Table 3 Comparison of computation times of AQGA and CGA approaches (unit: seconds).
From: Improved adaptive impedance matching for RF front-end systems of wireless transceivers
Frequency band | Algorithm | Shortest | Longest | Average | Compared to CGA the proposed AQGA is faster on average by (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.4 GHz (military & satellite services) | CGA | 5.3528 | 49.3091 | 26.1073 | 75 |
1.4 GHz (military & satellite services) | Proposed AQGA | 3.2850 | 10.8324 | 6.5049 | |
2.3 GHz (LTE networks) | CGA | 2.9841 | 52.1520 | 27.6302 | 49.2 |
2.3 GHz (LTE networks) | Proposed AQGA | 1.7536 | 28.9173 | 14.0371 | |
3.4 GHz (radar systems) | CGA | 6.8453 | 65.7329 | 35.2961 | 64.9 |
3.4 GHz (radar systems) | Proposed AQGA | 4.2740 | 21.6510 | 12.3874 | |
4.0 GHz (satellite earth stations) | CGA | 4.9560 | 42.0845 | 22.0351 | 54.7 |
4.0 GHz (satellite earth stations) | Proposed AQGA | 2.0352 | 17.3842 | 9.9835 | |
5.0 GHz (Wi-Fi band) | CGA | 3.1271 | 31.0653 | 17.9350 | 52.5 |
5.0 GHz (Wi-Fi band) | Proposed AQGA | 1.0735 | 15.0252 | 8.5193 |
