News: 1659515531

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

We'll get you that Wi-Fi 7 laptop by 2024, Intel says

(2022/08/03)


Intel said it intends to add Wi-Fi 7 hardware to laptops and other PCs "by 2024", and a year later for the rest of the market.

That's according to the x86 giant's Eric McLaughlin, veep of its wireless solutions and client computing group, who just the other day gave a [1]briefing on the state of wireless connectivity. McLaughlin [2]reportedly said Intel was seeking Wi-Fi Alliance certification of its IEEE 802.11be, aka [3]Wi-Fi 7 , products – once that certification is available.

"[Wi-Fi 7] will be installed in PC products such as laptops by 2024 … we expect it to appear in major markets in 2025," McLaughlin said. Intel's roadmap is more or less in line with the Wi-Fi Alliance's timeline for Wi-Fi 7 certification.

[4]

Hot on the heels of Wi-Fi 6E, Wi-Fi 7 would be a substantial upgrade, according to the marketing bumf. "The benefit for a typical Wi-Fi 7 laptop is a potential maximum data rate of almost 5.8 Gbps. This is 2.4X faster than the 2.4 Gbps possible with Wi-Fi 6/6E," Intel said in [5]documentation for Wi-Fi 7.

[6]

[7]

According to the IEEE, which is [8]stewarding this next-gen wireless technology, there are a number of techniques that make it leaps and bounds faster than Wi-Fi 6.

Wi-Fi 7 will add the full 6 GHz band that Wi-Fi 6E dabbled in, bringing the total number of Wi-Fi bands to three. It also doubles channel size from 160 MHz to 320 MHz and adds 4K Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), which lets it better organize data streams to improve density (Wi-Fi 6 only had 1K QAM).

[9]

Automated frequency coordination, another new Wi-Fi 7 technology, will let Wi-Fi 7 adjust to 6 GHz frequencies that aren't in use by nearby stuff like radio telescopes and weather radar, making connections more reliable, and multi-link operations will allow devices to connect to many channels at the same time to increase connection speeds, which are theoretically able to reach as high as 40 Gbps.

It's already here?

The IEEE's Wi-Fi 7 standard is still in draft form, and the Wi-Fi Alliance hasn't settled on certification standards for Wi-Fi 7, but that hasn't stopped chipmakers from jumping in. Take MediaTek, which [10]demonstrated its Wi-Fi 7 technology in January as an example: it claimed at the time Wi-Fi 7 would make Ethernet obsolete.

[11]Intel says Sapphire Rapids CPU delay will help AMD catch up

[12]Intel hits another speed bump with delayed Mobileye IPO

[13]Why Wi-Fi 6 and 6E will connect factories of the future

[14]Ryzen shines with remote management on Qualcomm Wi-Fi kit

The [15]chip shortage has also accelerated the development of Wi-Fi 7, as supply chain problems have cut into Wi-Fi 6E hardware production. According to some analysts, that may mean hardware makers simply [16]sit the intermediary generation out and skip straight to Wi-Fi 7.

The Wi-Fi Alliance has [17]disputed claims that Wi-Fi 6E has been affected by chip shortages, saying that devices are available and that businesses shouldn't hold out for Wi-Fi 7, warning that the arrival of Wi-Fi 7-capable devices is further off than some have forecast.

Qualcomm, however, expects Wi-Fi 7 products to come to market in 2023. It has plans to ship enterprise-level Wi-Fi 7 products by the fourth quarter of next year. Even now, Qualcomm's OEM customers are able to [18]sample its Wi-Fi 7 Networking Pro products in order to develop and test consumer products. Meanwhile, Apple is [19]said to be ready to move to Wi-Fi 6E. ®

Get our [20]Tech Resources



[1] https://techwireasia.com/2022/07/intel-accelerating-the-next-era-of-wireless-with-wi-fi-7/

[2] https://english.etnews.com/20220801200002

[3] https://www.wi-fi.org/who-we-are/current-work-areas#Wi-Fi%207

[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YupHVxwovgk2@iAY8@Cm5AAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[5] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/wireless/wi-fi-7.html

[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YupHVxwovgk2@iAY8@Cm5AAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YupHVxwovgk2@iAY8@Cm5AAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[8] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9433521

[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YupHVxwovgk2@iAY8@Cm5AAAAIc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/24/mediatek_demos_wifi_7/

[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/08/intel_sapphire_rapids_delay/

[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/11/intel_mobileye_ipo/

[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/29/wifi_6_6e_factories/

[14] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/19/ryzen_shines_with_remote_management/

[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/20/global_chip_shortage_not_over/

[16] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/07/chip_supply_problems_may_affect_wi_fi_6/

[17] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/14/wifi_6e_widely_available/

[18] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/04/qualcomm_sampling_wifi_7_silicon/

[19] https://www.macrumors.com/2022/08/01/intel-wi-fi-7-in-2024-as-apple-plans-wi-fi-6e/

[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



More go faster stripes

Charlie Clark

There are already enough practical problems with wifi that we don't need to worry about the maximum potential speed. Contention and real world barriers (walls) make a mockery of the speed claims and then there's the rest: I can't use auto channel for 5 GHz because I'm close to an airport and channels routinely get shut down and my Macs won't reconnect (I'm holding it wrong says Apple and refuses to accept there could be a bug in MacOS). Contention in the 2.4 Ghz band, and I'm in a fairly residential setting without many other networks locally, leads to frequent reconfiguration and my Raspberry Pi with LibreElec also can't reconnect…

Wifi is great when it works but otherwise use cables whenever you can.

Re: More go faster stripes

Ragarath

As Charlie has said.

I get it you want to promote faster speeds. But you'll not achieve them. The chances of having a free 320Mhz channel are practically zero.

What can it achieve with a 20Mhz channel (or lower) and/or with many people connecting? If everyone is connecting at 5.8Gbps let alone the 40 that is theoretically mentioned. Just think of the back-haul needed let alone if those speeds are actually achievable with more than 1 person connected.

A lot of people not in IT I speak to think the Wi-Fi speed is the internet speed so that'll be interesting trying to explain why they can't get that speed.

El Bard

One can also add Broadcom to the list of companies already sampling WiFi 7 systems

https://investors.broadcom.com/news-releases/news-release-details/broadcom-announces-availability-worlds-first-wi-fi-7-ecosystem

Make Ethernet obsolete.

Anonymous Coward

I'd be interested to see how they're handling RF interference and congestion.

Re: Make Ethernet obsolete.

Korev

I was going to say, can the newfangled WFi get through the deadspot in Korev Towers caused by my bathroom and a radiator?

Tubz

Ethernet is not dead, how many users need anything faster than what Cat5E and existing network infrastructure can provide, or that business will not want to invest in new network hardware to support fast Wi-Fi, yes less cabling to maintain, as backhaul is from AP's rather than hundreds of floor ports. ?

Fast vs reliable

Aitor 1

I want fast and reliable, but if I had to choose, I would choose reliable.

I want more channels and them being separated so les collisions happen and we can have more devices running without issues.

I am not convinced we are going the right way.. wider bands used for less devices to go faster sounds good until you realise you didn't really need the speed for a single device, but rather quite a few devices cooperating and going at good speed.

Call for details.