Breaking News
Design How-To

How Bluetooth, UWB, and 802.11 stack up on power consumption

4/15/2008 11:00 AM EDT
1 saves
Page 1 / 4 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
User Rank
re: How Bluetooth, UWB, and 802.11 stack up on power consumption
Santhoff   4/17/2008 5:02:44 PM
UWB does indeed have the lowest power consumption of any wireless technology available today at the PHY Layer. What is meant by at the "PHY Layer" is the actual radiated Radio Frequency energy used to close a link budget. What the article does not say in the case of the WiMedia implementation is the huge complexity and associated power consumption inherent in both the Transmitter and Receiver design of WiMedia devices. The Transmitter requires a 6 bit DAC at 1+ GHz to generate the OFDM symbol and the Receiver requires two (For I/Q RF) ADC's using 4 to 6 bits at 1+ GHz to process the received RF. These by themselves are highly power consumptive now add the digital baseband processing to feed and process the DAC and two ADC's and you really start getting into some power. (We haven't even talked about the FEC processing yet) Bottom line, UWB over the air PHY interface is the lowest power wireless technology available today. HOWEVER, I am not aware of ANY WiMedia implementation that is less than 2 Watts which is a long way from the claimed 250mW.

Top Comments of the Week
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
Like Us on Facebook Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.
Flash Poll