespan directly correlates to the maturity of the product line as well as the competitiveness of the market the product is in.
    [/quote]

    I think this is completely the wrong way to look at it. Look across the entire Apple product line.
    I'd say a better analysis of chassis is that when a product first comes out, Apple can't be sure how it will be used and perceived, so there is some experimentation with different designs. But as time goes by, the design becomes more and more perfected (yes yes, if you hate Apple we know your feelings about the use of this word) and so there's no need to change until something substantial drives a large change.

    Look, for example, at the evolution of iMac from the Luxo Jr version to the white all-in-on-flatscreen, to the current aluminum-edged flatscreen which is largely unchanged for what, five or six years now. Likewise for the MacBook Pro.
    Look at the MacBook Air. The first two revs showed the same experimentation, trying different curves and angles, but Apple (and I'd say customers) seems to feel that the current wedge shape is optimal --- a definite improvement on the previous MBA models, and without anything that obviously needs to be improved. (Perhaps the sharp edges could be rounded a little, and if someone could work out the mechanicals, perhaps the screen could tilt further back.)

    And people accept and are comfortable with this --- in spite of "people buy Apple as a fashion statement idiocy". No-one will be at all upset if the Ivy League iMacs and MBAs and Mac Minis look like their predecessors (apart from minor changes like USB3 ports) --- in fact people expect it.

    So for iPhone and iPad. Might Apple keep using the same iPhone4 chassis for the next two years, with only minor changes? Why not? There's no obvious improvement it needs.
    (Except, maybe, a magnet on the side like iPad has, so you could slip a book-like case on it that covered the screen, and switched it on by opening the book.)
    Likewise for iPad.

    New must have features in phones/tablets (NFC? near-field charging? waterproof? built-in projector like Samsung Beam?) might change things. But absent those, really, the issue is not "Apple uses two year design cycles", it is "Apple perfects the design, then sticks with it".
  • mr_ripley - Thursday, March 29, 2012 - link

    "In situations where a game is available in both the iOS app store as well as NVIDIA's Tegra Zone, NVIDIA generally delivers a comparable gaming experience to what you get on the iPad... The iPad's GPU performance advantage just isn't evident in those cases..."

    Would you expect it to be if all the games you compare have not been optimized for the new ipad yet? They run at great frame rates but suffer in visuals or are only available at ipad 2 resolutions. The tegra zone games are clearly optimized for Tegra while their iOS counterparts are not optimized for the A5x, so of course the GPU advantage is not evident.

    This comparison does not seem fair unless there is a valid reason to believe that the tegra zone games cannot be further enhanced/optimized to take advantage of the new ipad hardware.

    I suspect that the tegra zone games optimized for A5x will offer a tangibly superior performance and experience. And the fact that the real world performance suffers today does not mean we will not see it shortly.
  • Steelbom - Thursday, March 29, 2012 - link

    Exactly this.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now