Mu Mimo and The User Experience

MU-MIMO
AND THE USER

EXPERIENCE
QUANTIFYING THE BENEFITS
OF MORE ADVANCED 802.11AC
FEATURES
February 2016
Prepared by
Signals Research Group
www.signalsresearch.com
Paper developed for Qualcomm
On behalf of Qualcomm, Signals Research Group conducted third-party testing of 802.11ac. The comparative tests, which focused largely on video appli-
cations, included 2x2 versus 1x1 antenna configurations, 80 MHz versus 20 MHz channel allocations, and MU-MIMO versus SU-MIMO.
As the sole authors of this study, we stand fully behind the results and analysis that we provide in this paper. In addition to providing consulting services
on wireless-related topics, including performance benchmark studies, Signals Research Group is the publisher of the Signals Ahead research newsletter
(www.signalsresearch.com).
MU-MIMO and the User Experience
Quantifying the benefits of more advanced 802.11ac features
Executive Summary
Although 802.11ac offers compelling data rates to individual users, its real potential reveals
itself with the inclusion of more advanced features that deliver even higher individual data rates
under a wide range of network conditions, not to mention increased network capacity. From a
consumers perspective, these benefits are obvious when it comes to typical applications, such as
video streaming.
MU-MIMO is a Wave 2 MU-MIMO (Multi-user Multiple Input, Multiple Output) is a recently introduced Wave 2
feature that increases overall feature that increases overall Wi-Fi system capacity by enabling the Wi-Fi access point (AP) to
Wi-Fi system capacity. transmit simultaneously to several compatible Wi-Fi Stations (STAs), essentially duplicating the
use of available spectrum resources. The predecessor to MU-MIMO, SU-MIMO (Single User
MIMO), limits the APs transmission to a single STA at any given moment, without any reuse of
the radio channel.
A 2x2 antenna configuration in the STA is another advanced feature, which can meaningfully
improve the user experience. Although it is not unique to 802.11ac, a 2x2 antenna configuration
allows a Wi-Fi AP to transmit two data streams to a STA. This feature, which is called spatial
multiplexing, can result in a near doubling in the user data rate. Other indirect benefits are also
possible, based on our findings.
Signals Research Group (SRG) recently conducted a third-party analysis of 802.11ac perfor-
mance with a particular focus on the incremental benefits that these more advanced 802.11ac
features have on the user experience. The Qualcomm QCA9980 powered the Wi-Fi APs that
we used in our tests and the Wi-Fi STAs, which included a mix of commercial smartphones, test
phones, and commercial notebook PCs, leveraged the Qualcomm QCA 6174A WiFi-Bluetooth
Combo SoC. Based on the results of our study, we offer the following observations, which we
support with test results and analysis in subsequent sections of this whitepaper.
A 2x2 antenna configuration nearly doubles the data rate at all levels of signal strength and
it can dramatically improve the user experience by reducing video freezes and frame impair-
ments. We measured the data rates of a STA with a 2x2 antenna configuration (STA 2x2) and a
STA with a 1x1 antenna configuration (STA 1x1) over a full range of downlink pathloss values.
STA 2x2 achieved 89% higher throughput over the entire test compared with STA 1x1 and it
was able to maintain a data connection with an additional 6 dB of pathloss. In tests involving a
congested Wi-Fi network, STA 2x2 streamed a video with hardly any video freezes or impair-
ments. Conversely, STA 1x1 had a considerable number of video freezes to the point that we doubt
most consumers would continue watching the video. We also documented reduced latency and
jitter, not to mention lower packet loss with the 2x2 antenna configuration.
A Wi-Fi AP with MU-MIMO capabilities delivers significantly more network capacity,

which benefits all users, including those users with a STA that does not support MU-MIMO.
We conducted numerous tests with the Wi-Fi AP configured to support either MU-MIMO
or SU-MIMO. With MU-MIMO enabled, the total capacity increased by up to 112%. The
additional network capacity should be obvious to any user in the network. Besides higher data
rates, the consumer would easily notice that streamed videos would play nearly flawlessly while
with SU-MIMO there would be frequent stalls while viewing the video. Interestingly, STAs
without support for MU-MIMO also benefited indirectly from the additional capacity that
MU-MIMO delivered.
February 2016 Page 2

The more advanced 802.11ac features and the benefits that they offer are critical to deliver
a great user experience, especially in multi-tenant buildings where multiple Wi-Fi systems
exist. When 802.11ac products first appeared, consumers and the industry lauded them for the
dramatic capacity gains that they offered over legacy Wi-Fi technologies. In the subsequent years,
the performance has gone from what some might have considered overkill to being barely adequate.
Consumer behavior has changed, user expectations have become more demanding, and popular
applications, such as video, require substantially higher bit rates in order to deliver a great user
experience. Further, Wi-Fi systems using the unlicensed 5 GHz spectrum are far more prevalent,
meaning that multi-tenant buildings likely have multiple Wi-Fi APs in a close proximity to each
other, including APs that share the same radio channel. When this situation occurs, the available
capacity on both Wi-Fi systems suffers since the two APs are competing for channel access time.
All of these factors pave the way for Wave 2 features and a more advanced antenna configuration
in STAs, not to mention wider channel allocations (i.e., 80 MHz versus 20 MHz).
We used the Spirent The following sections provide results and analysis from several test scenarios, which support these
Communications Chromatic observations. We also include a Test Methodology section, which documents how we used the
test platform and other test Spirent Communications Chromatic test platform and other test and measurement systems to
and measurement systems conduct the tests. This section also includes a brief explanation of some of the video performance
to conduct the tests. metrics that we used in this report. Lastly, we include an Appendix, which contains additional
figures and results from tests that we did not include in the main body of this paper.

A 2x2 antenna configuration delivers substantially higher

throughput and a much better user experience in a congested
network
One of the more surprising observations from our work over the last six months with Wi-Fi-
related benchmark studies is weve noticed that a rather large percentage of smartphones do
not have a 2x2 Wi-Fi antenna configuration. This is even more surprising given that Wi-Fi has
supported MIMO since 802.11n, or back to the previous decade. MIMO is also a critical part
of the HSPA+ and LTE cellular standards since it can meaningfully improve user data rates as
well as increase overall network capacity. To the best of our knowledge, it is virtually impossible
to purchase an LTE smartphone without MIMO while MIMO is also very common in HSPA+
smartphones. For reasons that we cannot explain, the same trend does not exist with Wi-Fi.
With single-user MIMO and a 2x2 antenna configuration in the STA, the Wi-Fi AP is able
to transmit two data streams also called spatial multiplexing to a STA. Since each stream is
comprised of unique data, it is possible to achieve a theoretical doubling of the potential data rate
under ideal conditions compared with a 1x1 antenna configuration that is limited to a single data
stream. Under very challenging situations, the 2x2 antenna configuration provides some additional
performance improvements due to the diversity gain of the two antennas, even though the Wi-Fi
AP is only transmitting a single data stream.
STA 2x2 outperformed STA As shown in Figure 1, a Wi-Fi STA with a 2x2 antenna configuration (STA 2x2) can achieve
1x1 by 89% over the entire a near doubling in data speeds compared with a STA that only has a 1x1 antenna configuration
range of pathloss values. (STA 1x1). Under more ideal conditions with low pathloss, STA 2x2 achieved a data rate of nearly
700 Mbps in an 80 MHz channel. Conversely, the data rate for STA 1x1 was approximately 375
Mbps. With high pathloss, STA 2x2 was also able to maintain a data connection for an additional
6 dB beyond what was possible with STA 1x1. Over the entire range of pathloss values, STA 2x2
outperformed STA 1x1 by 89%.
Figure 1. Throughput as a Function of Downlink Pathloss 2x2 versus 1x1 antenna configurations (Test 65-66)
Throughput (Mbps) 2x2 Config Performance Advantage (%)
800 120%
2x2 Config Performance
2x2 Config Advantage (%)
700
100%
600
80%
500
400 60%
1x1 Config
300
40%
200
20%
100
0 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 0%
Downlink Pathloss (dB)

Source: Signals Research Group

The benefits of a 2x2 antenna configuration are also obvious in a congested Wi-Fi network and
with applications that do not require massive amounts of bandwidth. To prove this point, we
conducted a series of tests in which two Wi-Fi APs shared the same primary channel. This situ-
ation could likely occur in a multi-tenant residential or business complex. In these tests, the addi-
tional Wi-Fi AP transmitted a 100 Mbps data connection to a single STA in 20 MHz of spectrum.
The Wi-Fi AP under test used an 80 MHz channel to deliver three concurrent 30 Mbps video
streams (RTP) to three attached STAs. We configured the APs to support SU-MIMO in order
to isolate the benefits of the more advanced antenna configuration.
The benefits of a 2x2 antenna We repeated the test with two different configurations. In the first test (Test 57), all three STAs had
configuration are also obvious a 1x1 antenna configuration. In the second test (Test 58), we configured one of the STAs (Device
in a congested Wi-Fi network. #152) to support a 2x2 antenna configuration. Figure 2 shows total throughput for the Wi-Fi
AP under test (top two figures) while the bottom two figures show the measured throughput of
the second AP, which was sharing the primary channel. The figure shows that Device #152 was
not able to sustain the 30 Mbps video transmission with a 1x1 antenna configuration (top right
figure), due to network congestion. With a 2x2 antenna configuration, the Wi-Fi AP was able
to send more data in the same amount of time to the STA so it was able to receive the full 30
Mbps (leftmost stacked bar).
Figure 2. Measured Throughput of Wi-Fi AP under Test and Second AP Sharing the Primary Channel (Test 57-58)
By using 2x2, Device #152

Throughput (Mbps)
was able to achieve the
100
target data rate.
80 Device #152 (2X2 Antenna)

13
60
Device #153 (1X1 Antenna) Device #153 (1X1 Antenna) 100 100
40 30 30
20 Device #151 (1X1 Antenna) Device #151 (1X1 Antenna)

30 30
0
MU-MIMO Configuration with 80 MHz SU-MIMO Configuration with 80 MHz Test #58 Test #57
Total Throughput = 90.8 Mbps Total Throughput = 73.1 Mbps
Wi-Fi AP in Primary Channel (20MHz)
Average Throughput (Mbps)

Figure 3 shows the latency results and Figure 4 shows the packet loss results for the three STAs
in the two tests. In these two figures, we are illustrating the percentage of time that the latency/
packet loss exceeded the target threshold. In the case of latency, the user experience is impacted
if the latency exceeds 40 ms.1 Likewise, if the packet loss exceeds 5% then the user experience
is also impacted.
Figure 3. Latency Results 2x2 versus 1x1 antenna configurations (Test 57-58)
Amount of Time Latency Greater than 40 ms (%)
100
93
80
60
40 43
20 19 18
5 2
0 1 1
Device #151 Device #153 Device #152 Average Device #151 Device #153 Device #152 Average
(1x1) (1x1) (2x2) (1x1) (1x1) (1x1)
SU-MIMO Configuration SU-MIMO Configuration
w/ 1x1 and 2x2 Antennas w/ 1x1 Antennas
Figure 4. Packet Loss Results 2x2 versus 1x1 antenna configurations (Test 57-58)
Amount of Packet Loss Greater than 5% (%)

100
80
60
52
40
20
18
0 3 1 1 1
0 0
(1x1) (1x1) (2x2) (1x1) (1x1) (1x1)
SU-MIMO Configuration SU-MIMO Configuration
w/ 1x1 and 2x2 Antennas w/ 1x1 Antennas
1 TR-126, Triple-play Services Quality of Experience (QoE) Requirements, DSL Forum, December 2006

As shown in the two figures, Device #152 with the 2x2 antenna configuration delivered a much
better user experience compared with the 1x1 antenna configuration. With the 1x1 antenna
configuration, the latency exceeded the target latency threshold of 40 ms for 93% of the time,
but with the 2x2 antenna configuration, it was only 5% of the time. Likewise, the packet loss rate
resulted in a poor user experience for 52% of the time with the 1x1 antenna configuration, but only
3% of the time with the 2x2 antenna configuration. Put another way, the amount of time that the
latency and packet loss values exceeded their target thresholds was reduced by approximately 95%
with the use of a 2x2 antenna configuration.
The 2x2 antenna configuration The study also reveals another interesting finding. The use of the 2x2 antenna configuration in
dramatically improved the user Device #152 actually benefited the other two STAs, as evident by the two devices exceeding the
experience by reducing the amount latency threshold for a lower percentage of time when Device #152 had the 2x2 antenna configu-
of time the latency and packet loss ration. We attribute this result to the increased spectral efficiency associated with the use of spatial
exceeded the acceptable thresholds. multiplexing. Since the Wi-Fi AP was able to send the necessary video content to Device #152
in a shorter amount of time, it was able to free up more resources (time allocations) to serve the
remaining two STAs.
The appendix includes two additional figures (Figure 25 and Figure 26) from this test, which
provide additional insight into the latency and jitter results. We also include a complete set of
results from another series of tests involving the use of 2x2 and 1x1 antenna configurations.

A Wi-Fi AP with MU-MIMO delivers a much better user experience

and higher overall throughput when network congestion exists
In order to better understand and appreciate the results presented later in this section, it is helpful
to have a basic understanding of MU-MIMO and how it performs. A traditional SU-MIMO
access point can only transmit to one Wi-Fi STA at any given moment. This limitation means
that if the AP transmits data to five STAs, it would need to schedule them in some sort of a
round robin fashion. This approach leads to inefficiencies, while each STA would also need to
wait for data packets while the AP was serving other STAs. With MU-MIMO, the AP can
transmit data concurrently to multiple STAs as long as there is some degree of physical separa-
tion between the STAs.
An SU-MIMO AP can only transmit Figure 5 illustrates the differences between MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO. In our tests, we used a
to one Wi-Fi STA at any given Wi-Fi AP that could transmit three orthogonal data streams, meaning that it could transmit data
moment while an MU-MIMO AP to three STAs at any given moment. Alternatively, if one of the STAs had a 2x2 antenna configu-
can transmit to multiple STAs. ration then it could transmit two data streams to that STA (spatial multiplexing) and a third data
stream to a second STA. The figure on the left shows an MU-MIMO AP configuration. In the
first time interval (T1), the AP transmits to three STAs that support MU-MIMO. In the second
time interval, the AP transmits to two STAs with one of the STAs receiving two data streams. The
process repeats in subsequent time intervals (T3, T4, etc.). In effect, with MU-MIMO the AP is
able to dedicate the entire channel to up to three STAs instead of a single STA.
The figure on the right shows an SU-AP MIMO configuration. In each time interval, the AP can
only transmit to a single STA, although if the STA supports a 2x2 antenna configuration then it
can transmit two data streams to that STA. This situation occurs in the T5 interval.
Figure 5. MU-MIMO versus SU-MIMO
Transmitted
Data (T1/T3/T5) Transmitted
MU-MIMO SU-MIMO Data (T1)
(1x1) (1x1) Transmitted
Transmitted Data (T4)
Transmitted Data (T2/T4) Transmitted
Data (T1/T3/T5) Data (T2)
MU-MIMO Transmitted SU-MIMO
Transmitted (1x1) (1x1)
Data (T2/T4) Data (T5)
MU-MIMO 802.11ac AP SU-MIMO 802.11ac AP
(1x1) (MU-MIMO) (1x1) (SU-MIMO)
Transmitted Transmitted
Data (T2/T4) Transmitted Data (T5)
Transmitted Data (T3)
Data (T1/T3/T5) MU-MIMO SU-MIMO
(2x2) (2x2)
MU-MIMO SU-MIMO
(1x1) (1x1)

The figure and the accompanying text should help explain why MU-MIMO benefits overall
network efficiency and capacity, even if the peak data rates for a single STA remain unchanged.
We now turn to some actual results that help quantify the performance gains of MU-MIMO. We
will demonstrate that overall network throughput increases and that this improvement in network
efficiency directly translates into an improved user experience.
With MU-MIMO, the total In the first series of tests, we start with the basics and show the total throughput of a Wi-Fi system
throughput increased by 112%. consisting of an AP and three connected STAs (1x1), each receiving a full buffer transmission
in order to load the network. As shown in Figure 6, the total throughput was 336.7 Mbps with
SU-MIMO, while with MU-MIMO, the total throughput was 715 Mbps, resulting in an overall
network capacity gain of 112%. It is also evident that the average data rate for each STA increased
with MU-MIMO.
Figure 6. MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO Throughput in an 80 MHz Channel with Three STAs (Test 50-51)
Throughput (Mbps)
800
600 Device #153

262
400
Device #152
202
Device #153
116
200 Device #152
Device #151 104
250 Device #151
117
0
MU-MIMO Configuration with 80 MHz SU-MIMO Configuration with 80 MHz
Although it is foreseeable that a single Wi-Fi AP could experience this much loading, a more
likely scenario is one in which two Wi-Fi APs share the same primary channel. In this situation,
each AP can only use the channel for approximately 50% of the time compared with having
access to the channel the entire time. The actual amount of time that each AP uses the channel
can vary since it is based on how aggressive / conservative the two APs are when accessing the
shared channel. Additionally, each STA that transmits data to an AP also takes channel access
time, which further reduces the amount of time that the AP can transmit data to the STAs
connected to it.
For these tests, we assigned a second Wi-Fi AP to the same primary channel that the Wi-Fi AP
under test used. We configured this AP to transmit 50 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel to a single STA.
Figure 7 shows the resultant throughput for the Wi-Fi AP under test as well as the throughput
associated with the additional Wi-Fi AP. When the Wi-Fi AP under test supported MU-MIMO,
its throughput was 343.3 Mbps, compared with only 207.1 Mbps with an SU-MIMO configu-
ration, representing a 66% increase in throughput due to the MU-MIMO configuration. It is

also evident that MU-MIMO benefited some STAs more than other STAs. This outcome is not
entirely surprising and it could be due, in part, to their location relative to the AP and to each other.
Another implied result from this study is that a neighboring Wi-Fi AP can dramatically reduce
the available capacity of nearby Wi-Fi systems. In normal circumstances, SU-MIMO may provide
sufficient capacity with most usage models. However, when there are nearby Wi-Fi APs sharing
the same channel, these APs reduce the amount of available capacity. MU-MIMO helps mitigate
this impact by allowing the AP to use the channel more efficiently when it is available.
Figure 7. MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO Throughput in an 80 MHz Channel with Three STAs and a Second AP in the Primary Channel (Test 52-53)
MU-MIMO dramatically
Throughput (Mbps) improved the data rates for
400 each STA as well as the overall
Total Throughput = 343.3 Mbps system throughput.
350
300
Device #153
250 50 50
152
Total Throughput = 207.1 Mbps
200
150 Device #152 Device #153

84 93
100
Device #152: 29
Device #151
50 Device #151
107
85
0
When two APs share the same primary channel it can have a dramatic impact on the user experi-
ence. To prove this statement we conducted a series of tests involving two APs. We configured
one AP to operate in an 80 MHz channel with either MU-MIMO or SU-MIMO enabled. The
second Wi-Fi AP used a 20 MHz channel and shared the same primary channel as the Wi-Fi AP
under test. This AP attempted to maintain a 100 Mbps connection with a single STA (1x1). The
Wi-Fi AP under test served three STAs (1x1) with each STA receiving a 20 Mbps video transmis-
sion we generated two video transmissions with the IXIA Chariot test platform while we used
a Windows Media Server to generate the third video transmission. We used Spirents Chromatic
test platform to measure the performance of the video that the Windows Media Server streamed
to one of the STAs.

With SU-MIMO, the video was As shown in Figure 8, the video performance was dramatically better with MU-MIMO than with
impaired for 37% of the time SU-MIMO. In the baseline test (Test 60), in which we only streamed a single 20 Mbps video
during the six-minute test. through the Windows Media Server, the video score was 91 out of a possible 100 points. The
high score was largely due to very few video freezes or impairments, as detected by the Chromatic
test platform. We then repeated the test with the two additional 20 Mbps video streams and the
additional Wi-Fi AP generating a 100 Mbps transmission in the primary channel. For this test
(Test 61), we configured the Wi-Fi AP under test to operate in SU-MIMO mode. As shown in
the figure, the video score dropped to only 29 out of 100 while there was also a dramatic increase
in the video impairments, due to either video freezes or impaired frames. According to our analysis,
the video was impaired for 37% of the time during the six-minute test.
Figure 8. Key Video Metrics (Test 60-62)
91.1 93.0
2.2
Freeze
Time (%) 34.0
1.7
29.0 21
No. of 153
Freeze Periods
16
Weighted Average Score
37.5
0.1
Impaired 3.5
Time (%)
0.2
1
No. of 15
2.3 Impaired Periods
1.9 2
Impaired Video Performance (%)
Test #60 - Baseline (80 MHz) Test #61 - SU-MIMO (80 MHz) Test #62 - MU-MIMO (80 MHz)
With MU-MIMO, the video was Lastly, we repeated the test a third time, but in this test (Test 62) we configured the Wi-Fi AP
impaired for only 1.9% of the under test to operate in MU-MIMO mode. In this test, the video performance was almost flaw-
time during the six-minute test. less and as good as the results from the baseline test. The video metrics shown in the figure help
quantify a user experience that is somewhat subjective since each individuals perception of what
defines a good user experience is somewhat different. However, we seriously doubt that anyone
would tolerate watching a video that was constantly freezing or dropping frames, as was the case
with SU-MIMO. While conducting the tests and in our subsequent analysis of the data, we
watched the videos. We would not have tolerated the video freezes. 2
2 Although we are not able to insert video clips into this whitepaper, we have created a presentation that includes
short video clips from these two tests and which show the dramatic differences in how the videos played.

Figure 9 shows the throughput generated by the other two videos running through the Chariot
test platform as well as the throughput from the additional Wi-Fi AP. By itself, the figure does not
reveal much about the user experience. However, one could infer a poor user experience if a STA
is playing a 20 Mbps video being streamed over Wi-Fi but only receiving an average data rate of
14 Mbps. We will prove this statement in some following figures.
Figure 9 MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO Throughput in an 80 MHz Channel with Multiple Video Transmissions (Test 61-62)
Throughput (Mbps)
40
30 Device #153
20
Device #153
14 100
20 99
10 Device #151
20 Device #151
20
0
SU-MIMO Configuration w/ 1x1 Antenna Test #62 Test #61
MU-MIMO Configuration w/ 1x1 Antenna
Total Throughput = 40.5 Mbps Total Throughput = 33.7Mbps Primary Channel Interfering Source (20 MHz)

Figure 10 shows the amount of time that the latency exceeded the target threshold of 40 ms.
Figure 11 shows the amount of time that the packet loss exceeded 5%. With MU-MIMO,
the latency was within the target threshold for almost the entire test while with SU-MIMO
the threshold was exceeded 65% of the time with one STA and 22% of the time with the
other STA. The packet loss results show a similar trend, although only one STA accounted
for the high packet loss.
Figure 10. The Impact of MU-MIMO on Latency (Test 61-62)

100
80
60 65
44
40
20 22
0 0 1 0
Device #151 Device #153 Average Device #151 Device #153 Average
MU-MIMO Configuration SU-MIMO Configuration

Figure 11. The Impact of MU-MIMO on Packet Loss (Test 61-62)

100
80
60
49
40
25
20
0 0 0 0 1
Test #151 Test #153 Average Test #151 Test #153 Average

We include two additional figures stemming from these tests in the appendix. These figures provide
additional information about the observed latency (Figure 29) and jitter (Figure 30).
We also ran a series of comparative tests involving MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO with the STAs
supporting either 2x2 or 1x1 antenna configurations. In these tests, we had 4 video transmissions
as well as a separate 20 Mbps uplink transmission. We streamed two 10 Mbps videos from the
Windows Media Server to two STAs one STA (2x2) and one SA (1x1). We also used Chariot
to stream two 20 Mbps videos (RTP) to a pair of commercially available laptop computers. One
laptop computer used a 2x2 antenna configuration and one laptop computer used a 1x1 antenna
configuration. Test 42 and Test 43 differed from the previous study where all of the devices used
a 1x1 antenna configuration, while we also used a 20 MHz channel in these tests instead of an
80 MHz channel.
As shown in Figure 12, the video performance was substantially better when the AP supported
MU-MIMO. With MU-MIMO, the video scores associated with the Windows Media Server
were close to perfect and there were hardly any video impairments. With SU-MIMO, the video
scores were sub-par, due largely to video freezes and other impairments. The figure also shows
that in the SU-MIMO test, the 2x2 antenna configuration meaningfully reduced the frequency of
video impairments, although in this case the net effect still didnt result in a great user experience
(i.e., the video was still frozen for 38.5% of the time, but much lower than 93.1% of the time).
Figure 12. Key Video Performance Metrics (Test 42-43)
97.0 97.0
38.5
Freeze 93.1
Time (%) 0.0
41.0 0.0
28.0 51
No. of 39
Freeze Periods 0
0
93.1
Impaired 0.0 3.9
Time (%) .01
42.4 .02
No. of 0 4
Impaired Periods 1
0.1 0.2 2
Device #1 - SU-MIMO w/ 2x2 Antenna Device #1- MU-MIMO w/ 2x2 Antenna

Device #2 - SU-MIMO w/ 1x1 Antenna Device #2- MU-MIMO w/ 1x1 Antenna

Figure 13 and Figure 14 show additional detail, which help demonstrate the benefits of
MU-MIMO and a 2x2 antenna configuration. Figure 13 shows the observed frames per second,
as captured by the Chromatic test platform, for the Windows Media Server videos playing on the
STAs. In the case of MU-MIMO, the observed frames per second was very close to the target
24 fps throughout the entire test. With SU-MIMO, the observed frames per second frequently
dropped to 0 fps, indicating a video freeze. With a 1x1 antenna configuration and SU-MIMO
(Figure 14), the amount of time that the observed frames per second was 0 fps was much higher
than it was with a 2x2 antenna configuration and SU-MIMO. Comparing the two MU-MIMO
results, there isnt an obvious difference in the observed frame rate between the 2x2 and 1x1
antenna configurations.
Figure 13. Observed Frames per Second with 2x2 Antenna Configuration (Test 42-43)
FPS
35
SU-MIMO Device #1 (2x2)
30
MU-MIMO Device #1 (2x2)
25
20
15
10
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Time (sec)
FPS
35
30
MU-MIMO (1 x 1) SU-MIMO (1 x 1)
25
20
15
10
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Time (sec)

In the SU-MIMO tests, the 2x2 The video performance on the laptop computers was similar to what we observed with the STAs.
antenna configuration had a Figure 15 shows the percentage of time that the latency exceeded the target threshold and Figure
profound impact by reducing both 16 shows comparable information for the packet loss. In both cases, the results were much worse
the packet loss and the latency. with SU-MIMO. Likewise, in the SU-MIMO tests the 2x2 antenna configuration had a profound
impact by reducing the packet loss and the latency, although the latency still exceeded the target
threshold for 42% of the time. We note that in these tests, all STAs were located in a room at one
end of the house while the AP was at the other end of the house.

100 100
80
71.1
60
40 42
20 16 14
12
0
Notebook PC Notebook PC Average Notebook PC Notebook PC Average
w/2x2 Antenna w/1x1 Antenna (MU-MIMO) w/2x2 Antenna w/1x1 Antenna (SU-MIMO)

Amount of Time Packet Loss Greater than 5% (%)
100 99
80
60
49.4
40
20
6 3
0 0 0
w/2x2 Antenna w/1x1 Antenna (MU-MIMO) w/ 2x2 Antenna w/ 1x1 Antenna (SU-MIMO)

We include two additional figures stemming from these tests in the appendix. These figures
provide additional information about the observed latency (Figure 31) and jitter (Figure 32). We
also include some additional test results, which we did not include in the main body of this paper
(Figure 36 through Figure 42).

A Wi-Fi AP with MU-MIMO can indirectly improve the user experience

for a consumer with a SU-MIMO device
An AP that supports MU-MIMO One might suspect that MU-MIMO creates a chicken and egg scenario if the benefits of an
can indirectly benefit a STA that AP with MU-MIMO functionality cannot occur without MU-MIMO also enabled in the STA.
does not support MU-MIMO. Fortunately, this belief is not correct as the results presented in this section illustrate. As long as
there are at least a few STAs that support MU-MIMO in the network then other STAs that do
not support MU-MIMO can also benefit.
In these tests, we configured the AP (20 MHz channel) to support either MU-MIMO or
SU-MIMO. We used five STAs in these tests two notebook computers (2x2 and 1x1) streamed
a 20 Mbps video, two STAs (2x2 and 1x1) streamed a 10 Mbps video from the Windows Media
Server, and the remaining STA transmitted 20 Mbps in the uplink direction to the AP. All STAs
playing video supported MU-MIMO with the exception of STA (2x2), which was streaming the
10 Mbps video from the Windows Media Player. This STA only supported SU-MIMO.
A Wi-Fi AP can group together In Test 38, we configured the AP to support SU-MIMO. Consequently, the user experience with
and serve STAs that support MU- the video applications was poor with all four STAs, although it was better with STA (2x2) than
MIMO, thus freeing up additional with STA (1x1). In Test 39, we configured the AP to support MU-MIMO. As one might expect,
channel access time to serve STAs the STAs that supported MU-MIMO delivered the best video experience fewer video freezes
that only support SU-MIMO. and impairments, lower latency and packet loss, etc. Although seemingly counter-intuitive at first
glance, we also observed that STA (2x2) delivered a better video experience even though it did
not support MU-MIMO. Since the STA did not support MU-MIMO, the AP could only send
data to the STA by itself without concurrently transmitting data to other STAs. However, since
the other STAs supported MU-MIMO, the Wi-Fi AP was able to schedule them more efficiently.
This increased efficiency freed up more channel access time for the AP to serve the single STA that
did not support MU-MIMO STA (2x2), not to mention more channel access time for the STA
transmitting in the uplink direction.

Figure 17 shows the key video performance metrics for the two tests. Among other things, the
figure shows that STA (2x2), which did not support MU-MIMO, still delivered a better user
experience when the Wi-Fi AP supported MU-MIMO.

97.0 97.0
55.0
Freeze 65.7
Time (%) 0.1
0
61
No. of 39
Freeze Periods 1
0.0 0.0 0
82.9 0.7
Impaired 17.2
55.7 Time (%) .01
.01
1
No. of 10
Impaired Periods 1
0.2 0.1 1
Device #1 - SU-MIMO w/2x2 Antenna Device #1 SU-MIMO w/2x2 Antenna

Device #2 - SU-MIMO w/1x1 Antenna Device #2 MU-MIMO w/1x1 Antenna Source: Signals Research Group
Figure 18 shows the observed frames per second for STA (2x2) when the AP supported
MU-MIMO (orange line) and when the AP supported SU-MIMO (blue line). Although the
STA did not support MU-MIMO, it is evident that the STA indirectly benefited from the AP
supporting MU-MIMO.
FPS
35
SU-MIMO AP - Device #1 (MU-MIMO - 2x2)
30
MU-MIMO AP - Device #1 (SU-MIMO - 2x2)
25
20
15
10
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Time (sec)

The last three figures in this section show some additional results from these tests. Although they do
not necessarily capture how MU-MIMO indirectly benefits STAs that only support SU-MIMO,
they do illustrate the benefits of MU-MIMO on the user experience. Figure 19 (MU-MIMO)
and Figure 20 (SU-MIMO) show the instantaneous throughput of the three STAs connected to
the Chariot test platform. Recall, two laptop computers were streaming a 20 Mbps video and one
STA was transmitting 20 Mbps in the uplink direction to the Wi-Fi AP. Figure 21 shows the
percentage of time that the latency exceeded the 40 ms threshold in the two tests.
In the appendix, we include Figure 33 through Figure 35, which provide additional insight into
the results from these two tests.

Figure 19. Instantaneous Throughput with MU-MIMO (Test 39)
Throughput (Mbps)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (sec)
Notebook PC #1 w/2x2 Antenna Notebook PC #2 w/1x1 Antenna Device #10 - Uplink Transmission
Figure 20. Instantaneous Throughput with SU-MIMO (Test 38)

Throughput (Mbps)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (sec)
Notebook PC #1 w/2x2 Antenna Notebook PC #2 w/1x1 Antenna Device #10 - Uplink Transmission


100 100
80
70.8
60
42
40
20
7 5
3
0
w/ 2x2 Antenna w/ 1x1 Antenna (MU-MIMO) w/ 2x2 Antenna w/ 1x1 Antenna (SU-MIMO)


An 80 MHz Wi-Fi channel is essential to support multiple

Wi-Fi users
It is generally recognized and appreciated that a Wi-Fi system with an 80 MHz channel delivers
more capacity than a Wi-Fi system with a 20 MHz channel. However, for completeness sake, we
are documenting the benefit with a particular focus on the user experience.
With a 20 MHz channel, the video We configured a Wi-Fi system to support three STAs, with each STA transmitting 15 Mbps in
froze for a considerable amount of the uplink direction to the AP. Additionally, a single STA streamed a 20 Mbps video from the
time while with an 80 MHz channel Windows Media Player. We repeated the test with an 80 MHz and with a 20 MHz channel
the video played nearly flawlessly. bandwidth. Both tests took place with the STAs and the AP located in opposite sides of the
house the measured RSSI was approximately -65 dBm. The results shown in Figure 22 indicate
that with a 20 MHz channel the video froze for a considerable amount of time (55.8%), resulting
in a video score of 0 out of 100 clearly a very poor user experience. With an 80 MHz channel,
the video played nearly flawlessly, resulting in a score of 96.
96.0
0.7 55.8
Freeze
Time (%) 0.0
97
No. of
Freeze Periods 0
0.0
12.6 17
62.7 Impaired
Time (%)
0
No. of 6.9
0.0 Impaired Periods
0.0
Test #46 20 MHz Channel Test #45 80 MHz Channel

Finally, Figure 23 shows the uplink throughput for the three STAs in the two tests. It is evident
that the combined throughput from the three STAs failed to reach the target 45 Mbps (3x15) with
a 20 MHz channel while the STAs met the target data rate with the 80 MHz channel.
Figure 23. Uplink Throughput (Test 45-46)
Throughput (Mbps)
50
40
Device #152 - UL
15
Device #152 - UL: 6 Mbps
30
Device #155 - UL
15 Device #155 - UL
20 17
10
Device #154 - UL Device #154 - UL
15 15
0
MU-MIMO Configuration with 80 MHz MU-MIMO Configuration with 20 MHz
Total Throughput = 45 Mbps Total Throughput = 38 Mbps

Test Methodology
SRG conducted the tests at two different locations in Northern California. We conducted most
of the video-related tests at a residential home in Atherton, California. This 3,000 square foot
single-floor home consisted of multiple rooms, which we used to place the Wi-Fi STAs during
the tests. We also conducted a few over-the-air tests (Test 50 through Test 59) in an RF shielded
room at Qualcomms San Jose facilities. Likewise, we performed the conducted tests involving the
1x1 versus 2x2 antenna configurations (Test 60 through Test 64) at the same facilities where we
had access to an attenuation box.
For the video tests, we primarily Although we measured throughput as part of this study, the major focus of our efforts pertained
used Spirent Communications to video performance. For the video tests, we primarily used Spirent Communications Chromatic
Chromatic test solution. test solution. We have used Chromatic numerous times in the past when analyzing the video
delivery capabilities of LTE, including IR.94. Chromatic is a vision-based measurement tool that
leverages the video and audio feeds through an HDMI output on the Wi-Fi STA to capture and
analyze the streaming video, which the smartphone is simultaneously playing on its screen. By
using video with special markers and audio tones, it is possible to quantify how well the Wi-Fi
system delivers the video and audio content to the mobile device (STA).
Analyzed parameters include the following:
Video Freezes the percentage of time and the number of instances in which the video was
frozen
Impaired Video Frames the percentage of time and the number of instances in which the
delivered frame was impaired
Impaired Video Performance the percentage of time that the video was frozen OR
impaired (the sum of the video freeze time and impaired video time)
Frames per Second time series plot of the observed frames per second (fps) done in
order to show variations in the observed fps during the test period
Weighted Average Video Score quantifies the overall video delivery experience using a
combination of the video freezes and impairments, as well as variations in the fps
Video Target Thresholds done for latency (40 ms), jitter (40 ms) and packet loss (5%).
These thresholds are based on published third-party information

In some tests, we used a second Figure 24 shows the test set-up that we used in the residential home. We used a Windows Media
Wi-Fi AP, which operated Server to stream the video normally a 20 Mbps video to one or more Wi-Fi STAs. In most of
in the primary channel of these tests, we also used IXIA Chariot to generate additional Wi-Fi traffic, which served to load
the Wi-Fi AP under test. the Wi-Fi system. Since Chariot can simulate a video transmission (RTP traffic), we also used
some of its reporting capabilities to analyze video performance, while we also used other Chariot
reports to analyze basic throughput in most of the tests. In some tests, we also used a second
Wi-Fi AP, which operated in the primary channel of the Wi-Fi AP under test. By generating
additional Wi-Fi traffic on this AP, we were able to simulate a likely real-world scenario in which
two APs share the same channel. We used iPerf to generate the traffic on the second AP.
Figure 24. Test Methodology

Wi-Fi STAs (Chariot Background/DUT)
IXIA
Chariot Captured Audio
Captured
Video
Chromatic
802.11ac AP
Captured
Video
Captured Audio
Windows
Media
Server
Wi-Fi STAs (Chariot Background/DUT)
Chromatic Test Video with Markers
For the tests involving the comparison between a 1x1 and a 2x2 antenna configuration with
varying pathloss (Test 60 through Test 64), we used a conducted mode of testing. We placed
the Wi-Fi STA in an attenuation box and then connected it via cable to the Wi-Fi AP, which
was located outside of the attenuation box. By using the conducted mode and an attenuation
box, we were able to adjust precisely the attenuation to reflect increasing pathloss between the
Wi-Fi AP and the STA.
We used a Wi-Fi AP reference platform with the Qualcomm QCA9980 chipset. By using a refer-
ence platform, we were able to configure quickly and easily the AP to support different modes of
operation (e.g., SU-MIMO versus MU-MIMO). For the Wi-Fi STAs, we used a mix of commer-
cial brand name smartphones, commercial brand name laptops, and Qualcomm MTPs (Mobile
Test Platform). All STAs used the Qualcomm QCA6174A chipset.

Appendix
In the appendix, we include additional test results and back-up figures. These figures show some
more detailed information for the tests that we provided in the main body of this whitepaper. We
have done this for completeness sake. We provide the back-up figures without any commentary
since we referenced them earlier in the paper. We do provide some discussion for the new tests
that we include in the appendix.
Figure 25. Latency Results for a 1x1 and 2x2 Antenna Configuration (Test 57-58)
SU-MIMO Configuration
w/ 1x1 Antennas
8520 9000
9000
8000 8000
7000 SU-MIMO Configuration 7000
w/ 1x1 and 2x2 Antennas
6000 6000
5000 2578 5000
141 4000
4000 112 944 2931
3000
3000
141 133 2000
2000 11
10 35 1000
1000 19
10 1542 0
0 8 21 Delay M
193 19 ax (m
70 527 s)
1)
(1x
1217
1)
23 Delay A
51
(1x
)
#1
x2
ve (ms
53
22
e
(2
)
ic
#1
ag
ev
52
e
421
er
D
ic
#1
ev
Av
ce
1)
D
(1x
vi
Delay
De
1)
Stdev
151
(1x
(ms)
)
e#
(1x1
153
rage
vic
e#
152
De
vic
e#
Ave
De
vic
De

Figure 26. Jitter Results for a 1x1 and 2x2 Antenna Configuration (Test 57-58)
SU-MIMO Configurationw/1x1 Antennas
160 SU-MIMO Configuration 155 160

w/ 1x1 and 2x2 Antennas 140
140
120
120
57 100
100
80
80 8 5 23 57 60
60
10 40
40 2 7
3 20
20 2
23 0
1 3
0 1 Jitter M
2 3 8 ax (ms)
1
4
1)
( 1x
1)
1 Jitter A
51
(1x
)
#1
14
x2
1 ve (ms
53
e
)
(2
e
ic
#1
ag
ev
52
e
er
D
ic
5
#1
ev
Av
ce
1)
D
(1x
vi
Jitter S
De
1)
tdev (m
151
(1x
s)
)
e#
(1x1
153
vic
rage
e#
152
De
vic
Ave
e#
De
vic
De

In Test 17 and Test 19, we loaded the Wi-Fi system with seven STAs. The STAs supported a mix
of RTP and TCP traffic. In Test 17, all STAs supported a 1x1 antenna configuration while in Test
19, we reconfigured two STAs to support a 2x2 antenna configuration. Figure 27 shows that the
two STAs with the 2x2 antenna configuration observed a meaningful increase in their data rates.
Figure 28 shows that the introduction of the 2x2 antenna configuration also improved the video
performance, as exemplified by Device #152 exceeding the 40 ms latency threshold for a shorter
period of time with the 2x2 antenna configuration. Device #151 was supporting TCP traffic in the
two tests so we do not have latency results for this STA.
Figure 27. The Impact of a 2x2 Antenna Configuration on Throughput (Test 17 and Test 19)
Throughput (Mbps)
100
80
Device #151 2x2
27
60 Device #151: 16
Device #155: 8
Device #155: 10
Device #154: 11
40 Device #154: 7
Device #161: 13
Device #157: 5 Device #161: 14

20 Device #156: 4
Device #157: 6
Device #152 2x2: 20 Device #156: 4
Device #152: 10
0
SU-MIMO Configuration w/2x2 Antenna (2 devices) SU-MIMO Configuration
Figure 28. The Impact of a 2x2 Antenna Configuration on Latency (Test 17 and Test 19)

100
85 87 85 85
80
69
60 63
40 37
20 17
0
2x2
w/Partial 2x2 Antenna (All 1x1 Antenna)

Figure 29. Latency Results for MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO (Test 61-62)
9000 8296 9000

8000 8000
7000 7000
MU-MIMO
6000 Configuration 6000
5000 4805 5000
4000
4000
3000 13 217 3000
115 1314 2000
2000 4 4 1000
1000 4
1 0
0 7 29 600 Delay M
4 315 ax (ms)
51
1169
#1
61
e
3
ic
#15
Delay A
ev
ve (ms
ge
D
615
vic
)
era
De
Av
#151
Delay
Stdev
ice
153
(ms)
Dev
ice #
ge
Avera
Dev
Figure 30. Jitter Results for MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO (Test 61-62)
250 226 250

MU-MIMO
200 Configuration 200
150
150 139
100
100 3 16 51
10
1 50
50 2 1
1 0
0 1 4
1 7 Jitt
er M
a
5
x (m
s )
51
2
#1
e
16
3
ic
#15
Jitt
ev
er A
ge
D
ice
ve
9 (ms
era
v
)
De
Av
#151
Jitt
er S
ice
153
tde
v (ms
Dev
ice #
)
ge
Avera
Dev

8746
9000 9000
8000 MU-MIMO 5594 SU-MIMO 8000
7000 Configuration Configuration 7000
6000 6000
5000 2945 4556 5000
4000
4000 296 3882 3000
3000
23 2000
2000 93 366
58 1000
1000 24
414 43 1963 0
0
219 De
lay
Ma
x (m
s)
1167
oo te /
26
eb An w
1x k P nna
De
lay
te /
ot 2 PC
Ave
An w
596
Av a
nn
(ms
2x ok
1 C
-M age )
O)
o
eb
(SU er
IM
ot
De
N
lay
Ant /
2x2 k PC w
Std
a
enn
ev
N
1x1 A C w/
(ms
)
na
(SU-M ge
nten
oo
ok P
IMO)
Avera
teb
ebo
No
Not
241
250 250
SU-MIMO
MU-MIMO Configuration 200
200 Configuration 127 143
150
150
100 13 78
100
2 4 13 50
50
2 3
0
0 2 4 12
4 Jitt
er M
11
a x (m
s )
eb nte w/
1
1x k P na
15
2 PC
en /
oo n
Jitt
nt w
er A
Av na
2x ok
ve
1A C
-M age
(ms
A
8
O)
o
)
eb
(SU er
IM
ot
N
Jitt
Ant /
ot
er S
2x2 k PC w
a
N
tde
enn
1x1 A PC w/
v (ms
na
)
(SU-M age
oo
nten
IMO)
ook
teb
Aver
No
eb
Not

Figure 33. Instantaneous Latency with MU-MIMO (Test 39)

Delay (ms)
7000
200
6000
150
5000
100
4000
50
3000
0
2000 0 100 200 300 400 500
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (sec)
Notebook PC #1 w/2x2 Antenna Notebook PC #2 w/1x1 Antenna
Figure 34. Instantaneous Latency with SU-MIMO (Test 38)
Delay (ms)
7000 200
150
100
6000 50
0
5000 0 100 200 300 400 500
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (sec)
Notebook PC #1 w/2x2 Antenna Notebook PC #2 w/1x1 Antenna

5855
6000 SU-MIMO 6000
Configuration
5000 MU-MIMO 5000
Configuration 4000
4000
3724 6257
994 3000
3000
183 589 2000
2000 658
19 1884 1000
1000 19 19
17 52 0
0
35 44 De
lay
Ma
x (m
s)
53 674
oo nte w/
1x C a
k P nn
nt w/
De
eb A #1
na lay
ot 2x2 PC
Ave
364
1 A #2
O)
en
(ms
k
IM
)
oo
M
eb
U-
Ant w/
ot
De
a
(M
lay
N
enn
Std
2x2 PC #1
ge
1x1 A #2 w/
ev
na
N
(ms
era
(SU-M rage
nten
Av
IMO)
ook
k PC
Ave
teb
o
No
ebo
Not Source: Signals Research Group
In Test 54 and Test 55 we compared the total throughput of SU-MIMO and MU-MIMO with
two STAs one STA used a 2x2 antenna configuration and one STA had a 1x1 antenna configura-
tion. Figure 36 provides the results, which show both the overall throughput gain of MU-MIMO
(59% higher) as well as the higher data rate achieved by the STA with the 2x2 antenna configura-
tion (59% higher in Test 54 and 71% higher in Test #55).
Figure 36. MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO Throughput with Two STAs (Test 54-55)
Throughput (Mbps)
800
600
Device #152: (2X2)
453
400
Device #152: (2X2)
293
200
Device #151: (1X1)
284 Device #151: (1X1)
171
0
MU-MIMO Configuration with 80 MHz SU-MIMO Configuration with 80 MHz

In Test 56 and Test 57, we compared the benefits of MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO. In addition to
the Wi-Fi AP (80 MHz channel) transmitting a 30 Mbps video to three STAs there was another
Wi-Fi AP (20 MHz channel) operating in the primary channel of the Wi-Fi AP under test. This
Wi-Fi AP transmitted a 100 Mbps data stream to a single STA using UDP. We note that we
also showed the Test 57 results in the section comparing 1x1 and 2x2 antenna configurations. We
provide the results for these two tests in Figure 37 through Figure 39.
Figure 37. MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO Throughput in an 80 MHz Channel with Multiple Video Transmissions (Test 56-57)
By using 2x2, Device #152
Throughput (Mbps)
was able to achieve the
100
target data rate.

13
60
Device #153 (1X1 Antenna) Device #153 (1X1 Antenna) 100 100
40 30 30
20 Device #151 (1X1 Antenna) Device #151 (1X1 Antenna)

30 30
0

100
93
80
60
43
40
20 19 18
10 9 10 9
0


100
80
60
52
40
20 18
0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Finally, in Test 1 and Test 2 we compared MU-MIMO and SU-MIMO by using five STAs
streaming a 15 Mbps video through Chariot and two additional STAs streaming a 6 Mbps video
through the Windows Media Server. Due to the relatively low bit rate associated with the 6
Mbps video streams, the impact of MU-MIMO was relatively modest. However, the benefit of
MU-MIMO on the other five video streams was quite meaningful, as shown in the last few figures.

50
44.9
40
34.1
30 28.5
28
20 19.9
15.8
10
4.3 5.6 4.8 4.3
3.6 3.1
0
Device Device Device Device Device Average Device Device Device Device Device Average
#151 #157 #158 #155 #156 (MU-MIMO) #151 #157 #158 #155 #156 (SU-MIMO)


Amount of Time Packet Loss Greater than 5% (%)
50
40 39.8
30
20
11.9
10 9.2
4.4 6.1
1.0 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.0
0 0.2
Device Device Device Device Device Average Device Device Device Device Device Average
#151 #157 #158 #155 #156 (MU-MIMO) #151 #157 #158 #155 #156 (SU-MIMO)

94 SU-MIMO 100
100 MU-MIMO
90 Configuration Configuration 90
80
80
70
70 58
60
60 50 49
17 50
50 12 12 12 35 40
40 9 12 30
30 3 4 9 20
20 3 3 3 10
10 1 3
2 4 7 0
0 1 2 5
1 1 5 5
Jitt
er M
5
a x (m
2 7 s
1
)
vi #15
vic 157
5
De ce
vic 58
De e #
i
4
vic 5
Jitt
ev
De e #1
De e #15
c
er A
D
4 ve
MU e #15
(ms
O)
4 )
IM
151
-M
e#
#157
Jitt
er S
#158
vic
tde
ice
55
(
De
v
ge
(ms
e #156
ice
ce #1
Dev
)
era
)
Dev
MIMO
Av
Devi
Devic
e (SU-
Averag


Mu Mimo and The User Experience

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mu Mimo and The User Experience

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MU-MIMO

AND THE USER

Paper developed for Qualcomm

A Wi-Fi AP with MU-MIMO capabilities delivers significantly more network capacity,

February 2016 Page 2

February 2016 Page 3

A 2x2 antenna configuration delivers substantially higher

Throughput (Mbps) 2x2 Config Performance Advantage (%)

0 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 0%

Downlink Pathloss (dB)

February 2016 Page 4

By using 2x2, Device #152

80 Device #152 (2X2 Antenna)

20 Device #151 (1X1 Antenna) Device #151 (1X1 Antenna)

February 2016 Page 5

Source: Signals Research Group

Amount of Packet Loss Greater than 5% (%)

Source: Signals Research Group

February 2016 Page 6

February 2016 Page 7

A Wi-Fi AP with MU-MIMO delivers a much better user experience

Figure 5. MU-MIMO versus SU-MIMO

Source: Signals Research Group

February 2016 Page 8

600 Device #153

February 2016 Page 9

150 Device #152 Device #153

Source: Signals Research Group

February 2016 Page 10

Figure 8. Key Video Metrics (Test 60-62)

Weighted Average Score

Impaired Video Performance (%)

Source: Signals Research Group

February 2016 Page 11

February 2016 Page 12

Figure 10. The Impact of MU-MIMO on Latency (Test 61-62)

MU-MIMO Configuration SU-MIMO Configuration

Figure 11. The Impact of MU-MIMO on Packet Loss (Test 61-62)

MU-MIMO Configuration SU-MIMO Configuration

Source: Signals Research Group

February 2016 Page 13

Figure 12. Key Video Performance Metrics (Test 42-43)

Device #1 - SU-MIMO w/ 2x2 Antenna Device #1- MU-MIMO w/ 2x2 Antenna

February 2016 Page 14

February 2016 Page 15

Figure 15. The Impact of MU-MIMO on Latency (Test 42-43)

Amount of Time Latency Greater than 40 ms (%)

Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 16. The Impact of MU-MIMO on Packet Loss (Test 42-43)

Source: Signals Research Group

February 2016 Page 16

February 2016 Page 17

A Wi-Fi AP with MU-MIMO can indirectly improve the user experience

February 2016 Page 18

Figure 17. Key Video Performance Metrics (Test 38-39)

Device #1 - SU-MIMO w/2x2 Antenna Device #1 SU-MIMO w/2x2 Antenna

February 2016 Page 19

Source: Signals Research Group

Figure 20. Instantaneous Throughput with SU-MIMO (Test 38)

Source: Signals Research Group

February 2016 Page 20

Figure 21. The Impact of MU-MIMO on Latency (Test 38-39)

MU-MIMO Configuration SU-MIMO Configuration