Integrated Bluetooth vs. Add on Bluetooth

[Dave Potter]

Just had a very interesting experience...

My 'work' PPC is an iPAQ 3970 with intergrated BT. I have been using this with a BT enabled Nokia 6310 cell phone for about 8 months for mobile web browsing, email etc. Connection speeds were slightly faster than a typical dial-up connecton. I thought that this was pretty cool and very useful from a mobility and keeping in touch standpoint.

Until...

I recently purchased an iPAQ 1935 for 'personal' use and subsequently bought a Socket SDIO BT+ card for it. My paln was to re-create my previous experience - my expectation was that things would work about the same.

Boy was I wrong - it works evern better :!: Connection speed is at least double what I was getting with my 3970. Does this seem odd to anyone :?:

You would think that fully intergrated BT would work faster than an add-on SDIO BT card - but is doesn't. It's not my imagination either.

Has anyone else had similar experiences :?: Can anyone explain why this would be the case :?:

[Dave Potter]

Just had a very interesting experience...

My 'work' PPC is an iPAQ 3970 with intergrated BT. I have been using this with a BT enabled Nokia 6310 cell phone for about 8 months for mobile web browsing, email etc. Connection speeds were slightly faster than a typical dial-up connecton. I thought that this was pretty cool and very useful from a mobility and keeping in touch standpoint.

Until...

I recently purchased an iPAQ 1935 for 'personal' use and subsequently bought a Socket SDIO BT+ card for it. My paln was to re-create my previous experience - my expectation was that things would work about the same.

Boy was I wrong - it works evern better :!: Connection speed is at least double what I was getting with my 3970. Does this seem odd to anyone :?:

You would think that fully intergrated BT would work faster than an add-on SDIO BT card - but is doesn't. It's not my imagination either.

Has anyone else had similar experiences :?: Can anyone explain why this would be the case :?:

[David Prahl]

Seems to me that it's the device that's making the difference. The 3970 is getting pretty old (as bleeding edge technology goes, that is :lol: ), and the 1935 is brand spanking new.

I'd say that the hardware in the 1935 is faster. Doesn't the 1935 use a Samsung CPU? Or something?

[Dave Potter]

Yes - a 200MHz Samsung processor in the 1935. But I thought that the 3970 had a 250MHz processor. Wouldn't that mean that it is faster? (at least in theory...)

Or are the Samsung processors just faster by design (newer technology?)

[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by Zippper

Yes - a 200MHz Samsung processor in the 1935. But I thought that the 3970 had a 250MHz processor. Wouldn't that mean that it is faster? (at least in theory...)

Or are the Samsung processors just faster by design (newer technology?)

The 1935 has a 203MHz ARMv4 chip, similar to the 206MHz ARMv4 in the original iPAQ. Very fast. The 3900 has a 400MHz ARMv5 chip and while the MHz are up there, the performance just isn't. at best, most 400MHz machines still run around the same speed as the original 206MHz iPAQ.