MDM9x25

After the transceiver (and its downconversion from RF to baseband for receive and upconversion from baseband to RF for transmit) comes the digital baseband. In the case of Qualcomm’s architecture, there are two Rx output pairs for I/Q data, and one transmit port. This shouldn’t be surprising since again only two receive ports are needed at maximum to do the 2x2 MIMO modes for LTE or receive diversity. Even though Release 8 supports up to four layers to be transmitted on the downlink, virtually all handsets and data cards use 2 layers at most at present, and this will be the case with MDM9x25 as well. Going up to four layers will pose interesting challenges for handset design where getting enough sufficient inter-antenna spacing to yield good gains in throughput (and independent streams of data) is already a delicate balancing act. Of course operators will need to deploy 4 antennas per sector as well for 4x4.


MDM9x15 inside Nexus 4

We’ve seen the first and second generations of Qualcomm’s LTE basebands, first the MDM9x00 series which was 45nm, and now devices are making it onto the market with MDM9x15 (and its LTE-less sibling MDM8215) series which is 28nm and natively voice enabled. The major improvement between 9x00 and 9x15 was of course lower idle and active power consumption, and a smaller package thanks to the change in process geometry. Additionally, MDM9x15 no longer requires a Qualcomm SoC paired with it to be voice enabled, which opens it up for use in platforms like the iPhone where an OEM has a specific non-Qualcomm SoC it wants to use. This same IP block is again shared with MSM8960 and a few other SoCs. Likewise, in the future MDM9x25 will share an IP block with the MSM8960 successor I alluded to earlier.

Baseband Comparison
  MDM9x00 MDM9x15 MDM9x25
Package Size, Type, Geometry 13x13 mm, Plastic
45nm CMOS
10x10mm, Plastic
28nm CMOS
10x10mm(?), Plastic
28nm CMOS
LTE LTE TDD/LTE
Cat. 3 (102 Mbps)
LTE TDD/FDD
Cat. 3 (102 Mbps)
LTE-A TDD/FDD with Carrier Aggregation,
Cat. 4
(150 Mbps)
HSPA+ DC-HSPA+ 42 (64QAM, Dual Carrier) - 3GPP Release 8 DC-HSPA+ 42 (64QAM, Dual Carrier) - 3GPP Release 9 DC-HSPA+ 84 (64QAM, Carrier Agg., MIMO) - 3GPP Release 10
CDMA 1x Adv / EVDO Rev A/B 1x Adv / EVDO Rev A/B 1x Adv / EVDO Rev A/B
TD-SCDMA N Y Y
Voice Enabled (without SoC Fusion) N Y Y
GNSS gpsOneGen 8 with GLONASS gpsOneGen 8A with GLONASS gpsOneGen 8B with GLONASS
Onboard AP for optional WiFi AP ARM Cortex A5 ARM Cortex A5 ARM Cortex A5

Enabling voice and all the legacy fallback modes required for it is a huge task, and Qualcomm believes it has significant leadership by supporting all the combinations of handover and fallback modes required for support of voice services. This includes CSFB (Circuit-Switched Fallback), dual radio (1xRTT alongside LTE), and VoLTE (with and without SRVCC).

Recently Qualcomm announced that its third generation LTE baseband, MDM9x25 had begun sampling to device makers, and this is a particularly interesting part since it’s Qualcomm’s first LTE UE Category 4 baseband. Just like in the WCDMA release, the 3GPP has UE Categories for LTE which define what capabilities a given device has. Because LTE has variable channel bandwidths, this time around UE category is defined based on the number of resource blocks and spatial streams a device can support. In UE Category 3 this corresponded to 100 Mbps maximum on a 20 MHz downlink channel, in category 4 this is the full 150 Mbps - 100 resource block allocation - for 20 MHz channels.

At the same time, 20 MHz of contiguous spectrum is difficult for operators to come across in most regions, thus the 20 MHz FDD channel bandwidth that is supported in LTE isn’t widely used in some major markets where LTE is deployed at present. The mitigation is to allow for carrier aggregation in LTE similar to carrier aggregation for DC-HSPA+ (dual carrier). Currently shipping DC-HSPA+ configurations require carriers to be adjacent to each other in order to be aggregated, and this requires contiguous spectrum (in which case the operator could just run that channel bandwidth of LTE in the first place). What’s new in Release 10 and will be supported on MDM9x25 is inter-band and intra-band aggregation for both WCDMA and LTE. That is, aggregation of LTE carriers that don’t need to be next to each other and instead can be inside the same band (continuous or non continuous), or across multiple bands, for a number of configurations. This allows wireless operators to piece together enough bandwidth from their spectrum holdings across bands to get performance on par with one bigger contiguous carrier, for example 10 MHz FDD + 10 MHz FDD aggregation to emulate 20 MHz FDD performance. Just like in WCDMA, uplink remains unchanged in an FDD scenario, these carriers aren’t aggregated, but most of the time the traffic profile on cellular networks is similarly asymmetric to begin with. I’m told that MDM9x25 is capable of supporting aggregation of even a third WCDMA carrier which is another 3GPP proposed mode.

WCDMA also gets an improvement from the LTE side of things, support for 2x2 MIMO which increases the theoretical maximum bitrate on the downlink to 84 Mbps from 42 Mbps.

MDM9x25 should be an exciting part to keep an eye on. We’re still a ways off from seeing carriers light up LTE Advanced (release 10) features, and similarly still a ways off from seeing MDM9x25 in devices, though it could show up in tablets or be targeted at high end smartphones. As always, understanding some of the players roadmaps helps get a better grasp on what’s in store in the future.

Conclusions

The mobile device industry has come a considerable way in just two years. Previously, getting this kind of open disclosure about RF architecture and ports was largely unheard of. On the modem side, both operators and handset makers have considerable interest in making sure that the baseband is as close to a black box as possible for security reasons (security through obscurity at its finest). The platform architecture of a handset with clear separation between AP and modem as this detached and separate means of getting data, voice, and SMS also inherently fosters a black box approach to the whole cellular connectivity side. There are still more questions to answer and even more areas of the smartphone platform that should make it into daylight and out of from behind walls of NDAs, but this is a great step in the right direction. The ultimate goal for me is to have the equivalent of the transceiver and modem table filled out for some of the popular products from the other major vendors and gain a better understanding of the entire space.

The next topic is just what impact the introduction of WTR1605L and MDM9x25 will have on the space. WTR1605 introduces sorely needed additional ports which can be used for additional LTE bands. The reality of LTE at the moment is that the number of bands being proposed for 3GPP releases is only continuing to increase. Additional primary ports does in turn mean OEMs can choose to include maybe one or two more LTE bands, but roaming on all of the popular bands still is an unsolved problem. We’ve already seen designs including WTR1605 on the market, none of which have really gone above and beyond with more LTE bands. At the same time I expect to see devices with band 12/17 and 13 coexistence start popping up. Of course the TD-SCDMA story is perhaps the most under appreciated aspect, as China Mobile presents a market whose size is almost staggering in scale that everyone wants a piece of.

The reality is that the industry still needs more time for the LTE band landscape to settle down, refarming of existing 2G and 3G spectrum by operators, in addition to even more band support on handsets to enable one SKU solutions.

WTR1605 - 7 Primary Rx Ports
Comments Locked

20 Comments

View All Comments

  • name99 - Saturday, January 5, 2013 - link

    "The last real remaining black box from my point of view is the cellular connectivity side of things."

    There is the 4GAmerica's site which has a large number of very up-to-date and extraordinarily good white papers on the technical details of past and future GSM releases. That's one way to keep up but, like you say, it doesn't tell us what the chip vendors (or the telcos) are doing.

    I expect Qualcomm would not answer this, but is their willingness to start being a little more open a fear of Rosepoint in the future? Intel is presumably headed for their turf, and that must scare the bejesus out of them...
    I wouldn't be surprised if, as Rosepoint becomes more real, Qualcomm starts becoming a lot more flexible about just how it's willing to sell off its IP, allowing you, if you want, to buy blocks you can stick on your SOC (rather than Qualcomm branded chips), and even designing custom such blocks for you if you provide the specs on exactly what you want.
  • SydneyBlue120d - Sunday, January 6, 2013 - link

    I second the question: What Qualcomm thinks of Intel full digital radio approach?
    Another question, they added Beidou support, what about European Galileo system?
  • DanNeely - Sunday, January 6, 2013 - link

    Beidou has been operational in China since 2011, and across the asia pacific region since last month; Galileo isn't expected to reach initial operating capacity until the middle of the decade. Until last October there weren't even enough sats in orbit to begin testing it; so while Qualcom is probably working on something they couldn't've put something known to work in the current silicon. Presumably when it's closer to IOC in a year or three they'll add support for it. Until then it'd be a waste of silicon for devices that will largely be retired before it's usable.
  • toyotabedzrock - Saturday, January 5, 2013 - link

    The WTR1605 looks like a baby step that didn't really move anything forward, unless you want to get into the Chinese market a little bit.

    It really has no advantage for the US market with the single mid band diversity port since the major carriers use both the low and mid bands, while the small carriers have only mid band spectrum.
  • ishbuggy - Saturday, January 5, 2013 - link

    This is way off topic I think, but does anyone know what they use for staking on that board? The layer looks to be perfectly around each SMT component near the chip, and I am curious what they use.
  • dealcorn - Sunday, January 6, 2013 - link

    After reading the article I have a better understanding of why Anand hired you. I am not surprised that Qualcomm wants to service multiple markets with a single chip so incremental improvements to increase the number of markets the chip may address is typical market leader behavior. I do not know whether a sidebar or pod cast is the best vehicle, but a rant providing some compare and contrast between the Qualcomm baseband strategy vs the Intel strategy would be helpful. Also, it would be a good place to incorporate your preliminary read on how the digital radio stuff Intel recently demonstrated may affect the marketplace and the block diagrams.

    You must go into the weeds to establish credibility. However, once you got it, few care about the weeds. Everybody wants more red meat in the ARM vs Intel thing and this is a lovely opportunity to serve some up. Kindly share the benefit of your insight.
  • iwod - Sunday, January 6, 2013 - link

    Interesting, i was late to the article and there is only 10 comments, compared to 3 page on ARM vs Atom. People not interested in LTE / Baseband at all??

    Anyway, so do LTE UE 4 offer better bandwidth efficiency then UE 3? Since both only required 20Mhz, but UE 4 gives up to 150Mbps.

    Apart from Beidou and TDS-CDMA, WTR1605 seems like a small step, no size reduction?

    Are there any power improvement with 9x25? LTE seems to be draining battery a lot.

    So i gathered all current Qualcomm already support VoLTE, we are only waiting for carrier to support it, right? And may be off topic, why aren't carrier doing it / Faster?

    I am not sure if i am right, the more port there are, the more supported band / wireless spec there will be. It seems to be one of the reason iPhone 5 could not come with world wide LTE supported. So wouldn't ditching GSM help? ( 4G is here.... time to ditch 2G right? )

    How do WiFi and Bluetooth fits into the scenario? They are all wireless tech, why do they requires another chip? Couldn't Qualcomm fits those in?

    I remembered there was a article about Intel Digital Radio. I admit i still do not understand much of it. Any relation to this? Or is Digital Radio more on the antenna side of things.
  • DanNeely - Sunday, January 6, 2013 - link

    VoLTE increases the load on their 4g networks by reducing the load on 2g/3g; since 4g is only going to get more crowded with time while 2g is becoming a ghost town and 3g will become one in the next few years as LTE deployments are completed, VoLTE does nothing beneficial for the carriers in the short term.

    Long term it's needed to let them shut down their legacy networks; but that's at least 4-5 years out according to occasional talking points they make (and if Sprint/iDEN is any indication even farther out in the real world) which makes it not worth enabling for handsets that will probably be junked well before it happens.
  • thm82 - Monday, January 7, 2013 - link

    You forgot one point: Efficiency also matters for Voice, as long as the network is robust enough.
    In terms of efficiency: LTE is by far more spectral efficient than 2G. GSM for example needs 5 to 7 frequencies to operate one network, UMTS and LTE only 1. The carrier modulation and coding of LTE is 1.5 to 2 times more efficient than UMTS.
    In terms of robustness: LTE is as robust as GSM from a modulation and coding point of view (something UMTS is not).
    That means the same bandwidth voice codec can run on much less spectrum on an LTE network compared to GSM, while still being almost as robust against interference. In consequence, VoLTE should be very desirable for the carriers. Even in the short term. They should be able to re-farm some of their 2G frequencies even faster in case the speed up the VoLTE introduction.
  • jhh - Tuesday, January 8, 2013 - link

    Carriers have the harder part of implementing VoLTE. Since no carrier has a strictly 4G network, and generally have a larger 3G footprint than 4G, the voice traffic has to be able to be dynamically switched between the 3G and 4G networks. While this is happening for data, voice handovers are less forgiving. While the equipment to do this is all available now, to integrate it into the existing network with the same level of service requires integration testing and bug fixing.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now