# Performance of the 5 th Generation Indoor Wireless Technologies-Empirical Study
## 3 Results  
This section presents and compares the measurement results obtained with 5G and Wi-Fi 6 base stations. Table 3 presents all the measured values in all the measurement points illustrated in Figure 2. Throughput values are given as peak values and delay as an average value. Figures 3 and 4 compare the measured downlink and uplink throughputs between 5G and Wi-Fi, and Figure 5 compares delay. For 5G, values for both 1/4 and 3/7 DL/UL ratios are shown, which correspond the Frame Structure Type (FST) for allocating bandwidth to DL and UL.  
We can also compare the measured throughput in Table 3 to the theoretical throughput by inserting parameter values from Table 2 into Equations (1) and (2). With these parameters and using FST 1/4 for 5G, the theoretical throughput for 5G DL and UL are 2218 and 222 Mbps and for Wi-Fi 9603 Mbps, respectively. We can see that for either system, the practical performance does not reach the theoretical throughput. Our interpretation is that the peak modulation and coding rates probably cannot be applied due to path loss and fading, and the spatial dimension remains under-utilized compared to the theoretical maximum. However, the results follow the theory in the sense where Wi-Fi, UL, and DL throughput are comparable in performance, while 5G follows the asymmetrical DL/UL resource allocation.  
Looking at Figures 3 and 4, it can be seen that Wi-Fi 6 outperforms 5G throughput both in uplink and downlink when the distance from the user equipment to the base station  
Figure 3: DL Peak Throughput.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurement**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**5G**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Wi-Fi 6**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**fst 3/7**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**fst 1/4**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Delay**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**fst 1/4**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Delay**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DLT**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ULT**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Delay**} \\  & **DLT** & **ULT** & & & & & & & \\ \hline
1 & 470 & 70 & 11 & 579 & 31 & 13 & 698 & 677 & 3 \\ \hline
2 & 433 & 64 & 11 & 611 & 40 & 13 & 491 & 514 & 3 \\ \hline
3 & 331 & 48 & 11 & 435 & 15 & 13 & 119 & 117 & 3 \\ \hline
4 & 256 & 46 & 11 & 322 & 18 & 13 & 41 & 41 & 21 \\ \hline
5 & 187 & 48 & 11 & 160 & 17 & 13 & 0 & 0 & 21 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Measured peak throughputs (Mbps) and average delay (ms) for Wi-Fi 6 and 5G (DLT/ULT = downlink/uplink throughput).  
is really short, but the situation changes rapidly as the distance to the base station increases. Similarly, the throughput measured with the 5G remains higher than with Wi-Fi 6 if there are signal blocking barriers between the user equipment and the base station, such as closed doors or walls. This is easily seen when comparing measurement points 3 and 4, which are located very close to each other but with a closed door between them. The results show that 5G achieved the best downlink throughput using frame structure type 1/4, but the best uplink throughput was measured using frame structure type 3/7.  
The delay comparison shown in Figure 5 follows a similar trend as can be seen in the case of throughput measurements. Wi-Fi 6 is clearly ahead of 5G at close range, but as the distance increases, the delay of Wi-Fi 6 collapses while at 5G it remains stable. The collapse of the Wi-Fi 6 delay when moving from the measuring point 3 to the measuring point 4 is due to the fact that there is a closed door between those points, which clearly effectively blocks the communication between the Wi-Fi 6 base station and the user equipment.  
Figure 4: UL Peak Throughput.  
Figure 5: Average Delay.