YOU ARE DOWNLOADING DOCUMENT

Please tick the box to continue:

Transcript
Page 1: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

1Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 1

WiMAX/16e/16m WiMAX/16e/16m vsvs LTE LTE

Technology and Performances Technology and Performances comparisoncomparison

Zion Hadad, Peretz ShekalimRuncom

Page 2: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

2Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 2

Market success

Page 3: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

3Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 3

4G standardization

OFDMA in Standardization

Page 4: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

4Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 4

Standardization Leadership

Runcom’s OFDMA® Generic Technology

ETSI Approved( EN301958 )April 2001

DVB-T/RCTFixed/Mobile

Digital Interactive Wireless TV

Europe

IEEE 16e Extension to mobile Approved

Nov 2005

802.16.a/e/d

Broadband wireless AccessUSA

4G

CellularMobile

F - IEEE802.16mLTE Rel 8 ,9

Page 5: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

5Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 5

IMT advanced – General requirements (1)

ITU IMT advanced is the base line for the 4G requirement

• Higher spectral efficiencies and peak data rates up to 1Giga bps.• Lower latencies (air-link access latency, [Inter-FA HO, Intra-FA HO, inter-

RAN HO] latencies) to enable new delay-sensitive applications.• Mobility Support: Cellular systems including IMT-Advanced are required

to support the environments described in following:

– Pedestrian (Pedestrian speeds up to 10 km/h)– Typical Vehicular (Vehicular speeds up to 120 km/h)– High Speed Vehicular (Vehicular speeds up to 500 km/h)– Seamless application connectivity to other mobile networks and other IP networks

(global roaming capabilities).

• Support for larger cell sizes and improved cell-edge performance.• Low-cost and low-complexity terminals for worldwide use.• Improved Unicast and multicast broadcast services.• Provision for PAN/LAN/WAN Co-location / Coexistence.• And more

Page 6: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

6Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 6

IMT advanced – detailed requirements (2)

• Multiple access methods• OFDMA, CDMA and also Single-carrier/Multi-carrier

operation, ..• FDD, H-FDD and TDD modes• DL:UL ration configurable• Different Ch-BW configurable for FDD mode (e.g. 10MHz

downlink, 5MHz uplink )• scalable bandwidths from 5 to 20 MHz• Support of Advanced Antenna Techniques:• Minimum antenna configuration requirements shall be:

– For the base station, a minimum of 2xTX and 2xRX antennas– For the MS, a minimum of 1xTX and 2xRX antennas

Page 7: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

7Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 7

IMT advanced – detailed requirements (3)

• Link Adaptation and Power Control • Maximum Latency (MAC to MAC): 10msec BS MS

and MS BS• State transition latency: IDLE_STATE to

ACTIVE_STATE : 100msec• Maximum Handover Interruption :

– Intra-frequency: 50 msec, – Inter-frequency: 150 msec

• Enhanced Location Based Services (LBS)• Enhanced Multicast Broadcast Service (E-MBS)

Page 8: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

8Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 8

The 16e OFDMA used the most advanced GOODIES of the Communication Theory.

• Multiple Antennas- AAS (beam forming or switching)), MIMO open loop and close loop DL(2x2), (4x2), (4x4) UL (2x2) Transmit diversity STC (2x1), (4x1) Rx diversity MRC (1xN)MIMO Macro diversity (different sites) UL and DL

• Error control – ARQ (selective repeat) or HARQ Chase or IRFEC- Convolutional, Turbo codes: CTC, LDPC, BTC

• Smooth Handoff – HHF, Fast cell switching, New Mixed of Macro diversity and HO

• Adaptive Modulation and Coding [AMC]• Encryption and fast Authentication.• Time Frequency Space Scheduling.• Duplexing FDD TDD HFDD• DL OFDMA UL OFDMA or SC-FDMA• Repeater/Relay stations• ...

16e OFDMA Communication, Tools

Page 9: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

9Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 9

• Multiple Antennas- AAS (Adaptive Array (beam forming or switching), MIMO open loop and close loop DL (2x2), (4x2),(4x4) UL (2x2) Transmit diversity STC (2x1), (4x1) Rx diversity MRC (1xN)MIMO Macro diversity (different sites) UL and DL

• Error control – ARQ (selective repeat) or HARQ Chase or IRFEC- Convolutional, Turbo codes: CTC (1/3 binary), LDPC, BTC

• Smooth Handoff – HHF, Fast cell switching, New Mixed of Macro diversity and HO, Soft Ho

• Adaptive Modulation and Coding [AMC]• Encryption and fast Authentication.• Time Frequency Space Scheduling.• Duplexing FDD TDD HFDD• DL OFDMA UL SC-FDMA• Repeater/Relay stations

OFDMA Com, Tools 3GPP Rel 8 (LTE)

Page 10: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

10Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 10

• Multiple Antennas- Adaptive array optional at BS mandatory in UT

MIMO open loop and close loop (2x2),(4x2),(4x4). UL (2x2)

Transmit diversity STC (2x1), (4x1) Rx diversity MRC (1xN)MIMO Macro diversity (different sites) UL

and DL • Error control – ARQ (selective repeat) or HARQ

Chase or IR

Wimax Profiles used subset of the 802.16 OFDMA

Page 11: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

11Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 11

OFDMA

Frame Structure

Page 12: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

12Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 12

IEEE802.16e Frame Structure

Page 13: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

13Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 13

WiMAX Multi-Zone Frame Structure

Page 14: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

14Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 14

16m Frame Structure

Page 15: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

15Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 15

Standardization

• It turns out that UL-SC FDMA is a flop when it comes to high level of MU-MIMO (This will probably be changed back to OFDMA in LTE advanced Rel 9). The claimed PAPR advantage is negligible with the constraints of narrow band transmission that suffer from larger fading losses with no frequency Diversity.

• The round trip delay is lower in WiMAX using the 2.5ms frame structure instead of the 5ms frame structure. The flexibility of using the zones approach instead of fixed sub frame is still present.

• The VoIP MAC overhead in WiMAX/16e can be decreased with the use of sustain MAP techniques, such as Persistence Allocations and so on.

Page 16: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

16Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 16

Global Spectrum allocation

Page 17: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

17Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 17

Technology choice

Page 18: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

18Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 18

Frequencies, Regulation and backward compatible

3GPP has more legacy cellular that uses lower frequencies and provides better range and coverage. It also has a simpler multimode user/BS, due to the fact that RF frequencies are close while WiMAX using higher frequencies.This advantage gap is narrowing.

WiMAX has ITU IMT 2000 approval.

WIMAX is Expanding throw Rel 1.5 profile to FDD and other lower frequencies, such as 700MHz and AWS. Also, WiMAX may probably expand to 2G, 3G spectrum and PCS in the future.

Page 19: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

19Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 19

IEEE802.16m OFDM parameters

Page 20: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

20Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 20

LTE FDD transmission parameters

512 for l = 0 to 5

512 for l = 0 to 5

512 for l = 0 to 5

512 for l = 0 to 5

512 for l = 0 to 5

512 for l = 0 to 5

Extended CP

160 for l = 0144 for l = 1 to 6

160 for l = 0144 for l = 1 to 6

160 for l = 0144 for l = 1 to 6

160 for l = 0144 for l = 1 to 6

160 for l = 0144 for l = 1 to 6

160 for l = 0144 for l = 1 to 6

Normal CPCyclic Prefix (CP) length (frame structure type 1)where l is the symbol position in a slot

666666Extended CP

777777Normal CPOFDM symbols per slot(frame structure type 1)

1201901601301 18173Occupied sub-carriers

100755025 156Number of occupied resource blocks

204820482048204820482048OFDM symbol length in time units*(excluding cyclic prefix)

30.72 MHz30.72 MHz30.72 MHz30.72 MHz30.72 MHz30.72 MHzSampling frequency

15 kHz15 kHz15 kHz15 kHz15 kHz15 kHzSub-carrier spacing

0.5 ms0.5 ms0.5 ms0.5 ms0.5 ms0.5 msSlot duration (frame structure type 1)

20 MHz15 MHz10 MHz5 MHz3.0 MHz1.4 MHzTransmission BW

Page 21: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

21Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 21

LTE Frame structure type 2 (TDD mode)

One radio frame =10 ms One half frame =5 ms

# 0 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 7 # 8 # 9

1 ms

DwPTS UpPTSGPDwPTS UpPTSGP

DUUSDUUUSD10 ms6

DDDDDDDUSD10 ms5

DDDDDDUUSD10 ms4

DDDDDUUUSD10 ms3

DDUSDDDUSD5 ms2

DUUSDDUUSD5 ms1

UUUSDUUUSD5 ms0

9876543210

Subframe numberSwitch-point periodicityConfiguration

Uplink-downlink allocations.

Page 22: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

22Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 22

Spectral Efficiency multiple antennas

0.5

11.5

2

2.53

3.5

3xEVDO HSPDA HSDA Wimax/LTE

MIMO 2X2

16e/LTE MIMO 4X4

COL UL MIMO

DL

UL

Application of SM, CL-MIMO and Diversity according to channel condition

16E CL-MIMO 16X4 or AAS +COL MIMO

bps/Hz

Page 23: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

23Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 23

PEAK User DATA RATE

40

80

120160

200

240

280 Mbps

3G

2Mbps

HSUPA

14Mbps

Wimax

SISO

WimaxMIMO 2X2

16e MIMO DL: 4X4

UL: 2x4

DL

UL

TDD TX/Rx~2:1

16e MIMO DL: 2X2

UL 2x2

16e

MIMO

DL: 4X4

UL: 2x4

FDD 2x5 MHz TDD 10 MHz TDD 20 MHz

16e/LTEMIMO

2X2

16e / LTEMIMO

DL: 4X4

FDD 2x 20 MHz

LTE

Page 24: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

24Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 24

Throughput conclusion

The Throughput of the systems is comparable and the different may be with

less then 10%

Page 25: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

25Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 25

Networking

Page 26: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

26Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 26

A deployment example for the Media Independent Handover services802.21

Page 27: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

27Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 27

Diversity RFIC

RNA300

Multi-mode User Terminal design

RFIC #1Transceiver

RFIC #2Transceiver

Crystal OSC

Ant 1

Ant 2Rx 2

Rx 1

Tx 1RNA200

IEEE802-16e

SoC

Application

Processor

Triple play

CMR

I/Q

GSMTransceiver

UMTS

WLAN.

BB

Airlink

Modem

Page 28: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

28Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 28

WiMAX to 3GPP interworking – general architecture

Page 29: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

29Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 29

GSM / 3GPP mobile

NodeBRNC

GSM mobile

BSS

BTS

MSC/VLR

HLR

CircuitCore

GGSN

PacketCore IP Network

WiMAX integrated to 3GPP network (Interworking Converging networks !!)

BSC / PCU

SGSN

3GPP all IP

BSASN-GW

3GPP / WiMAX

Intelligent Network /

Applications / AAA

VoiceData IP

VoIP and Data IP

Page 30: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

30Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 30

Dual Radio 3GPP Pre-Rel8 Packet Core Interworking Architecture Roaming model (WiMAX NWG Rel 0.1)

Page 31: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

31Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 31

WiMAX Mobility Access

Page 32: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

32Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 32

HSPA vs. WiMAX architecture

Page 33: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

33Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 33

LTE network architecture (3GPP)

Page 34: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

34Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 34

Network conclusion

• The WiMAX and LTE networks came to be simple scalable and less expensive.

• This network is different than the current networks.

• The add-on and/or integration of the network into current networks is handled by several standardization and is currently under development.

• The advantage of the LTE as a continuation of the 2G-3G is not clear.

Page 35: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

35Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 35

Winning technology !

??

Page 36: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

36Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 36

Technology conclusion

– There is no real technological advantage of LTE air interface over 16e it is basically another profile.

– 16e is good solution for long time.

– 3GPP LTE adopted the 16e OFDMA technology and created an OFDMA variant with some minor improvement and with some dis-improvements in certain areas.

– The 802.16 upgraded with another OFDMA standard (16m), thus adopting some minor improvement with some dis-improvements.

Page 37: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

37Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 37

Final Conclusion

1. LTE & WIMAX are based on excellent technology and are variant of each other.

2. IT IS PHISIBLE TO DEVELOP MULTIMOD WIMAX-LTE ON THE SAME CHIP

3. Currently, WiMAX has the time-to-market advantage over LTE, but it is behind HSPA. If WiMAX vendors finalize the development of the add-on networking approach soon enough, they may be able to take a larger market share from the LTE and HSPA

4. Another possibility that the financial crises will dictate that in the future, there will be slow down in R&D and consequently new network roll-out will be slower. The question will still exist of, “HSPA versus WiMAX” and not LTE

Page 38: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

38Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 38

References

• Public documentation and White Papers from Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson and others.

• IEEE802.16e/m• 3GPP• WiMAX Forum NWG and TWG documents

Page 39: WiMAX vs LTE Technical Comparison

39Runcom Technologies Ltd.

10/30/2008 39

Thank you from Runcom


Related Documents