The publisher just completed their 33rd 5G benchmark study. For this endeavor they collaborated with Accuver Americas and Spirent Communications to conduct an independent benchmark study of 5G MU-MIMO, using Verizon's commercial 5G network in Memphis, TN, where Samsung is the RAN infrastructure supplier.
Highlights of the Report include the following:
Acknowledgements
The publisher did this study in collaboration with Accuver Americas (XCAL5 and XCAP) and Spirent Communications (Umetrix Data). SRG is responsible for the data collection and all analysis and commentary provided in this report.
Methodology
The publisher primarily tested at one cell site (3 sectors) which supported MU-MIMO, 100 MHz channel bandwidth (versus the typical 60 MHz that VZ has deployed), and 10 Gbps backhaul. They did stationary testing with four Galaxy S22 smartphones placed in vehicles in various locations within the sector and included 2 different drive test routes to gauge the impact of mobility on MU-MIMO and SRS performance. They estimate ~15 different device placements with stationary tests.
Key Differences
To the publisher's surprise, the virtualized RAN (vRAN) supported 16 downlink MIMO layers and 8 uplink MIMO layers. The publisher didn't realize this capability until after we started analyzing the results in detail. The publisher didn't test uplink MU-MIMO while with only 4 smartphones, the results obtained likely understate the full MU-MIMO potential of the network.
The Results are In
Without getting into specifics, the publisher observed near-perfect reuse of network resources (RBs) in most tests. Additionally, the aggregate MIMO layer count was frequently close to 8 layers across all smartphones after adjusting for RB use/reuse, and reaching at least 12 layers in some cases. Although MCS dropped in most tests, the net effect was still up to a high double-digit increase in sector capacity. The results with devices placed close together wasn't what we were hoping for since the sharp drop in MCS more than offset the high RB reuse and higher total MIMO layer count versus SU-MIMO.
FWA
FWA is THE use case for MU-MIMO. In addition to the need for increased low-cost capacity due to the usage profile of FWA, FWA benefits from relying on stationary devices (CPEs), which generally tends to result in better MU-MIMO results.
Around the Corner
Future topics include Open RAN (multiple studies, including scheduler efficiency) and uplink 5G carrier aggregation (FR1), in no particular order.
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary
2.0 Background
3.0 Key Observations
4.0 Detailed Results and Analysis
4.1 Stationary Test Location #1
4.1.1 Base Case Scenario Results and Analysis
4.1.2 MU-MIMO Scenario Results and Analysis
4.2 Stationary Test Location #2
4.2.1 Base Case Scenario Results and Analysis
4.2.2 MU-MIMO Scenario Results and Analysis
4.3 Drive Test #1
4.4 Drive Test #2
4.5 Stationary Test Location #3
4.5.1 Base Case Scenario Results and Analysis
4.5.2 MU-MIMO Scenario Results and Analysis
4.6 HTTP and UDP Comparison Test Results
4.6.1 HTTP Test Results and Analysis
4.6.2 UDP Test Results and Analysis
4.6.3 UDP and HTTP Slot-based Analysis
5.0 Test Methodology
6.0 Final Thoughts
Index of Figures & Tables
Figure 1. Location of MU-MIMO Cell Site and Four Smartphones
Figure 2. Resource Block Allocations and 5G Throughput
Figure 3. MIMO Rank, MIMO Layers, and MCS Allocations
Figure 4. Individual Device and Total 5G Throughput Time Series Results
Figure 5. Average Individual Device and Total 5G Throughput Results
Figure 6. Individual Device and Total Resource Block Allocations Time Series Results
Figure 7. Average Individual and Total Resource Block Allocations Results
Figure 8. Individual Device and Total MIMO Layers Time Series Results
Figure 9. Average Individual Device and Total MIMO Layer Counts
Figure 10. Individual Device MCS Allocations Time Series and Average Results
Figure 11. Individual Device LTE Throughput Time Series and Average Results
Figure 12. MU-MIMO Versus Base Case Results
Figure 13. MU-MIMO Scheduling Details
Figure 14. Location of MU-MIMO Cell Site and Four Smartphones
Figure 15. 5G Resource Block Allocations and Throughput
Figure 16. MIMO Rank, MIMO Layers, and MCS Allocations
Figure 17. Individual Device and Total 5G Throughput Time Series Results
Figure 18. Average Device Individual and Total 5G Throughput Results
Figure 19. Individual Device and Total Resource Block Allocations Time Series Results
Figure 20. Average Individual Device and Total Resource Block Allocations Results
Figure 21. Individual Device and Total MIMO Layers Time Series Results
Figure 22. Average Individual Device and Total MIMO Layers Results
Figure 23. Individual Device MCS Allocations Time Series and Average Results
Figure 24. Individual Device LTE Throughput Time Series and Average Results
Figure 25. MU-MIMO Versus Base Case Results
Figure 26. Drive Test #1 Route
Figure 27. Individual Device and Total Throughput Time Series Results
Figure 28. Individual Device and Total Resource Block Allocations Time Series Results
Figure 29. Individual Device and Total MIMO Layers Time Series Results
Figure 30. Individual MCS Allocations Time Series Results
Figure 31. Device #4 Vehicular Speed and 5G Throughput Time Series Results
Figure 32. Device #4 Vehicular Speed and MCS Allocations Time Series Results
Figure 33. Device #4 Vehicular Speed Versus 5G Throughput Scatterplot
Figure 34. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case Throughput Results
Figure 35. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case Resource Block Allocation Results
Figure 36. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case MIMO Layers Results
Figure 37. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case MCS Allocation Results
Figure 38. Drive Test #2 Route
Figure 39. Individual Device and Total 5G Throughput Time Series Results
Figure 40. Individual Device and Total Resource Block Allocations Time Series Results
Figure 41. Individual Device and Total MIMO Layers Time Series Results
Figure 42. Individual MCS Allocations Time Series Results
Figure 43. Individual Device LTE Throughput Time Series Results
Figure 44. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case Throughput Results
Figure 45. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case Resource Block Allocation Results
Figure 46. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case MIMO Layers Results
Figure 47. MU-MIMO Drive Test Versus Base Case MCS Allocation Results
Figure 48. Location of MU-MIMO Cell Site and Four Smartphones
Figure 49. 5G Resource Block Allocations and Throughput
Figure 50. MIMO Rank, MIMO Layers, and MCS Allocations
Companies Mentioned
- Accuver Americas
- Spirent Communications
- Samsung
