Sub-6 GHz vs mmWave
详细的技术比较 Sub-6 GHz 与 mmWave.
| 参数 | Sub-6 GHz | mmWave |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 600 MHz – 6 GHz | 24–100 GHz |
| Speed | ~1–2 Gbps | ~10 Gbps ✓ |
| Range | Several km ✓ | ~200 m |
| Wall Penetration | Good ✓ | Very limited |
| Coverage Cost | Lower (fewer cells) ✓ | Very high (dense cells) |
| Bandwidth | 20–100 MHz | 100 MHz – 2 GHz ✓ |
| Latency | ~4 ms | ~1 ms ✓ |
| Deployment | Widespread global ✓ | Dense urban only |
| Rain Fade | Minimal ✓ | Significant |
| Capacity/Area | Moderate | Very high ✓ |
结论
Sub-6 GHz提供5G的覆盖骨干——范围广、穿透力好。mmWave为密集城市区域提供极高容量，但超出视线范围就很困难。大多数5G用户使用Sub-6。
逐项分析
根据上表，各项指标由谁胜出。
- Frequency — '持平' (Sub-6 GHz: 600 MHz – 6 GHz · mmWave: 24–100 GHz)
- Speed — mmWave '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: ~1–2 Gbps · mmWave: ~10 Gbps)
- Range — Sub-6 GHz '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: Several km · mmWave: ~200 m)
- Wall Penetration — Sub-6 GHz '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: Good · mmWave: Very limited)
- Coverage Cost — Sub-6 GHz '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: Lower (fewer cells) · mmWave: Very high (dense cells))
- Bandwidth — mmWave '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: 20–100 MHz · mmWave: 100 MHz – 2 GHz)
- Latency — mmWave '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: ~4 ms · mmWave: ~1 ms)
- Deployment — Sub-6 GHz '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: Widespread global · mmWave: Dense urban only)
- Rain Fade — Sub-6 GHz '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: Minimal · mmWave: Significant)
- Capacity/Area — mmWave '胜在' (Sub-6 GHz: Moderate · mmWave: Very high)
常见问题
Sub-6 GHz 和 mmWave 哪个更快？
在本次对比中，mmWave 在速度相关指标上领先。
主要区别是什么？
Sub-6 GHz提供5G的覆盖骨干——范围广、穿透力好。mmWave为密集城市区域提供极高容量，但超出视线范围就很困难。大多数5G用户使用Sub-6。
今天该选哪个？
Sub-6 GHz 在 10 项参数中赢得 5 项。