Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
6s Plus: TSMC or bust?
- Thread starter renee_yuh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry dudes (and dudets) for resurrecting this highly irritating subject (for some) but it is very much true, TSMC phones DO have a better battery life. I've seen and read about the test some people have done but my first hand experience is clearly showing different results.
So I had a 6S (Samsung chip) for quite some time. Decided to try a Galaxy S7 which I had for about 4 days before going back to another 6S. That one happen to have the TSMC chip. I've installed the exact same set of apps (I took screen shots of my last set up and made sure it is all back exactly as before), using the phone the exact same way as before. Nothing is different outside of the chip in the phone. With my last phone I was getting between 7 and 8 hours of usage time. With my current phone I'm getting between 9 and 10. You guys say what you want but there's a clear difference in my experience which I did not expect but I'm very pleased.
Have a nice day!
So I had a 6S (Samsung chip) for quite some time. Decided to try a Galaxy S7 which I had for about 4 days before going back to another 6S. That one happen to have the TSMC chip. I've installed the exact same set of apps (I took screen shots of my last set up and made sure it is all back exactly as before), using the phone the exact same way as before. Nothing is different outside of the chip in the phone. With my last phone I was getting between 7 and 8 hours of usage time. With my current phone I'm getting between 9 and 10. You guys say what you want but there's a clear difference in my experience which I did not expect but I'm very pleased.
Have a nice day!
Last edited:
How are Galaxy battery results relevant to iPhones? Completely different chips, batteries, screens, and software.
You can show yourself out.
Reading is difficult for you, isn't it? Read the post again, was talking about two 6S phones, not the Galaxy.
I don't quite understand the grief over ditching the 3.5mm jack. Obviously there'll be an adaptor to allow anyone to use any set of headphones they want with the phone (along with a pass-through to allow someone to be charging and using a set of headphones at the same time).
In the meantime, by getting rid of it (if they do), it gives them more room inside the phone and removes an ingress for water, dust, and other foreign particulates. All good things.
Yes, it's difficult to understand your writing. And anyway, this myth has been debunked many times. The chips have identical behavior under any normal use.
I really like your Avatar with the Fendi Monster
Back to the thread, that's good to know that there isn't any difference between the two different chips!
Thanks. I actually just snapped a pic of my wallet and shrunk it. I find the Fendi monsters more interesting then this chip thing.
And of course you know for certain that the current draw for the screen, GPS radio, Bluetooth radio, wifi radio, LTE radio in both phones are identical. There was absolutely no variability in these components between the two phones And the battery in the two phones of course are identical, with same reserve capacity and use numbers. You checked all this out, right. You must have quite the lab.
You said yourself that you had the first 6s for some time. Use it much, charge it every day. You do realize that comparing a used battery from a phone that has been recharged how many times? To a brand new phone with a fresh battery has a lot more to do with battery capacity than any one chip.
Since Apple can't even guarantee that two different TSMC chips have identical current draw and speed. Or that two different Samsung chips are identical. You might want to let Apple know how you can determine this. Oh and just because you have same apps loaded up on each phone, does not mean that the software is acting the same. One or more apps could have hung up from one load to the next.
Know had you tested several thousand phones in a double blind test we could more readily accept possible conclusions. However the annecdotal evidence you have presented does in no way support your hypothesis of one chip verses the other causing such a large difference in battery charge duration. I'm pleased you have a better battery life experience with second phone, however your experience does not support the conclusion that it is based on the different CPU chips.
This topic deserves to remain laid to rest.
[doublepost=1465960857][/doublepost]
Perhaps not hallucinating, but definitely drawing conclusions from insufficient and erroneous data.
Having used a Samsung 6s, Samsung SE and now a TSMC 6s over the past two months, all restored with the same backups, I can provide yet another anecdote that TSMC runs noticeably cooler and longer than Samsung. Obviously I can't prove that this is the case, but I don't believe for a second that there is a negligible difference between these chips.
The SE geekbench data (https://browser.primatelabs.com/battery3/search?dir=desc&q=Iphone8,4&sort=score) is quite stark--
Just a shame that anybody still in the market for a 6s or SE can end up with inferior battery life by sheer luck of the draw.
The SE geekbench data (https://browser.primatelabs.com/battery3/search?dir=desc&q=Iphone8,4&sort=score) is quite stark--
- TSMC (N69AP) runtime ranges from 4:07 to 6:00
- Samsung (N69uAP) ranges from 2:45 to 4:22
Just a shame that anybody still in the market for a 6s or SE can end up with inferior battery life by sheer luck of the draw.
You do know that Geekbench is crowd-sourced test data, right? The phones tested could be in any condition, with any kind of battery cycles left, among other problems.
Yep, that's why I picked the most recently released device (2.5 months ago), to minimise the impact of battery wear and general software degradation. The fact that geekbench puts heavy, continuous load on the device also helps minimise the impact of software variance, like having many rogue apps running in the background. Obviously, this means that the test doesn't reflect "real-world usage", but that doesn't make it meaningless, either.
Sure, it's possible that the differences observed are somehow the result of something like all the Samsung devices being tested in areas with extremely poor network and TSMC in areas with great network, or some other factor that can't be controlled. However, if this were true, and the battery life between these two models was actually equal, then you'd also expect that somebody would be able to produce a set of samples that shows Samsung devices getting much better battery life than TSMC. As far as I've seen, there have only been sets that show Samsung is roughly equal to TSMC.
According to the geekbench site, there are less than 20 views on many of these results, which tells me people are discounting this data without even looking at the (important) details. Though it doesn't prove that there's a fire, the smoke is definitely there.
Sure, it's possible that the differences observed are somehow the result of something like all the Samsung devices being tested in areas with extremely poor network and TSMC in areas with great network, or some other factor that can't be controlled. However, if this were true, and the battery life between these two models was actually equal, then you'd also expect that somebody would be able to produce a set of samples that shows Samsung devices getting much better battery life than TSMC. As far as I've seen, there have only been sets that show Samsung is roughly equal to TSMC.
According to the geekbench site, there are less than 20 views on many of these results, which tells me people are discounting this data without even looking at the (important) details. Though it doesn't prove that there's a fire, the smoke is definitely there.
Actually even t
The same chip made off the same line will have variability. No two chips will perform exactly the same. And if you run the same phone ten times on the geek bench test, you will get ten different results. As the test will have some variability to it.
Since this variability also holds true for each and every component used in the phone, battery, screen, radio chips, etc. isolating and running one component at an abnormally high rate gives a very skewed result. Which may be showing a trend but translates poorly into overall phone performance.
If you are lucky and get a phone with battery at high end of capacity, a screen and CPU, radio, GPU chips that all trend toward low energy use, you could have a really great phone in your hands. Or you could have received a phone with reverse of these possibilities. And never see the same battery life as you friends.
Apple didn't make the laws of physics, or manufacturing variability. However they do have to live by these realities like we all do. I am not defending Apple, rather I'm trying to help people understand no two phones can be identical. There may be a slight real world trend that the TSMC chip is more energy efficient than the Samsung chip. However trading in a phone over it may not get you the result you want, as other components on next phone may not be as fast or energy efficient as the first phone. There are simply too many factors not in your control to make a choice based on a test that is not representative of how you use your phone.
This may not be the simple answer we would like. But it should be understood and considered. Additionally, all this doesn't even take into account your use pattern, and location, carrier choice, software loading, etc. Comparison can become rather complicated when trying to isolate reasons for differences in performance.
If there actually were a large real world performance difference between the two chips, with millions sold, there would be a much greater outcry. No way Apple can control that. Keep in mind that web sites, news, all live by creating sensationalism that get viewers, readers and clicks. Anything can be blown up way out of proportion. But usually for a short time. As reality has a way of creeping in and level setting the sensational.
The same chip made off the same line will have variability. No two chips will perform exactly the same. And if you run the same phone ten times on the geek bench test, you will get ten different results. As the test will have some variability to it.
Since this variability also holds true for each and every component used in the phone, battery, screen, radio chips, etc. isolating and running one component at an abnormally high rate gives a very skewed result. Which may be showing a trend but translates poorly into overall phone performance.
If you are lucky and get a phone with battery at high end of capacity, a screen and CPU, radio, GPU chips that all trend toward low energy use, you could have a really great phone in your hands. Or you could have received a phone with reverse of these possibilities. And never see the same battery life as you friends.
Apple didn't make the laws of physics, or manufacturing variability. However they do have to live by these realities like we all do. I am not defending Apple, rather I'm trying to help people understand no two phones can be identical. There may be a slight real world trend that the TSMC chip is more energy efficient than the Samsung chip. However trading in a phone over it may not get you the result you want, as other components on next phone may not be as fast or energy efficient as the first phone. There are simply too many factors not in your control to make a choice based on a test that is not representative of how you use your phone.
This may not be the simple answer we would like. But it should be understood and considered. Additionally, all this doesn't even take into account your use pattern, and location, carrier choice, software loading, etc. Comparison can become rather complicated when trying to isolate reasons for differences in performance.
If there actually were a large real world performance difference between the two chips, with millions sold, there would be a much greater outcry. No way Apple can control that. Keep in mind that web sites, news, all live by creating sensationalism that get viewers, readers and clicks. Anything can be blown up way out of proportion. But usually for a short time. As reality has a way of creeping in and level setting the sensational.
Last edited:
Agreed that no two phones and no two test results are identical. My point still stands that if TSMC and Samsung CPUs actually offered equal battery life, you'd expect an essentially random distribution of test results--50% showing TSMC to have better battery and 50% showing Samsung to have better battery. The near absence of test results where Samsung wins compared to the relative glut of results where TSMC wins suggests that this is not the case.
I'm not suggesting that folks go out and repeatedly exchange their phone until they get a TSMC chip, given all the other things that can go wrong from phone to phone and the sheer amount of time you'd waste. But I think people deserve to be aware of the possible compromise they are making when buying a 6s or SE.
And in the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the improved battery life on my TSMC 6s (received as a replacement for a launch day Samsung 6s whose battery life dropped through the floor).
I'm not suggesting that folks go out and repeatedly exchange their phone until they get a TSMC chip, given all the other things that can go wrong from phone to phone and the sheer amount of time you'd waste. But I think people deserve to be aware of the possible compromise they are making when buying a 6s or SE.
And in the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the improved battery life on my TSMC 6s (received as a replacement for a launch day Samsung 6s whose battery life dropped through the floor).
I agree with your distribution trend analysis. And I agree the trend is not significant enough to pursue alternate phones. I suspect a similar debate will arise in upcoming iPhone 7 launch, should different radio chips be utilized from Qualcomm and Intel to meet production demands. Will turn into "geek" debate hopefully not affecting the common user in any significant way.Agreed that no two phones and no two test results are identical. My point still stands that if TSMC and Samsung CPUs actually offered equal battery life, you'd expect an essentially random distribution of test results--50% showing TSMC to have better battery and 50% showing Samsung to have better battery. The near absence of test results where Samsung wins compared to the relative glut of results where TSMC wins suggests that this is not the case.
I'm not suggesting that folks go out and repeatedly exchange their phone until they get a TSMC chip, given all the other things that can go wrong from phone to phone and the sheer amount of time you'd waste. But I think people deserve to be aware of the possible compromise they are making when buying a 6s or SE.
And in the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the improved battery life on my TSMC 6s (received as a replacement for a launch day Samsung 6s whose battery life dropped through the floor).
Geekous phoneous, sub species found congregating around the macrumor's phone forums watering hole.
Last edited: