Cellular

The cellular side of the Moto G is an interesting one, at least for those who have kept constantly abreast of wireless banding configurations and the state of mobile RF. At the high end, pentaband WCDMA is now essentially ubiquitous, with parity LTE banding (given the shared nature of ports on the transceiver) and at least a handful more bands for whatever’s appropriate to the region. There’s no global LTE band combination equivalent to quad band GSM or pentaband WCDMA that has emerged quite yet, but it’s getting there, and in the next generation or two we’ll undoubtedly finally see it come to fruition.

  Moto G
(US GSM)
Moto G
(Global GSM)
Moto G
(CDMA)
Baseband MSM8x26 - (Up to HSDPA 21.1 Enabled, EVDO Rev.A for CDMA)
Transceiver WTR2605/WFR2600 (?)
GSM 850/900/1800/1900 MHz -
CDMA2000 BC: 0/1/10 - 850, 1900 MHz
WCDMA 850, 1700/2100 (AWS), 1900 MHz
(Bands 2, 4, 5)
850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz
(Bands 1,2,5,8)
-
LTE - - -

The Moto G however comes in a number of different flavors with different band combinations – there’s US GSM, Global GSM, and CDMA. I also suspect there’s at least one more dual SIM variant that we haven’t seen crop up just yet (Update: Apparently this exists already, XT1033 is the dual SIM variant, thanks @evefavretto). On the back case of Moto G there’s a space whose shape matches the microSIM tray at top, and on the board there’s a shield covering pads that are undoubtedly for a microSIM. Interestingly enough Motorola sampled me the Global GSM variant of the Moto G which lacks Band 4. I’ve been using it on T-Mobile successfully however thanks to the relative ubiquity of the 1900 MHz WCDMA carrier in my market. The US GSM variant of the Moto G trades Band 4 for 1 and 8 (2100 and 900 MHz), two popular bands internationally. I’ve seen Moto G erroneously listed as being a pentaband WCDMA phone, which it unfortunately isn’t.


Primary Rx/Tx at bottom, Diversity Rx up top, WLAN/BT, GNSS Rx

Moto G does offer a leg up with receive diversity for CDMA1x/EVDO and HSPA+, something that some HSPA+ flagships from this generation amazingly enough still don’t include. The transceiver is WTR2605 for the primary Rx and Tx ports, and WFR2600 for the additional Rx diversity path. I have no idea what the port configurations look like for WTR2605, but I’d imagine it looks like a cut down WTR1605 of some kind. I have a suspicion that WTR2605 was designed for a quad band UMTS configuration with Bands 1,2,5, and 8, so it might indeed already be port limited in the Global GSM Moto G variant. I also wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some ready made front end module at the front of the whole thing.

Moto G arrives without LTE and instead offers up to single carrier HSPA+ with 64QAM, for up to 21 Mbps on the downlink. Although MSM8x26 itself has a modem block capable of up to dual carrier HSPA+ and category 4 LTE, it seems as though Motorola went for single carrier HSPA+ in the Moto G for time to market reasons, with the LTE and dual-carrier HSPA+ enabled software tree likely slotting in a quarter later than the initial code drop with single carrier HSPA+.

 
Not bad for single carrier HSPA+ on T-Mobile USA 

I’ve been pretty pleased with the cellular performance of the Moto G, even using the variant that lacks Band 4 on T-Mobile USA. Not having LTE made me initially skeptical of it getting operator traction in the US, but it seems as though Motorola has actually had success at least on some prepaid tiers. I’ve been spoiled with LTE devices for a long time now, but single carrier HSPA+ is absolutely still survivable.

WLAN

WiFi connectivity on Moto G is single band 2.4 GHz 802.11n with BT 4.0 and FM receive. On the Moto G, that connectivity is courtesy the new WCN3620 BT/FM/WLAN RF combo chip in a wafer scale package. We’ve now seen WCN3660, the initial dual band combo, then WCN3680 which added 802.11ac, and now WCN3620, the cost reduced version which is single band 802.11n and no doubt offered at a competitive price point with the rest of the platform.

The WLAN/BT stack doesn’t do any antenna sharing and instead has its own transmit and receive path on the top of the Moto G. I don’t have any complaints about WLAN range on the Moto G.

To evaluate performance we turn to the same iPerf test same as always. I was able to attach the Moto G to my network at the 65 Mbps PHY rate that corresponds to long guard interval with a 20 MHz channel.

WiFi Performance - iPerf

Performance is pretty decent at just over 50 Mbps. It’s a significant delta over the latest devices with dual band 80 MHz 802.11ac support, but again, totally solid relative to the tier it’s in.

Speakerphone and Noise Canceling

Speakerphone on the Moto G seems to be a big chamber if you take the back off, but there’s a relatively small seal against the whole affair, although the grille has larger holes than Moto X’s relatively tiny ones. Loudness is competitive, but unsurprisingly short of Moto X.

Speakerphone Volume - 3 inches Away

I’d describe Moto G’s speaker as decent, not overly loud or rich sounding.

Dual microphone noise suppression is still a somewhat notable feature at the midrange. In the case of Moto G, Qualcomm’s Fluence package is used in a configuration with the primary microphone at bottom and secondary at very top. I did some digging and also found that Moto G is using Qualcomm’s WCD9302 audio codec which we haven’t seen before, again a more midrange variant. I’ll leave the earphone/line out audio testing for Chris to evaluate.

Noise suppression on the Moto G is decent, but seems to have longer adaptation time than the Moto X. Using the exact same setup, I definitely noticed better rejection on Moto X as well, with less noise being passed through at the same volume level. I should also note that the Moto G does not appear to be AMR-WB enabled on T-Mobile.

GNSS

GNSS onboard the Moto G is the same Gen 8B as we’ve seen on 8974, which translates to support for GPS (USA “Navstar”), GLONASS (Russia), and Beidou (China), although the spec table for Moto G only lists GPS and GLONASS, leading me to believe Beidou might be reserved for devices destined for China. There’s a discrete antenna for GNSS on the Moto G, and I had no issues with getting fast, accurate 3D fixes. I remain impressed with Qualcomm’s GNSS which obviously benefits from integration right into the SoC.

Camera - Still and Video Conclusions
Comments Locked

120 Comments

View All Comments

  • bhima - Monday, December 23, 2013 - link

    The market are people that, for example, pay only $25 a month each on a T-mo family plan and they don't want to drop an extra $30 a month for 2 years for a phone, Or sign up for a contract with ATT/Verizon and blow easily $60+ a month. 500mb of data at HSPA+ speed (9mbps in my area) with no overage charge, unlimited talk and text for $25 a month makes this phone a huge winner to those willing to look for a good experience without burning a hole in your wallet.
  • teiglin - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link

    Every time I read reviews of this I'm surprised at how closely MSM8x26 performs to flagships from as recently as last year. Obviously it isn't really in the running compared to 8974, Apple A7, Exynos 5250, etc., much less APQ8064, so I think this says more embarassing things about companies that shipped quad-A9 flagships in mid-to-late-2012, but still, the end result is that the display and silicon leads to an experience comparable to (if not better than) a GS3 i9300. This is pretty surreal at the sub-$200 price point, while a new i9300 still goes for ~$400. Of course there are other sacrifices and if we're talking about $400 life begins and ends with the Nexus 5, but still, Motorola has really accomplished something with the Moto G. This is the phone I'd buy for my son if he were five years older; hopefully by the time he's old enough to have his own smartphone, Motorola will be still have something comparable on sale so he can get a quality device at this price point.
  • teiglin - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link

    Exynos 5420. Not really sure where 5250 came from, but... things
  • sayash - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link

    5250 is now more than a year old, it was the soc in the nexus 10, so yeah.
  • Bobs_Your_Uncle - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link

    By the way, how's that Nokia 1020 review coming?
  • Klug4Pres - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link

    Brian, I am curious about the impact of operating system version on the benchmark comparisons. Presumably the results in your tables are based on whatever version was installed at the time of initial testing, which is perfectly reasonable.

    However, it would be interesting to gauge the impact of, for example, new Android versions on a device's scores. Is there an appreciable change in performance going from, say, 4.2 to 4.3 or 4.4 on Nexus 4?

    I realise it would be a lot of work to try to update all benchmarks on every software release across every OEM, and anyway you do not necessarily retain access to most of the devices you test, but this might be feasible on just the Nexus devices, which I have a feeling you tend to keep around. On the other hand, maybe the results aren't really very interesting.
  • Qwertilot - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link

    Fascinating to see what happens with and its relatives/competition in next few years.

    In a sane world this sort of thing would take huge chunks of the market for high end phones. The current market with the very expensive ultra high end models selling so much at such premiums surely can't be sustainable long term.

    Only thing is that I'm not sure how rational this market is :)
  • uhuznaa - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link

    With smartphones and tablets becoming a mass-market it will be as rational as any other market. Like clothing, shoes or food. Which means not very rational, there will be room for huge price spans and very different products, some of them rational and others not at all. This is hard to digest for geeks, I know.
  • Qwertilot - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link

    True. The special thing for the mobile market is the rather big locked in distortions via contracts/subsidies etc.

    Certainly nice to have this sort of option around.
  • ESC2000 - Monday, December 23, 2013 - link

    problem is that the average person thinks s/he needs the newest shiniest most powerful device that she will probably never take advantage of, and the up front subsidy (but pay out the rear) system facilitates the impulse to purchase an overly powerful device in the US by making Americans less price sensitive. It is really annoying to listen to people who think a small very powerful computer that pushes more pixels than their laptop only costs - and should only cost - $200 at most.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now