Urban vs. Rural 5G NR: Trade-offs in SINR, Throughput, and Energy Efficiency
Keywords:
Deployment, Energy efficiency, Frequency, New Radio, SINR, ThroughputAbstract
The deployment of 5G New Radio (NR) must account for starkly contrasting operational environments, with urban and rural scenarios presenting fundamentally different trade-offs among coverage, capacity, and energy efficiency. This study presents a systematic comparative performance evaluation of 5G NR in dense urban and sparsely populated rural settings, focusing on three core metrics: signal quality (measured by SINR, RSRP, and RSRQ), throughput (in terms of downlink and uplink data rates), and Energy Efficiency (EE). Leveraging 3GPP-aligned system-level modelling and analytical frameworks, we contrast FR2-based mmWave small-cell deployments in urban areas against FR1-based sub-6 GHz macro-cell configurations in rural regions. Our results demonstrate that urban networks achieve significantly higher throughput, often reaching gigabit-per-second levels due to wide bandwidths (e.g., 400 MHz), massive MIMO beamforming, and ultra-dense site placement. However, this performance is highly sensitive to line-of-sight blockage and mobility-induced beam disruptions, leading to variable SINR and reliability challenges. In contrast, rural deployments offer robust wide-area coverage and stable connectivity owing to favourable propagation at lower frequencies (e.g., 3.5 GHz), but are constrained by narrow bandwidth allocations (e.g., 20 MHz), limited spatial multiplexing, and uplink power limitations, resulting in markedly lower throughput and spectral efficiency. Notably, despite higher absolute power consumption, urban FR2 sites exhibit superior energy efficiency (measured in Mbps/W) due to their vastly greater data output, whereas rural FR1 macro sites suffer from high static power overhead relative to delivered traffic. The study further identifies critical bottlenecks such as backhaul limitations in rural areas and handover complexity in urban zones, and proposes targeted mitigation strategies including multi-connectivity, carrier aggregation, dynamic beam management, and energy-aware sleep modes. These findings provide actionable insights for network operators and policymakers aiming to optimize 5G NR deployments across heterogeneous landscapes while addressing the persistent urban–rural digital divide.
References
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). “About us,” 2020. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/about-us
J. G. Andrews et al., “What will 5G be?,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2957
Opensignal, “The U.S. rural-urban gap has narrowed for 5G speeds but widened for 5G availability,” 14 Sept. 2023. Available: https://www.opensignal.com/2023/09/14/the-us-rural-urban-gap-has-narrowed-for-5g-speeds-but-widened-for-5g-availability
A. I. Zreikat and S. Mathew, “Performance evaluation and analysis of urban–suburban 5G cellular networks,” Computers, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 108, 2024. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/13/4/108
R. Abozariba, E. Davies, M. Broadbent, and N. Race, “Evaluating the real-world performance of 5G fixed wireless broadband in rural areas,” in Proc. IEEE 2nd 5G World Forum (5GWF), 2019. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/5GWF.2019.8911655
F. Rinaldi, A. Raschellà, and S. Pizzi, “5G NR system design: A concise survey of key features and capabilities,” Wireless Netw., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 5173–5188, 2021. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11276-021-02811-y
C. I. Iyoloma, T. S. Ibanibo, and N. Eyidia, “Comprehensive MATLAB-based performance analysis of 5G cellular networks,” Int. Res. J. Adv. Eng. Sci., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 16–22, 2025. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396211888_Comprehensive_MATLAB-Based_Performance_Analysis_of_5G_Cellular_Networks
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), TS 38.104: NR; Base Station (BS) Radio Transmission and Reception; Release 16, Sophia Antipolis, France, 2020. Available: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/138100_138199/138104/16.04.00_60/ts_138104v160400p.pdf
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), TS 37.340: Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and NR; Multi-connectivity; Stage 2; Release 16, Sophia Antipolis, France, 2020. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3rd-Generation-Partnership-Project%3B-Technical-Group/d6e893efee6bcd1654321eec6a44130fa5b016fe
B. Wibisono, S. Larasati, and M. A. Amanaf, “5G NR planning using path loss models urban macro: Study case in Semarang City,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 2482, no. 1, 2023. Available: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AIPC.2482o0005W/abstract
M. I. Rochman, W. Ye, Z.-L. Zhang, and M. Ghosh, “A comprehensive real-world evaluation of 5G improvements over 4G in low- and mid-bands,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1427–1441, 2025. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00957
S. Kar, P. Mishra, and K. C. Wang, “Efficient resource management using 5G multi-connectivity for high throughput and reliable low-latency communication,” J. Wireless Com. Netw., vol. 2025, no. 58, 2025. Available: https://jwcn-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13638-025-02488-3
D. López-Pérez, A. De Domenico, N. Piovesan, H. Bao, G. Xinli, Q. Song, and M. Debbah, “A survey on 5G radio access network energy efficiency: Massive MIMO, lean carrier design, sleep modes, and machine learning,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 653–697, 2022. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2101.11246
U. D. Maiwada, K. U. Danyaro, A. Sarlan, M. S. Liew, A. Taiwo, and U. I. Audi, “Energy efficiency in 5G systems: A systematic literature review,” Int. J. Knowl. Based Intell. Eng. Syst., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 93–132, 2024. Available: https://khub.utp.edu.my/scholars/19801/
M. I. Rochman, W. Ye, Z.-L. Zhang, and M. Ghosh, “A comprehensive real-world evaluation of 5G improvements over 4G in low- and mid-bands,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1427–1441, 2025. Available: https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/a-comprehensive-real-world-evaluation-of-5g-improvements-over-4g--2/
H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, and J. G. Andrews, “Load-Aware Modeling and Analysis of Heterogeneous Cellular Networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1666–1677, Apr. 2013. Available: https://www.dhillon.ece.vt.edu/Downloads/DhiGanAnd_GC2012.pdf
R. Heath, M. Kountouris, and T. Bai, “Modeling heterogeneous network interference using Poisson point processes,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 13, pp. 3359–3372, 2013. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6515339/similar?signout=success#similar
E. Björnson, L. Van der Perre, S. Buzzi, and E. G. Larsson, “Massive MIMO in Sub-6 GHz and mmWave: Physical, practical, and use-case differences,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 100–108, Apr. 2019. arXiv. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.11023
P. G. Irimiagha, M. Igboka, and T. S. Ibanibo, “The role of 5G and next-generation networks in driving telecom sustainability and carbon emission reduction,” J. Res. Adv. Electr. Eng., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 15–22, 2025. doi: https://zenodo.org/records/15703156
P. Popovski, K. F. Trillingsgaard, O. Simeone, and G. Durisi, “5G wireless network slicing for eMBB, URLLC, and mMTC: A communication-theoretic view,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 55765–55779, 2018. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8476595
M. Mezzavilla, S. Dutta, M. Zhang, M. R. Akdeniz, and S. Rangan, “5G mmWave Module for the ns-3 Network Simulator,” in Proc. 18th ACM Int. Conf. Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (MSWiM ’15), Nov. 2015, pp. 283–292. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2811587.2811619