Ha ha! I’m out of my depth here. Can’t think of a single use case where I needed high bandwidth in the past. So probably not remotely important for me. I hesitate to ever use the term WiFi 5 again!
My portable external monitor didn’t arrive until after I’d gone and broken the screen on my fancy smartphone, so I never tried using the smartphone like a desktop. I can imagine if one were to do so though in Android 10 desktop mode, with multiple browser tabs open and on the go, then bandwidth might possibly be of some importance. I now know about Emby, Kodi and Plex though. Is NetFlix even available in 1080p on Android (don’t bother answering this question)? Don’t use NetFlix any more anyway.
Basically, I have no facts to add.
EDIT: If its possible that Motorola and Xiaomi simply did not use 5 GHz antennas, to avoid size/cost/price differentiation/etc then that would solve the mystery. It would mean the SoC in these devices (632) is capable of 5 GHz but they decided to omit the further hardware support for it.
Whatever the the exact name of the chipset, what matters is real world performance. I switched from an FP2 to a (refurbished) Pixel (2016) last year and was amazed by the performance. Even today that device is a joy to use and comparing the Geekbench score, it seems that the FP3 will be comparable in single core performance and around 25% faster in multi-core performance. Most metrics look really well compared to the Pixel, expecially importand tasks like parsing and handling webpages (HTML parsing and dom performance). AES (encryption) performance is really important as well, since the FP3 will mostly likely be encrypted by default.
For me 2.4 Ghz is completely unusable because that band is overcrowded where I live. I deactivated it on my router. Unfortunately I have two devices that can only ‘speak’ 2.4 Ghz: my printer and my ebook reader - I have to feed them via USB.
Both bands can be served with the same antennas in parallel.
Because Geekbench mentions “Qualcomm Qualcomm” as the processor name. See the link in the second post in this thread. Additionally that page states “81” as the implementer. That’s the decimal value for the capital “Q” character, short for Qualcomm. Might sound speculative, but as someone who briefly worked for ARM I happen to be able to confirm that that’s exactly how ARM has chosen implementer codes for the few parties that license the ISA to implement their own cores rather than just use ARM-implemented designs.
No worries, I just put in some time for it partly during “work” I’m no processor or mobile or embedded specialist like e.g. RSpliet who worked at ARM.
I’d also prefer a 660, but TANSTAAFL. It comes with a price. I think the performance of the 632, from what I’ve gathered, will give me a phone which lasts 4 years. (As long as my kid doesn’t use it as boomerang.)
I must have been blindfolded, at least partly. The SD 632 actually has four Kryo Gold (i. e. out-of-order) cores. It’s only disadvantages are USB 3.0, a weaker GPU, a slower modem and slower WiFi. I could easily live with that.
Just to clarify one thing, that is also found in the spec sheet I linked earlier: Qualcomm allows phone manufacturers to pick and match certain features in the SoC based on the price they wish to pay for the SoC. Consider some features (like .ac WIFI or the set of supported LTE frequencies) optional extras the same way you can pick optional extras when you buy a car. Generally features are enabled/disabled by means of dedicated firmware or through one-time fuses that Qualcomm pops to disable features the customer hasn’t paid for.
Why I bring this up is because it is another reason why different phones with equal SoCs could still have different specs. Not finding a phone with a Snapdragon 632 and 802.11ac wifi doesn’t mean the SoC can’t do it, but perhaps manufacturers just didn’t want to pay for the feature because few consumers really ask for it. Seeing a certification for the Fairphone 3 doing LTE in “category 7” is a strong hint that they will use SDM 632 SoCs in the next phone, but it could also still be a 636 for which FP didn’t pay the license fee required for cat 12 support.
Until Fairphone confirms, there’s insufficient data out to give any guarantees on the exact SoC… but the WIFI and LTE certificates do give valuable information on the final specs of the phone, which in the end matter more than the version number stamped on the SoC.
I did not mean to imply anything else.
I am actually really convinced already.
I just wanted to show, that this term does not help to clarify anything.
And maybe someone has any idea, what this identifier on geekbench really identifies?