Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Are you returning your Samsung chip iPhone for a TSMC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cnotes2019 said:
Sorry I meant besides using any app. Can't you go into settings etc and find out which you have by some identifying mark? Thanks
Click to expand...

There was one where you went into the settings but it was unreliable, well it basically said everyone had the Samsung model.

There's an app for computer you can get, cant remember what it's called though. Your best bet is lirum.
 
CraigGB said:
you guys know the Samsung is the best chip again this week don't you? 😛

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-tsmc,30306.html
Click to expand...


Samsung is better according to Anandtech too.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/10/samsung-vs-tsmc-comparing-the-battery-life-of-two-apple-a9s/

Samsung-vs-TSMC-iPhone-6S.001-640x470.png
 
I just want the most dependable and reliable with least amount of problems. I keep my iPhone's avg three years. Maybe Samsung better as long as I have a nice screen I don't care.
 
Nope. After seeing Tom's comparison, I'm going to exchange my TSMC iPhone at Apple and demand that they give me one powered by a Cyrix 166.
 
My iPhone 6s plus Steel Grey 128gb has the TSMC chip and my phone lasts for 2 full days before I have to charge it. That is pretty good for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carotdo
hammy434 said:
20% variation hmm...
Click to expand...
On one benchmark that does not in any way reflect real usage. Talk about a mountain out of a molehill.

EVERY other benchmark shows a minimal difference. Yet you persist with hanging onto the oddity. Also if the Samsung chip meets Apple's specifications, then any advantage with a TSMC is a bonus. If there is a fault then that is a different matter.

EDIT: Member since Thursday... hmmmmmm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HEK and Gathomblipoob
cjmillsnun said:
On one benchmark that does not in any way reflect real usage. Talk about a mountain out of a molehill.

EVERY other benchmark shows a minimal difference. Yet you persist with hanging onto the oddity. Also if the Samsung chip meets Apple's specifications, then any advantage with a TSMC is a bonus. If there is a fault then that is a different matter.

EDIT: Member since Thursday... hmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

i am now actually beginning to think there might not be any difference, its just the first 2 videos i watched from austin evans and jonathon morrison basically suggested there was a huge difference in geekbench and real world.

now ive watched more videos and read more things, geekbench is the only program with a major difference and other real world tests have shown they are similar. however i still want to know why there's such a huge difference on geekbench, its kind of weird, i hope its an error in their code cause i really dont want to worry about this when getting the 6s.

yes, i joined to talk about this, as im probably getting a 6s next year so it was a concern to me. i got fed up of people saying this wasn't an issue when they had no idea, and then the people who were saying it was completely acceptable to have a 20% difference because the samsung one still meets the battery life stats by apple. they were probably the same people who said antennagate and bendgate weren't an issue even though we know now they were. so if you're suggesting i'm joining to troll (not saying you are, but that's how i took it), no, i'm just concerned about this issue and want to give my opinion, see others opinions and also see news about it that people post.

edit: although the 20% geekbench difference thing is still kind of worrying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, Broadus and Jayjew
First of all I personally believe the difference between the phones is so small the only people who would care are OCD. Like 3-4% who cares.

With that said all these tests are a joke. Unless someone is testing hundreds of TSMC and Sammy chips I could car less. Even then sample size is small with millions of phones. There is a major variance in the silicon in both chips.

Also think about true battery. Not the stupid software saying 100%. That's not a real indication. After it says 99 or 100 it's trickle charging for like 90 minutes or so and then it stars discharging the battery a bit and then back to trickle charge. This is so you can literally keep your phone on a cord for 20 hours and not harm it.

So how much the batteries are actually at to start these tests matters. Not just both phones saying 100 or 97 or whatever. You will also notice it takes longer to burn and charger battery above and below 80%. That's just software making a guess.

But let's continue to feed the OCD hunger with these tests!
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEK
cjmillsnun said:
On one benchmark that does not in any way reflect real usage. Talk about a mountain out of a molehill.

EVERY other benchmark shows a minimal difference. Yet you persist with hanging onto the oddity. Also if the Samsung chip meets Apple's specifications, then any advantage with a TSMC is a bonus. If there is a fault then that is a different matter.

EDIT: Member since Thursday... hmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

It's not about it being a 2% or 22% difference. The point here is that it's 2 different CPUs (technically the same specs, but they were made differently, and are a different size), that are giving different results (as minor as they are). As a customer paying big bucks, why should it be a gamble, whether you're going to get the 'better' of the 2? That's not fair - we are all paying the same money, so we should get the same product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and Jayjew
Xil3 said:
It's not about it being a 2% or 22% difference. The point here is that it's 2 different CPUs (technically the same specs, but they were made differently, and are a different size), that are giving different results (as minor as they are). As a customer paying big bucks, why should it be a gamble, whether you're going to get the 'better' of the 2? That's not fair - we are all paying the same money, so we should get the same product.
Click to expand...
It's only a damn gamble because Apple ALLOWED developers to access the information as to what cpu is inside. If they had simply just blocked them? Problem solved and nobody would have noticed a damn thing.

If real world usage was 20% difference? Sure

But there have now been several real world tests done showing 1-3% difference, sometimes less then 1% difference

You sure as hell would have never said anything about that if you never knew there was a different cpu made
 
  • Like
Reactions: potassium404 and CraigGB
hammy434 said:
i am now actually beginning to think there might not be any difference, its just the first 2 videos i watched from austin evans and jonathon morrison basically suggested there was a huge difference in geekbench and real world.

now ive watched more videos and read more things, geekbench is the only program with a major difference and other real world tests have shown they are similar. however i still want to know why there's such a huge difference on geekbench, its kind of weird, i hope its an error in their code cause i really dont want to worry about this when getting the 6s.

yes, i joined to talk about this, as im probably getting a 6s next year so it was a concern to me. i got fed up of people saying this wasn't an issue when they had no idea, and then the people who were saying it was completely acceptable to have a 20% difference because the samsung one still meets the battery life stats by apple. they were probably the same people who said antennagate and bendgate weren't an issue even though we know now they were. so if you're suggesting i'm joining to troll (not saying you are, but that's how i took it), no, i'm just concerned about this issue and want to give my opinion, see others opinions and also see news about it that people post.

edit: although the 20% geekbench difference thing is still kind of worrying.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have joined just to discuss this, if you dare disagree with the minority you have gone "full blown *****" don't worry if you do get the Sammy chip just swap it out for the TSMC.

Be careful even mentioning anything in regards to the Sammy chip being less than par with the TSMC, you'll have people on these forums showing up outside your house with pitchforks and torches.

In all honesty I don't give to flying ***** what anyone on this forum says, and you shouldn't either, do what you feel is right and what makes you satisfied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hammy434
Xil3 said:
It's not about it being a 2% or 22% difference. The point here is that it's 2 different CPUs (technically the same specs, but they were made differently, and are a different size), that are giving different results (as minor as they are). As a customer paying big bucks, why should it be a gamble, whether you're going to get the 'better' of the 2? That's not fair - we are all paying the same money, so we should get the same product.
Click to expand...


That explanation right there is exactly what I have been trying to say, but everyone looks past it.

My guess is the majority posting negative comments are the ones with the TSMC, and it would bug them if everyone had a TSMC as they'd have nothing to feel superior about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndrewR23
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back