NOW AVAILABLE!

Redefining Research March 23, 2023

VOLUME 31:
THIS IS A JOB FOR HPUE!
PART OF “THE MOTHER OF ALL NETWORK BENCHMARK TESTS” SERIES OF REPORTS
YOUR ATTENTION
PLEASE
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF OUR RESEARCH MATERIAL WILL RESULT IN THE NON-REFUND-
ABLE CANCELLATION OF YOUR SUBSCRIPTION. We also reserve the right to post your company’s name, with logo, to the
“SRG Wall of Shame.” If you received this issue from someone outside of your organization and it did not come directly from
SRG then the licensing terms for our research are being violated. If you forward this research to external organizations, either
in whole or in part, or if you share the contents of the report beyond the authorized allocation within your organization then
the licensing terms for our research are being violated.
If you value the information and insight that we provide then I strongly urge you to respect our hard work and livelihood and
subscribe to our research. If you do not have a platinum license or a global license, you may want to upgrade your license so
that you can share this issue across your entire organization with our blessing.
If you or your organization is interested in distributing this report to outside organizations, please feel free to contact us to
discuss licensing terms and fees.
If you would like to leverage a quote from this report and you have at least a global license, please contact us for permission
and we will be happy to provide it.
1.0 Executive Summary

Key Highlights from this Study

SRG just completed its 31st 5G benchmark study. For this report, we analyzed the perfor-
mance differences between a 5G smartphone with a maximum transmit power of 29
dBm (PC 1.5) and a smartphone with a maximum transmit power of 26 dBm (PC 2). 5G
now supports the higher transmit power in select TDD bands to help offset the inherent
coverage limitations of the higher 5G frequency bands (2.5 GHz to 3.9 GHz) as well as the
limited amount of time that is generally allocated to the uplink data traffic.

We tested with two Motorola edge (2022) smartphones in T-Mobile’s Band n41 5G network
in Laguna Beach, California. The smartphones were nearly identical, although the PC 1.5
feature was disabled in one of the smartphones. The smartphones also supported uplink
MIMO (UL-MIMO) and uplink 256QAM (UL-256QAM) – both features are game changers
when it comes to uplink data speeds and overall spectral efficiency. We proved this view
in an earlier Signals Ahead report that we encourage subscribers to reread.
Like we observed when we earlier tested PC 2 and PC 3 (23 dBm) on Sprint’s Band 41 LTE
network, we documented significant performance gains with the PC 1.5-enabled smart-
phone. These advantages included the ability to use more uplink network resources (RBs),
higher MCS allocations, extended coverage, greater use of UL-MIMO, and, of course,
higher uplink throughput. There was also an indirect performance gain in the downlink
throughput. In all cases, these gains were most evident in RF challenging conditions (i.e.,
low RSRP).

We also stumbled upon uplink Multi-User MIMO (UL-MU-MIMO) whereby up to four

smartphones can each transmit up to the full number of uplink RBs, thereby resulting in
higher aggregate uplink throughput and increased uplink spectral efficiency. We didn’t
attempt to quantify these gains, but we did add UL-MU-MIMO to our list of 5G features
that we plan to benchmark in the coming months.

Thanks to Accuver Americas (XCAL5 and XCAP) and Spirent Communications (Umetrix
Data) for the use of their products and platforms to conduct this study. Both companies
have been valued partners for more than a decade.

Generally, we like to tie in the cover page to the focus of the benchmark study with some clever
text somewhere in the report. In this case, the tie-in between this report and the popular culture
shown on the cover page is a bit obscure. You either get it or you don’t, and if you don’t get it then
any explanation we offered wouldn’t be entirely helpful. Let’s just say if you spent your formative
years plopped down in front of a boob tube each Saturday morning during the ‘70s or ‘80s then you
probably get it. If not, then you are probably better off in the long run.
At the 3GPP RAN #78 Plenary in Lisbon, Portugal back in December 2017, Sprint, CMCC Sprint [now part of T-Mobile]
and Skyworks proposed a new work item (RP-172315) entitled, “29 dBm UE Power Class for B41 originally proposed what
and n41.” We were there and we wrote about the week’s activities in a Signals Ahead report (SA is now known as PC 1.5 at
the 3GPP Plenary back
01/03/2018, “RAN#78 5G Standardization Update – New Release Hangover!”). In its submis-
in December 2017.
sion, the proponents noted that LTE already supported power class 2 (PC 2) operation in LTE
Band 41 whereby the smartphones were allowed to transmit at up to 26 dBm in order to improve
coverage and to allow the Band 41 cells to have coverage similar to their lower frequency FDD
brethren. Previously, the upper limit for LTE was 23 dBm and it applied to both FDD and TDD
bands. Further, the proponents noted that the higher transmit power associated with PC 2 does not

3 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

violate SAR safety regulations since the duty cycle, or the ratio of how frequently the smartphone is
receiving versus transmitting data, associated with the TDD frequency band inherently prevented
this situation from occurring.
Their proposal took the concept one step further by suggesting the maximum transmit power The PC 1.5 timeline from
should be increased to 29 dBm, as long as it is limited to 26 dBm per antenna and that the duty cycle 3GPP conception to
is limited to 45%. As proposed, this new power class would apply to LTE-NR dual connectivity, vendor implementation
and commercialization
LTE 2x2 MIMO and 5G 2x2 MIMO. Like seemingly all good proposals, 3GPP didn’t act on the
is indicative of the long
proposal in Lisbon but it eventually approved the proposal with the requisite input and modifications shelf life for 5G.
to the original proposal from the other 3GPP member companies at the RAN#80 Plenary held in
La Jolla, California six months later. More than five years after the original submission, the 5G
feature is just starting to hit the streets. If nothing else, this timeline is indicative of the long shelf
life for 5G.
Taking a step back, we earlier tested PC 2 alongside PC 3 in the Sprint LTE Band 41 network In a 2017 study, we observed
and published those results in Signals Ahead (SA 12/18/2017, “To Delano and Beyond”). In that significant performance
benchmark study, we showed that a PC 2-enabled smartphone achieved ~90% higher median uplink advantages due to PC 2
versus PC 3 when testing in
throughput than a PC 3-enabled smartphone and that the gains were even higher when limited to
Sprint’s LTE Band 41 network.
edge-of-cell regions of the network (e.g., RSRP below -100 dBm). The higher uplink throughput
was due to a combination of higher resource block (RB) allocations along with higher MCS alloca-
tions. Further, we also found a meaningful gain in the downlink throughput with HTTP data
transmissions that require TCP ACK/NACK transmissions in the uplink direction. The gain was
on the order of 50% to 70% higher throughput with lower RSRP values. If the two smartphones
were using different LTE channels, then the performance difference was even more significant.
With this information as a backdrop, we set off to determine the potential performance advan- We used two Motorola edge
tages of PC 1.5 (29 dBm) versus PC 2 (26 dBm). For this study, we leveraged the T-Mobile 5G (2022) smartphones with a
network in Laguna Beach, California where Ericsson is the infrastructure supplier. We collected MediaTek 5G modem, with PC
1.5 enabled on one phone and
some preliminary data in December 2022 with additional data collected in early March of this year.
disabled on the other phone.
For devices, we used two Motorola edge (2022) smartphones with a MediaTek 5G modem. The two
smartphones were almost identical with a key differentiator being that one of the smartphones had
PC 1.5 disabled. Although there is, or will soon be, support for PC 1.5 in other frequency bands
(Band n77 is a key focus for US operators), this smartphone is the only smartphone on the market
which currently supports PC 1.5 functionality in Band n41.
We kindly remind our subscribers that Signals Ahead is a subscription-based service. This bench- We kindly remind our readers
mark study, like all our studies published in Signals Ahead, is entirely supported by these subscrip- that Signals Ahead is a
tions. We expect our subscribers to respect the amount of effort and expense associated with doing subscription-based service
and that you must abide by
these studies. Although companies with a global license may share these reports internally within
the terms of the subscription.
their organization, we do not allow any external sharing of this report, either in whole or in part.
Companies with a group subscription cannot share the report, either in whole or in part, beyond the
individuals signed up to receive these reports. If you feel compelled to share these reports, then you
should also feel compelled to upgrade your company’s subscription. If you are not sure what type
of subscription your company has then please reach out and ask us. We also note that we provide a
report preview of each Signals Ahead report. You can share the report preview, which is available for
download on our website or by contacting us.
T-Mobile provided us with logistical support, including phones, SIMs, and guidance on where we
could test PC 1.5 functionality. As a courtesy, just prior to publishing this report, we provided the
operator with a short presentation, which highlighted some of the results of our study. This activity
also allowed us to ask some important questions that we had about the results we had obtained. We collaborated with
We collaborated with two test and measurement (T&M) companies for this study. Accuver Accuver Americas and
Americas provided its XCAL5 drive test solution, as well as its XCAP post-processing tool. We Spirent Communications
for this benchmark study.

4 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

used XCAL5 to log the chipset diagnostic messages coming from the smartphones. We used XCAP
to post process and analyze all the chipset-related data we collected.
We used Umetrix Data from Spirent Communications to generate high bandwidth uplink data
transfers over sustained periods of time. We used a five minute 300 Mbps UDP uplink data transfer
that we ran continuously during our drive tests while testing each phone by itself or in parallel. We
also did a limited number of stationary tests, including with downlink data transfers.
As expected, the use of a higher power class amplifier resulted in better performance, including The PC 1.5 smartphone
higher RB allocations, the use of more favorable uplink MCS values, and, or course, higher uplink had better performance,
throughput. These gains were more likely to occur with challenging RF conditions (low RSRP) and including higher RB
allocations, the use of
when testing a phone by itself. The PC 1.5-enabled smartphone also made better use of UL-MIMO
more favorable uplink
and it was more likely to remain attached to the 5G network during our drive test along the coast. MCS values, and, or course,
We intentionally locked the phones to 5G Band n41 and disabled the LTE bands during this study. higher uplink throughput.
In some drive tests, we also PCI locked the phones to artificially force RF conditions which were
well suited to the use of PC 1.5.
We also made two side observations that we think are just as noteworthy. The first observation
is that the Motorola edge (2022) smartphone supported both UL-256QAM and UL-MIMO. We
tested both features in an earlier Signals Ahead (SA 08/17/2021, “The Hunt for Uplink 256QAM
(and UL-MIMO)), in which we observed significant performance gains due to the two enhance-
ments, not to mention widespread use of the two features across the network where we did the
tests. To put things into perspective, in that earlier study we documented a smartphone with
UL-256QAM and UL-MIMO reached a peak uplink speed of 223.3 Mbps, compared with only
85.9 Mbps for a smartphone without these two features. We documented these results on T-Mobile’s
Band n41 network with 100 MHz channels and a typical DL/UL ratio. In our view, the introduc-
tion of PC 1.5 almost guarantees handset manufacturers will implement UL-MIMO while handset
manufacturers who already plan to embrace UL-MIMO will want to include PC 1.5 so that their
smartphones are more likely to use the critical uplink feature.
The other noteworthy observation is we witnessed the use of UL-MU-MIMO in numerous log Quantifying the efficiency
files. With UL-MU-MIMO, the network can currently support up to four smartphones, each gains associated with
transmitting a full allocation of uplink RBs, as long as these smartphones are using a single uplink UL-MU-MIMO is now on
our to do list for future
transmit layer. Once a smartphone moves to UL-MIMO and two transmit layers then the uplink
Signals Ahead topics.
RBs are shared across all active smartphones. Quantifying the efficiency gains associated with
UL-MU-MIMO is now on our to do list for future Signals Ahead topics.
Our detailed analysis of PC 1.5 performance includes the following:

➤ UL-MIMO + UL-256QAM (Motorola edge (2022)) versus UL-256QAM only (Galaxy S22)

➤ Geo plots showing 5G coverage and the use of UL-MIMO for PC 1.5 and PC 2.0 smartphones

➤ Transmit power versus RSRP – parallel and serial testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2

➤ Uplink RB allocations versus RSRP – parallel and serial testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2

➤ Uplink MCS allocations versus RSRP – parallel and serial testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2

➤ Uplink MIMO usage versus RSRP – parallel and serial testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2

➤ Uplink 256QAM usage versus RSRP – parallel and serial testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2

➤ Downlink throughput comparative tests with low RSRP – parallel testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2

Chapter 2 discusses the key observations from this study. Chapter 3 provides detailed results
and analysis. Chapter 4 provides our test methodology and Chapter 5 concludes with some final
thoughts.

5 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
2.0 Key Observations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
3.0 Detailed Results and Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
4.0 Test Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
5.0 Final Thoughts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………36

Index of Figures & Tables

Figure 1. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Uplink Throughput Time Series……………………………………………………………… 12
Figure 2. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Average Uplink Throughput…………………………………………………………………… 13
Figure 3. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Uplink 256QAM Utilization…………………………………………………………………… 13
Figure 4. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Uplink MIMO Utilization ……………………………………………………………………… 14
Figure 5. PC 1.5 5G Band n41 Coverage………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
Figure 6. PC 2 5G Band n41 Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
Figure 7. PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones………………………………………… 16
Figure 8. PUSCH Resource Block Allocations Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones……………………… 17
Figure 9. Uplink MCS Allocations Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones……………………………………… 17
Figure 10. PUSCH Throughput Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones…………………………………………… 18
Figure 11. PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones……………………………………… 19
Figure 12. PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones…………………………………… 19
Figure 13. PUSCH Resource Block Allocations Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones………… 20
Figure 14. PUSCH Resource Block Allocations Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones…………………… 21
Figure 15. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and Uplink MIMO Layers Time Series –
Parallel Testing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure 16. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and RSRP Time Series – Parallel Testing………… 22
Figure 17. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and Uplink MIMO Layers Time Series –
Serial Testing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
Figure 18. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and RSRP Time Series – Serial Testing…………… 23
Figure 19. Uplink MCS Allocations Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones………………………… 23
Figure 20. Uplink MCS Allocations Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones………………………………… 24
Figure 21. Uplink MIMO Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones………………………………………………… 25
Figure 22. Uplink MIMO Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones……………………………………………… 25
Figure 23. PC 1.5 Uplink MIMO Usage……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Figure 24. PC 2 Uplink MIMO Usage………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Figure 25. Uplink 256QAM Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones……………………………………………… 27
Figure 26. Uplink 256QAM Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones…………………………………………… 27

6 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

Figure 27. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones……………………………… 28
Figure 28. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones…………………………… 28
Figure 29. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus PUSCH Transmit Power –
Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Figure 30. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus PUSCH Transmit Power –
Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
Figure 31. RSRP – Stationary Test………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Figure 32. PUSCH Transmit Power – Stationary Test……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Figure 33. Uplink MCS – Stationary Test………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
Figure 34. Uplink RB Allocations – Stationary Test………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
Figure 35. PUSCH Throughput – Stationary Test…………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
Figure 36. Measured RSRP – Parallel Downlink Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones…………………………………………………… 33
Figure 37. PUSCH Transmit Power – Parallel Downlink Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones………………………………………… 33
Figure 38. PDSCH Time Series and Average Throughput – Parallel Downlink Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones……… 34
Figure 39. Umetrix Data Platform…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Figure 40. XCAL5 in Action……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36

7 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 INCASE
IN CASEYOU
YOU MISSED
MISSED IT:
IT:
SIGNALS AHEAD BACK ISSUES
SIGNALS AHEAD BACK ISSUES
➤ 1/10/23 “5G: The Greatest Show on Earth! Vol 30:
MU-MIMO and the Tower of Power” SRG just completed
its 30th 5G benchmark study. For this endeavor we collaborated
with Accuver Americas and Spirent Communications to conduct
an independent benchmark study of 5G 8-layer MU-MIMO,
using the SRS-based implementation.
Highlights of the Report include the following:
Our Thanks. We did this study in collaboration with Accuver
Americas (XCAL5 and XCAP) and Spirent Communications
(Umetrix Data). SRG is responsible for the data collection and all
analysis and commentary provided in this report.
Our Methodology. Testing took place on the T-Mobile network
(Band n41) in southern California at commercial cell sites. We
used 4 smartphones or 4 FWA CPEs to load the network with
full buffer data transfers. We looked at the impact of UE place-
ment within the cell as well as mobility. We analyzed all the
typical KPIs, including RB usage, MIMO layers, MCS, and, of
course, throughput, while also including vehicular speed and geo
coordinates.
The Results. We observed significant double-digit throughput
gains due to MU-MIMO pairing relative to SU-MIMO (we
disabled SRS / MU-MIMO in the network). Close placement of
UEs had little, if any, impact on the efficiency of MU-MIMO with
excellent pairing maintained.
The FWA Implications. T-Mobile has already deployed the func-
tionality at all Ericsson Band n41 cell sites on a nationwide basis.
For reasons discussed in the report, MU-MIMO functionality can
have a significant positive influence on the FWA business case,
even though some limitations to MU-MIMO exist.
More in Store. This MU-MIMO report marks what we anticipate
will be at least a few more MU-MIMO studies in the coming year.
We anticipate looking at 16-layer MU-MIMO, more device place-
ment scenarios, different geographies (rural), and traffic profiles.
All these reports will be available through our Signals Ahead
publication.
8 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2
➤ 12/7/22 “5G: The Greatest Show on Earth! Vol 29:
Cage Match (FR1 in the Wild!)” SRG just completed its
29th 5G benchmark study. For this endeavor we collaborated
with Accuver Americas and Spirent Communications to conduct
an independent benchmark study of several 5G smartphones
operating in mid-band 5G spectrum and representing chipsets
from MediaTek, Qualcomm, and Samsung.
Highlights of the Report include the following:
Our Thanks. We did this study in collaboration with Accuver
Americas (XCAL-M, XCAL-Solo and XCAP) and Spirent
Communications (Umetrix Data). SRG is responsible for the data
collection and all analysis and commentary provided in this report.
Our Methodology. Testing took place on the T-Mobile network
(Band n41) in the suburbs of Minneapolis-Saint Paul, MN. The
network is comprised of 140 MHz of Band n41 spectrum (100
MHz + 40 MHz) as well as 5G in Band n71 and the requisite LTE
spectrum - primarily Band 66 and Band 2 serving as the anchor
cell. We tested the smartphones in pairs with the Galaxy S22
serving as the reference smartphone used to evaluate performance
of the other smartphones in the mix.
The Scope. We used the Galaxy S22, Galaxy S20 Ultra, iPhone
13, Google PIxel 6a, Galaxy A13, and Motorola edge (2022)
smartphones. These smartphones represent 5G chipsets from
MediaTek, Qualcomm and Samsung. GIven some limitations in
logging detailed chipset data, we included a mix of physical layer
and application layer results in our analysis
A New Sheriff in Town. Based on our analysis of the results, we
declare the iPhone 13 as the “”unofficial”” top performing 5G
smartphone of the group. We include the “”unofficial”” disclaimer
because our analysis was limited to application layer throughput
with this phone since we weren’t able to log chipset data. Given
the network pushed most of the traffic to Band n41 on the S22,
we assume it behaved the same way with the iPhone, meaning
potential differences in LTE performance between the two phones
wouldn’t explain the overall results we observed.
LTE is becoming less relevant on the T-Mobile network. In addi-
tion to 5G Band n41 carrying the super-majority of the total traffic,
the 5G network is quickly moving to the standalone (SA) network
architecture as the default architecture, even with Band n41. This
situation means LTE is becoming inconsequential, especially for
those smartphones that support SA mode in Band n41.
2.0 Key Observations
We offer the following key observations based on our analysis of the data.

A PC 1.5-enabled smartphone delivers better uplink performance than a PC

2-enabled smartphone. We did drive tests with the two phones operating in parallel and indi-
vidually, as well as some limited stationary tests. The drive tests included some instances when we
PCI locked the phones to artificially force the phones into poor coverage regions. We also disabled
the LTE bands and Band n71 in all tests in order to force the phones to use 5G Band n41 or use
nothing at all.
Although we observed better performance with the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone in all tests with
poorer RF conditions, the performance advantage was more evident with individual (serial) tests
since with the parallel tests the smartphones could share the uplink RBs, thereby negating the need
for the higher power class. We would have thought the phones, especially the PC 1.5 smartphone,
would have simply increased their MCS in lieu of using more RBs in these instances, but that
outcome did not occur to the magnitude we would have expected. We also point out that since the
network supported UL-MU-MIMO, the two phones could jointly share all available RBs. The
network currently supports up to four smartphones sharing all available RBs as long as the phones
are only using a single uplink transmission layer. These points mean that if the two phones weren’t
using UL-MIMO that the RB allocations for the two phones could be the same for both sets of tests
(full RB usage for both phones), as long as there wasn’t an uplink power constraint.
One caveat to our analysis is that in some cases the transmit power could have been limited by
MPR (Maximum Power Reduction), whereby the power amplifier needs to reduce its transmit
power, based on the number and position of the resource blocks within the channel, not to mention
the location of the 5G channel within the overall spectrum map. Testing in a different band / radio
channel could have delivered different results [likely better results] from what we obtained in our
study.
During a stationary test (Section 3.3), the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had nearly twice the uplink
throughput as the PC 2-enabled smartphone, despite the PC 1.5 smartphone reporting a 7 dB lower
RSRP. The higher uplink throughput was due to a combination of higher MCS values on the part of
the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone as well as the phone’s ability to use 53% more uplink RBs.
In the drive tests without PCI locking the phones, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had higher Between -95 dBm and -85
transmit power up to approximately -85 dBm. This situation resulted in the higher power class dBm, the PC 1.5-enabled
smartphone having modestly higher throughput versus the PC 2-enabled smartphone for the lowest smartphone had close to 30%
higher throughput than the
RSRP values. Interestingly, the wider gap in the throughput was most evident in the mid RSRP
PC 2-enabled smartphone.
range, or between -95 dBm and -85 dBm, where the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had close to 30%
higher throughput than the PC 2-enabled smartphone. When comparing results, we did observe
the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had far more RRC reconnects (phone drops to idle mode and then
reattaches) than the PC 2-enabled smartphone in the parallel drive tests, suggesting some network
optimization could improve the PC 1.5 results at cell edge. We attribute the higher throughput in
the mid-range RSRP to a combination of increased use of UL-256QAM or UL-MIMO on the
part of the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone. When testing in parallel, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone
had much higher use of UL-MIMO, while when testing in serial the same smartphone had much
higher use of UL-256QAM in this region of the RSRP distribution. We can’t fully explain the two
different behaviors but in both cases. it favored the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone.
Network traffic, including
If we just look at those results when we PCI locked the phones (e.g., a subset of the overall drive
the potential use of UL-MU-
test results) then the performance differences between the two phones were far more substantial, MIMO by all smartphones
including at lower RSRP values where the PC 1.5 uplink throughput was more 2x higher than the in the network could
PC 2 uplink throughput. Our working explanation for the different outcome was that this portion of have muted the gains
the network was less congested (fewer houses, buildings, people) so presumably less network traffic. associated with the PC
There also weren’t any handovers in these tests since the phones were locked to a specific PCI value. 1.5-enabled smartphone.

9 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

With network traffic, including the potential use of UL-MU-MIMO caused by other smartphones
in the network, the gains associated with the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone could have been muted or
at least more unpredictable. MPR could have also played an unknown role. The impact of UL-MU-
MIMO was very evident in the results with higher RSRP since as soon as one or both smartphones
started using two uplink layers, there was an obvious decline in the number of uplink RBs the
phone(s) used. With parallel testing this trend was most evident since with serial testing, it would
require the presence of another smartphone in the network to trigger the drop in RB usage.
We also analyzed uplink throughput as a function of the transmit power. With higher transmit With higher transmit
power (23 dBm and higher), the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone achieved much higher uplink power, the PC 1.5-enabled
throughput, or 5x higher with the serial test results and 3.3x higher with the parallel tests. We point smartphone achieved 3.3x
(parallel) to 5x (serial)
out that PC 1.5 also has a higher power headroom than PC 2 so even when neither power amplifier
higher throughput.
is operating at its maximum level, PC 1.5 could still transmit at a higher power level due to this
capability. We see this phenomenon in many of our results.
In addition to achieving better uplink performance, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone also delivered
better coverage, defined as being able to remain attached to the Band n41 network. It is difficult to
quantify the gain, but we do show a few geo plots where this attribute is evident.

A PC 1.5-enabled smartphone delivers better downlink performance than a PC

2-enabled smartphone, especially with poorer RF conditions. Like we observed in
our much earlier testing of PC 2 and PC 3 smartphones, there is an indirect benefit of the higher
transmit power which subsequently increases the downlink throughput. When the smartphone is
uplink power limited, the phone isn’t able to transmit the ACK/NACK messages fast enough to
maintain the faster downlink connection. As a result, the downlink throughput is indirectly limited.
In some situations, having a higher transmit power resolves this issue.
In a downlink full buffer data test with comparable RSRP of approximately -112 dBm, the PC The PC 1.5-enabled
1.5-enabled smartphone achieved 14% higher throughput than the PC 2-enabled smartphone, or smartphone achieved
94.8 Mbps and 83.4 Mbps, respectively. The PC 1.5-enabled smartphone was transmitting at an 14% higher downlink
throughput than the PC
average transmit power at or above 26 dBm throughout this test while the PC 2-enabled smartphone
2-enabled smartphone.
was transmitting nearly 2 dB lower.

The combined benefits of a smartphone supporting UL-MIMO and UL-256QAM

cannot be ignored. In an earlier Signals Ahead report (SA 08/17/21, “The Hunt for Uplink
256QAM (and UL-MIMO)), we documented the performance gains due to both UL-256QAM
and UL-MIMO. Both features delivered compelling gains in uplink performance and the smart-
phones used the features an impressive amount of the time. In that study, we showed the OnePlus 9
Pro started using UL-MIMO around -100 dBm with 100% utilization once the RSRP reached -90
dBm. The same phone started using UL-256QAM around -95 dBm. There is only upside associated
with using two layers and/or the higher modulation scheme so anything that can increase their usage
is worth considering. PC 1.5 answers the mail.
In our most recent results, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone started using UL-MIMO around -105
dBm with somewhat frequent use of UL-256QAM starting at -100 dBm. Put another way, there
was easily a multiple dB gain due to the use of PC 1.5 which allowed one or both of these features
to be used with lower signal levels.
In this study, we show comparative results for the S22 smartphone (UL-256QAM) and the
Motorola edge (2022) smartphone (UL-256QAM and UL-MIMO). We did this study originally
thinking the Galaxy S22 didn’t support either feature, so we were pleasantly surprised to see
the phone supported UL-256QAM. Nonetheless, these results indicate supporting UL-MIMO
and UL-256QAM can deliver higher aggregate throughput in most circumstances. We strongly
encouraged the industry to adopt both features in our 2021 SA report and we even expected wider
spread adoption over time. Although we didn’t test current efficiency in this study, we did include

10 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

this analysis in our earlier study and we found that while features like UL-MIMO required more
current, it was more than offset by the faster data speeds it delivered. We assume, but cannot
confirm, that this outcome would also occur with a smartphone supporting UL-256QAM,
UL-MIMO, and PC 1.5.
There is a cost associated with PC 1.5 since it requires an additional transmit chain in the smart-
phone. This cost isn’t inconsequential but given the subsequent performance gains, strong operator
interest, and the inherent coverage challenges associated with mid-band 5G TDD spectrum, it is a
cost that seems well justified.

11 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

3.0 Detailed Results and Analysis
In this chapter we provide results from several different tests involving PC 1.5 and PC 2 perfor-
mance. The first section includes results in which we PCI locked the two phones and then intention-
ally drove out of coverage along the California coast. In the second section, we include results for a
cluster drive test over a much larger stretch of the California coast. In these tests, the phones were
generally enabled to support handovers between cells, although the results do include some data
from some PCI-locked tests. The third section provides uplink results from a stationary test and the
fourth section provides downlink results from another stationary test. From our testing, we observed
that stationary tests could be a bit problematic for obtaining apples-apples comparative results since
there could be a big discrepancy in the RSRP between the two adjacent smartphones. With the
drive test results, we analyzed the data as a function of the full range of RSRP, thereby ensuring an
apples-apples comparison of the data.
To kick things off, we have a few figures from some limited testing that we did with the Motorola
edge (2022) smartphone with PC 1.5 functionality and a Galaxy S22 smartphone. The purpose of
this test was to demonstrate the value of a smartphone supporting UL-MIMO and UL-256QAM.
We were pleasantly surprised to find that the Galaxy S22 smartphone supported UL-256QAM
since when we did our original benchmark study of UL-MIMO and UL-256QAM, these two
features were limited to only a few [non-Samsung] smartphones. The OnePlus 9 Pro supported both
features and the LG (RIP) Wing supported UL-256QAM. At the time, the Galaxy S21 we used for
that study didn’t support either feature.
Figure 1 shows a time series plot of the uplink throughput for the two smartphones. For this test,
we alternated uplink data transfers between the two phones as well as included times when both
smartphones were concurrently using the network. As indicated in the figure, we tested from two
stationary locations, so the results include a middle section with some mobility. Throughout the
test, we were relatively close to the serving cell site so the UL-256QAM and UL-MIMO usage was
higher than it would be on average. The higher transmit power associated with PC 1.5 also was not
required. Figure 2 shows the average uplink throughput for the three segments of the test. When
calculating the average values, we only included the results from serial testing in Location #1 and
not the period that included parallel testing.

Figure 1. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Uplink Throughput Time Series
PUSCH Throughput (Mbps)
160
Location #1 Location #2
140
Motorola edge (UL-256QAM/UL-MIMO)
120

100

80

60

40
Galaxy S22 (UL-256QAM)
20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Time (sec)
Source: Signals Research Group

120
115
12 106 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2
 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Time (sec)

Figure 2. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Average Uplink Throughput
120
115
106

72
66

51

Galaxy S22 Motorola edge Galaxy S22 Motorola edge Galaxy S22 Motorola edge
(UL-256QAM) (UL-256QAM/ (UL-256QAM) (UL-256QAM/ (UL-256QAM) (UL-256QAM/
UL-MIMO) UL-MIMO) UL-MIMO)
Location #1 Moving Location #2
PUSCH Throughput (Mbps)
Source: Signals Research Group

The next two figures shed some light on the results. Figure 3 shows how frequently the two
smartphones used UL-256QAM and Figure 4 shows how frequently the two smartphones used
UL-MIMO. The latter figure is a bit uninteresting since the Galaxy S22 didn’t support UL-MIMO
while the Motorola edge (2022) supported two uplink layers throughout the entire test with the
only dip occurring when the Umetrix Data session ended before starting up again. The Galaxy S22
used UL-256QAM more frequently than the Motorola smartphone because it takes more ideal RF
conditions for a smartphone to simultaneously use both UL-256QAM and UL-MIMO. The S22
uplink throughput was also more comparable to the Motorola edge (2022) smartphone at Location
#2 since its UL-256QAM usage was higher at this location than it was at Location #1.

Figure 3. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Uplink 256QAM Utilization
Utilization (%)
100%

80%

60%

40%
Galaxy S22 - Motorola edge (2022) -
UL-256QAM UL-256QAM
20%

0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

Uplink MIMO Layers

2.0
Motorola edge (2022) - Layers

1.5

13 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

Galaxy S22 - Layers
1.0
 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
RSRP (dBm)

Figure 4. Motorola edge (2022) and Galaxy S22 Uplink MIMO Utilization
Uplink MIMO Layers
2.0
Motorola edge (2022) - Layers

1.5

Galaxy S22 - Layers

1.0

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Time (sec)
Source: Signals Research Group

The point of these slides is not to suggest there are inherent and consistent performance differences A smartphone that
between the two phones. We also don’t want to suggest UL-MIMO and UL-256QAM availability supports UL-MIMO and
is this prevalent across an entire network. Instead, we did this analysis to demonstrate the value of a UL-256QAM can achieve
higher throughput, plus by
smartphone being able to support both uplink features since 1) it can increase the overall throughput
supporting both features
versus supporting a single feature (or neither feature) and 2) by supporting both uplink features there there is a degree of flexibility
is a degree of flexibility whereby the smartphone can use the most appropriate uplink feature to to select between one or
enhance its total throughput. both uplink features.

14 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

3.1 Uplink Drive Test with PCI-locked Smartphones
In these tests we locked the smartphones to a designated 5G Band n41 cell site (PCI), plus as in
all tests we disabled the LTE bands as well as 5G Band n71. These actions made it more likely to
observe areas in the network where the smartphone used PC 1.5, even if it meant encountering
“dead spots” that were artificially created. Going inside buildings, etc., would have also resulted in
more challenging RF conditions, but it is more burdensome and logistically challenging to do. Put
another way, in doing this study we intentionally forced the T-Mobile network to perform in ways
that it wouldn’t normally perform – no LTE safety net and no Band n71 coverage extension for the
mid-band 5G spectrum.
Figure 5 (PC 1.5) and Figure 6 (PC 2) show the drive route we used for this study. In these two The PC 1.5-enabled
figures, we’ve identified if the smartphone was using 5G Band n41 or if it was in search mode. smartphone was attached
These figures are based on testing the two phones in parallel. All other results in this section stem to Band n41 more
frequently than the PC
from testing each smartphone by itself and then comparing results between the two smartphones
2-enabled smartphone.
by mapping the KPIs to the measured RSRP of the smartphone. Comparing the two figures, it is
clearly evident the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone was attached to Band n41 more frequently than the
PC 2-enabled smartphone.

Figure 5. PC 1.5 5G Band n41 Coverage

5G Band n41 SA Connection

No 5G Band n41 SA Connection

Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 6. PC 2 5G Band n41 Coverage

5G Band n41 SA Connection

No 5G Band n41 SA Connection

Source: Signals Research Group

15 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 Figure 7 plots the PUSCH transmit power for the two smartphones as a function of each phone’s
reported RSRP. We’ve limited the RSRP range to below -100 dBm since it is within this region
where we were most likely to observe the higher transmit power. With the most favorable RSRP
values we wouldn’t expect there to be performance differences between the two smartphones, and
to extent there were differences, we couldn’t attribute those performance differences to the transmit
power capability. We do show in the next section that the higher transmit power / increased power
headroom did increase the probability of the phone using UL-MIMO and/or UL-256QAM and
this usage did increase the uplink throughput.
At most points along the range of RSRP values the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had a 1-2 dB
higher transmit power than the PC 2-enabled smartphone. We note the transmit power values are
averages that are binned in one-second time increments, and then mapped to the corresponding
RSRP value. Therefore, an average transmit power of 27 dBm, for example, could include transmis-
sions with higher transmit power (up to 29 dBm) as well as lower transmit power.

Figure 7. PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Transmit Power (dBm)
30
PC 1.5
25

20 PC 2

15

10

0
−120 −118 −116 −114 −112 −110 −108 −106 −104 −102 −100
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

16 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 Figure 8 plots the uplink RBs as a function of RSRP for the two smartphones when tested by The PC 1.5-enabled
themselves. Between RSRP = -120 dBm and RSRP = -110 dBm there was a significant disparity in smartphone, on average,
the RB allocations. The PC 1.5-enable smartphone, on average, used 1.8x more RBs than the PC used 1.8x more RBs
than the PC 2-enabled
2-enabled smartphone. It isn’t clear why the two lines converged at RSRP = -120 dBm and at -110
smartphone between
dBm. However, there were very limited data points at -120 dBm while at higher RSRP values the -120 dBm and -110 dBm.
PC 1.5-enabled smartphone wasn’t transmitting higher than 26 dBm. The transmit power was ~2dB
higher between -110 dBm and -100 dBm, but in this case it didn’t translate into the smartphone
using more RBs. We were testing in a network with live commercial traffic, but we have no proof
that network loading from other smartphones played a role.

Figure 8. PUSCH Resource Block Allocations Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH RBs
70

60

50 PC 1.5

40

30

20
PC 2
10

0
−120 −118 −116 −114 −112 −110 −108 −106 −104 −102 −100
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 9 shows the relationship between the uplink MCS allocations and the Band n41 RSRP.
Excluding the erratic behavior near RSRP -120 dBm where there were limited data points, the
PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had observably higher MCS which subsequently diminished with
increasing RSRP with no distinguishable differences with RSRP higher than -105 dBm.

Figure 9. Uplink MCS Allocations Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
Uplink MCS
9

6 PC 1.5

3 PC 2

0
−120 −118 −116 −114 −112 −110 −108 −106 −104 −102 −100
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

17 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

Figure 10. PUSCH Throughput Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Tput (Mbps)
16

14

12

10

6 PC 1.5

2 PC 2

0
−120 −118 −116 −114 −112 −110 −108 −106 −104 −102 −100
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

The combined impact of MCS and RB allocations is reflected in the uplink throughput. Below The PC 1.5-enabled
RSRP less than -110 dBm, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had 2.3x higher uplink throughput smartphone had 2.3x
compared with the PC 2-enabled smartphone. higher uplink throughput
compared with the PC
2-enabled smartphone.

18 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 3.2 Uplink Drive Test with PCI-unlocked Smartphones
The results in this section stem from drive testing along the coast with the smartphones unlocked In a region with poor RF, the
to a PCI. We include results when testing with both phones in parallel as well as testing each phone PC 1.5-enabled smartphone
individually. Generally speaking, the results from individual (serial) testing should show greater could leverage transmit
diversity to provide better
gains from PC 1.5 than PC 2, compared with testing the phones together (parallel). This outcome is
performance and coverage.
because with serial testing the full allocation of uplink RBs is available to each smartphone, meaning
there could be a greater need for the higher transmit power associated with PC 1.5. Then again, with
UL-MU-MIMO the two smartphones operating in parallel can both use the same uplink RBs as
long as both phones are not using UL-MIMO. Phones are most likely to not use UL-MIMO with
lower RSRP values where the smartphones are power limited and unable to support two concur-
rent uplink data streams. In this region, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone could leverage transmit
diversity to provide better performance and coverage.
Figure 11 shows the relationship between PUSCH transmit power and RSRP for the serial tests
(each phone tested by itself) and Figure 12 provides the same information for the parallel tests (both
phones tested together). In both figures the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had higher uplink transmit

Figure 11. PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Transmit Power (dBm)
30

25 PC 1.5

20 PC 2

15

10

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 12. PUSCH Transmit Power Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Transmit Power (dBm)
30
PC 1.5
25
PC 2
20

15

10

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

19 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

power over much of the range of RSRP values. With the most favorable RSRP, comparing results
between the two phones isn’t meaningful since the higher transmit power wasn’t always necessary.
It can be used, however, to increase the usage of UL-MIMO and/or UL-256QAM when the RF
conditions are good, but not great.
Figure 13 (serial) and Figure 14 (parallel) show a similar analysis for the uplink resource block The PC 1.5-enabled
allocations. In both results, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone was able to use more uplink RBs with smartphone was able to
lower RSRP. This situation occurred because the PC 2-enabled smartphone was more coverage use more uplink RBs with
lower RSRP since the PC
limited compared with the higher power class smartphone. The delta between the two smartphones
2-enabled smartphone was
wasn’t nearly as significant as shown in the previous section for reasons that are not entirely obvious. uplink coverage limited.
The most likely scenario is that it was indirectly due to UL-MU-MIMO. The tests in the previous
section occurred in a relatively remote area so it is likely there wasn’t much data traffic from other
phones in the network. Conversely, the drive route used in this section included areas with lots of
buildings, pedestrians, and a downtown area. Net-Net: more data traffic. If this data traffic included
uplink traffic with smartphones using UL-MIMO then it would have impacted the RB allocations
for our smartphones, even when our phones were in the lower RSRP range.
This thesis is supported by the results in the upper range of RSRP. With the serial tests there was
a fair amount of variability in the RB allocations (note the range with RSRP > -85 dBm in Figure
13). With the parallel tests, there was more consistency in the RB usage within this same range
(Figure 14). In both figures, the RB allocations dropped due to one or both of our smartphones using
UL-MU-MIMO. Since our two smartphones were frequently using UL-MIMO in this range,
they would have divided the available RBs with other smartphones in the network. In the parallel
tests, this situation occurred all the time, even in the absence of other smartphones, hence there was
relative consistency in the RB usage for the two phones, not to mention a decline in the overall RBs
due to UL-MIMO/UL-MU-MIMO. In the serial tests, this outcome occurred less frequently since
the additional uplink data traffic was only generated by other smartphones in the network. These
smartphones were most likely not doing full buffer uplink data transfers, plus they may not have
always been using UL-MIMO.

Figure 13. PUSCH Resource Block Allocations Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH RBs
70

60 RB Decline due to
MU-MIMO
50 PC 1.5

40

30
PC 2
20

10

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

20 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

Figure 14. PUSCH Resource Block Allocations Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH RBs
60
PC 1.5
RB Decline due to MU-MIMO
50

40

30

20

PC 2
10

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 15 through Figure 18 provide additional insight on the use of UL-MIMO and its impli-
cations for RB allocations due to UL-MU-MIMO. These figures, which are specific to the PC
1.5-enabled smartphone, stem from a select portion of the overall test results which demonstrate the
phenomenon we want to highlight. The first two figures show time series results for the parallel tests
and the last two figures show time series results for the serial tests. In Figure 15, there is an imme-
diate drop in the RB allocations when the smartphone switched to UL-MIMO at the 250 second
mark. This drop occurred because the smartphone switched to UL-MIIMO and if a smartphone
is using UL-MIMO then it can’t share/reuse RBs with another smartphone. Therefore, the PC
1.5-enabled smartphone’s RB allocation was essentially cut in half. Although it isn’t shown in the
figure, the PC-2 smartphone was sharing many of the RBs up to 250 seconds and then the RBs were
roughly split between the two phones. Figure 16 shows the RB allocations and the RSRP for the
same portion of the test. From this figure we can observe the smartphone switched to UL-MIMO
at approximately -85 dBm.
In both figures, the sharp spike/drop in the RBs just after the 300 second time stamp was due to Darn that UL-MU-MIMO
the Umetrix Data session ending on one of the phones. The downward spike corresponds with the – it makes life difficult
session ending on the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone. The upward spike corresponds with the session to analyze the data!

Figure 15. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and Uplink MIMO Layers Time Series – Parallel Testing
PUSCH RBs Uplink MIMO Layers
70 2.0
RBs
60
1.5
50

40
Layers
1.0
30

20
0.5
10

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Time (sec)
Source: Signals Research Group

21
PUSCH RBs March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2
RSRP (dBm)
70 −60
RBs
 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Time (sec)

Figure 16. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and RSRP Time Series – Parallel Testing
PUSCH RBs RSRP (dBm)
70 −60
RBs
60 −70

50
−80
40
RSRP −90
30
−100
20

10 −110

0 −120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Time (sec)
Source: Signals Research Group

ending on the PC 2-enabled smartphone. Since the PC 2-enabled phone wasn’t sending any data, it
wasn’t using UL-MIMO so the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone could use the full allocation of RBs and
use UL-MIMO. Darn that UL-MU-MIMO – it makes life difficult to analyze the data!
In the serial tests, there was still an impact due to UL-MU-MIMO and how it allocated RBs.
However, the impact was less consequential since it was entirely driven by other smartphones in the
network, and it is unlikely these smartphones were using uplink Band n41 to the same degree we did
with our tests. As shown in Figure 17 there was greater variability in the RB allocations when the
smartphone used UL-MIMO than there was in the parallel tests since in the parallel tests the RB
usage for other smartphones (including the PC 2-enabled smartphone) was more predictable since
the PC 2-enabled smartphone was doing full buffer uplink data transfers. There was also a stronger
relationship between RSRP and uplink RBs since in this portion of the test there was a section when
the RSRP values were relatively unfavorable. This trend is most evident around the 150 second mark.

Figure 17. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and Uplink MIMO Layers Time Series – Serial Testing
PUSCH RBs Uplink MIMO Layers
70 2.0
Layers
60
1.5
50

40
1.0
30
RBs
20
0.5
10

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (sec)
Source: Signals Research Group

PUSCH RBs RSRP (dBm)

70 −60
RBs
60 −70
22
50 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2
−80
40
 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (sec)

Figure 18. PC 1.5-enabled Smartphone PUSCH Resource Block Allocations and RSRP Time Series – Serial Testing
PUSCH RBs RSRP (dBm)
70 −60
RBs
60 −70

50
−80
40
−90
30
−100
20
RSRP −110
10

0 −120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (sec)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 19. Uplink MCS Allocations Power Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
Uplink MCS
30

25

20

15
PC 1.5
10
PC 2
5

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)

Uplink MCS
16

14

12

10

8
PC 1.5
6

4 PC 2

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

23 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 In Figure 19 (serial) and Figure 20 (parallel) we show the uplink MCS allocations as a function
of the RSRP. In both sets of figures, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone generally used a higher MCS
value with the lower RSRP. The higher MCS allocations coincide with the higher PUSCH transmit
power the phone was able to use in this region of RSRP values. In the parallel tests, there wasn’t
nearly the same delta as there was in the serial tests. We assume that with parallel testing the PC
2-enabled smartphone was less coverage constrained than it was with the serial tests. As previously
shown, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone consistently used higher transmit power in this region of
RSRP values and it was able to use more RBs.

Figure 20. Uplink MCS Allocations Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
Uplink MCS
25

20

15

10 PC 1.5

PC 2
5

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)

Uplink MCS
16

14

12

10
PC 1.5
8
PC 2
6

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

With more favorable RF, both smartphones leveraged UL-MIMO, but the use of UL-MIMO
occurred with lower RSRP values for the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone. With higher RSRP, we
would expect similar use of UL-MIMO for the two smartphones. One interesting observation is
that with the parallel testing (Figure 22), the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone’s more frequent use of
UL-MIMO with lower RSRP values was far more evident in the results than it was with the serial
tests (Figure 21). The range extended from the lowest RSRP up to nearly -80 dBm, at which point
the UL-MIMO usage was similar between the two smartphones. We provide a good explanation
for this phenomenon later in this section.

24 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

Figure 21. Uplink MIMO Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
Uplink MIMO Layers
2.0

1.8
PC 1.5
1.6

1.4 PC 2

1.2

1.0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65 −60
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 22. Uplink MIMO Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
Uplink MIMO Layers
2.0

PC 1.5
1.8

PC 2
1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65 −60
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

25 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 Figure 23 (PC 1.5) and Figure 24 (PC 2) provide geo plots of the UL-MIMO usage for the two
smartphones. The figures also show instances when the smartphones were not attached to the Band
n41 network. These two figures stem from testing the two phones in parallel. The differences are
slight, but the PC 1.5 results do show more instances of the smartphone using UL-MIMO as well
as fewer instances without a 5G Band n41 connection.

Figure 23. PC 1.5 Uplink MIMO Usage

5G Band n41 Connection with

UL-MIMO
5G Band n41 Connection
without UL-MIMO
No Band n41 SA Connection

Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 24. PC 2 Uplink MIMO Usage

5G Band n41 Connection with

UL-MIMO
5G Band n41 Connection
without UL-MIMO
No Band n41 SA Connection

Source: Signals Research Group

26 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 Figure 25 (serial) and Figure 26 (parallel) show the relationship between UL-256QAM and RSRP.
In both figures there is an increase in usage up to approximately -80 dBm at which point the UL-256
usage declined. In both cases, the drop in usage was due to the smartphones leveraging UL-MIMO
more frequently. Additionally, the UL-256QAM usage explains the earlier phenomenon regarding
UL-MIMO. As shown in Figure 26, the UL-256QAM usage was similar between the two phones
during the parallel tests while in Figure 25, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone used UL-256QAM
more frequently than the PC 2-enabled smartphone. This outcome mirrors the opposite of what we
observed with UL-MIMO. In other words, the wider gap in UL-MIMO usage that is shown in
Figure 22 corresponds with the narrower gap in UL-256QAM usage that is shown in Figure 26.

Figure 25. Uplink 256QAM Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
UL-256QAM Utilization (%)
100%

80% Increased UL-MIMO

resulted in less UL-256QAM

60%
PC 1.5
40%

20%

PC 2
0%
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 26. Uplink 256QAM Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
UL-256QAM Utilization (%)
100%
Increased UL-MIMO
resulted in less UL-256QAM
80%
PC 1.5
60%
PC 2

40%

20%

0%
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

27 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 Figure 27 (serial) and Figure 28 (parallel) show how the uplink throughput for the two smart- The PC 1.5-enabled
phones was impacted by RSRP. The performance difference between the two smartphones is more smartphone achieved 27%
evident with the serial tests, which is expected, but interestingly the biggest differences occurred higher uplink throughput
than the PC 2-enabled
between -95 dBm and -85 dBm. On average, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone achieved 27% higher
smartphone for RSRP
uplink throughput within this range during the serial tests. between -95 dBm and -85
dBm during the serial tests.

Figure 27. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus RSRP – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Tput (Mbps)
140

120

100

PC 1.5
80

60 PC 2

40

20

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 28. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus RSRP – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Tput (Mbps)
90

80

70

60 PC 1.5

50 PC 2

40

30

20

10

0
−120 −115 −110 −105 −100 −95 −90 −85 −80 −75 −70 −65
RSRP (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

28 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 Finally, Figure 29 (serial) and Figure 30 (parallel) illustrate the relationships between the uplink
throughput and the transmit power. In both sets of figures there is an obvious benefit associated
with the higher transmit power, especially when the transmit power exceeded 25 dBm. Specifically,
if just analyze the uplink throughput when the average transmit power was between 23 dBm and 26
dBm, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had 5x higher throughput with the serial tests and 3.3x higher
throughput with the parallel tests. On an absolute basis, the uplink throughput was higher with the
serial testing, but this outcome is expected.

Figure 29. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus PUSCH Transmit Power – Serial Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Throughput (Mbps)
150

PC 1.5

100

PC2

50

0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Transmit Power (dBm)

PUSCH Throughput (Mbps)

35

30

25 PC 1.5

20

15

10

5
PC2
0
25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0 27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0
Transmit Power (dBm)

Source: Signals Research Group

29 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

Figure 30. Uplink PUSCH Throughput Versus PUSCH Transmit Power – Parallel Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Throughput (Mbps)
150

100

PC 1.5

50

PC2

0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Transmit Power (dBm)

PUSCH Throughput (Mbps)

35

30

25

20 PC 1.5

15

10

5
PC2
0
25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0 27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0
Transmit Power (dBm)
Source: Signals Research Group

30 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

3.3 Uplink Stationary Test
As mentioned earlier in this report, the stationary testing was a bit problematic since there wasn’t
always comparable RSRP values between the two smartphones, even when placed adjacent to each
other and without any human touch. We are including one set of results which reflects both the
typical performance differences between the two phones as well as the challenges we had with the
stationary tests.
This test took place along a bike path which was parallel to the remote stretch of highway where
we did our PCI locked tests. Figure 31 shows the average RSRP for the two smartphones during the
test. Despite our best efforts, there was a 7 dB difference in the RSRP between the two phones with
the PC 2-enabled smartphone having the far more favorable RF conditions.

Figure 31. RSRP – Stationary Test

PC 1.5 PC 2

-107.1
-114.1

Source: Signals Research Group

RSRP (dBm)

Since this was an uplink test done with poor RSRP the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone leveraged its
higher transmit power, using an average transmit power of 26 dBm, compared with 24.2 dBm for
the PC 2-enabled smartphone. These values are averages based on one second time binning so it is
logical to conclude the per slot
4.6 transmit power levels reached higher levels, albeit momentarily, for
both smartphones.
3.8

Figure 32. PUSCH Transmit Power – Stationary Test

26.0
24.2

PC 1.5 PC 2

Uplink MCS

PC 1.5 PC 2

PUSCH Transmit Power (dBm)

Source: Signals Research Group

31 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 -107.1
-114.1
Thanks to both higher MCS values (Figure 33) and higher RB allocations (Figure 34), the PC Thanks to both higher
1.5-enabled smartphone achieved nearly 2x higher throughput than the PC 2-enabled smartphone,
RSRP (dBm) MCS values and higher
or 8.5 Mbps versus 4.3 Mbps. RB allocations, the PC
1.5-enabled smartphone
achieved nearly 2x higher
Figure 33. Uplink MCS – Stationary Test throughput than the PC
2-enabled smartphone.
4.6

3.8

8.5

4.3

PC 1.5 PC 2

Uplink MCS
PC 1.5 PC 2 Source: Signals Research Group
Uplink Throughput

Figure 34. Uplink RB Allocations – Stationary Test

58.3

38.0

PC 1.5 PC 2
RBs
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 35. PUSCH Throughput – Stationary Test

8.5

4.3

PC 1.5 PC 2
Uplink Throughput

Source: Signals Research Group

32 58.3 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

3.4 Downlink Stationary
PC 2 Test PC 1.5
Although it may be counter-intuitive, the higher transmit power associated with a PC 1.5-enabled
smartphone can also indirectly increase the downlink throughput as well as coverage during down-
link data transfers. The gain comes from the higher transmit power used to send the ACK/NACK
messages for the downlink data packets. If the smartphone can’t send the ACK/NACK messages or
if the messages require retransmissions, then there either isn’t a downlink connection, or the down-
link data speeds get reduced since the network scheduler is waiting on the ACK/NACK responses.
This stationary test occurred in the same general region as the test in the earlier section. In this
test, the RSRP was very similar between the two phones, as shown in Figure 36. Given the poor RF
conditions, the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone had a higher transmit power (Figure 37), which resulted
in higher downlink throughput (Figure 38). In this test, the downlink throughput was 14% higher
with the PC 1.5-enabled smartphone.
−113.3 Although it isn’t shown in this section, the PC 1.5-enabled
−112.7
smartphone’s average uplink throughput was approximately 2x the PC 2-enabled smartphone, or
Time (sec)
0.16 Mbps versus 0.081 Mbps.

Figure 36. Measured RSRP – Parallel Downlink Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
PUSCH Transmit Power (dBm)
30

PC 1.5
25

PC2
20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Average (Mbps)
Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 37. PUSCH Transmit Power – Parallel Downlink Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones

PC 2 PC 1.5

−113.3 −112.7

Time (sec)
Source: Signals Research Group

33 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

PUSCH Transmit Power (dBm)
30
Figure 38. PDSCH Time Series and Average Throughput – Parallel Downlink Testing of PC 1.5 and PC 2 Smartphones
Mbps
140
PC2
120
PC 1.5
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (sec)

94.8

83.4

PC 2 PC 1.5
Average (Mbps)
Source: Signals Research Group

34 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

4.0 Test Methodology
Consistent with virtually all our 5G benchmark studies, we collaborated with Accuver Americas and We collaborated with
Spirent Communications – two trusted partners that we have worked with for nearly 15 years. We Accuver Americas and
used XCAL5 to collect the chipset diagnostic messages and we used the XCAP post-processing tool Spirent Communications
– two trusted partners
to analyze the results. Spirent Communications provided its Umetrix Data platform which we used
that we have worked with
to generate the high bandwidth data transfers. for nearly 15 years.
We used Umetrix Data to generate the uplink data traffic. For the uplink tests we used 300 Mbps
UDP profile (reference Figure 39), which lasted for 5 minutes. For many of the tests, we ran this
profile in a continuous loop so that we could test over a longer time period. As indicated throughout
the report we tested with two smartphones in parallel as well as with each smartphone by itself.

Figure 39. Umetrix Data Platform

Source: Spirent Communications

We used XCAL5 to log the data and we used XCAP to post process and analyze the data with
all logged data including geo coordinates and time stamps. We analyzed the data in one second
time increments with a focus on the most important metrics – primarily uplink related metrics.
These metrics included uplink (UL) resource block (RB) allocations, UL MCS, UL MIMO layers,
PUSCH transmit power, and PUSCH throughput. We generally compared these metrics with the
measured RSRP values to provide apples-apples comparative results for the two smartphones.
As discussed in this report, we frequently encountered the presence of UL-MU-MIMO. There
isn’t a reported metric that says whether or not the smartphone was using UL-MU-MIMO, but
it was relatively easy to detect in most of the results, plus we confirmed with T-Mobile that the

35 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

network supported this feature. We intend to conduct a benchmark study in the future that focuses
specifically on UL-MU-MIMO and how it impacts overall capacity and spectral efficiency.
Figure 40 shows a screen shot of the XCAL5 GUI during an earlier test from our MU-MIMO
study that we published earlier this year. Worth noting, this screen shot was taken when the smart-
phone was pairing with a second adjacent smartphone, which was achieving similar performance.

Figure 40. XCAL5 in Action

Source: Accuver Americas and SRG

36 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

5.0 Final Thoughts
This report took a bit more effort than we anticipated so we fell a bit behind on our publishing
schedule. MWC didn’t help matters any. Never fear, we already have the data for our next Signals
Ahead report and we near-term plans to do testing on the subsequent report. Until next time, be on
the lookout for the next Signals Ahead….

Michael Thelander
Michael Thelander is the President and Founder of Signals Research Group (SRG), a US-based research consultancy that offers
thought-leading field research and consulting services on the wireless telecommunications industry.
Its flagship research product is a research product entitled Signals Ahead, which has attracted a strong following across the
entire wireless ecosystem with corporate subscribers on five continents. SRG’s Signals Ahead research product and its consulting
services are technology-focused with a strong emphasis on next-generation networks and performance benchmarking.
In his current endeavor, Mr. Thelander is the lead analyst for Signals Ahead and he guides a team of industry experts that
provide consulting services for the wireless industry, including some of the largest mobile operators, the top equipment OEMs,
trade associations, and financial institutions. He has also served as a member of an industry advisory board for one of the world’s
largest wireless infrastructure suppliers.
Mr. Thelander earned a Masters of Science in Solid State Physics from North Carolina State University and a Masters of
Business Administration from the University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business.

37 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 ON THE HORIZON: POTENTIAL SIGNALS AHEAD/SIGNALS FLASH! TOPICS
We have identified a list of pending research topics that we are currently considering or presently working on
completing. The topics at the top of the list are definitive with many of them already in the works. The topics toward
the bottom of the page are a bit more speculative. Obviously, this list is subject to change based on various factors and
market trends. As always, we welcome suggestions from our readers.

Thematic Reports
➤ Mobile Edge Computing and the impact of data caching at the cell edge

Benchmark Studies
➤ 5G NR mmWave Fixed Wireless Access with IAB

➤ UL-MU-MIMO

➤ 4CC uplink mmWave benchmark study

➤ Open RAN network performance benchmark study 1 – Dish Network Revisit

➤ Open RAN network performance benchmark study 3 – Scheduling Efficiency

➤ FR1 + FR2 NR-DC network performance benchmark study

➤ MU-MIMO benchmark study, part II (FR1)

➤ SRS-based beamforming benchmark study

➤ 5G mmWave device/chipset lab-based benchmark study

➤ DSS Update benchmark study

38 March 23, 2023 | Signals Ahead, Vol. 19, Number 2

 Signals Ahead Subscription
The Signals Ahead newsletter is available on a subscription basis. We offer three distinct packages that have been
tailored to address the needs of our corporate users. The Group License includes up to five users from the same company.
The Global License is the most attractive package for companies that have several readers since it is offered to an unlimited
number of employees from the same organization. Finally, the Platinum package includes the Global License, plus up to five
hours of analyst time. Other packages are available.

Corporate Rates (12 issues)

❒ Group License ($3,995)
❒ Global License (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Platinum (Price Available upon Request)
❒ Gold Pass (Price Available upon Request)

Payment Terms
❒ American Express ❒ Visa ❒ MasterCard Credit Card # Exp Date //
❒ Check Check Number
❒ Purchase Order PO Number
Name: Title:
Affiliation: Phone: ( )
Mailing Address:

Mailing Address
Signals Research Group – ATTN: Sales
5300 Painter Creek Green
Independence, MN 55359
Alternatively, you may contact us at (510) 273-2439 or at information@signalsresearch.com and we will contact you for your
billing information.

Terms and Conditions: Any copying, redistributing, or republishing of this material, including unauthorized
sharing of user accounts, is strictly prohibited without the written consent of SRG.

please note disclaimer: The views expressed in this newsletter reflect those of Signals Research Group and are based on our understanding of past and current events shaping the wireless industry.
This report is provided for informational purposes only and on the condition that it will not form a basis for any investment decision. The information has been obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but Signals Research Group makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. Opinions, estimates, projections or forecasts in this report constitute the current
judgment of the author(s) as of the date of this report. Signals Research Group has no obligation to update, modify or amend this report or to otherwise notify a reader thereof in the event that any matter
stated herein, or any opinion, projection, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate.
If you feel our opinions, analysis or interpretations of events are inaccurate, please fell free to contact Signals Research Group. We are always seeking a more accurate understanding of the topics
that influence the wireless industry. Reference in the newsletter to a company that is publicly traded is not a recommendation to buy or sell the shares of such company. Signals Research Group and/or
its affiliates/investors may hold securities positions in the companies discussed in this report and may frequently trade in such positions. Such investment activity may be inconsistent with the analysis
provided in this report. Signals Research Group seeks to do business and may currently be doing business with companies discussed in this report. Readers should be aware that Signals Research Group
39 have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Additional information and disclosures can be found
might March
at our23, 2023
website | Signals Ahead, Vol.
at www.signalsresearch.com. This19, Number
report 2
may not be
reproduced, copied, distributed or published without the prior written authorization of Signals Research Group (copyright ©2022, all rights reserved by Signals Research Group).