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

[HEK]

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.

Very good point, I forgot about those events.

 

[HEK]

to be fair if the Samsung chip was somehow cheating then surely it would be the one winning the Geekbench battery test and not losing it?

honestly I think the best example of real world usage is to be found in the battery related threads and so far there hasn't been anything to indicate there is an issue in real world usage between the chips., I'm sure time will provide more answers though

If Samsung was cheating by going to higher state then would heat more and consume more power. They went for higher speed cheat, not battery longevity cheat. They correcting that for next time as we text.

 

[HEK]

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.

What is misleading is to overly weight the CPU by shutting everything else off. When I use my phone I use all the components. Isolating only one is wonderful for an academic exercise but means next to nothing if that component uses 5% of overall power. It's well known the screen is major energy user, with radios right after with wild variation bases on reception, connectivity conditions. Let's assume a 20% difference due to chip type, multiply that by 5% power usage by chip and all of a sudden Non Issue.

Does anyone know relative breakdown of component power consumption. Even this is of course variable. But are their average ball park estimates. Like screen uses 50%, LTE radio uses 20%, Gps, 10%, graphics chip, 7%, Cpu 6%, everything else 7%. This would enter greatly in real world results Apple is reporting.

I have two bathroom night lights. One is incandescent bulb using 5 watts, other is LED using 1 watt. When I shut everything else down in my home the two night lights are vastly different, with LED consuming only 1/5 the power yet giving same light output. So a house with the LED Nitelight is way better. That is until I turn everything else back on and wonder of wonders the two houses are not so vastly different. Just the nightlights.

I went to my real estate agent and traded four houses till I got one with an LED nightlight. Now I am happy.

 

[CraigGB]

If Samsung was cheating by going to higher state then would heat more and consume more power. They went for higher speed cheat, not battery longevity cheat. They correcting that for next time as we text.

the thing is Samsung were cheating through software, it's not done through hardware. if one of the chips was cheating as you put it then it would be Apple who would have caused that and they have never done that before.

anyway I'm done with these threads, it's been going round and round in circles for days and well honestly in the end my phone can easily get two days of battery life and if anything it exceeds Apple's stated performance and my expectations, as far as I'm concerned my battery life is incredible so I'm going to go actually enjoy my phone.

 

[HEK]

the thing is Samsung were cheating through software, it's not done through hardware. if one of the chips was cheating as you put it then it would be Apple who would have caused that and they have never done that before.

anyway I'm done with these threads, it's been going round and round in circles for days and well honestly in the end my phone can easily get two days of battery life and if anything it exceeds Apple's stated performance and my expectations, as far as I'm concerned my battery life is incredible so I'm going to go actually enjoy my phone.

Hey if Apple has conspiracy paying people to report what they want. Then I can promote conspiracy that Samsung built in tiny enclave on chip to cheat test. Anyone want some tin foil for your hat?

I been enjoying my phone works great. Just want to see how deep we can trample the moat around this barn we keep circling.

 

[j2ee]

If this Tom test is not fake and they didn't use an Apple cherry picked iphones, actually Samsung chip may be better than TSMC. There is really no other test has similar result as Geekbench in any review or youtube testing.

 

[MH01]

So it's going to come down to which review sites you trust

 

[evorc]

So it's going to come down to which review sites you trust

Or just move on enjoy the phone and not care .

 

[MH01]

Or just move on enjoy the phone and not care .

You are so correct. Im just loving using the iPhone 6S

 

[Ries]

The test is described as:

At its core, Geekbench 3 runs a subset of tests in a loop, trying to perform a given number of iterations per second. If the device manages to get these done, it spends the remaining time sitting idle. If not, the target iterations are reduced. The resulting score is then the multiplication of the total runtime of the test (so from 100% battery to 0%) times the average number of iterations per second. By rewarding phones that complete more iterations per second and spend less time idle, the benchmark essentially polices itself and doesn't allow poorly-performing devices to climb to the top through runtime alone, as that would have been the result of more time spent idle and not burning through its battery.
Read more at http://www.phonearena.com/news/Batt...gainst-each-other_id70173#3jrCMTBV2hRBtODY.99
​

Due to the difference in architecture, they could end up running at different clock speeds or the TSMC may be worse and getting reduced cycles but still come out ahead due to running longer because of the reduces loops. These self regulating routines could be unstable. Theres like a million tings that could cause this test not to be "equal" among SOCs.

 

[j2ee]

The test is described as:

At its core, Geekbench 3 runs a subset of tests in a loop, trying to perform a given number of iterations per second. If the device manages to get these done, it spends the remaining time sitting idle. If not, the target iterations are reduced. The resulting score is then the multiplication of the total runtime of the test (so from 100% battery to 0%) times the average number of iterations per second. By rewarding phones that complete more iterations per second and spend less time idle, the benchmark essentially polices itself and doesn't allow poorly-performing devices to climb to the top through runtime alone, as that would have been the result of more time spent idle and not burning through its battery.
Read more at http://www.phonearena.com/news/Batt...gainst-each-other_id70173#3jrCMTBV2hRBtODY.99
​

Due to the difference in architecture, they could end up running at different clock speeds or the TSMC may be worse and getting reduced cycles but still come out ahead due to running longer because of the reduces loops. These self regulating routines could be unstable. Theres like a million tings that could cause this test not to be "equal" among SOCs.

They suppose to have same architecture but just the size different?