256-QAM TX EVM and RX Sensitivity Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0xxxr0 January 2011 256-QAM TX EVM and RX Sensitivity Date: 2011-01-17 Authors: Youhan Kim et al. Osama Aboul-Magd (Samsung)

January 2011 TX EVM TX EVM requirement ensures that the TX signal quality does not significantly limit the overall link performance Slope of PER curve consistent between different MCS No fading, 1x1, 80 MHz, 4096 bytes To rule out PER impact from other impairments No phase noise, no PA model Perfect synchronization, channel estimation  Impact of TX EVM to PER should be more or less consistent between MCS If TX EVM is chosen to be X dB more stringent than the overall RX sensitivity requirement for MCS Y, then reasonable to choose TX EVM to be X dB more stringent for MCS Z as well Youhan Kim et al.

January 2011 11n – HT20 Difference between TX EVM requirement and RX sensitivity requirement is mostly consistent across MCS SNR assuming noise figure + implementation loss = 18 dB To make SNR = 1 dB for BPSK ½ for consistency w/ next slide B A RX Sensitivity [dBm] RX Sensitivity in SNR [dB] TX EVM [dB] A+B [dB] BPSK ½ -82 1 -5 -4 QPSK ½ -79 4 -10 -6 QPSK ¾ -77 6 -13 -7 16-QAM ½ -74 9 -16 16-QAM ¾ -70 13 -19 64-QAM 2/3 -66 17 -22 64-QAM ¾ -65 18 -25 64-QAM 5/6 -64 19 -28 -9 Avg. -6.3 Youhan Kim et al.

TX EVM Requirement for 11ac January 2011 TX EVM Requirement for 11ac Previously increased 6 dB for every 4x in QAM order If increased by 6 dB for 256-QAM as well, then EVM requirement becomes too stringent compared to other MCS A B MCS Bits/ Sub-carrier TX EVM Requirement [dB] SNR Required to Achieve 10% PER* [dB] A+B [dB] BPSK ½ 0.5 -5 1.1 -3.9 QPSK ½ 1 -10 4.1 -5.9 QPSK ¾ 1.5 -13 6.7 -6.3 16-QAM ½ 2 -16 9.6 -6.4 16-QAM ¾ 3 -19 12.8 -6.2 64-QAM 2/3 4 -22 17.2 -4.8 64-QAM ¾ 4.5 -25 18.4 -6.6 64-QAM 5/6 5 -28 19.7 -8.3 256-QAM ¾ 6 -31? 23.9 -7.1 256-QAM 5/6 -34? 25.5 -8.5 6 5.5 Avg. -6.0 6 5.6 6 5.5 6 5.8 * 1x1, 80 MHz, no analog impairments, perfect channel estimation Youhan Kim et al.

TX EVM Requirement for 11ac January 2011 TX EVM Requirement for 11ac Propose -30/-32 dB for 256-QAM 3/4 and 5/6 Difference between TX EVM requirement and RX sensitivity requirement is more consistent with other MCSs A B MCS Bits/ Sub-carrier TX EVM Requirement [dB] SNR Required to Achieve 10% PER* [dB] A+B [dB] BPSK ½ 0.5 -5 1.1 -3.9 QPSK ½ 1 -10 4.1 -5.9 QPSK ¾ 1.5 -13 6.7 -6.3 16-QAM ½ 2 -16 9.6 -6.4 16-QAM ¾ 3 -19 12.8 -6.2 64-QAM 2/3 4 -22 17.2 -4.8 64-QAM ¾ 4.5 -25 18.4 -6.6 64-QAM 5/6 5 -28 19.7 -8.3 256-QAM ¾ 6 -30 23.9 -6.1 256-QAM 5/6 -32 25.5 -6.5 Avg. -6.0 * 1x1, 80 MHz, no analog impairments, perfect channel estimation Youhan Kim et al.

RX sensitivity in SNR [dB] January 2011 RX Sensitivity Simulation setup TX: No phase noise, no PA model, 4096 bytes RX: IEEE phase noise included, perfect synchronization/channel estimation SNR obtained from 80 MHz simulation HT20, 1x1 (From 11n standard) VHT 20 MHz, 1x1 RX sensitivity [dBm] RX sensitivity in SNR [dB] RX sensitivity* [dBm] BPSK ½ -82 1.1 -81.9 QPSK ½ -79 4.1 -78.9 QPSK ¾ -77 6.7 -76.3 16-QAM ½ -74 9.6 -73.4 16-QAM ¾ -70 12.8 -70.2 64-QAM 2/3 -66 17.3 -65.7 64-QAM ¾ -65 18.5 -64.5 64-QAM 5/6 -64 19.9 -63.1 256-QAM ¾ - 24.1 -58.9 256-QAM 5/6 25.9 -57.1 * Assuming noise figure + implementation loss = 18 dB Youhan Kim et al.

Proposed RX Sensitivity January 2011 Proposed RX Sensitivity MCS Min. sensitivity – 20 MHz [dBm] Min. sensitivity – 40 MHz [dBm] Min. sensitivity – 80 MHz [dBm] Min. sensitivity – 160 or 80+80 MHz [dBm] BPSK ½ -82 -79 -76 -73 QPSK ½ -70 QPSK ¾ -77 -74 -71 -68 16-QAM ½ -65 16-QAM ¾ -67 -64 -61 64-QAM 2/3 -66 -63 -60 -57 64-QAM ¾ -62 -59 -56 64-QAM 5/6 -58 -55 256-QAM ¾ -53 -50 256-QAM 5/6 -54 -51 -48 Youhan Kim et al.

January 2011 Pre-Motion 1 Do you support -30 dB and -32 dB as the TX EVM requirements for 256-QAM 3/4 and 5/6, respectively, and to edit the specification framework document (11-09/0992) accordingly? Youhan Kim et al.

January 2011 Pre-Motion 2 Do you support receiver minimum sensitivity for 256-QAM ¾ and 5/6 as shown on slide 7 and to edit the specification framework document (11-09/0992) accordingly? Youhan Kim et al.