 Optimization to be related to a PA bias change to accommodate the larger peak to average power ratio in 16QAM transmissions. This adjustment is PA dependent and is no longer required in UEs 2, 3, 4 and 5. In Figure 16.41e (TC3) it can be observed that, with the exception of UE 1, the receiver chain power consumption does not change significantly across the entire UE dynamic range. For example, in UE 5, the power consumed at cell edge is barely 1% higher than that measured at maximum input power, that is, under the eNodeB. Even with UE 1, the increase is less than 3.5% at cell edge, a value below the estimated accuracy of the test bench. The most impressive savings can be seen in Figures 16.41f, 16.41g and 16.41h (TC6). Figure 16.41g is a zoom on the performance measured at -40 dBm, and Figure 16.41h eases the comparison at key transmit powers. Significant savings are delivered generations after generations. For example, UE 5 consumption is 45% less than that of UE 1. Not only does UE 5 achieve best in class performance, but it also exhibits a near flat consumption over a greater output power range than any other devices. It is also interesting to compare the performance of UE 3 which uses APT versus that of UE 4 or UE 5 which both use ET. While all three UEs have similar performance up to 0 dBm, above 10 dBm UE 4 exhibits an impressive 47% and 17% gains over UE 3 at 16 and 22 dBm, respectively. UE 5 provides gains of 44% and 32% at the same power ratings over UE 3. In summary, the LTE chipset power consumption can be approximated by using PRxBB and PTxRF, that is, the performance is directly related to downlink throughput and uplink transmit power. Since LTE power control loops aim at maintaining the target uplink SINR for a given number of PRBs and MCS, increasing uplink throughput indirectly leads to increasing the UE transmit power, and therefore to increasing the subsystem power consumption. These aspects are presented using drive test data in the next section. 16.8.3 Impact of Small Cells on Smartphone Powe