Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Panasonic Develops "Less Than 1-Watt" WiGig Chipset

By - Source: Panasonic | B 12 comments
Tags :

Panasonic said that it has developed the "industry's lowest power consumption chipset."

The device is designed to manage multi-gigabit millimeter wave wireless communication and enable communication between wireless devices using the WiGig specification.

Panasonic said that the chipset can be integrated in products such as smartphones, where it will consume less than 1 watt. The technology would allow a user to transfer a 30 minute HD video within 10 seconds, the manufacturer stated.

The chipset includes a 60 GHz transceiver LSI as well as a baseband processing LSI with Media Access Control (MAC) packet processing capability. Panasonic claims that the chipset will run at below 1 watt even when it performs at a "high" data rate of 2.5 Gbps. The low power consumption was achieved by using a "low power consumption MAC packet processing technology" and "high-speed control circuits to keep the processor clock frequency low."

There was no information when the chipset will go into mass production.

Display 12 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -4 Hide
    mrkdilkington , March 20, 2012 6:57 AM
    Less than 1.21 * 10^-9 jigga watts!!
  • 5 Hide
    mauller07 , March 20, 2012 10:46 AM
    While i do enjoy the speed improvements, they still need to work on implementing full duplex wireless systems, is good they are improving speeds but when its still based on a hub principle your still sharing that bandwidth between all the clients on the node.
  • -5 Hide
    830hobbes , March 20, 2012 10:54 AM
    But I thought Apple patented wireless data transfer? no?
  • 3 Hide
    rumandcoke , March 20, 2012 11:45 AM
    it is hilarious that chip manufacturers boast about data transfer speeds while wireless providers do everything they can to make sure your downloads are throttled and cost a fortune.

    Maybe useful outside of the US though ?
  • 2 Hide
    millerm84 , March 20, 2012 11:59 AM
    rumandcokeit is hilarious that chip manufacturers boast about data transfer speeds while wireless providers do everything they can to make sure your downloads are throttled and cost a fortune.Maybe useful outside of the US though ?



    Useful inside of a corporate LAN. Our company runs gigabit to the desktop even though we only have a bundled T1 connection to the internet. Inside the LAN/WAN (electric company we have fiber between sites) you can transfer at full speed which is good for our hosted programs but makes no difference for internet speed.
  • 2 Hide
    CaedenV , March 20, 2012 12:30 PM
    rumandcokeit is hilarious that chip manufacturers boast about data transfer speeds while wireless providers do everything they can to make sure your downloads are throttled and cost a fortune.Maybe useful outside of the US though ?

    This is an 802.11 standard, it is not a cell phone standard, so data caps are completely irrelevant here. And if you are talking about normal internet connections, if you live within a few miles of a city then the internet is pretty quick (especially now with so much fiber being installed and finally getting off of the old copper networks :)  ), but Wireless G is still faster than most internet connections throughout the world. Wireless N and wiGig are for internal networks where you have a lot of heavy use on a centralized server (media server for tons of people, business file server, or a media production server).
    At any rate, this article puts to rest some of the fears about wiGig killing the battery life of mobile devices, because it was originally supposed to be a portability killer, which is why we have not seen it yet.
    mauller07While i do enjoy the speed improvements, they still need to work on implementing full duplex wireless systems, is good they are improving speeds but when its still based on a hub principle your still sharing that bandwidth between all the clients on the node.

    Wireless is not like copper. It is not like you can isolate a particular frequency to go in a particular direction. Yes, there are some tricks to have different devices on different channels, but even then it does not solve the hub-like nature on a per channel basis. If you get a bunch of people shouting in a room then you end up with a garbled mess, and that is exactly what wireless is. Wired is more like a private conversation... next to a fireplace... with a cup of coffee... ... where's my coffee......

    Anywho, Wireless was never meant to be the sole connector of all devices, it is supposed to supplement a wired network for slower portable devices, and wireless will always get slower with the more devices connected, and the more networks in the same area. There is simply no way around it. Things will always get better using different ways of changing the signal so that there is less and less cross-talk between devices, but it will never be perfect unless we can get all devices on a point-to-point connection like we can with wired.
  • 3 Hide
    mauller07 , March 20, 2012 1:22 PM
    caenenv, thank you for elaborating how wireless works for other, although i know how it works myself, i was merely stating that even with improvements in bandwidth wireless is still limited because of the way the technology works.
  • 0 Hide
    mcd023 , March 20, 2012 2:05 PM
    And here I thought I was rockin with my gigabit Ethernet
  • 1 Hide
    __-_-_-__ , March 20, 2012 7:19 PM
    still, high ping. and 1watt is really high...
  • 0 Hide
    jamie_1318 , March 20, 2012 7:54 PM
    ^ you still are, and so am I. Wired is much faster for the same Mb/s rating due to overhead and lag.
  • 0 Hide
    freggo , March 21, 2012 10:36 AM
    "30 minute HD video within 10 seconds"

    Now that depends on the definition of what 'HD' is and how much compression you use...
    3GB transferred in 10 seconds meaning 9GB for a typical 90 minute movie. Not exactly Blue Ray HD size.

    Don't get me wrong, the technical achievement and transfer rate are impressive; just the sales pitch is a bit 'optimistic'; kinda like the car companies always quoting 'highway miles per gallon' instead of the more realistic city driving numbers.
  • 0 Hide
    Anurag Nigam , October 16, 2013 3:11 AM
    How do they do volume testing? What kind of yields they get? What volume are they shipping? It is funny that these companies get 2 pieces working in lab over a meter and start jumping they have chipset ready to be shipped. Who is doing their packaging by the way? This is at least 3 years away from getting into anything commercial device I feel. This is all revenue raising hype created by some companies and some investors falling for it.
    Can someone tell me what is throughput at File Transfer Layer. All people mention data rates at PHY. Some small start ups just want to soak investors money and some families have luxurious life that's what I see