Database Develop

Hardware difference: XT862 vs XT860 vs XT883

There are different versions of the Droid 3: XT862 (USA), XT860 (Canada), XT860 (Brazil), XT883 (China).
I'm wondering whether there are any differences in the hardware between these version, especially now that the Droid 3 has been rooted.
When looking the official Motorola specs, I find:
1) XT862 has HSDPA 10.2 Mbps in the consumer specs, but HSDPA 14.4 Mbps in the developer specs. Both are HSDPA category 9/10. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Speed_Downlink_Packet_Access, category 9 has a approximated max rate of 10.1 Mbps and category 10 has 14.0. So maybe Motorola took the value of category 9 instead of 10 when typing the consumer specs, while they should have listed the higher rate of category 10?
2) The Brazilian XT860 has HSUPA 7.6Mbps, while the Canadian XT860 and the XT862 have HSUPA 5.76 Mbps. But because the Brazilian and Canadian are both are XT860, I would expect this rate to be the same, instead of being different.
3) The XT860 doesn't have CDMA 800/1900 and CDMA EV-DO Release A, while the XT862 and XT883 do.
4) The XT862 and XT883 appear to be the same, although I haven't looked in the consumer specs of the XT883 (because it's in Chinese).
Rationaly, when a characteristic of device isn't listed in a specification, you cannot conclude that the device doesn't have that characteristic. The specification might simply be incomplete, but still be correct. But when a characteristic isn't listed for which you would expect it to be listed when would have that characteristic, then the specification suggest (but not conclude) that the device doesn't have that characteristic.
So rationaly, the XT860 might (or might not) have CDMA support, and the Canadian XT860 and the US XT862 might have the same higher HSUPA speed as the Brazilian XT860. And, according to the specs, the XT862 does support 14.4 Mbps HSDPA, although with doubt because the consumer specs list a lower value.
So based on the official specs it is difficult to derive the real maximum speed specs and all features
The best thing would be if someone physically opened all Droid 3 versions, and list the hardware chips. Like this:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Motorola-Droid-3-Teardown/6108/1
Which says the XT862 has the following hardware chips:
-Qualcomm MDM6600 supporting HSPA+ speeds of up to 14.4 Mbps
-SanDisk SDIN4C2 16GB MLC NAND flash
-Elpida B4064B2PB-8D-F 512MB RAM and TI OMAP 4430 CPU
-Triquint TQM7M5013 Linear Power Amplifier
-Avago A2F1106
-A5005 K1116, A5002 K1118, A5001 K1118
-Kionix KXTF9 11425 1411 three-axis accelerometer
-The Qualcomm PM8028 chip works in conjunction with the Qualcomm MDM6600 to provide wireless data connection to the phone.
-Hynix H8BCS0QG0MMR memory MCP containing Hynix DRAM and STM flash
-ST Ericsson CPCAP 006556001
-WL1285C 13M1HH3
-6792A 1113 T3971
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I expect that the XT883 has the same hardware. But the more interesting question is whether the XT860 also has this hardware.
From this list, when it comes to mobile networks, the most important part is probably the Qualcomm MDM6600 and maybe also the Qualcomm PM8028.
The specs of the MDM6600 can be found in http://www.docin.com/p-162606115.html . If I understand it correctly, it supports both CDMA and GSM networks.
But even if a mobile device has a MDM6600 in it, which by itself supports CDMA, it doesn't mean that the mobile device supports CDMA. This is the case for the IPhone 4, which comes in a GSM/AT&T version and a CDMA/Verizon version:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Verizon-Teardown/4693/1
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Teardown/3130/1
Interesting is the following quote for the CDMA/Verizon IPhone 4:
The Qualcomm MDM6600 chip supports HSPA+ data rates of up to 14.4 Mbps and CDMA2000® 1xEV-DO Rev. A/Rev. B.
This is the same chipset as the Droid Pro world phone. It supports both GSM and CDMA—which means that Apple could have supported GSM!
Why didn't they? It may be that it was easier to design antennas for a CDMA-only phone -- this phone supports two cellular frequency bands, while Apple supports five bands in the GSM version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So even when a phone has a chip that support CDMA, other parts of the phone might not (because of design reasons), causing the phone not to support CDMA.
But why would Motorola first release XT862 that supports both GSM and CDMA, and later release the XT860 with CDMA stripped off? I would expect that they would do this only if stripping CDMA from the XT860 would benefit some other feature. Any ideas?
Some info as reference for the different Droid 3 versions:
1)
-Name: Motorola Droid 3
-Code: XT862
-Country: USA
-Sold by: Verizon Wireless
-Release date: 14 July 2011
-Motorola Consumer specs link
-Motorola Developer specs link
2)
-Name: Motorola XT860
-Code: XT860
-Country: Canada
-Sold by: Bell
-Release date: 9 August 2011
-Notes: Called "XT860 4G" at the Motorola and Bell website, but the manual and box just says "XT860" without "4G" in the name.
-Motorola Consumer specs link
-Motorola Developer specs link
3)
-Name: Motorola MOTO XT883
-Code: XT883
-Country: China
-Release date: ~1-11 August 2011
-Note: Called "Milestone 3 XT883" at the Motorola Developer spec page.
-Motorola Consumer specs link
-Motorola Developer specs link
4)
-Name: Motorola Milestone 3
-Code: XT860
-Country: Brazil
-Sold by: Vivo
-Release date: ~18 August 2011
-Note: Sometimes called "Motorola Milestone 3 com Motoblur"
-Motorola Consumer specs link
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Speaking with a bit of experience with manufacturing, there isn't a lot of sense in making too many models, because the price savings based upon leaving out an antenna on one model would easily disappear in the context of devoting another production line to another model.
So, I have the strong impression that they are all cdma/gsm capable, though differences in firmware probably define the active radios.
This is a guess, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Sent from my DROID3 using xda premium

For us Europeans this is an interesting question, because if the XT860 and XT862 have the same hardware, there is no reason to get the XT860 other than it doesn't have the verizon logo (now that we have root).
The XT862 can already be ordered in unlocked state while the XT860 cannot.
I also would think that creating just 1 phone is way more convenient and way cheaper for motorola, so I'm curious as to whether all "droid 3's" are the identical.

CDMA only works in america, and a couple other small countries, and only on a couple carriers, so support for it ONLY makes sense in the XT862. the rest of that world went GSM and it's various 3g offshoots. the differences between the 860 & 883 are to support what those countries run on.

sarreq said:
CDMA only works in america, and a couple other small countries, and only on a couple carriers, so support for it ONLY makes sense in the XT862. the rest of that world went GSM and it's various 3g offshoots. the differences between the 860 & 883 are to support what those countries run on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, like Sadrak86 said, from a manufacturing cost point of view, it doesn't make sense to simply remove CDMA support because it isn't used in another country. Why would Motorola release a global phone (Droid3/XT862) and then a month later release the same phone but this time non-global phone (XT860) by removing CDMA support. There must be a better reason.

I can understand them making specific versions of specific regions, but not with different hardware components if they could just disable them software-wise.

DoubleYouPee said:
I can understand them making specific versions of specific regions, but not with different hardware components if they could just disable them software-wise.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also think that if they can control it software wise without extra costs compared to hardware wise, they will choose software wise. But if the XT860 has CDMA removed software wise, than why didn't they remove GSM from the XT862.
This brings back the question: why would they first release a global phone (XT862), and later release the same phone (XT860) with less features and a higher price.
A reason could be that by removed hardware features (CDMA) from the XT860, other features (GSM) might perform better.
Found this page called Motorola XT860 4G Fact Sheet, but is more press release page. But it confirms that the XT860 has a QualComm MDM6600 (which supports both GSM and CDMA). The XT860 contains a GSM compatible antenna, but the question than is: does the XT860 also contain a CDMA compatible antenna?
This question is very interesting for all non-Americans. Because the following choice depends on it:
-Should you buy the cheaper, more widely available, and more network supporting global XT862? or
-Should you buy the more expensive, less widely available, less network support, but (possibly) better GSM signaled XT860?
At the moment we don't even know whether this option/choice exist. If this option doesn't exist, then there is NO reason at all to buy the XT860.
This (whether the XT860 has a CDMA antenna) is something that can only be proven by a teardown (physically open a XT860). I hope some guys will create an iFixit page for it.

deoxy said:
If this option doesn't exist, then there is NO reason at all to buy the XT860.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well unless you don't like the verizon logo
But ye you're right ^^^

There are plenty of reasons if you are GSM user. Verizon altered/disabled some GSM features of the phone like call forwarding settings for example. Droid 3 is certified/supported only with the Verizon SIM in it. There are already reported cases phone doesn't play nice on certain GSM networks across the world. Not to mention unlocking issues which were a wide spread issue with Droid 2 Global and there seem to be already one such case with D3 on this very same board. You can't use D3 on AT&T in the States either.
All those problems are easily overcome by going XT860 (pure GSM phone). Since I had to experience most of these above mentioned issues myself with my own Droid 2 Global in the past year, I went XT860 over D3. And I do not regret my choice. I do not use the phone on Bell (I unlocked and use with another operator in Canada), but I have no issues. I can go to the States and use the phone there just fine too.
So there are enough reasons to justify few bucks more when buying the phone.
Sent from my XT860 using Tapatalk

leobg said:
There are plenty of reasons if you are GSM user. Verizon altered/disabled some GSM features of the phone like call forwarding settings for example. Droid 3 is certified/supported only with the Verizon SIM in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can this be fixed by rooting the phone? If not, then the hardware must be different.
There are already reported cases phone doesn't play nice on certain GSM networks across the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe the user forgot to unlock the phone, or did it incorrectly?
Here a case:
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/56763
(Don't know if he unlocked the phone.)
Not to mention unlocking issues which were a wide spread issue with Droid 2 Global and there seem to be already one such case with D3 on this very same board.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This might equally be the case for the XT860? Probably too early to tell?
(Both the XT862 and the XT860 have Qualcomm MSM6600, according to the Motorola fact sheet. But it could also be the antenna that determines the quality of the signal, instead of the chip.)

that issue on the motorla forums is due to the phone not being able to read the mcc and mnc codes from the sim card. buying a new sim fixes it (at least in my personal experience)

deoxy said:
Can this be fixed by rooting the phone? If not, then the hardware must be different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No - because this is a baseband feature (radio firmware). You can't alter the radio image unless bootloader is unlocked as it is signed. Root will not help.
deoxy said:
Maybe the user forgot to unlock the phone, or did it incorrectly?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt - unlocking procedure is dead simple. And code is just 8 digits long. Good thing is you can't hard-lock the phone - after 1/2 hour being left on, or so, it will let you enter codes again.
deoxy said:
T
Here a case:
https://supportforums.motorola.com/thread/56763
(Don't know if he unlocked the phone.)
This might equally be the case for the XT860? Probably too early to tell?
(Both the XT862 and the XT860 have Qualcomm MSM6600, according to the Motorola fact sheet. But it could also be the antenna that determines the quality of the signal, instead of the chip.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is something the operator does. And the only one operator in the world I've ever seen doing this is Verizon. I doubt that would be a case with non-Verizon phones.
Above case is another example of issues with D3 and sim cards - D2G suffered same issues too. Using Verizon world phone with non-Verizon SIM card in it is a hit or miss, at best.

So how could we find out whether the baseband firmware is different on the XT860 than on the XT862?

The baseband firmware is absolutely different. One is a CDMA/GSM global device and the other is GSM only. Despite sharing the MDM6600 chipset, they are very different.

cellzealot said:
The baseband firmware is absolutely different. One is a CDMA/GSM global device and the other is GSM only. Despite sharing the MDM6600 chipset, they are very different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you know this? Motorola's factsheet says the XT860 supports CDMA.
Would it be possible to flash the XT860 firmware to the XT862 droid 3?

DoubleYouPee said:
How do you know this? Motorola's factsheet says the XT860 supports CDMA.
Would it be possible to flash the XT860 firmware to the XT862 droid 3?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
where did you see XT860 supporting CDMA???
btw if someone knows something about Motorola radios that would be Cell Zealot. You haven't heard of Team Black Hat??
Sent from my XT860 using Tapatalk

leobg said:
where did you see XT860 supporting CDMA???
btw if someone knows something about Motorola radios that would be Cell Zealot. You haven't heard of Team Black Hat??
Sent from my XT860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their own site
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/C...ces/Mobile-Phones/ci.MOTOROLA-XT860-CA-EN.alt
No I haven't heard from team black hat or CelL Zealot
edit: i saw his post now

It only lists WCDMA, which is not the same as CDMA. (The Droid 3 supports both.)

deoxy said:
It only lists WCDMA, which is not the same as CDMA. (The Droid 3 supports both.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, i never noticed that. What is WCDMA then?

DoubleYouPee said:
Ah, i never noticed that. What is WCDMA then?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wikipedia says:
Code division multiple access (CDMA) is a channel access method used by various radio communication technologies. It should not be confused with the mobile phone standards called cdmaOne, CDMA2000 (the 3G evolution of cdmaOne) and WCDMA (the 3G standard used by GSM carriers), which are often referred to as simply CDMA, and use CDMA as an underlying channel access method.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

900mhz -> 850mhz modem physical swap,

So, I happen to have two galaxy S phones, one with a smashed screen, the other intact. One can do 850mhz and not 900, the other 900mhz and not 850mhz. I was wondering as to the physical locaiton of the radios in the phone. Opening them up I can see quite a few chips appear to be attached with flex cables and was wondering if radios/modems are interchangeable. Anyone given it a go?
I also have a 900mhz Nexus S I'd love to run 850...
So, any ideas?

I suspect it might be easier to swap the screens than the radios, but I'm no expert.

It certainly would be, just interested for interests sake really. And of course if its the same as the one in the nexus s then I'm very interested if its on a flex that can be changed.

mackaxx said:
It certainly would be, just interested for interests sake really. And of course if its the same as the one in the nexus s then I'm very interested if its on a flex that can be changed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
use a technician manual to dismantle and for parts location http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1709378

Flash JVU/JW1 Modem
Go to dialer
Type :*#2263#
Select combi bands
Menu key -> Key input
Enter Value 8
Here you go, WCDMA/UTMS 850,900,1900,2100 enabled

I've tried flashing a few modems and enabling the frequency in the combi band bit but have had not success. Its an australian i9000 and apparently they are somewhat crippled.

So it looks like its one of 3 chips, one for each frequency. Its soldered into a board which you certainly can remove and switch though, which means it might be worth finding a smashed in dead 850mhz phone or vice versa if you want to change your phone to the other frequency.
Nexus S internals were totally different so no real chance of anything working there.

mackaxx said:
So it looks like its one of 3 chips, one for each frequency. Its soldered into a board which you certainly can remove and switch though, which means it might be worth finding a smashed in dead 850mhz phone or vice versa if you want to change your phone to the other frequency.
Nexus S internals were totally different so no real chance of anything working there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But there is Quadband 2G.....

MrAndroid12 said:
But there is Quadband 2G.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, quadband 2g? Telstras 'edge' network? Seems a bit slow?

It'll be the same ol' story...

The international variant will kick ass with an awesome Samsung Exynos processor. That phone will not be available to us folks in North America. I am sure that the international variant will not support AT&T or T-Mobile's LTE frequencies.
AT&T will lock down their S5 with a locked bootloader, and/or make it extremely difficult for anyone to even root it. This just results in more bricks. T-Mobile's model will not have a locked bootloader, but won't play super nice with us AT&T folks. (The TMO Note 3 sucks on AT&T LTE for example).
Samsung needs to STOP releasing so many variants of their flagship phones. Why can't they release one variant and dictate to the carriers what can and cannot go on it? Now that would be something worthwhile to copy Apple for, don't ya think?
Anyway, I hope I am VERY wrong once the S5 gets announced. If its the same story as every previous gen, then I will be skipping it this time.
EDIT: Ok, so it won't be the same story this time around because the majority of everyone will be SKIPPING THE S5. PERIOD.

I agree completely.

I think all carriers should offer a locked variant for a smaller amount and an unlocked version for the "Next" plan being we are going to be paying full price anyway. Not that I want to pay more but for $50 or $100 I'd pay extra for the international
Sent from my At&t Galaxy S4

MattMJB0188 said:
The international variant will kick ass with an awesome Samsung Exynos processor. That phone will not be available to us folks in North America. I am sure that the international variant will not support AT&T or T-Mobile's LTE frequencies.
AT&T will lock down their S5 with a locked bootloader, and/or make it extremely difficult for anyone to even root it. This just results in more bricks. T-Mobile's model will not have a locked bootloader, but won't play super nice with us AT&T folks. (The TMO Note 3 sucks on AT&T LTE for example).
Samsung needs to STOP releasing so many variants of their flagship phones. Why can't they release one variant and dictate to the carriers what can and cannot go on it? Now that would be something worthwhile to copy Apple for, don't ya think?
Anyway, I hope I am VERY wrong once the S5 gets announced. If its the same story as every previous gen, then I will be skipping it this time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do what?? You do understand why they have to release a different version for North America, right? It's not really Samsung's fault that our carriers can't get their s**t together when it comes to their networks and frequencies. The Exynos doesn't support our LTE bands. Since America isn't the world (despite what most of the people in this country seem to think), I'd say they are correct in making a phone that works with for the rest of the world. We still get the Snapdragon 805 which is by no means a bad processor. Also, you want to complain about a locked bootloader on the AT&T version? How about saying something to the NSA's butt buddy. Samsung is in the business of making money. Want to make money selling to AT&T? Follow their rules.
Lastly, the Galaxy S6 will have a Exynos that supports our LTE bands. You can always wait. I know it's a difficult concept these days but it is possible.

KCRic said:
Lastly, the Galaxy S6 will have a Exynos that supports our LTE bands. You can always wait. I know it's a difficult concept these days but it is possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There will never be an Exynos supporting CDMA or for that matter any high-end Exynos with integrated modem. Furthermore that's besides the point, your whole post is nonsense, the processors themselves are not limited to anything. The Note 2 shipped worldwide with Exynos + Qualcomm modems.

AndreiLux said:
There will never be an Exynos supporting CDMA or for that matter any high-end Exynos with integrated modem. Furthermore that's besides the point, your whole post is nonsense, the processors themselves are not limited to anything. The Note 2 shipped worldwide with Exynos + Qualcomm modems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? That's why the S2 only had a Exynos available for Sprint and not any other carrier. Due to it supporting WiMax and not LTE. Of course that single device is just one example.
Our current phones are also examples of this occurrence.
To say a processor isn't limited by anything just show your level of understanding of SoC's. To use one device as an example of why something is incorrect is flawed.
Of course I would certainly admit that my posts are wrong if you have verifiable evidence of it being the case. What's your reasoning for the use of the Snapdragon as opposed to the Exynos other than limitations and support?
---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------
I'll admit I was slightly off. The S2 Exynos didn't support LTE. However, the Exynos 5 does - do a degree. It is "capable" of utilizing the LTE bands here but it does't meet power requirements. So I guess if you want a phone that eats your battery, that's all you. Of course everyone already complains about battery power as it is - I can only imagine one with an inefficient LTE modem.
Oh, a resource might be handy. Here's one of many.
http://phandroid.com/2013/03/29/samsung-exynos-5-octa-lte-support/

KCRic said:
To say a processor isn't limited by anything just show your level of understanding of SoC's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you for real?
KCRic said:
What's your reasoning for the use of the Snapdragon as opposed to the Exynos other than limitations and support?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Price, availability, performance are the only reasons. Samsungs own SoCs are too expensive and lately they sucked.
Any SoC can be bundled with any modem and there are no technical limitations. The choice boils down to business decisions. Period.

AndreiLux said:
Are you for real?
Price, availability, performance are the only reasons. Samsungs own SoCs are too expensive and lately they sucked.
Any SoC can be bundled with any modem and there are no technical limitations. The choice boils down to business decisions. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why the S2 only has the Exynos on Sprint and the common knowledge was that it didn't support LTE. There are hardware limitations, compatibility issues, drivers, and a host of other reason why a processor can't be paired with something. So yes, really.
Again, I will recant my statement given verifiable proof stating otherwise. Until then, I can only assume that this thread is just another sign of this site going downhill lately.
At least years ago people would wait until the phone comes out before they complained about it.

KCRic said:
That's why the S2 only has the Exynos on Sprint and the common knowledge was that it didn't support LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Common knowledge to whom? Forum geniuses who like to spread false assumptions and BS "reports " like you did in the post before just now?
KCRic said:
There are hardware limitations, compatibility issues, drivers, and a host of other reason why a processor can't be paired with something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you then know what you're talking about or are you spewing buzzwords around?
Any SoC with an SPI or HSIC bus can be connected to any modem because they are standard interconnects. There are no driver issues nor any other source of incompatibility, nor any other vague inexistent reasons you seem incapable of specifying.
The S2 in NA had Snapdragons because of CDMA and it was cheaper to use Qualcomms solution. Qualcomm provides a discount to OEMs if they buy a platform as a package so keep in mind the financial aspect of that choice.
Your Sprint version had Exynos due to another third-party modem due to WiMax which QC didn't provide.
The S3 had a Snapdragon in NA because its MDM solution had a monopoly on LTE for all carriers. The One X was in the very same situation and the reason why they didn't use a Tegra 3 in the NA variant.
The Note 2 launched on Exynos world-wide because QC had a discrete LTE modem available by this time. The S3 LTE (9305) launched at the same time internationally. The reason for this is why this thread was even brought up, the 4412 was simply superior to the Snapdragon S3. The NA userbase is bitter still due to this fact.
The S4 was meant to be NA and Japan QC only but the 5410 was broken performance and consumption wise and it ended up with that all global LTE variants except the Korean one came with a QC chip. The international Exynos versions with LTE were cancelled. In fact, all Exynos versions in LTE markets were cancelled, you could not buy a 3G S4 in Europe.
The Note 3 was initially planned with a 5410 but that also got shelved due to above reasons. It was a miracle that the 5420 was made in time else the Note 3 would have been Qualcomm exclusive world-wide (And I have good source on that it was planned like that).
Now again Qualcomm has a monopoly on LTE-A on their MDM solution as there are no discrete modems currently available, and why all LTE-A devices are S800 solutions.
The S5 will likely still be in the same situation. There will be no competitive discrete products to compete with QC until later this year so you can expect the status quo of different models to continue until then.
So please stop spewing uninformed BS around if you have not the slightest grasp of the industry.

KCRic said:
That's why the S2 only has the Exynos on Sprint and the common knowledge was that it didn't support LTE. There are hardware limitations, compatibility issues, drivers, and a host of other reason why a processor can't be paired with something. So yes, really.
Again, I will recant my statement given verifiable proof stating otherwise. Until then, I can only assume that this thread is just another sign of this site going downhill lately.
At least years ago people would wait until the phone comes out before they complained about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree, I had the GN10.1 2014 Edition (Exynos WiFi Model) and it stuttered worse than Forest Gump, my GN3 on the other hand with SD800 was rock solid.

AndreiLux said:
Common knowledge to whom? Forum geniuses who like to spread false assumptions and BS "reports " like you did in the post before just now? Do you then know what you're talking about or are you spewing buzzwords around?
Any SoC with an SPI or HSIC bus can be connected to any modem because they are standard interconnects. There are no driver issues nor any other source of incompatibility, nor any other vague inexistent reasons you seem incapable of specifying.
The S2 in NA had Snapdragons because of CDMA and it was cheaper to use Qualcomms solution. Qualcomm provides a discount to OEMs if they buy a platform as a package so keep in mind the financial aspect of that choice.
Your Sprint version had Exynos due to another third-party modem due to WiMax which QC didn't provide.
The S3 had a Snapdragon in NA because its MDM solution had a monopoly on LTE for all carriers. The One X was in the very same situation and the reason why they didn't use a Tegra 3 in the NA variant.
The Note 2 launched on Exynos world-wide because QC had a discrete LTE modem available by this time. The S3 LTE (9305) launched at the same time internationally. The reason for this is why this thread was even brought up, the 4412 was simply superior to the Snapdragon S3. The NA userbase is bitter still due to this fact.
The S4 was meant to be NA and Japan QC only but the 5410 was broken performance and consumption wise and it ended up with that all global LTE variants except the Korean one came with a QC chip. The international Exynos versions with LTE were cancelled. In fact, all Exynos versions in LTE markets were cancelled, you could not buy a 3G S4 in Europe.
The Note 3 was initially planned with a 5410 but that also got shelved due to above reasons. It was a miracle that the 5420 was made in time else the Note 3 would have been Qualcomm exclusive world-wide (And I have good source on that it was planned like that).
Now again Qualcomm has a monopoly on LTE-A on their MDM solution as there are no discrete modems currently available, and why all LTE-A devices are S800 solutions.
The S5 will likely still be in the same situation. There will be no competitive discrete products to compete with QC until later this year so you can expect the status quo of different models to continue until then.
So please stop spewing uninformed BS around if you have not the slightest grasp of the industry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow, just wow. So still no sources for all those words? Not to mention you're getting very lippy using "bs" and telling me how I'm "spewing" things. Interestingly enough, I stayed that I would admit that I'm wrong if given the proper evidence. In no way was I personally attacking you, nor did I sink to using loose insult attempts with abbreviations of vulgur phrases.
Yet another shining example of the downward trend this site has seen lately. You want to provide sources to back statements? Good. Otherwise I can start throwing around conspiracy paradigms about one entity controlling sunlight and all tech used to view it.
For the record, I don't recall my Exynos device being more expensive than the SD equivalent. And just because two objects plug together doesn't mean they work well together if at all. Anyone that has built a computer can tell you that. Hell, I guess I can take the SoC from this phone and toss it in my old G2 and have all sorts of Frankenstein badassery :silly:
Again, all I'm asking for is proof. "Hey, you misunderstand the reason for this here's why" post link. Done. Without the other asinine 12 year old attitude. You seem intelligent, you should portray yourself as such.

KCRic said:
wow, just wow. So still no sources for all those words?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm the source as far as you're concerned. I broke the story on several topics over the last year, and I'm not going to post some third-party site which rehashes what I say just to give weight to it for incredulents like you. My track-record speaks for itself.
KCRic said:
For the record, I don't recall my Exynos device being more expensive than the SD equivalent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You already show that you don't comprehend the difference between component cost and device cost. Please stop trying to participate in this discussion.
The 5410 costed about $30 while the S600 was only $20, and that you can find yourself on the web.

KCRic said:
wow, just wow. So still no sources for all those words? Not to mention you're getting very lippy using "bs" and telling me how I'm "spewing" things. Interestingly enough, I stayed that I would admit that I'm wrong if given the proper evidence. In no way was I personally attacking you, nor did I sink to using loose insult attempts with abbreviations of vulgur phrases.
Yet another shining example of the downward trend this site has seen lately. You want to provide sources to back statements? Good. Otherwise I can start throwing around conspiracy paradigms about one entity controlling sunlight and all tech used to view it.
For the record, I don't recall my Exynos device being more expensive than the SD equivalent. And just because two objects plug together doesn't mean they work well together if at all. Anyone that has built a computer can tell you that. Hell, I guess I can take the SoC from this phone and toss it in my old G2 and have all sorts of Frankenstein badassery :silly:
Again, all I'm asking for is proof. "Hey, you misunderstand the reason for this here's why" post link. Done. Without the other asinine 12 year old attitude. You seem intelligent, you should portray yourself as such.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, AndreiLux was a little too offensive, but dude, do you even know who this guy is? Do a little search about his work and background before you call his knowledge hokey.

MattMJB0188 said:
The international variant will kick ass with an awesome Samsung Exynos processor. That phone will not be available to us folks in North America. I am sure that the international variant will not support AT&T or T-Mobile's LTE frequencies.
AT&T will lock down their S5 with a locked bootloader, and/or make it extremely difficult for anyone to even root it. This just results in more bricks. T-Mobile's model will not have a locked bootloader, but won't play super nice with us AT&T folks. (The TMO Note 3 sucks on AT&T LTE for example).
Samsung needs to STOP releasing so many variants of their flagship phones. Why can't they release one variant and dictate to the carriers what can and cannot go on it? Now that would be something worthwhile to copy Apple for, don't ya think?
Anyway, I hope I am VERY wrong once the S5 gets announced. If its the same story as every previous gen, then I will be skipping it this time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I couldn't disagree anymore. First, this is all speculative, no facts. Second, the Tmobile note 3 works PERFECTLY with AT&Ts'LTE network (25-45 Mbps in the dmv area) which is great so it could be the same with the S5.
AT&T is highly likely going to lock the boot loader but there's going to be ways around it especially for a major phone like this (the note 3 for AT&T for example). It may not be as dev friendly as the international version but it'll have support for sure. It's better to look at the positives instead of focusing on the negatives.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

barondebxl said:
I couldn't disagree anymore. First, this is all speculative, no facts. Second, the Tmobile note 3 works PERFECTLY with AT&Ts'LTE network (25-45 Mbps in the dmv area) which is great so it could be the same with the S5.
AT&T is highly likely going to lock the boot loader but there's going to be ways around it especially for a major phone like this (the note 3 for AT&T for example). It may not be as dev friendly as the international version but it'll have support for sure. It's better to look at the positives instead of focusing on the negatives.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see root as a strong possibility, but getting an unlocked bootloader on a Verizon or AT&T version is not likely. Did they achieve that with the GS4? The last I read (and just did a Google search) the answer seems to be no.

RaptorMD said:
I see root as a strong possibility, but getting an unlocked bootloader on a Verizon or AT&T version is not likely. Did they achieve that with the GS4? The last I read (and just did a Google search) the answer seems to be no.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Root will be achieve and custom roms will happen. I'm pretty sure the AT&T and Verizon versions will have a locked boot loader which sucks, but it won't stop development (at least in the beginning until they patch the exploit that will lead to custom roms and stuff). Who knows, the devs may find a way to unlock those boot loaders.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

barondebxl said:
I couldn't disagree anymore. First, this is all speculative, no facts. Second, the Tmobile note 3 works PERFECTLY with AT&Ts'LTE network (25-45 Mbps in the dmv area) which is great so it could be the same with the S5.
AT&T is highly likely going to lock the boot loader but there's going to be ways around it especially for a major phone like this (the note 3 for AT&T for example). It may not be as dev friendly as the international version but it'll have support for sure. It's better to look at the positives instead of focusing on the negatives.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's fine. You can disagree all you want. The past speaks for itself. How they have done things in the past has ultimately been a nightmare for us folks who enjoy using our phones the way we like. I bet you anything the S5 will be the same as far as excluding the exynos processor and bootloader.
The T-Mobile Note 3 does get AT&T LTE, however, in my experience the LTE signal was horrible. Everywhere my AT&T branded S4 got a good LTE signal, my TMO N3 would struggle to pick up even one bar. And your wrong about AT&T versions having more development support. The AT&T S4 development is practically dead. The N3 for AT&T has active development, but its much more difficult for someone to root or use safestrap than previous methods. It is also very dangerous to attempt these new methods. Locked bootloaders only leads to more bricks. ENOUGH SAID.
Can't be positive, gotta be realistic.

MattMJB0188 said:
That's fine. You can disagree all you want. The past speaks for itself. How they have done things in the past has ultimately been a nightmare for us folks who enjoy using our phones the way we like. I bet you anything the S5 will be the same as far as excluding the exynos processor and bootloader.
The T-Mobile Note 3 does get AT&T LTE, however, in my experience the LTE signal was horrible. Everywhere my AT&T branded S4 got a good LTE signal, my TMO N3 would struggle to pick up even one bar. And your wrong about AT&T versions having more development support. The AT&T S4 development is practically dead. The N3 for AT&T has active development, but its much more difficult for someone to root or use safestrap than previous methods. It is also very dangerous to attempt these new methods. Locked bootloaders only leads to more bricks. ENOUGH SAID.
Can't be positive, gotta be realistic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're not being realistic my friend, you sound negative.
You should have said that earlier about the tmobile devices not playing nice on AT&T LTE network, you can't speak for everyone cause I had great speed with my Tmobile note 3 on AT&T.
Again you're misunderstanding, I never said the Ar&t s4 got better development than the others, I said at least it got development despite the locked boot loaders.
And lastly, give some credit to the devs, it isn't their fault if the boot loader is locked. Safestrap isn't as cool as a regular recovery but they did a fine job giving us the opportunity to flash Roms. At the end of the day it's your choice, you can always buy something else cause here are some almost certainty:
-AT&T S5 will have a locked boot loader
- devs will come up with a work around to flash roms
If these things bother you perhaps you should consider another phone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well the exynos s4 was inferior to the snapdragon model in every single way...
it only had slightly better gpu performance, we are talking about 1 to 3 fps here, but the battery life was considerably worse, and lacking lte.
i also heard that it was better to develop for the snapdragon model or something

barondebxl said:
Root will be achieve and custom roms will happen. I'm pretty sure the AT&T and Verizon versions will have a locked boot loader which sucks, but it won't stop development (at least in the beginning until they patch the exploit that will lead to custom roms and stuff). Who knows, the devs may find a way to unlock those boot loaders.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see development being hampered by anything globally, but what we get in the US is a bit more limited since we will likely never see the bootloader unlocked but hey root is enough for me most of the time.

Note 8 reception

I have to say.... This is a bucket of **** (Aus Optus/Vodafone). I have half the 4g reception than my previous note 5.
It struggles switching frequency it seems. I hope future updates fix this and it's not a hardware issue.

me_ashman said:
I have to say.... This is a bucket of **** (Aus Optus/Vodafone). I have half the 4g reception than my previous note 5.
It struggles switching frequency it seems. I hope future updates fix this and it's not a hardware issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love the phone but noticed reception isn't as good in certain areas of North Carolina. I'm a T-Mobile user and also previously owned a Note 5. Definitely a difference.

Yeah mate...in places I had reception before I now have none.

I've noticed that my wife's phone will have 1 bar where mine has two, but if I go into settings and look at signal strength, it is exactly the same or even a little better.

Two note 8's had issues
Pre-ordered 1... nicest phone I've ever had until it started showing 'searching for service", ROAM, Emergency calls only... then would go to LTE with full bars, and back again. I went back to my S6 for two days with no problems, they sent me a second one... Fine for a day, then SAME ISSUES... did factory reset on both units... still persisted.. got LG V20 on special and full signal, every day....... Hope Samsung fixes issue and I will try one again.
---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------

Signal strength is VERY important to me as I live way out in the sticks on the coast. The best reception on any mobile I have owned has been with the old Nokia's. The worst would be HTC. Samsung, LG, Asus, Motorola and Sony all work fine here. I am in part of the county that is notorious for very poor signal strength. I have not had a problem with my Note 8 seems to be fine on Vodafone but if I change to another supplier I get zero signal on all models of mobiles.
On times its not the phone brand but our service provider. My present provider for my TV and ADSL give me about 1Mbps!!!! that's if I get a signal at all. Vodafone hotspot gives me up to 30Mbps. Again it can be the provider more than the phone. I have found Samsung fine but others have not been so fortunate. I doubt its the Note 8 though? There are always lemons though in every brand.
Ryland

which model of Note 8 are you guys experiencing this with?
Many of us Exynos owners have been noticing exceptionally poor reception and data speeds on USA carriers, but in my case I have narrowed it down to a hardware issue. Unplugging the lower antenna PCB has no effect on the poor signal strength, and this started suddenly after about 5 days of use. Out of the box it was amazing, and my download speeds were 30-50% faster than with the Note 5. I'm just waiting for replacement parts to become available so I can get a new board and replace it.

Kalm_Traveler said:
which model of Note 8 are you guys experiencing this with?
Many of us Exynos owners have been noticing exceptionally poor reception and data speeds on USA carriers, but in my case I have narrowed it down to a hardware issue. Unplugging the lower antenna PCB has no effect on the poor signal strength, and this started suddenly after about 5 days of use. Out of the box it was amazing, and my download speeds were 30-50% faster than with the Note 5. I'm just waiting for replacement parts to become available so I can get a new board and replace it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought the Snap Dragon version was issued in the States and China and the Exynos the rest of the world? PERHAPS the problem could be your carriers are not well suited to the Exynos models only the SD?
I am talking through my ears as I understand zero about such things. Here to learn. :good: Could also be one has purchased a lemon? I dont think its general to the Note 8, as I wrote above mine works very well here in a notoriously bad area of this country running Exynos.
Q; Is it wise to modify your mobile while it still has 12 months warranty? How many people have the skills to perform your modification and why should it be necessary? Your guarantee is now void.
Q; Out of the box you said it was amazing. What changed?
Ryland

Ryland Johnson said:
I thought the Snap Dragon version was issued in the States and China and the Exynos the rest of the world? PERHAPS the problem could be your carriers are not well suited to the Exynos models only the SD?
I am talking through my ears as I understand zero about such things. Here to learn. :good: Could also be one has purchased a lemon? I dont think its general to the Note 8, as I wrote above mine works very well here in a notoriously bad area of this country running Exynos.
Q; Is it wise to modify your mobile while it still has 12 months warranty? How many people have the skills to perform your modification and why should it be necessary? Your guarantee is now void.
Q; Out of the box you said it was amazing. What changed?
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm no expert by any means, but I have the Note 5 from T-Mobile, which is also an Exynos device. The Exynos Note 8 is essentially just a newer Note 5, newer version of the CPU and modem (both have Shannon modems), and support T-Mobile's LTE bands. I do not believe there is any compatibility issue with the hardware. I definitely could have purchased a lemon, and that's what it seems like. The rest of the phones functions are amazing - it's literally just been issues with the components on that bottom PCB that have been popping up (not just for me, but also others on here, the lower circuit board has LTE antennae, mic, and lower speaker - all of which have had a few complaints of not working or not working properly).
To answer your Qs, my phone is a South Korean model and I live in the USA, so Samsung here will not honor the warranty. I would need to ship it back to Korea if anything. Many people have the skills necessary to replace this board, but it is a pain in the butt due to the rear glass using adhesive from Hades to stick to the frame. It shouldn't be necessary, but Samsung seems to have sent out some phones with faulty usb/antenna boards and it's less of a hassle for me to fix it myself than try to deal with international repairs.
Out of the box was amazing, I had equal LTE signal strength to my Note 5, and download speeds were about 4-6x what they suddenly dropped to after about 5 days of use. At the time, I thought it was due to flashing NEMESIS ROM, but I Odin flashed back to full stock and nothing was 'fixed' . Then, I opened the phone and found that physically applying pressure on one of the LTE antenna connectors in a specific direction made the signal strength jump up to equal my Note 5, and the super fast data speeds returned - as long as I kept pressure applied in that specific direction.

Kalm_Traveler said:
I'm no expert by any means, but I have the Note 5 from T-Mobile, which is also an Exynos device. The Exynos Note 8 is essentially just a newer Note 5, newer version of the CPU and modem (both have Shannon modems), and support T-Mobile's LTE bands. I do not believe there is any compatibility issue with the hardware. I definitely could have purchased a lemon, and that's what it seems like. The rest of the phones functions are amazing - it's literally just been issues with the components on that bottom PCB that have been popping up (not just for me, but also others on here, the lower circuit board has LTE antennae, mic, and lower speaker - all of which have had a few complaints of not working or not working properly).
To answer your Qs, my phone is a South Korean model and I live in the USA, so Samsung here will not honor the warranty. I would need to ship it back to Korea if anything. Many people have the skills necessary to replace this board, but it is a pain in the butt due to the rear glass using adhesive from Hades to stick to the frame. It shouldn't be necessary, but Samsung seems to have sent out some phones with faulty usb/antenna boards and it's less of a hassle for me to fix it myself than try to deal with international repairs.
Out of the box was amazing, I had equal LTE signal strength to my Note 5, and download speeds were about 4-6x what they suddenly dropped to after about 5 days of use. At the time, I thought it was due to flashing NEMESIS ROM, but I Odin flashed back to full stock and nothing was 'fixed' . Then, I opened the phone and found that physically applying pressure on one of the LTE antenna connectors in a specific direction made the signal strength jump up to equal my Note 5, and the super fast data speeds returned - as long as I kept pressure applied in that specific direction.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excuse my ignorance,.but aren't there others on here complaining about LTE speed throughput on there F models also ? When using USA sim cards.
Perhaps it was a faulty batch?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Limeybastard said:
Excuse my ignorance,.but aren't there others on here complaining about LTE speed throughput on there F models also ? When using USA sim cards.
Perhaps it was a faulty batch?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct, F and N models. They are the exact same hardware, and my thought is that a batch of those boards went out that have developed issues very quickly.

I read a post this week but can't find the thread now of course. In it, a user who worked on configuring phones for a large telco or something said that the antenna for each regional model is tuned to the particulars of that specific region. He wasn't just talking about supported bands, etc. It was really about antenna tuning. Ultimately he said this is why he decided to forgo the international Note 8 models in the U.S., even though he badly wanted an Exynos model for custom roms, etc. Now I personally don't know whether there is anything to his claims (and I wish I could find that thread again), but it made sense so I thought I'd mention it here as it could explain the LTE or signal issues. If it's bunk though, then please ignore

sefrcoko said:
I read a post this week but can't find the thread now of course. In it, a user who worked on configuring phones for a large telco or something said that the antenna for each regional model is tuned to the particulars of that specific region. He wasn't just talking about supported bands, etc. It was really about antenna tuning. Ultimately he said this is why he decided to forgo the international Note 8 models in the U.S., even though he badly wanted an Exynos model for custom roms, etc. Now I personally don't know whether there is anything to his claims (and I wish I could find that thread again), but it made sense so I thought I'd mention it here as it could explain the LTE or signal issues. If it's bunk though, then please ignore
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the bands are the frequencies that are 'tuned' for. Any given piece of metal is better at picking up certain frequencies than others, depending on how long it is, how thick it is, if there are any coils etc.
This is why region doesn't matter in and of itself - if a specific band is supported, the phone can operate with that band/frequency regardless of which country it was manufactured for. Where a person might run into problems is if their carrier uses a given LTE band or group of them and the international phone model they want does not support those bands.
In our case, the Exynos Note 8 has all the main bands we need for T-Mobile and AT&T here in the USA.

Enable Tmobile US Carrier Feature On Exynos N960F/DS

Hello Is it possible to enable all the T-mobile US carrier features on the Exynos N960F/DS ?

Yes, when I reach 10 posts. I will be able to make a new thread with step by step images.
HERE is the guide, I got to 10 post
https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-9/how-to/note-9-n960fd-dual-sim-csc-change-oxm-t3841000

jgoorn said:
Yes, when I reach 10 posts. I will be able to make a new thread with step by step images.
HERE is the guide, I got to 10 post
https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-9/how-to/note-9-n960fd-dual-sim-csc-change-oxm-t3841000
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is there absolutely any way to do it without root? Can't I take the home CSC of a desired rom and flash just that in Odin, keeping everything else as it originally was?

hkalltheway said:
Is there absolutely any way to do it without root? Can't I take the home CSC of a desired rom and flash just that in Odin, keeping everything else as it originally was?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure, I saw something like that on another post but then it was updated 4 pages later to say that method was not functioning. I assume you don't want to trip knox, but if you just don't want root but want custom CSC flash twrp and custom rom with root. Edit files to change csc as shown in my guide, or others guides. then factory reset rom, and reflash without root, and then make odin reset the recovery to stock recovery.
This is all speculation however.

I was very excited to see this as I've been wanting an international Exynos variant due to absolutely 'needing' to have root.
The Million dollar question is "Does the carrier aggregation still exist? ie... Does ALL the bands work perfectly on T-Mobiles network just as it would 1:1 on a TM variant Note 9?"
I along with some other fellow Note 8 owners got the (F) model of the Note 8 last year and we had discovered that the international variants on T-Mobile / US network suffered from carrier aggregation, where it would connect fine to one single frequency, but it would not aggregate properly to where it would not be able to 'hand off' / 'connect to multiple frequencies at once' with the (F) variants....
For those that remember, I went as far as completely disassembling my Note 8 and testing varies antenna cables thinking that it was hardware related, however, it has been concluded that it is a software issues that causes the international variant of the Note 8 to not work properly on US carriers....
Note: If one is in an area with good signal in the US with a (F) variant, it may look like everything is fine and well, however, it is not. Due to the good reception, the (F) variant is connecting only to that one band, whereas with other devices the domestic US variant would have the ability to pick up several bands and aggregate accordingly, where the (F) can't ...
Therefore, the Million dollar question is "Does this carrier aggregation issue still exist on the Note 9?"
The only way to be able to properly test this is for one to have both the T-Mobile Note 9 + the International (F) variant Note 9 and test the bands side by side in multiple areas ... along with checking in the hidden settings to see exactly what bands it is connected to. If they match, great.... if not, then the carrier aggregation still exists.....
While at it, I'll tag my fellow OG partners in Android Fanatics @DeeXii , @butchieboy , @KennyLG123 ....

I doubt it. It will probably be another year or two to get full or near full capability on Samsung modems. Look at all the weird spectrums going up in different countries. And TMobile just got band 71. It will be awhile before we start seeing noticeable effects nationwide for 71. Your optimism is obsessive. When the galaxy note 2 came out all were Exynos chipsets but some had LTE radios. I opted for without mainly because LTE was not fleshed out yet. (and the LTE radios were add on chips and not fully integrated meaning they were battery drainers). I made a good call as did Apple. You also have to consider Qualcomm has a lot more experience than Samsung and Intel in modems and radios. People are so focused on the results or what they can get without thinking through the whole front end of it and what is plausible, necessary and time needed. I am not saying no but again your optimism is obsessive to a fault. Qualcomm hasn't even made a truly international modem yet. (More bands than they can fit in their design and still too many different techs.) How would Samsung do it? It could be done but your battery life would suffer. That's why there are regional phones. Alsooooo, 2g bands are being deprecated in a few places (I think hspa too but nowhere near as much as GPRS/EDGE). To be honest I think it won't be until 2021 at the very least where there will be a few mainstream phones that you could pop in a sim anywhere and get good service across those regions. For now, you have to compromise. LTE is thankfully dropping in the GSM bucket but it needs to be sorted out.

iunlock said:
I was very excited to see this as I've been wanting an international Exynos variant due to absolutely 'needing' to have root.
The Million dollar question is "Does the carrier aggregation still exist? ie... Does ALL the bands work perfectly on T-Mobiles network just as it would 1:1 on a TM variant Note 9?"
I along with some other fellow Note 8 owners got the (F) model of the Note 8 last year and we had discovered that the international variants on T-Mobile / US network suffered from carrier aggregation, where it would connect fine to one single frequency, but it would not aggregate properly to where it would not be able to 'hand off' / 'connect to multiple frequencies at once' with the (F) variants....
For those that remember, I went as far as completely disassembling my Note 8 and testing varies antenna cables thinking that it was hardware related, however, it has been concluded that it is a software issues that causes the international variant of the Note 8 to not work properly on US carriers....
Note: If one is in an area with good signal in the US with a (F) variant, it may look like everything is fine and well, however, it is not. Due to the good reception, the (F) variant is connecting only to that one band, whereas with other devices the domestic US variant would have the ability to pick up several bands and aggregate accordingly, where the (F) can't ...
Therefore, the Million dollar question is "Does this carrier aggregation issue still exist on the Note 9?"
The only way to be able to properly test this is for one to have both the T-Mobile Note 9 + the International (F) variant Note 9 and test the bands side by side in multiple areas ... along with checking in the hidden settings to see exactly what bands it is connected to. If they match, great.... if not, then the carrier aggregation still exists.....
While at it, I'll tag my fellow OG partners in Android Fanatics @DeeXii , @butchieboy , @KennyLG123 ....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I remember that thread very well, kalm_traveller also made adjustments to the antenna . I recall that ultimately carrier aggregation didn't work on international models when used on the USA networks.
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

@rbiter said:
I doubt it. It will probably be another year or two to get full or near full capability on Samsung modems. Look at all the weird spectrums going up in different countries. And TMobile just got band 71. It will be awhile before we start seeing noticeable effects nationwide for 71. Your optimism is obsessive. When the galaxy note 2 came out all were Exynos chipsets but some had LTE radios. I opted for without mainly because LTE was not fleshed out yet. (and the LTE radios were add on chips and not fully integrated meaning they were battery drainers). I made a good call as did Apple. You also have to consider Qualcomm has a lot more experience than Samsung and Intel in modems and radios. People are so focused on the results or what they can get without thinking through the whole front end of it and what is plausible, necessary and time needed. I am not saying no but again your optimism is obsessive to a fault. Qualcomm hasn't even made a truly international modem yet. (More bands than they can fit in their design and still too many different techs.) How would Samsung do it? It could be done but your battery life would suffer. That's why there are regional phones. Alsooooo, 2g bands are being deprecated in a few places (I think hspa too but nowhere near as much as GPRS/EDGE). To be honest I think it won't be until 2021 at the very least where there will be a few mainstream phones that you could pop in a sim anywhere and get good service across those regions. For now, you have to compromise. LTE is thankfully dropping in the GSM bucket but it needs to be sorted out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So how come Apple is doing that since the iPhone 6s unlocked version? Qualcomm Modem and a truly a word.

Doing what?

I would almost guarantee no ca working. Does it really matter? My s8+ still got 12mb download speeds.

Yakuzahi said:
So how come Apple is doing that since the iPhone 6s unlocked version? Qualcomm Modem and a truly a word.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doing what?

iunlock said:
I was very excited to see this as I've been wanting an international Exynos variant due to absolutely 'needing' to have root.
The Million dollar question is "Does the carrier aggregation still exist? ie... Does ALL the bands work perfectly on T-Mobiles network just as it would 1:1 on a TM variant Note 9?"
I along with some other fellow Note 8 owners got the (F) model of the Note 8 last year and we had discovered that the international variants on T-Mobile / US network suffered from carrier aggregation, where it would connect fine to one single frequency, but it would not aggregate properly to where it would not be able to 'hand off' / 'connect to multiple frequencies at once' with the (F) variants....
For those that remember, I went as far as completely disassembling my Note 8 and testing varies antenna cables thinking that it was hardware related, however, it has been concluded that it is a software issues that causes the international variant of the Note 8 to not work properly on US carriers....
Note: If one is in an area with good signal in the US with a (F) variant, it may look like everything is fine and well, however, it is not. Due to the good reception, the (F) variant is connecting only to that one band, whereas with other devices the domestic US variant would have the ability to pick up several bands and aggregate accordingly, where the (F) can't ...
Therefore, the Million dollar question is "Does this carrier aggregation issue still exist on the Note 9?"
The only way to be able to properly test this is for one to have both the T-Mobile Note 9 + the International (F) variant Note 9 and test the bands side by side in multiple areas ... along with checking in the hidden settings to see exactly what bands it is connected to. If they match, great.... if not, then the carrier aggregation still exists.....
While at it, I'll tag my fellow OG partners in Android Fanatics @DeeXii , @butchieboy , @KennyLG123 ....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the F model and tested with both AT&T and T-Mobile. Carrier aggregation works with 2 bands on AT&T (12+2) and while it supports all the other AT&T bands it will not aggregate them. No carrier aggregation at all on T-Mobile (single band only).
You can see the supported CA combos the F model has by looking at the FCC filing of the device (do a google search).
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

@rbiter said:
Doing what?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doing a world phone with smaller battery than the Note line.
So basically it can be done. Samsung can make a world if they want to.

Apple doesn't have a world phone. They have a minimum of 2 phones to do the world. You have to pick your poison of which part. If they do have one, it probably has you covered for calls but not data. Heck any phone has this if data is less a priority and making calls and texts are a higher priority.
There might be obscure world phones but we probably are not privy to it. Satellite phones too of course but price. I actually read an article about Qualcomm's modem and the increase of LTE bands that came out recently talking about RF360 and Intel and Samsung probably not having anything to compete for at least a couple of years. They don't have an all in one solution yet. Close but not world yet. You have China, US and I forgot what part of South America that messes it up. Even though LTE falls under GSM standards I wish they would tighten it up. So many bands across different countries now and you can't keep up. Band 71 for TMobile is not relevant yet unless you live in a market that is getting it because of low or no coverage.

@rbiter said:
I doubt it. It will probably be another year or two to get full or near full capability on Samsung modems. Look at all the weird spectrums going up in different countries. And TMobile just got band 71. It will be awhile before we start seeing noticeable effects nationwide for 71. Your optimism is obsessive. When the galaxy note 2 came out all were Exynos chipsets but some had LTE radios. I opted for without mainly because LTE was not fleshed out yet. (and the LTE radios were add on chips and not fully integrated meaning they were battery drainers). I made a good call as did Apple. You also have to consider Qualcomm has a lot more experience than Samsung and Intel in modems and radios. People are so focused on the results or what they can get without thinking through the whole front end of it and what is plausible, necessary and time needed. I am not saying no but again your optimism is obsessive to a fault. Qualcomm hasn't even made a truly international modem yet. (More bands than they can fit in their design and still too many different techs.) How would Samsung do it? It could be done but your battery life would suffer. That's why there are regional phones. Alsooooo, 2g bands are being deprecated in a few places (I think hspa too but nowhere near as much as GPRS/EDGE). To be honest I think it won't be until 2021 at the very least where there will be a few mainstream phones that you could pop in a sim anywhere and get good service across those regions. For now, you have to compromise. LTE is thankfully dropping in the GSM bucket but it needs to be sorted out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think your lack of optimism is obsessive and at fault. What's wrong with being optimistic and having hope? Most of us are just wanting a simple root on the SD variant of the Note 9, whether it be a samfail method or whatever, we'll take it.
The US variant Note 5 was Exynos and worked just fine, so its not impossible for an Exynos equipped phone to work on US carriers. After all, most of the newer phones have a wide range of frequencies that it can support. Sure some phones are set regionally, but you're aware that there are dual SIM phones right?
If you were familiar with the F model Note 8 that some of us got and have tested last year, then my post would have made more sense to you.
suzook said:
I would almost guarantee no ca working. Does it really matter? My s8+ still got 12mb download speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it does matter, because with out the ability for the phone to hand off and/or merge the signals, for those in areas where the reception is sketchy, it'd become major headache.
clubtech said:
I have the F model and tested with both AT&T and T-Mobile. Carrier aggregation works with 2 bands on AT&T (12+2) and while it supports all the other AT&T bands it will not aggregate them. No carrier aggregation at all on T-Mobile (single band only).
You can see the supported CA combos the F model has by looking at the FCC filing of the device (do a google search).
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey @clubtech, thanks for reiterating. Yea that was the case exactly as you've described.... I was getting the same results on TM on the F variant. I'm aware of the fcc filings, but the curiosity stems from the potential possibility...

Is this a possible lead to get CA working on N960F/DS?
https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/75ru94/root_exynos_galaxy_s8_how_to_get_carrier/
I've tried this method but just get these two lines without the menu popping up as instructed.
Broadcasting: Intent { act=android.provider.Telephony.SECRET_CODE dat=android_secret_code://27663368378 flg=0x400000 }
Broadcast completed: result=0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am most likely doing something wrong or these devices are somehow further locked down. I'm rooted, connected adb, etc. as the instructions say with no success.

Techronico said:
Is this a possible lead to get CA working on N960F/DS?
https://www.reddit.com/r/GalaxyS8/comments/75ru94/root_exynos_galaxy_s8_how_to_get_carrier/
I've tried this method but just get these two lines without the menu popping up as instructed.
I am most likely doing something wrong or these devices are somehow further locked down. I'm rooted, connected adb, etc. as the instructions say with no success.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mind sharing more info? I'm willing to try it with my device, I'll make a full backup and give it a go! Anything for even better reception!

jgoorn said:
Mind sharing more info? I'm willing to try it with my device, I'll make a full backup and give it a go! Anything for even better reception!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried using the dialer codes *#0011# and *#2263# first to get an idea of what I was looking at. These are mentioned further down in the Reddit thread by other users.
Apparently the code mentioned in the Reddit thread OP is a more advanced code that was removed/disabled from being activated from the dialer several iterations of Samsung devices ago...(ie. It now requires root, can only be activated from adb or terminal).
My theory is that Samsung has now fully gimped it or further hid the activation method. This method apparently worked on the Note 8...

Techronico said:
I tried using the dialer codes *#0011# and *#2263# first to get an idea of what I was looking at. These are mentioned further down in the Reddit thread by other users.
Apparently the code mentioned in the Reddit thread OP is a more advanced code that was removed/disabled from being activated from the dialer several iterations of Samsung devices ago...(ie. It now requires root, can only be activated from adb or terminal).
My theory is that Samsung has now fully gimped it or further hid the activation method. This method apparently worked on the Note 8...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey, I'm the author of that thread and I also have an Exynos s9+ which is same as the Note 9.
The menu is indeed completely disabled, you can't get to it even with adb or root.
There is a way to activate it, but it will not fix our issue. I've been trying for weeks.
We have a problem that started out on the Note 8, and that is the phone is not reporting the correct supported aggregation combos to the cell tower.
Using the menu, my phone does not support 4+12 however it reports 2+12 and I get carrier aggregation when I disable B4.
So far j haven't found a way to change those combos. At this point I'm very sure it grabs them from the CSC. I've been experimenting and have been unsuccessful so far
The S8 reported the correct combos out of the box, however the ill configured 3xCA was stopping it from working, disabling 3xCA made 2xCA work perfectly.
Our issue here is just were missing those combos so no matter what the phone will not do 4+12 even though the hardware is fully capable.
If anyone knows how to change combos, pm me or reply here, thanks.

Interceptor777 said:
Hey, I'm the author of that thread and I also have an Exynos s9+ which is same as the Note 9.
The menu is indeed completely disabled, you can't get to it even with adb or root.
There is a way to activate it, but it will not fix our issue. I've been trying for weeks.
We have a problem that started out on the Note 8, and that is the phone is not reporting the correct supported aggregation combos to the cell tower.
Using the menu, my phone does not support 4+12 however it reports 2+12 and I get carrier aggregation when I disable B4.
So far j haven't found a way to change those combos. At this point I'm very sure it grabs them from the CSC. I've been experimenting and have been unsuccessful so far
The S8 reported the correct combos out of the box, however the ill configured 3xCA was stopping it from working, disabling 3xCA made 2xCA work perfectly.
Our issue here is just were missing those combos so no matter what the phone will not do 4+12 even though the hardware is fully capable.
If anyone knows how to change combos, pm me or reply here, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will totally donate to you if you can get this to work some how! It's pretty much the last feature I'm looking at as a "This phone is perfect except for X".