Table 1 Performance comparison with state-of-the-art solutions

65 nm CMOS digital

32 RX/8 TX

59.4–63.72

28 (EIRP)

Not specified

–

Yes

[2]

40 nm CMOS LP

16 RX/16 TX

57–66

24 (EIRP)

Not specified

− 7

\(\pm \,60^{\circ }\)

[3]

28 nm/40 nm CMOS

144 RX/144 TX

57–66

51 (EIRP)

\(\approx\)20

− 10

\(\pm \,60^{\circ }\)

[6]

90 nm CMOS

32 RX/32 TX

57–62

38 (EIRP)

\(\approx\)18

− 7

\(\pm \,30^{\circ }\)

[20]

120 nm SiGe BiCMOS

16 RX

58.32–64.8

–

Not specified

–

Yes

[4]

120 nm SiGe BiCMOS

16 TX

51–65

21–25.5 (tot. OP1dB)

Not specified

− 5

\(\pm \,45^{\circ }\)

[5]

130 nm SiGe BiCMOS

1 RX/1 TX

57–66

13.4–16.2 (OP1dB)

Not specified

–

–

[1]

130 nm SiGe BiCMOS

256 TX

58–64

45 (EIRP)

6

− 9

\(\pm \,55^{\circ }\)

[7]

180 nm SiGe BiCMOS

2\(\times\)256 TRX

60–64

44 (EIRP)

6

− 8

\(\pm \,50^{\circ }\)

[19]

180 nm SiGe BiCMOS

2\(\times\)64 TRX

60–64

38 (EIRP)

12

− 11

\(\pm \,50^{\circ }\)

[19]

130 nm SiGe BiCMOS

32 RX/32 TX

57–66

44 (EIRP)

7

− 9

\(\mathbf {\pm \,50}^{\circ }\)

This work