Intel and Broadcom Achieve Major Wi-Fi 7 Industry Milestone

[btarunr]

Today, Intel Corporation and Broadcom Inc. showcased the industry's first cross-vendor Wi-Fi 7 demonstration, with over-the-air speeds greater than 5 gigabits per second. The trial used an Intel Core processor-based laptop with a Wi-Fi 7 solution connected to a Broadcom Wi-Fi 7 access point.

"We are proud to highlight how next-generation Wi-Fi 7 can make new mobile PC experiences possible. Industry collaboration is essential to ensure we deliver on the promises of this new wireless technology. We would like to thank our colleagues at Broadcom for their great technical cooperation, which helped enable this unprecedented, first-of-its-kind demonstration of ultra-high speed and ultra-low latency Wi-Fi 7," said Carlos Cordeiro, Intel Fellow and Wireless CTO, Client Computing Group, Intel.

Vijay Nagarajan, vice president, Wireless Connectivity Division, Broadcom, said, "Today's milestone sends a clear message: the ecosystem is ready and Wi-Fi 7 is here to deliver extraordinary capacity and blazing fast speeds to extend gigabit broadband. The reliable, low latency communication provided by Wi-Fi 7 is a key element of Broadcom's vision for connecting everything as the Internet evolves to its next iteration replete with immersive experiences. Industry collaboration is key to making this unprecedented connectivity a reality and we were delighted to work with Intel to achieve another industry first."



Wi-Fi 7 is the platform for the next 10 years of wireless experiences, which require higher speeds, lower latency, improved reliability and greater capacity. Wi-Fi 7 leverages new features including wider 320 MHz channels in unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum, higher order 4K QAM data modulation, simultaneous connections across multiple bands with multi-link operation and improved channel utilization efficiency with multi-resource unit puncturing.

Wi-Fi 7's deterministic operation enables new product classes, including augmented and virtual reality, ultra-high-definition 16K media streaming, and super-responsive and reliable gaming, while supporting large numbers of connected devices in the home or office. And with Wi-Fi 7's greatly increased speeds, broadband subscribers will get full value from their multi-gigabit internet plans.

"Wi-Fi 7 is the most powerful and capable Wi-Fi protocol yet and will allow Wi-Fi to continue to serve the most demanding applications in the consumer and vertical markets with the highest level of determinism yet," said Phil Solis, Research Director, Connectivity at IDC. "Interoperability testing between Intel and Broadcom will enable the development of products that can be used in the test beds for official Wi-Fi Alliance certification testing."

Intel and Broadcom provide the full network that is essential to help maximize Wi-Fi 7's potential and deliver end-to-end experiences to the wider Wi-Fi marketplace.

"As longtime WBA board members, Broadcom and Intel have been instrumental in pioneering Wi-Fi 6 and 6E. Now they're leading the way again with Wi-Fi 7, which leverages the rapidly growing availability of 6 GHz spectrum in multiple countries across APAC, EMEA, Latin America and the U.S. Their successful trial is a milestone toward bringing Wi-Fi 7's double-digit gigabit speeds, ultra-low latency, carrier-grade resilience and other next-generation capabilities to consumers and businesses worldwide. Enterprise and residential networks will also greatly benefit from the advanced capabilities of Wi-Fi 7," said Tiago Rodrigues, CEO of the Wireless Broadband Alliance.

Today's achievement is proof that Wi-Fi 7 has arrived, and Broadcom and Intel will continue to show the additional capabilities of Wi-Fi 7.

For more information, visit the Intel Wi-Fi 7 page and Broadcom Wi-Fi 7 page.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[bonehead123]

"With great speed comes great responsibility"

"Ultra high speeds corrupts ultra absolutely"

Notice that amongst all the techno-babble, there is absolutely no mention of how many arms, legs, kidneys, and 1st borne children these new "solutions" are gonna cost us....

Seeins how intel is involved, we can assume it will be A.L.O.T. !

 

[Space Lynx]

"With great speed comes great responsibility"

"Ultra high speeds corrupts ultra absolutely"

Notice that amongst all the techno-babble, there is absolutely no mention of how many arms, legs, kidneys, and 1st borne children these new "solutions" are gonna cost us....

Seeins how intel is involved, we can assume it will be A.L.O.T. !

wired fiber optic for life for me. they can bugger off.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

Imagine if they worked on updating wired specs as often.

 

[zlobby]

wired fiber optic for life for me. they can bugger off.

+1

Keep 6GHz away from me, filth! (Edit: by filth I obviously mean intel and others pushing 6GHz)

 

[trparky]

Meanwhile, the real-world speeds are still going to suck.

 

[mplayerMuPDF]

Who cares honestly. My router is still 11ac and I am still using a 2.4 GHz-only 11n USB WiFi adapter with my main system. I don't care about 11ax or 7 or whatever new-fangled hypercomplex standards they come up with and for which they try to sell us expensive gear. The only thing that interests me is 6 GHz/6E due to the rapidly rising interference/congestion on 2.4 GHz (now you have, in addition to all the WiFi and ISM stuff, tons of BLE crap and Bluetooth accessories such as wireless earbuds/headphones). In my current living situation that does not seem to be a big problem yet but if I end up living in a much more densely populated area in the future then it very well may be. So when 6E Mediatek-based USB WiFi adapters become available, I will get one eventually for my main system (not really a financial priority for now, to be honest) and then I will at least have 5 GHz 11ac capability until I get a newer router.

 

[trparky]

It's funny... I have a notebook that has Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) and according to Windows 11, the link speed is 1201/1201. Yet, if I run an iPerf test from my notebook to my desktop that's connected via Gigabit Ethernet to my router, I only get about 400 Mbps. Oh, and the stupid part is... the setup is in the basement with the notebook less than ten feet from the router. When I saw the results of the iPerf test I had a real WTF moment.

 

[Readlight]

My WiFi is losing connection. Receiver can't get USB 2.0 speed because 4G haw USB 1.0 speed

 

[R-T-B]

Imagine if they worked on updating wired specs as often.

They have been. Don't ask prices though. You can get 2014 enterprise 10gbps cards pretty cheap now though...

As far as consumers? They are convinced they don't use ethernet anymore.

+1

Keep 6GHz away from me, filth! (Edit: by filth I obviously mean intel and others pushing 6GHz)

6Ghz is fine for like a highspeed bluetooth scenario. Beyond that it's pretty debatable.

The only thing that interests me is 6 GHz/6E due to the rapidly rising interference/congestion on 2.4 GHz (now you have, in addition to all the WiFi and ISM stuff, tons of BLE crap and Bluetooth accessories such as wireless earbuds/headphones).

5GHz no good for you? 6GHz is even worse distance wise.

 

[mplayerMuPDF]

They have been. Don't ask prices though. You can get 2014 enterprise 10gbps cards pretty cheap now though...

As far as consumers? They are convinced they don't use ethernet anymore.


6Ghz is fine for like a highspeed bluetooth scenario. Beyond that it's pretty debatable.


5GHz no good for you? 6GHz is even worse distance wise.

From what I have read 6 GHz propagation is almost identical to 5 GHz. The advantage of 6 GHz is that, at least for some time, there will be far less usage and therefore interference. Bluetooth can now also operate on 5 GHz, so that's just great... I suppose that with the current/coming global economic recession most people will not have the money to spend on IoT, smart this and that etc junk, so there's that...

 

[R-T-B]

From what I have read 6 GHz propagation is almost identical to 5 GHz. The advantage of 6 GHz is that, at least for some time, there will be usage and therefore interference. Bluetooth can now also operate on 5 GHz, so that's just great. I suppose that with the current/coming global economic recession most people will not have the money to spend on IoT, smart this and that etc junk, so there's that...

I thought I read 6Ghz had horrible distance. Willing to be proven wrong on that point of course, as I don't recall where I read that exactly...

 

[zlobby]

6GHz have worse free space and penetration propagation i.e. worse losses, hence the worse performance.

And I encourage you to look up some papers on the internet, which describe the effects of 6GHz RF on living things.

 

[Prima.Vera]

I don't care about speeds as I care much about the distance and penetration.
Are those going to be better than previous gens on that regard?

 

[AM4isGOD]

Wi-Fi for internet yukk. wired for me all the time

 

[mplayerMuPDF]

Wi-Fi for internet yukk. wired for me all the time

Isn't that what we all dream of? Unfortunately, for many of us it is an unachievable goal... On the "bright" side for me personally, Comcast sucks so bad that it doesn't make much of a difference anyway...

6GHz have worse free space and penetration propagation i.e. worse losses, hence the worse performance.

And I encourage you to look up some papers on the internet, which describe the effects of 6GHz RF on living things.

While I would not recommend exposing yourself for extended periods of time to high wattage EM radiation, is there any evidence that low power (which is certainly what typical routers are) 6 GHz radiation is any worse than comparable 2.4 GHz radiation? If you want to start a campaign against the proliferation of tons of wireless gadgets with questionable raison d'etre, then I will certainly not stand in your way but I don't think that we should fearmonger about 6 GHz in and of it self without any evidence that it is uniquely harmful.

 

[Aquinus]

I thought I read 6Ghz had horrible distance. Willing to be proven wrong on that point of course, as I don't recall where I read that exactly...

High frequency radio waves degrade much more quickly than low frequency ones. One of the biggest things that distinguishes 2.4Ghz from 5Ghz is the ability for the signal to penetrate physical objects. 2.4Ghz is superior in that respect whereas 5Ghz excels in bandwidth (due to the frequency.) It's all a matter of tradeoffs. It's really as simple as higher frequency waves have shorter range and lower frequency waves have longer range. Obviously it's more complicated than that, there are certain frequencies that bounce off the atmosphere which impacts range, noise, physical objects, etc. but it's a pretty simple way of looking at it. If 5Ghz is worse at penetrating physical objects than 2.4Ghz, 6Ghz is clearly going to be worse than 5Ghz.

 

[R-T-B]

And I encourage you to look up some papers on the internet, which describe the effects of 6GHz RF on living things.

And I encourage you to ensure they are peer reviewed.

 

[zlobby]

It's funny... I have a notebook that has Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) and according to Windows 11, the link speed is 1201/1201. Yet, if I run an iPerf test from my notebook to my desktop that's connected via Gigabit Ethernet to my router, I only get about 400 Mbps. Oh, and the stupid part is... the setup is in the basement with the notebook less than ten feet from the router. When I saw the results of the iPerf test I had a real WTF moment.

This is a long story. The general factors here are MCS, client MIMO capabilities (most likely 2x2), spatial diversity 'quality' and overhead.

One simple thing to try - move further from the router, speed should increase.

High frequency radio waves degrade much more quickly than low frequency ones. One of the biggest things that distinguishes 2.4Ghz from 5Ghz is the ability for the signal to penetrate physical objects. 2.4Ghz is superior in that respect whereas 5Ghz excels in bandwidth (due to the frequency.) It's all a matter of tradeoffs. It's really as simple as higher frequency waves have shorter range and lower frequency waves have longer range. Obviously it's more complicated than that, there are certain frequencies that bounce off the atmosphere which impacts range, noise, physical objects, etc. but it's a pretty simple way of looking at it. If 5Ghz is worse at penetrating physical objects than 2.4Ghz, 6Ghz is clearly going to be worse than 5Ghz.

In general - yes. Due to material compositions however, lower frequencies can sometimes degrade more than higher ones.

 

[TheUn4seen]

Wi-Fi speed is of utmost importance in my life. When our cat successfully climbs on top of kitchen cabinets and my wife manages to take a picture, every millisecond of latency in receiving this picture is a torture for me.
I'm sure there are some obsessive people who are very particular about their Wi-Fi. All five of them are probably ecstatic with the new standard. There might be some edge cases which justify it. Me? If I need high speed and/or low latency I just use a damn cable, wireless network is only for convenience and low priority devices like phones. Something tells me more people would be interested in increased range and stability but manufacturers seem to be focused on increasing the required density - makes sense, helps them sell more devices.

 

[Aquinus]

And I encourage you to ensure they are peer reviewed.

Radio waves can only heat materials. They're non-ionizing radiation so it can't do things like cause DNA damage and whatnot. You need something higher energy than radio waves for something like that.

In general - yes. Due to material compositions however, lower frequencies can sometimes degrade more than higher ones.

Mmmmm, generally speaking, no. Permeability of the material definitely impacts a signal, but high frequency waves will always attenuate faster than lower frequency waves. That's just physics. Now if we're talking about waveguides, that's a very different animal since waves travel through the inside of them, not through the material itself.

 

[zlobby]

Radio waves can only heat materials. They're non-ionizing radiation so it can't do things like cause DNA damage and whatnot. You need something higher energy than radio waves for something like that.

Mmmmm, generally speaking, no. Permeability of the material definitely impacts a signal, but high frequency waves will always attenuate faster than lower frequency waves. That's just physics. Now if we're talking about waveguides, that's a very different animal since waves travel through the inside of them, not through the material itself.

It can also cause neuron activation in certain cases.
Plus, heating of the skin and othersuperficial tissues e.g., cornea is not something I need for myself.

Emphasis on 'generally'. Some materials behave like bandpass or notch filters. In extreme cases some configurations e.g. laminated window panels can give you a little gain (~2dB) at certain lambda. So, if WiFi/RF is of extreme importance this should be taken into account.
For the typical WiFi at home one can safely assume that with increasing frequencies the coverage gets lower.

 

[R-T-B]

Radio waves can only heat materials. They're non-ionizing radiation so it can't do things like cause DNA damage and whatnot. You need something higher energy than radio waves for something like that.

Yes, and if we are talking about that, microwave ovens operate at 2.4GHz. Power levels matter.

 

[LabRat 891]

Is the IEEE just totally 'out of the game', or what?
I have no idea wtf '7' means; whereas the old naming literally had the name of the published reference standard.

Only worse naming conventions lately have been USB, and to a much lesser degree, HDMI (which isn't an 'open' standard).

I was (also) absolutely floored reading the comments on AMD's new naming conventions. They make logical sense and are easy to figure out exactly what you're buying. There's 0 obstrufication.
Yet, people seem to believe it the opposite...

Where's the emergency stop? I want off this ride.

 

[zlobby]

Where's the emergency stop? I want off this ride.

The cart stops at Cobain Blvd and Bennington Str.

Wi-Fi speed is of utmost importance in my life. When our cat successfully climbs on top of kitchen cabinets and my wife manages to take a picture, every millisecond of latency in receiving this picture is a torture for me.
I'm sure there are some obsessive people who are very particular about their Wi-Fi. All five of them are probably ecstatic with the new standard. There might be some edge cases which justify it. Me? If I need high speed and/or low latency I just use a damn cable, wireless network is only for convenience and low priority devices like phones. Something tells me more people would be interested in increased range and stability but manufacturers seem to be focused on increasing the required density - makes sense, helps them sell more devices.

Actually, it's the limited RF spectrum that prevents WiFi from reaching higher coverage.
Low and mid bands are already scarce and already occupied. WiFi is simply stuck with ISM and some high bands (6GHz and beyond). After 5GHz everything is more or less line-of-sight.