Alright, so I performed a speedtest to see how my Wifi is doing.
2 bars; in my bedroom. I get from 8 to 3 Mbps.
4 bars; standing directly beside the Wifi router. I get 15-33 Mbps.
I had 8 Mbps at 2 bars when I had Balanced mode on, and 3 Mpbs 2 bars when I turned on Performance mode. However, I got 15 Mbps 4 bars on Balanced mode and 33 Mbps 4 bars on Performance mode. What...? That makes no sense. So I get a better signal far away when I'm on Balanced mode, and a worse signal far away when in Performance. Hm. I got high MS response times whenever I was in Performance mode, no matter where I was, 2 bars or 4 bars.
I am on the latest .14 update.
I even made a nice little picture for everyone to describe this visually.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Also note: I ran speedtest.net on my desktop, which is in my bedroom (where my Prime gets 2 bars), and it gets 37 Mbps.
The power mode should have no real impact on WiFi performance. Looking at your numbers they are kinda all over the place regardless of power mode or distance. Since you only posted 2 speeds on high performance mode and one of them is high and the other is low, I would assume something was holding your networks attention during the test where you got lower speeds.
Realistically you need to run a speed test a dozen times or so with a given distance and setting and then average the results in order to get any kind of meaningful numbers for comparison.
However in very basic terms, the closer you are to your WiFi source and the stronger your signal is, the faster your speeds will be. Having said that there are an thousand factors not visible to you that can affect a simple speed test.
Alright, so I did some more speed tests. The performance mode does not effect the Wifi, I was just being a bit paranoid.
However, in my room, I'll get anywhere from 4 Mbps up to 15 Mbps. Usually I get 6-8. (Again, this is at two bars.)
It's really annoying that even when the tablet is sitting literally right next to the router, I'm getting 33 Mbps, yet my desktop is getting 37 and up to 45 when I'm in the bedroom.
No, I don't expect Desktop-level Wifi performance, but this is just strange.
EDIT: If anyone's wondering, I have a 50 Mbps internet. (However, like most ISPs, it's never truly going to be at their advertised speeds.)
The wifi performance on this Prime is making it really hard to keep it. My laptop can stream a1080p movie over my wireless router, but sitting right next to the laptop the prime can barely even load a web page. The router is all of 30ft away.
Wifi performs the same on my desktop and tp but I have a pos wireless card in my ancient pc. I can't tell if I have wifi issues or not. I have always had a bad connection.
airwake said:
The wifi performance on this Prime is making it really hard to keep it. My laptop can stream a1080p movie over my wireless router, but sitting right next to the laptop the prime can barely even load a web page. The router is all of 30ft away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are getting wifi performance that makes the device unusable bring it back or swap it for another one. Wifi performance is a known issue so you should be able to get an RMA either from the location you bought the tab or from Asus.
I got lucky with my Prime as my wifi speeds are basically the same on my Prime as they are on my phone, both of which are just slightly slower than my Windows laptop. Wifi performance really seems to be luck of the draw among the earlier TF Prime units.
Okay, wow, I really shouldn't be so paranoid.
I put my Tablet and phone side-by-side and ran at least 6 speed tests on each one. Also, I went in and manually changed the host server, which made the speeds higher.
My phone got around 10 Mbps while my tablet consistently got 16 Mbps.
Have to say that relying on real-life usage is probably more important than speed tests.
airwake said:
The wifi performance on this Prime is making it really hard to keep it. My laptop can stream a1080p movie over my wireless router, but sitting right next to the laptop the prime can barely even load a web page. The router is all of 30ft away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What kind of a router is it, wireless G? lol.
I have occasional issues, but on my prime its more dependent on what router im connected to.
my wrt54gl with dd-wrt works well i turned up the power on it, i tested the asus rt-n12 thats good i can stream 720p. basically anything with 2 antennas has worked well with my prime but single antenna ones are only good within like 5 metres
For me, I am getting better speed on my Prime than on my phone (Galaxy Nexus) but when compared to a laptop it seems to be dependent on the network. On my home network, I get really slow speed from my prime compared to my laptop but if I try on the college network I would get about the same speed. I highly suspect it is a problem with the Wifi driver on the Prime. My laptop was also getting bad speed on my home network until I updated the driver.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
Related
everyone knows that using 3g as opposed to 4g when u have a choice saves a significant amount of battery life. but i read somewhere that it's possible to set your phone to use 4g ONLY as opposed to 4G + 3G if 4g isnt avil.
For people like me who live in LA, 4g is almost everywhere. That same article said that if you go with 4G only, the battery life used is almost similar to 3G only, since it's not constantly looking for both 3g/4g signals. can anyone confirm this?
i use an app called "LTE OnOff" And it 1 click takes you to a screen of options between:
1. 4g only
2. 4g & 3g (CDMA)
3. 3g (CDMA)
There's also *#*#4636#*#* for those who don't want to use an app to access the menu.
I just put mine in LTE mode with voice. I am gonna see how that is tomorrow.
I posted this app in a couple other threads. You will still incur the same battery drain with 4G+Voice as you do with 4G/3g.
oh wow okay, so then that option is pretty much useless... theres no real advantage to going 4g only i guess...
thanks for clearing that up, much appreciated.
on a side note, is a true that using launchers increases battery life roughly 20% or so?
im considering going with go launcher ex
I paid for ADW Launcher EX when I had my X2. I haven't taken the leap because I enjoy Sense right now. Someone else may be in your shoes though. Let us know in a couple days if you see a difference.
I have several times switched to 3G only on days when I was out all day in an effort to increase battery life. I saw NO improvement on 3G only. I still saw 1-2% lost per hour in standby.
spoikle said:
everyone knows that using 3g as opposed to 4g when u have a choice saves a significant amount of battery life. but i read somewhere that it's possible to set your phone to use 4g ONLY as opposed to 4G + 3G if 4g isnt avil.
For people like me who live in LA, 4g is almost everywhere. That same article said that if you go with 4G only, the battery life used is almost similar to 3G only, since it's not constantly looking for both 3g/4g signals. can anyone confirm this?
i use an app called "LTE OnOff" And it 1 click takes you to a screen of options between:
1. 4g only
2. 4g & 3g (CDMA)
3. 3g (CDMA)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have that app but I have different options.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
I also have been using LTE onoff. All I use is LTE w/ voice. I gain about 4 hours of stand bye by using either LTE or CDMA compared to LTE/CDMA.
dpiddy14 said:
I also have been using LTE onoff. All I use is LTE w/ voice. I gain about 4 hours of stand bye by using either LTE or CDMA compared to LTE/CDMA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also have been using LTE onoff. All I use is LTE w/ voice. I gain about 4 hours of stand bye by using either LTE or CDMA compared to LTE/CDMA.
are you sure? because couple posts up, AtLemacks says:
I posted this app in a couple other threads. You will still incur the same battery drain with 4G+Voice as you do with 4G/3g.
You can always try the free version of juice defender, that may help.
Nope juice defender doesn't really seem to help either. As an experiment, I put my phone in airplane mode, off the charger, overnight one night while I slept. I STILL lost an average of 1-2% battery per hour.
It's weird though, the first 10%, from 100 down to 90%, will drain very slow. Once it gets past 90%, it drops rapidly, even in standby, regardless if I'm on 3G only or LTE/Voice or data off it doesn't matter.
I don't see the problem with leaving it on 3g/4g I only saw a battery drain problem when switching between both. being in a solid 4g area, I am amazed at standby time. It seems to almost not move. The phone will never standby completely lossless. 1-2% an hour? That is not bad at all. That is over 3 days. I've done 3g stuff, 4g stuff... Never noticed a difference. Big users... GPS. then netflix streaming. But those make sense because more is on, and netflix is full bore usage.
Even then, I go through 30% in an hour of streaming.
Obviously you're never going to have no battery drain on a device that is powered on because it constantly requires power to keep data in the RAM (unless NVRAM is used). 1-2% drop isn't bad at all, that's probably the least you're going to achieve.
my Incredible on a 1500 mah battery (stock EVO battery), running a leaned stock group ROM and Chad's incredikernel would lose 1% every 2-3 hours in stand by. If I needed to stretch it I would turn data off and go 4 hours before dropping a percent. I don't understand why this phone drains so much in standby even with data off. With the phone on and doing stuff on 4g sure, I never expected the battery to last like my Inc, but 2% an hour in standby with data off sucks.
I would hope that w/ 4G+3G, the phone would really have the LTE radio on for data and the 1xRTT radio on for voice, and only fire-up the EV-DO radio if LTE drops out.
With LTE+Voice, the phone probably does the same basic thing, since Vzw doesn't have VoLTE yet. So LTE radio on and 1xRTT radio on. So the only difference between the two is probably if LTE drops out, instead of firing up the EV-DO radio, you got stuck with 1xRTT for data. So if you're in a strong LTE area, you probably won't notice a difference between the two.
Although this is just a huge guess on my part.
My old MT4G when in airplane mode (and no apps installed) ran over 24 hours and only dropped 1%
I did this as an experiment as I knew I was selling the phone to my cousin the next day. It dropped the 1% after I handed it to him and he was messing with it.
All the phone had was CM7 and a good (non cyanogen) under-volt kernel that defaulted to a governor that had a screen off profile built in. It had been factory reset as well. A good ROM and kernel really helps, this just goes to show you where the real power drains are.
What this tells me is that these phones have the potential to have great standby time but for the radio and account syncing. (and any poorly written apps that cause the phone to enter an awake state too much) That is one reason that I am excited about the new S4 chips that have all the radios built in. That should help power consumption from the radio in general and even more when the phone is idle an not transmitting.
Long time lurker, first time poster. Seeing how much value I've received from this group over the past while, I thought I would finally share something that some of you will hopefully find useful.
I performed a semi-scientific experiment for this .14 recent update (upgraded from .11) to check for any WiFi improvement. Before the update, I sat in a notoriously difficult spot away from our router and ran SpeedTest several times in succession and got these results:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Downloads consistently under 3 Mbps (our ISP caps us at 25Mbps, by the way).
Without moving or changing my position/posture, I patiently requested, downloaded, and applied the .14 update. It took about 10 minutes while I stared out the window and it was smooth update, with no issues. Then, I ran SpeedTest again several times, and got these results:
Notice the overall improvement, in some cases quite a dramatic lift in both down and up speeds. Pings seemed roughly within the same range as before, for the most part.
Now, it's possible that several things could have influenced these results: maybe the SpeedTest provider was experience heavy traffic when I first ran the test, but that traffic had cleared 10 minutes later? Or maybe there was some WiFi interference the first time that had passed by the time I had updated the firmware? But taken as a single data point (without testing it for statistical significance), this lends some credibility to ASUS's claim that this .14 update has improved the WiFi performance.
On a related note though, I find it somewhat curious (and perhaps troubling) that even the .14 results have a very high degree of variability from one moment to the next. eg. within a 3 minute span, my d/l speed ranged from 2.32 Mbps to 7.75 Mbps (while 10 minutes earlier, they were all quite consistently in the 2.3-2.9 Mbps range).
Oh, and as for GPS? No birds before, no birds after. Though, I'm in a well-constructed building and it's an overcast day.
[EDIT: FYI, my Prime is a C1 model]
Not sure why buy on .13 my wifi signal kept dropping (it was worse than when I was on .12) but on .14 signals seems to be more stable and comparable to my other devices.
We need to stop doing WiFi tests using SpeedTest. It's good of you to post your results here, but unfortunately, there's nothing "scientific" about testing wifi bandwidth with SpeedTest.
NeoteriX said:
We need to stop doing WiFi tests using SpeedTest. It's good of you to post your results here, but unfortunately, there's nothing "scientific" about testing wifi bandwidth with SpeedTest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ditto
Speedtest does not test router throughput.
In a perfect world, a wireless g router will transfer at 54 Mbps so the bottleneck would be your internet connection not the wifi connection. To test your router throughput, the easiest way is just transfer a big file 500 MB there and back.
nattylite said:
Ditto
Speedtest does not test router throughput.
In a perfect world, a wireless g router will transfer at 54 Mbps so the bottleneck would be your internet connection not the wifi connection. To test your router throughput, the easiest way is just transfer a big file 500 MB there and back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're not building rockets, buddy. Speedtest will do fine. Noticed a huge improvement in wifi after update though.
Sent from my tablet thing with XDA Premium.
I also tested the new update's influence on WiFi signal. I used WiFi analyzer. Before the update I consistently got -65 on my throne.. After the update I am consistently getting around -70. So actually the signal has deteriorated. I do however find the browser to work better, with fewer lockups. Overally, nothing drastic came with the update.
Just applied the ww .14 update. Made zero difference to my wifi
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
There have been quite a few threads on Prime's WiFi speed. However, I believe no-one has done a test, results of which I show below. I wanted to compare WiFi speed of the Prime and my Dell laptop. Speedtest.net measures internet speed, which is bound to fluctuate as server load and access time change. So, I decided to measure things locally. The methodology is as follows.
First, I created five text files with randomly generated ASCII characters. Each of these files was 50 Mb (52428800 bytes) in size. Then, I placed them on a local HTTP server. Since I don't have any program/app both on Windows/Android to precisely measure download time/speed, I used a simplified approach, consistent on both devices. I opened Chrome browser and measured how long it takes to download each file using a stopwatch. I did not ask Chrome to "save as" file, as it can start pre-loading the file before I confirm. I created a simple web page with links to all five files and clicked them one by one, waiting until entire file was open in the window. I simply watched the indicator in the tab, until it stopped spinning. By using five separate files I avoided problems with caching. In order to rule out any trend in our local server speed, I alternated the files, downloading the first file to the Dell and then to the Prime, then the second file and so on.
This is not the most accurate method, but sufficient enough for this purpose. I repeated the experiment five times, so I could estimate measurement errors. The results (download time, in seconds) are presented below:
Dell Latitude E6500 with Windows 7, 4 GB RAM
Transformer Prime, S/N C10KAS######, build .14
Dell Prime
----------
39.4 101.0
37.1 102.4
40.8 101.7
38.7 102.8
38.9 100.0
which converted into speeds (Mbytes / s) gives:
Dell Prime
----------
1.27 0.495
1.35 0.488
1.23 0.492
1.29 0.486
1.26 0.500
As you can see, there is not much variability in either sample, and the mean speed (with standard error) is 1.28(0.02) and 0.492(0.002) Mbytes per second, for Dell and Prime, respectively. Ergo, the Dell is about 2.6 times faster downloading (large) files than the Prime.
I leave the reason for this rather huge difference open to discussion. Is it the WiFi adapter in the Prime? Is it processor speed? Memory? Storage? I don't know. The fact is that download speeds on my Prime are much slower than on my Dell.
I haven't done experiment like this before .14 upgrade, so I have no idea how it looked like before.
Edit: In the follow-up to the discussion below I have done internet speed tests. This is all done on a fast university network, which shows speeds of up to 500 Mbps, when measured from a wired desktop. The result is interesting: both laptop and the Prime show similar speeds of about 2.3 Mbytes/s. This is much faster than local download speed. I can only guess that speedtest.net is streaming data and counting arriving packets, so it measures the actual WiFi speed. My download test involved opening the file in the browser, which requires lots of memory and some processing. Perhaps processing data in the browser takes a lot of time, hence the difference.
What about distance from the router?
What distances were these done at. What about varying the distance?
The Prime is known to have the Achilles heel of quickly dropping off throughput when you distance yourself from the router. I would be curious a) What distance these tests were done at, and b) to see what they are like at even further (or perhaps closer as well) distances.
No doubt about it though; the numbers you are getting from your Prime are not too swift. Question. Are you affected by any usability issues, such as buffering etc., when streaming video? How is overall performance?
SmartAs$Phone said:
What distances were these done at. What about varying the distance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both devices were sitting on the desk next to each other. The distance to the nearest router is about 3 meters. The router is on the ceiling with nothing in the line of site.
SmartAs$Phone said:
No doubt about it though; the numbers you are getting from your Prime are not too swift. Question. Are you affected by any usability issues, such as buffering etc., when streaming video? How is overall performance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have any particular usability issues. The tablet feels positively quick and responsive when using the interface, playing games and so on. However, web browsing is rather sluggish in compare with the Dell. Web pages that open almost instantaneously on the Dell can take quite a few seconds on the Prime. On the other hand, I can stream video clips, for example from BBC news, with no problems.
What kind of ping times to the router from each of the devices?
barryflanagan said:
What kind of ping times to the router from each of the devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good question. I get about 2 ms on the Dell and about 8 ms from the Prime, to the local server. But these results are quite variable and I haven't done proper statistical processing.
You should specify the WNIC in laptop, rather than the laptop itself.
You're testing for the optimal case (close-range, no obstruction). A test of 10+ meters, ie one or two rooms away, with some obstructions, would be more representative. Rather than finding that the laptop performs better than the Prime, which is pretty much a given, it would be more informative to see how the Prime does with respect to distance & obstruction.
Since speed bottleneck typically involves video content (streaming) or large file transfer, it would be more accurate to larger non-compressible files for transfer, or streaming. A good test would be to stream 1080p, and gradually stretching the distance until drop-offs are noticed.
e.mote said:
You should specify the WNIC in laptop, rather than the laptop itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure. Device manager says "Intel WiFi Link 5100 AGN".
e.mote said:
Since speed bottleneck typically involves video content (streaming) or large file transfer, it would be more accurate to larger non-compressible files for transfer, or streaming. A good test would be to stream 1080p, and gradually stretching the distance until drop-offs are noticed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure how to measure streaming speed (apart from spotting drop-offs, but that's subjective). I picked a simple method to measure file transfer speed on both machines under optimal conditions.
The 5100 is an older draft-N dual-band unit with a 1x2 (1 xmit, 2 rcv) arrangement, supposedly capable of 300Mb/s. Most laptop wifi are 1x2 or 2x2, with a few 3x3. In constrast, most mobiles are 1x1, with smaller antennas. So it's a given that laptops will have better wifi reception. You don't need to test for that. Test for something you don't already know about.
e.mote said:
The 5100 is an older draft-N dual-band unit with a 1x2 (1 xmit, 2 rcv) arrangement, supposedly capable of 300Mb/s. Most laptop wifi are 1x2 or 2x2, with a few 3x3. In constrast, most mobiles are 1x1, with smaller antennas. So it's a given that laptops will have better wifi reception. You don't need to test for that. Test for something you don't already know about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know what "1 xmit, 2rcv" is and how it affects transfer speed. If by "reception" you mean received signal strength, this is not an issue as I am sitting very close to the router and have a very strong signal both on the Prime and the laptop. And yet the tablet is much slower in file transfers.
Are you suggesting this is due to less capable WiFi component (antenna, adapter, whatever it is)?
1x2 = one antenna is used to transmit, and two to receive; it means max 150 Mb/s uplink and 300 Mb/s downlink (downlink speed matters more, as you'd expect). These are theoretical speeds, and real throughput is substantially less.
Antennas in mobile devices are smaller and less robust than those in laptops, and there usually is only one for wifi (hence 1x1), whereas in laptops you have two ants. Mobile devices also use SDIO interface that reportedly limits speed to 30-40 Mb/s.
I'm saying that wifi in mobile devices (phones, tablets) is inherently limited, and can't be expected to perform on par with laptops. Comparison against other mobiles, or against itself with varying distance, would be more fruitful.
In any case, it's an academic exercise, since you can't change out for a different antenna or wifi module. There was talk of the Prime being able to run Ethernet USB adapters, and I had asked for some to try out wifi USB adapters, but none responded. I take that to mean USB wifi isn't currently operable w/o a custom kernel.
I recently had 2 primes. They both showed equal signal strenght with wifi analyzer but speedtest.net shows 1 getting half the speed as the other. I returned that one even though it had a 90% working gps (was still off by 30+ ft and didnt track me well during turn by turn).
For sure its hardware (maybe pogo pins not making good contact or bad PCB) since I updated both to ICS .14 and it didn't affect speedtest results.
I have no server, but performed a very similar test.
I used WiFi File explorer PRO to transfer a large file from my computer. To do this I connected my laptop to the router with cable. I placed the Prime close to the router, something like half a meter. Result:
File size 726581248 bytes, time 298 seconds.
If I calculate well this means 19000 kbps or 2.325 MB/s. Not bad...
I was testing this exact method two nights ago. I'll do it again and post the results. I'll have three devices... evo4g, evo3d and my prime at a distance of about 30 feet. I'll even throw in laptop speed just for fun.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk
I realize that you wanted to test your wireless speed, not your internet connection speed. The results you got on the Prime translate to roughly 4-5 Mbps.
Do you have a fast intenet connection (Cable Modem) that's capable of, say, 10+ Mbps?
What kind of speeds do you see on the Prime at speedtest.net? Assuming that your internet connection is not a bottleneck, I'd expect that you'll see something similar to your simple wireless tests. I'm particularly curious if you see significantly higher speeds at Speedtest. This wouldn't jive well with your wireless tests.
My speedtest.net results tops around 11000 kbps after running it several times. Unfortunately only in the same room with the router. This is OK since this is the maximum of my net.
ok here are my tests. I will start with my Asus G73jh laptop..
My Evo3D
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
My Evo4G
TFP C20KAS
Here is TFP right at the router, about 1.5 feet away
Like I said before, this is 30 feet away through a wall and a LCD tv. I have no problems with WiFi. I think I have a newer model, not sure.
e.mote said:
1x2 = one antenna is used to transmit, and two to receive; it means max 150 Mb/s uplink and 300 Mb/s downlink (downlink speed matters more, as you'd expect). These are theoretical speeds, and real throughput is substantially less.
Antennas in mobile devices are smaller and less robust than those in laptops, and there usually is only one for wifi (hence 1x1), whereas in laptops you have two ants. Mobile devices also use SDIO interface that reportedly limits speed to 30-40 Mb/s.
I'm saying that wifi in mobile devices (phones, tablets) is inherently limited, and can't be expected to perform on par with laptops. Comparison against other mobiles, or against itself with varying distance, would be more fruitful.
In any case, it's an academic exercise, since you can't change out for a different antenna or wifi module. There was talk of the Prime being able to run Ethernet USB adapters, and I had asked for some to try out wifi USB adapters, but none responded. I take that to mean USB wifi isn't currently operable w/o a custom kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I suppose it's more or less still messing with the kernel... But WiFi adapters have been made to work with the Prime.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1484339
This is getting weird. As I mentioned in the original post, I intended to measure WiFi transfer speed, not internet speed. But since I have done it on a fast network at my work (university), I thought I might give an internet test a try.
Speedtest.net app shows speeds around 17-19 Mbps, which is about 2.3 Mbytes per second. This is over 4 times faster than my local download speed. This is rather unexpected, and unless speedtest.net is lying, there is an issue with our local transfers.
I believe speedtest.net streams down some data and measures it as it arrives. Perhaps streaming is done in a different way than downloading a big file? Or perhaps downloading requires further processing - storing in local storage, which might slow things down. I have just realized that I was actually opening a 50-Mb web page in the browser. This might be the real reason for much slower speeds of the tablet. I guess I would have to done the test differently, downloading a file directly into storage, though this would still be slowed down by the lack of processing power.
I have edited the original post to include these comments.
PS: At work, my wireless laptop shows a very stable 20 Mbps, and my desktop, which is wired, shows speeds varying widely from 50 to 500 Mbps.
PS2: I tried speedtest.net on the tablet again, standing directly under the WiFi repeater. This gives speeds almost 20 Mbps. I think our WiFi network is limited to 20 Mbps.
@ Felisek
You may try with WiFi File Explorer PRO. It seems there is a bottleneck somewhere in your test environment. This is just an idea.
regrets my old thoughts of Note 2 being backward comparing to DNA.
Test-drived both for a few days and the answer is rather clear.
Putting all stuff onto 80GB storage is so cool coz you can watch them in NYC subway where you can't find a shxxt about cell coverage.
ONLY QUESTION:
Who else are getting ONLY 2-3 hours screen time and 18 hours total time on one charge with similar profile like below:
cell signal around -100 dbm to -120 dbm most of the time.
40% in WIFI though.
8 email accounts in EMAIL app.
1 gmail accounts.
Bluetooth on all the time.
Use facebook quite a lot.
Auto screen brightness
Disabled those VZW navigator / VZW Amazon crap.
I just feel pressured after seeing those ALL TIME LTE with 5-7 hours screen time posted in the other Thread "How is your battery life so far".
I am wondering if my battery is defect even...
jiwengang said:
regrets my old thoughts of Note 2 being backward comparing to DNA.
Test-drived both for a few days and the answer is rather clear.
Putting all stuff onto 80GB storage is so cool coz you can watch them in NYC subway where you can't find a shxxt about cell coverage.
ONLY QUESTION:
Who else are getting ONLY 2-3 hours screen time and 18 hours total time on one charge with similar profile like below:
cell signal around -100 dbm to -120 dbm most of the time.
40% in WIFI though.
8 email accounts in EMAIL app.
1 gmail accounts.
Bluetooth on all the time.
Use facebook quite a lot.
Auto screen brightness
Disabled those VZW navigator / VZW Amazon crap.
I just feel pressured after seeing those ALL TIME LTE with 5-7 hours screen time posted in the other Thread "How is your battery life so far".
I am wondering if my battery is defect even...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have 2 heavy apps are Facebook and 8 email accounts. Try to set the "check email internal" and facebook to never (you manually check). Also trun off notification for facebook. This should bring you up to around 5hrs or more on screen on time.
buhohitr said:
You have 2 heavy apps are Facebook and 8 email accounts. Try to set the "check email internal" and facebook to never (you manually check). Also trun off notification for facebook. This should bring you up to around 5hrs or more on screen on time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
exactly! i use dark walpapers, power saving mode, and only sync 1 email account. you cant have multiple sync accounts, live or bright wallpapers, widgets galore, and expect to get the same battery life.
May be an issue with your battery.
This is how my first run looks. Very Heavy usage.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
jiwengang said:
regrets my old thoughts of Note 2 being backward comparing to DNA.
Test-drived both for a few days and the answer is rather clear.
Putting all stuff onto 80GB storage is so cool coz you can watch them in NYC subway where you can't find a shxxt about cell coverage.
ONLY QUESTION:
Who else are getting ONLY 2-3 hours screen time and 18 hours total time on one charge with similar profile like below:
cell signal around -100 dbm to -120 dbm most of the time.
40% in WIFI though.
8 email accounts in EMAIL app.
1 gmail accounts.
Bluetooth on all the time.
Use facebook quite a lot.
Auto screen brightness
Disabled those VZW navigator / VZW Amazon crap.
I just feel pressured after seeing those ALL TIME LTE with 5-7 hours screen time posted in the other Thread "How is your battery life so far".
I am wondering if my battery is defect even...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My only guess could be the 8 email accounts you have synced if they're all checking for mail throughout the day I can see how that can kill your battery. I would suggest if feasible to forward everything to one address or try to cut down as many as you can and slow the sync interval.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda premium
facebook is evil. Also, it hurts your battery.
Your email accounts is enough to do some damage surely as well, either pare that down or set up forwarding and filters to a gmail account to reduce load gmail's push rather than constantly polling for emails.
My 2 cents, don't have comparable use due to those 2 factors to say really =)
Signal plays a massive role in cell phone battery life. MASSIVE. Hovering around mediocre signal to literally out-of-service (-120dbm) is like the absolute worst. The radio draws more power as it searches for a signal. This kills your battery so fast it's unbelievable. Where I live my 1x signal is garbage, so if I charged my Droid X to 100% before going to bed, unplugged it and left it on all night, I'd wake up to something like 70% battery left.
Went out, got the Network Extender for Verizons 1x signal, and bam perfect signal (-55 dbm on average for 1x VOICE) and I go to sleep with my phone at 100% and woke up at 100%. It was literally night and day difference.
Now I am on a Thunderbolt with LTE and I get great LTE signal at home (usually -90dbm) so that at least helps in that my battery isn't getting totally nuked looking for LTE signal, but my Voice still sucks. And since the new radio's don't play well with my Network Extender, I can't use it anymore.
Bottom line is, spending a lot of time searching for signal will kill your battery. All that extra stuff like the 8 emails, facebook, etc, that's all just overkill when coupled with the poor signal. Be glad you pull more than 3 hours of screen on over a day with that kind of reception.
Battery varies with usage. I use my phone constantly throughout the day and like screen on max brightness. I bought a spare battery for this reason.
DaRkL3AD3R said:
Signal plays a massive role in cell phone battery life. MASSIVE. Hovering around mediocre signal to literally out-of-service (-120dbm) is like the absolute worst. The radio draws more power as it searches for a signal. This kills your battery so fast it's unbelievable. Where I live my 1x signal is garbage, so if I charged my Droid X to 100% before going to bed, unplugged it and left it on all night, I'd wake up to something like 70% battery left.
Went out, got the Network Extender for Verizons 1x signal, and bam perfect signal (-55 dbm on average for 1x VOICE) and I go to sleep with my phone at 100% and woke up at 100%. It was literally night and day difference.
Now I am on a Thunderbolt with LTE and I get great LTE signal at home (usually -90dbm) so that at least helps in that my battery isn't getting totally nuked looking for LTE signal, but my Voice still sucks. And since the new radio's don't play well with my Network Extender, I can't use it anymore.
Bottom line is, spending a lot of time searching for signal will kill your battery. All that extra stuff like the 8 emails, facebook, etc, that's all just overkill when coupled with the poor signal. Be glad you pull more than 3 hours of screen on over a day with that kind of reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
I appreciate previous folks' comments on the email accounts and facebook .
but the reason I put many emails on the EMAIL app is because they can let me choose the time to sync, unlike Gmail App, the only option is PUSH or NEVER.
So my 8 email accounts sync twice a day, Facebook sync all off. It still did not help much.
But with your case above, I think more weights need to be put into the cell signal issue.
Just noticed from BetterBatteryStat that, about 50% of the time it is marked as "No Signal or Unknown Signal"...that must be the culprit...
Thanks all for your comments !!!
But again, on relative basis, this phone 's battery life still kills. =)
I have heard that the battery of the Z2P is not so bad compared to the Z1P.
If u guys could share the battery details, and the SOT, so we all could compare, would be great.
It's Awesome!!!!
Miguelkf said:
I have heard that the battery of the Z2P is not so bad compared to the Z1P.
If u guys could share the battery details, and the SOT, so we all could compare, would be great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's very good. Though it's 3000 Mah but it lasts​ for a day on normal (moderate) use and about 15-16 hours on heavy usage. All of these is because of SD626's optimisation of battery. It's very clinically done so there is no unnecessary drainage of battery. It's standby time is also good.
Wow, that's better as the old Z Play. But with bigger battery it would be absolut amazing :laugh:
I was on pace for about 6.5 hr SOT yesterday, mostly just browsing with about 30 min of gaming and 15 min of maps.
mebizzle said:
I was on pace for about 6.5 hr SOT yesterday, mostly just browsing with about 30 min of gaming and 15 min of maps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What? Just 6.5h with Z2 Play? Ok, nothing for me. I need really big battery life. Absolutly needed. Otherwise I don't want the phone.
Someone screenshots? With my z play i have 7,5-9h sot
Anyone else having "Cell Standby" consuming a lot of battery?
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Cell Standby battery usage goes up as the signal strength goes down. The phone cranks up the power to maintain a signal.
From your picture, it looks like you are at 1 or 2 bars on the meter. That's what I get at my work and that's where standby uses the biggest chunk of my battery. At home I have close to full bars and standby uses a lot less battery.
It's quite enough for me, I remember on my z play I got more SOT but z2 play is definitely not bad, plus it's multitasking faster due to the 4GB ram.
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
Z2 play stock.....4g all time with dual sim
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
I also get 6 to 7 hours SOT during my tests, compared to 3 to 4 hours on my Nexus 5x.
But there is one area where the Z2 Play is surprisingly bad. The LTE signal strength is pretty weak. With the Nexus 5x I get consistently "5 bars" at home and just 2 bars with the Z2 Play. Which means I have essentially a yellow/orange dotted in the "Cellular network signal" battery history. I am wondering what difference a 5 bar LTE signal would make (in terms of battery life).
Most likely this signal strength difference can be explained by the different modems. The Nexus 5x has an x10 lte modem. The newer Z2 Play has only an x9 lte modem. To address this problem the 626 features TruSignal antenna boost technology which is supposed to optimize reception in weak signal strength conditions. But apparently it doesn't work that well?
Does anybody else have similar LTE signal strength issues?
Screenshots ...
Just revising my SOT ...
I consistently get 7-8 hours with low 4g signal strength (wow!). Really impressed.
romhippo.com said:
The LTE signal strength is pretty weak. With the Nexus 5x I get consistently "5 bars" at home and just 2 bars with the Z2 Play. Which means I have essentially a yellow/orange dotted in the "Cellular network signal" battery history. I am wondering what difference a 5 bar LTE signal would make (in terms of battery life).
Most likely this signal strength difference can be explained by the different modems. The Nexus 5x has an x10 lte modem. The newer Z2 Play has only an x9 lte modem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think anymore that this is a modem issue. I was able to compare with an Oppo R9S which also has an x9 lte modem (snapdragon 625). But the 4g signal was excellent on the R9S ...
I'm getting mobile standby as my largest drain as well, even though I have full signal strength 100% of the time. Seems to be quite high to me.
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
Went camping with no phone reception, wish I could get this battery life all the time!
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
I'm also having the same cell standby issue. I'm always struggling to get to 4 and a half hours of SOT, because cell standby is always at the top even with 3/4 bars of signal. I can't live with this. I read in the Motorola forums and one of the solutions they say is to recalibrate the battery. To do that, you have to press the power button until the phone restars and then charge it to 100% percent. I will try it for a couple days.