In many ways , the Apple C1 — its first cellular modem — is the company ’s most important product in years . Just as the troupe broke free from reliance on Intel with its own Mac processors , it is now breaking free from reliance on Qualcomm for cellular connectivity . chuck Broadcom for its own Wi - Fi and Bluetooth is said to happen this year , too .
But the microchip was released to footling fanfare , with the announcement all but bury in the details of the iPhone 16e . After testing the modem , we know why : it ’s full enough for Apple ’s “ budget”iPhone 16e , but only just .
We carried the iPhone 16 and iPhone 16e all over Sacramento , Calif. , taking multiple amphetamine exam to equate Apple ’s modem vs. Qualcomm ’s . The results are readable : Apple ca n’t keep up , at least not yet . But speed is not all that weigh to a cellular modem .
Apple C1 modem: How we tested
To thoroughly examine a cellular modem need take on thousands of measurements all over the populace , when connected to various networks in different condition , in addition to controlled research lab condition . We ca n’t do all of that , but wecanschlep around an iPhone 16 and iPhone 16e , taking multiple measuring in multiple locations , until we get enough data to form some close .
We used the democratic OoklaSpeedtest appto run net performance . Since performance is so highly variable , we took three measurement in each location on each phone , one after the other , and averaged the consequence .
Our run were execute on the Verizon mesh at multiple locations throughout the Sacramento , CA field , primarily in the afternoon on a 24-hour interval with good atmospheric condition . We tested indoors and outdoors , in a mix of challenging areas , such as within a foodstuff computer storage or the storage locker way of a gym , and promiscuous , gamey - performance area such as outside the Golden 1 Center when there was no major event take place .
The C1 does not support mmWave , so we do n’t expect multi - gigabit speeds , but even more significant than occasional Wi - Fi speeds is how well it do in areas where the connexion is weak or saturated . rent ’s see how the C1 holds up .
Apple C1 modem: Downloads and uploads
With the exclusion of the mental test run in my home office ( which has poor connectivity with mobile electronic connection ) , the Qualcomm X71 M in the iPhone 16 bucket along past the Apple C1 in every location . In the supermarket where it ’s hard to get a really good connexion , the C1 bombed hard , downloading at only about 10 megabits / s while the Qualcomm modem grapple over 200 . Remember , this is the average of three serial tests , to repress the lifelike unevenness of cellular performance .
It ’s possible the iPhone 16e was n’t capable to engage on to a signal on a band that performs better there , but regardless of the reasonableness , through multiple trial , we but could n’t get a good association .
metalworks
In the park or Golden 1 Center where the iPhone 16 gets over a gigabit of download speed , we ’re not very concerned by the Apple C1 managing half the performance . Once you may download several hundred megabits per second , you ’re not get to have a very different experience move quicker — not on your smartphone .
Upload performance was a lot closelipped , with the Apple C1 trading gain with the Snapdragon X71M.
If there ’s a problem , it ’s with the tests taken inside the gymnasium or out in the nearby shopping centre , where the Qualcomm modem was several times faster than Apple ’s . The gymnasium in particular is a very challenging orbit ; it ’s indoors in a big construction full of equipment where connectivity is patched , and dozens of people are all on their phones at once while they work out out . We could n’t even get half a megabit of upload performance out of the iPhone 16e there .
Apple C1 modem: Overall performance
Taking the upper from each placement and average out them together , we start to see a general overall picture of how the Apple C1 modem in the iPhone 16e compare to the Qualcomm Snapdragon X71 M in the iPhone 16 .
you’re able to say that , at least in our examination in a variety of locations , the Apple C1 bear about the same overall upload speed as the Qualcomm Snapdragon X71 M but about half the download performance .
Again , that ’s all extremely dependent on placement and conditions , but it was logical enough to show a clear design .
Apple C1 modem: Efficiency and reliability
Of of course , download and upload speeds are only part of the moving picture when it descend to cellular performance . It ’s just as important that you do n’t flatten calls , and that this very index - hungry component does n’t drain your battery too rapidly .
We made several office calls during testing using both earpiece and noticed no significant difference in call quality . No call ever dropped on either phone . It would take hundred of calls in mickle of locations , all lasting ten minute or more , to get a really clear picture of whether one modem drops calls more than the other , so consider our tests anecdotal at best .
Power efficiency testing also requires some specialised equipment to isolate the king haul of the modem alone , and mensurate it with unlike signal effectiveness . That ’s on the nose what Chinese YouTuber极客湾Geekerwanhas done , and they found that indeed , under idealistic conditions , the Apple C1 uses about 25 percent less mogul than the Snapdragon X71 M in the iPhone 16 , but that power savings grows smaller if the signal is weak .
We ’re talking about a departure of one - fifth part of a watt , which can add up over time , but it ’s not really a monumental contributor to overall battery animation . The iPhone 16e has a higher - mental ability stamp battery than any 6.1 - inch iPhone before ; it holds about 12 % more guardianship than the battery in the iPhone 16 , and that seems to be the biggest agent in the iPhone 16e ’s long battery life .
The C1 is not good enough for flagship iPhones… yet
The iPhone 16e is Apple ’s “ more affordable ” iPhone , though at $ 600 or more it could barely be weigh a budget smartphone . Itmakes several concessionsto shave $ 200 off the price , and we can look at cellular performance to be one of them .
Making a free-enterprise 5 gravitational constant modem is a herculean job , one that was beyond Intel ’s reach ( and hence why the fellowship sell its whole modem part to Apple ) . There ’s a reason Apple is years late in bringing a modem to market . That it works and seems to work just fine without any massive obvious flaw , is quite a feat in itself .
But it ca n’t keep up with Qualcomm ’s Snapdragon X71 M in the iPhone 16 , and that ’s not even Qualcomm ’s unspoilt modem , which would be theSnapdragon x80 . It ’s not even theX75 , which was notice in a raft of phones last twelvemonth . It come along to be some sort of custom - made - for - Apple variant on the X70 , though details are scarce .
The Apple C1 is good enough for the company ’s less expensive model , but if you ’re spend $ 800 + on the latest iPhone , or $ 1,000 + on an iPhone Pro , you expect better than “ practiced enough . ” Without obvious evidence that it drastically better battery life , which we do n’t see , it would be a vast dashing hopes to find the C1 in theiPhone 17this fall . gratefully , hearsay exact that Apple will indeed stick with Qualcomm for at least another coevals .
But Apple says this is the first modem of many . The ship’s company already has C2 and C3 modem in the pipeline ( it would have to , considering the multi - year evolution and examination process ) . Those are speculate to get closer to the performance of Qualcomm ’s best modems while ameliorate power efficiency and offering plastered integration with other Apple silicon . The C1 is a great beginning but Apple still has a recollective way to go .
