According to Toms Hardware testing the Samsung is slightly better overall lol.

[Dented]

So you are refering Primatelabs' Geekbench scandal then? Not APPLE's scandal? Becareful...

Oh honestly. You're obviously determined that this is somebody's scandal; I am not, and have inferred no such thing, so I've no idea what you keep trying to warn me about.

You brought the VW scandal into this discussion; I've only pointed out that the real lesson there is that synthetic benchmarks can be fooled, intentionally in that case, but potentially in other ways too. Putting all your faith in one entirely artificial test, and ignoring the real world experience that test is supposed to predict, is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Agent OrangeZ]

It wouldn't be surprise if Samsung is cheating in benchmarks again. Yes, cheating! It's nothing new to them. They have done it before.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7384/state-of-cheating-in-android-benchmarks

1) On the Exynos 5410, Samsung was detecting the presence of certain benchmarks and raising thermal limits (and thus max GPU frequency) in order to gain an edge on those benchmarks, and

2) On both Snapdragon 600 and Exynos 5410 SGS4 platforms, Samsung was detecting the presence of certain benchmarks and automatically driving CPU voltage/frequency to their highest state right away. Also on Snapdragon platforms, all cores are plugged in immediately upon benchmark detect.

It is not possible for Samsung to do that with an iPhone. In your examples... those were both Android phones in which Samsung controlled the SOFTWARE (OS, etc). On an iPhone, Samsung merely manufactured the chip. Apple control iOS and how it runs the hardware.

 

[Simacca]

you mean like this video? , originally posted by vietnamese in one of the other chip threads

Just goes to show that the geekbench test is flawed.

 

[j2ee]

you mean like this video? , originally posted by vietnamese in one of the other chip threads

For that youtube, all he tested except geekbench are mainly using GPU but not CPU, he doesn't know technical stuff well at all.

 

[kvnt]

The Tom’s test result is a suspect. It has an unknown and unverified program of their own running all the time in the background. This program invalidates the benchmarks, which do not allow such unknown programs in the background.

If my program in the background, I can generate whatever results that fit the highest bidder.

If someone does the same benchmarks without the background program, the result will be similar to Geekbench battery test.

It’s especially troubling that, at Tom’s website, they deleted comments questioning their background program.

 

[CraigGB]

For that youtube, all he tested except geekbench are mainly using GPU but not CPU, he doesn't know technical stuff well at all.

seriously?, you really don't like Samsung do you? . what else is he supposed to test, does 40 minutes of exporting 4K video not use the CPU?, do games not push the CPU?, what would he have to test that in your opinion would reveal this difference?, I think it's becoming increasingly clear the geekbench battery test is flawed, every other benchmark has show the two to perform the same, this video showing heavy real world usage has shown them to perform the same, I'm beginning to think you want there to be a difference :/

 

[j2ee]

seriously?, you really don't like Samsung do you? . what else is he supposed to test, does 40 minutes of exporting 4K video not use the CPU?, do games not push the CPU?, what would he have to test that in your opinion would reveal this difference?, I think it's becoming increasingly clear the geekbench battery test is flawed, every other benchmark has show the two to perform the same, this video showing heavy real world usage has shown them to perform the same, I'm beginning to think you want there to be a difference :/

Any app like Facebook that would not use GPU much. Video kind of tasks all are GPU task. I am using a super almost 10 years old CPU to play 3D game, still totally ok because my graphic card is not bad, cpu almost does nothing in 3D gaming, the GPU/graphic card handles all the 3D stuff you see on the screen, what do you expect the cpu to do? For 4K video, the gpu handles all the graphic calculation, what do you expect the cpu to do?

 

[Dented]

The Tom’s test result is a suspect. It has an unknown and unverified program of their own running all the time in the background. This program invalidates the benchmarks, which do not allow such unknown programs in the background.

If my program in the background, I can generate whatever results that fit the highest bidder.

If someone does the same benchmarks without the background program, the result will be similar to Geekbench battery test.

It’s especially troubling that, at Tom’s website, they deleted comments questioning their background program.

Tempted to just call BS but I'll ask an honest question instead - given that they obviously don't discuss this "unknown and unverified" program in their article, which is all the info anyone outside Tom's Hardware has to go on, how does anyone know that it's there?

 

[Ritte]

Yes, but it's very likely to cause thermal throttling making results hard to compare.

If that was the case then anandtech and tom's wouldn't use it.

 

[CraigGB]

Any app like Facebook that would not use GPU much. Video kind of tasks all are GPU task. I am using a super almost 10 years old CPU to play 3D game, still totally ok because my graphic card is not bad, cpu almost does nothing in 3D gaming, the GPU/graphic card handles all the 3D stuff you see on the screen, what do you expect the cpu to do? For 4K video, the gpu handles all the graphic calculation, what do you expect the cpu to do?

in the anandtech test the web browsing test was the one benchmark the Samsung won. web browsing is much more CPU then GPU focused to answer the first part of your statement, in regards to rendering/exporting video, some software may use the GPU as well as the CPU but it's always used the CPU, that's why it took 20 hours on my 2009 MBP to create a mp4 of a wedding I filmed, the entire time my core 2 duo was at 100%, I need to upgrade it

gaming I can completely confirm can definitely push a CPU, my i5 3750K is quite often pushed hard in many of the more recently games I play on my PC, GTA 5 for example will max out every core at 4 GHz 80%+ of the time

just so you know

 

[bgrimm]

Next round...
The famous german webseite heise.de tested the two versions.
Their finding about battery life: "Apple hat recht!" (Apple is right).
Furthermore: The Samsung is better

B.

 

[CraigGB]

Next round...
The famous german webseite heise.de tested the two versions.
Their finding about battery life: "Apple hat recht!" (Apple is right).
Furthermore: The Samsung is better

B.

good find

https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...Fragen-und-Antworten-2843614.html&prev=search if anyone wants it in english

they used a pretty good balance of real world scenarios that push the CPU and GPU, more evidence to suggest the geekbench battery test is flawed , hopefully this whole mess will soon be put to rest and some people might actually be able to enjoy whatever phone they got

 

[kvnt]

People would like to see the same benchmarks without any background programs, and with display and wifi and others off.

The display and wifi and other components consume much more power than the A9. Does the test intend to compare the two versions of A9s, or to compare other components?

It will be misleading, when the test results mostly reflect power consumption of other components.

 

[stulaw11]

All this shows is what most intelligent people know already so far an why this whole argument is tired already.

If there is no consensus then it's NOT that much different. If its that close that if flip flops between testors then it's so close that you will never notice it as a normal person.

 

[CraigGB]

People would like to see the same benchmarks without any background programs, and with display and wifi and others off.

The display and wifi and other components consume much more power than the A9. Does the test intend to compare the two versions of A9s, or to compare other components?

It will be misleading, when the test results mostly reflect power consumption of other components.

when I use my phone in the real world I like to use the display and wifi and maybe even background programs too, these results have shown real world usage to be as apple said within a few percent of each other

 

[kvnt]

Result from a German website:

Battery benchmark scores:

(3511-2450)/2450 = 43.3% ---- in TSMC's favor.

Images of battery test result:
http://abload.de/img/samsung_vs_tsmc_akku1os3a.jpg

The web page (In German; scroll down to see the pictures)
http://f.ifun.de/discussion/1265/6s-chipgate-test-tsmc-vs-samsung-benchmarks-screenshots-inside

 

[cableguy84]

when I use my phone in the real world I like to use the display and wifi and maybe even background programs too, these results have shown real world usage to be as apple said within a few percent of each other

i take it you have the samsung chip?

you seem to have some kind of samsung inferiority complex

 

[Prince134]

Trust the experts. I don't think Tom's make sense to me.

A statistics analysis about the chipgate:
http://tscholak.github.io/bayesianism/apple/chipgate/2015/10/14/chipgate.html

TSMC is 43% more battery efficient than SAMSUNG 6s.
Or in his words, SAMSUNG 6s is 30% less battery efficient than TSMC.

You know 100/70 -1 = 42.8% using Samsung as base,
or 70/100-1 =-30%.

Guys, TSMC is a clear winner. Don't get insane if you just feels happy with SAMSUNG 6S, and not cry again..

 

[kvnt]

when I use my phone in the real world I like to use the display and wifi and maybe even background programs too, these results have shown real world usage to be as apple said within a few percent of each other

On the comparison of A9 alone, the TSMC advantage over Samsung is about 40%, if not more. This is also an indication of the inferior Samsung 14nm process, despite Samsung's misleading PR.

On the iPhone as a whole, since components other than A9 consume most power, the total battery gap on the iphone may be only in the single digits.

Apple Inc. iPhone 6s Chipgate: The Real Loser (Hint: It’s Not Apple)

"iPhone users probably won't care, but potential foundry customers will"

"Samsung had given the "'mpression' that it was significantly ahead of TSMC at the 14/16-nanometer manufacturing technology generation."

"TSMC is able to yield A9 chips at twice the rate that Samsung is. Furthermore, I am also told by a trusted source that on the Samsung-built A9 chips, leakage power is higher and lifetime reliability is lower."

"I suspect that fabless customers will prefer to build their chips at TSMC, rather than at Samsung, given the choice."

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...iphone-6s-chipgate-the-real-loser-hint-i.aspx

 

[CraigGB]

i take it you have the samsung chip?

you seem to have some kind of samsung inferiority complex

I do and I get great battery life

actually I'm more hesitant to jump on the hysteria train that you partially seemed eager to push and shout about a few days ago in your need to brag about your chip , every year this place depends into mass panic about something or other and then it's disproven and life goes on until the next iPhone launch

before I even got my phone and had no idea what chip I would get I stated there was likely more to the whole situation then people were shouting about at the beginning based on a single benchmark, I got my phone, used it and the battery is great, checked and I had the Samsung which as it happens seems to perform just as well as others with the so proclaimed messiah chip, however much that benchmark seemed to show a difference I haven't noticed one based on my observation.

until an accurate conclusion has been reached I wasn't going to start spouting opinions as fact as that would be fairly immature, and it seems the more benchmarks that are performed and real world testing that is done the more it appears the geekbench battery test appears to be a flawed anomaly between the two chips and in real world usage it's down as usual to the silicon lottery if you get a good chip or a bad one.

I still don't understand why you feel the need to jump in and go off on one every time someone seems to suggest they might be happy with the Samsung chip or that the TSMC might not be the best thing in the world but you do, it's kinda bizarre for something that has no effect on you

Trust the experts. I don't think Tom's make sense to me.

A statistics analysis about the chipgate:
http://tscholak.github.io/bayesianism/apple/chipgate/2015/10/14/chipgate.html

TSMC is 43% more battery efficient than SAMSUNG 6s.
Or in his words, SAMSUNG 6s is 30% less battery efficient than TSMC.

You know 100/70 -1 = 42.8% using Samsung as base,
or 70/100-1 =-30%.

Guys, TSMC is a clear winner. Don't get insane if you just feels happy with SAMSUNG 6S, and not cry again..

this was posted earlier, unfortunately all it is is a analysis of the geekbench battery test scores, and we already knew there was a huge difference in that benchmark, it doesn't actually show anything new compared to that benchmark, what no one knows is why or if it translates into real world usage, hopefully there will be an explanation because every other benchmark and several articles involving real world testing have shown the two chips to be within a few percent of each other in both performance and battery life, it's a massive anomaly and one that has no explanation yet

 

[cableguy84]

I do and I get great battery life

actually I'm more hesitant to jump on the hysteria train that you partially seemed eager to push and shout about a few days ago in your need to brag about your chip , every year this place depends into mass panic about something or other and then it's disproven and life goes on until the next iPhone launch

before I even got my phone and had no idea what chip I would get I stated there was likely more to the whole situation then people were shouting about at the beginning based on a single benchmark, I got my phone, used it and the battery is great, checked and I had the Samsung which as it happens seems to perform just as well as others with the so called messiah chip, however much the that benchmark seemed to show a difference I haven't noticed one.

until an accurate conclusion has been reached I wasn't going to start spouting opinions as fact as that would be fairly immature, and it seems the more benchmarks that are performed and real world testing that is done the more it appears the geekbench battery test appears to be a flawed anomaly between the two chips and in real world usage it's down as usual to the silicon lottery if you get a good chip or a bad one.

I still don't understand why you feel the need to jump in and go off on one every time someone seems to suggest they might be happy with the Samsung chip or that the TSMC might not be the best thing in the world but you do, it's kinda bizarre for something that has no effect on you

I do and I get great battery life

actually I'm more hesitant to jump on the hysteria train that you partially seemed eager to push and shout about a few days ago in your need to brag about your chip , every year this place depends into mass panic about something or other and then it's disproven and life goes on until the next iPhone launch

before I even got my phone and had no idea what chip I would get I stated there was likely more to the whole situation then people were shouting about at the beginning based on a single benchmark, I got my phone, used it and the battery is great, checked and I had the Samsung which as it happens seems to perform just as well as others with the so proclaimed messiah chip, however much that benchmark seemed to show a difference I haven't noticed one based on my observation.

until an accurate conclusion has been reached I wasn't going to start spouting opinions as fact as that would be fairly immature, and it seems the more benchmarks that are performed and real world testing that is done the more it appears the geekbench battery test appears to be a flawed anomaly between the two chips and in real world usage it's down as usual to the silicon lottery if you get a good chip or a bad one.

I still don't understand why you feel the need to jump in and go off on one every time someone seems to suggest they might be happy with the Samsung chip or that the TSMC might not be the best thing in the world but you do, it's kinda bizarre for something that has no effect on you



this was posted earlier, unfortunately all it is is a analysis of the geekbench battery test scores, and we already knew there was a huge difference in that benchmark, it doesn't actually show anything new compared to that benchmark, what no one knows is why or if it translates into real world usage, hopefully there will be an explanation because every other benchmark and several articles involving real world testing have shown the two chips to be within a few percent of each other in both performance and battery life, it's a massive anomaly and one that has no explanation yet

im pleased you are happy with your phone, im not saying the samsung is a bad chip, just most of the evidence suggests the tsmc is better overall

 

[Dented]

im pleased you are happy with your phone, im not saying the samsung is a bad chip, just most of the evidence suggests the tsmc is better overall

Nope. One piece of evidence (the same artificial geekbench benchmark, repeated and "analysed" over and over and over again) suggests it's better. Literally everything else suggests they're the same.

 

[penajmz]

You guys are truly, really horrible. Just go live your life a little and actually enjoy the phone.

 

[penajmz]

you mean like this video? , originally posted by vietnamese in one of the other chip threads

Goes to show you that in real life usage they're pretty much the same. Put his chipgate crap to rest already!

 

[The Game 161]

Who cares

Just enjoy the damn phone you bought