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.
Controlled Testing Supports Apple's Claim of Nearly Equal iPhone 6s Battery Life With TSMC and Samsung Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Didn't most people at the start want Samsung because it had the 14nm size vs. TSMC's 16nm?
So I ordered 6S+, and this was my test result. Please see attached for Geekbench benchmark.
Setup:
- Brand spanking new 6S+ straight out of the box, brand new setup, inserted SIM to activate phone, signed in to my AppleID, everything default based on setup as a new iphone, turned off phone and removed sim, turn on phone and using wifi downloaded GB3, charged phone to 100%, unplugged, and ran GB3 with Dim ON (Wifi also on).
The posted was the result. Lasted less than most ppl reported online. Batter test results were dismal. The performance results were consistent with reported online. Perhaps a new battery that hasn't been broken in yet? Anyhow, the phone was returned.
Setup:
- Brand spanking new 6S+ straight out of the box, brand new setup, inserted SIM to activate phone, signed in to my AppleID, everything default based on setup as a new iphone, turned off phone and removed sim, turn on phone and using wifi downloaded GB3, charged phone to 100%, unplugged, and ran GB3 with Dim ON (Wifi also on).
The posted was the result. Lasted less than most ppl reported online. Batter test results were dismal. The performance results were consistent with reported online. Perhaps a new battery that hasn't been broken in yet? Anyhow, the phone was returned.
Attachments
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/iphone-6s-a9-samsung-vs-tsmc,30306.html
I'll just leave that here...
"Based on the results of our testing, it's clear that both versions of Apple's A9 SoC deliver the same level of performance, but Samsung's 14nm FinFET process appears to offer slightly better power efficiency, extending battery life between 3.5-10.8 percent."
Geez... now Tom's says Samsung delivers the better chip with longer battery life...
This battle will go on forever...
So they didn't use the geek bench battery test because they saw that it causes a big difference in Ars Technica's test? Isn't that the whole point of this controversy? So they trust the software to test the performance, but not battery. Right.
Cult of Mac reporting 50 minute battery advantage to TSMC using real world heavy usage....
http://www.cultofmac.com/391574/tsmc-a9-chip-gains/
Seems there are a few conflicting results out there atm. Not sure if Apple is bankrolling fud to quash 14 day returns with confusion or what. Certainly Toms completely dismissing geekbench battery tests without even so much as a mention seems to be pandering to the mass media which will just go with the headline result without questioning the methodology. Rather odd no? Especially when relying on the other benchmarks within the app.
Either way, buyer beware at the moment. Let it stew for a few more days I say. My biggest concern if proven would indeed be the extent of Apples reach and the corruption in the media - let's all hope this is not the case.
http://www.cultofmac.com/391574/tsmc-a9-chip-gains/
Seems there are a few conflicting results out there atm. Not sure if Apple is bankrolling fud to quash 14 day returns with confusion or what. Certainly Toms completely dismissing geekbench battery tests without even so much as a mention seems to be pandering to the mass media which will just go with the headline result without questioning the methodology. Rather odd no? Especially when relying on the other benchmarks within the app.
Either way, buyer beware at the moment. Let it stew for a few more days I say. My biggest concern if proven would indeed be the extent of Apples reach and the corruption in the media - let's all hope this is not the case.
This is what they wrote in the comments in response to this very concern:
We did not run the Geekbench battery test because it's not part of our usual test suite, and we're not familiar enough with how it works or with the accuracy of its results.
I saw the Ars Technica article. It seems a bit odd that every test except Geekbench battery shows minimal difference, while Geekbench shows a 20+% gap. This is a red flag to me that something might not be working right with this test and is another reason we did not include those results.
- Matt Humrick, Mobile Editor, Tom's Hardware
Who knows, it's entirely possible that the latest version of Geekbench needs to be tweaked to accommodate the latest chips.
That Cult of Mac article is already a few days old (years in tech talk), and it's sourcing tests from a random YouTuber...
I'd put my eggs in Tom's basket in this case.
CPU and GPU is built within the same chip, crafted with same process (14nm or 16nm), by the same manufacturer, so WHAT makes the difference? WHY the power usage of GPU is almost identical but CPU is not?
And for god's sake you too should read another test at https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/iphone-6s-tsmc-samsung-case-study.1927888/. Same Geekbench test, different settings (leave screen and LTE/BT on), and the battery life is almost identical.
Geekbench, screen off, LTE/BT off, Samsung version draws 28% more power comparing to TSMC.
Geekbench, screen on, LTE/BT on, Samsung version draws the same amount of power as TSMC.
I can't explain this phoneme but apparently something in 'normal' Geekbench test (that is, turn off screen and networking) triggered a special ultra-power-drain operation mode on Sammy's A9.
I'd recklessly forecast that you'll NOT experience 28% of battery difference if you don't turn down screen brightness and turn on airplane mode at the same time, while doing CPU intensive tasks.
You returned a phone based on a simulation result? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You already had it, you could try actually using it for a day or two to see what the real-world results would be.
Got the feeling that the geekbench test, stays in the same CPU/die area, doesn't look for outside interupts, by not having outside components on. That may trip up some very precise edge cases.
Also, In a mobile chip, having the screen and LTE on means it normally would be going into low power mode (because few mobile apps and desktop apps actually work in those cases!). Nobody's doing raytracing or heavy encoding on their phone WHILE in airplane mode! This is what that stupid screen off, LTE off test is basically simulating.
What I said is blah blah? You must be an intelligent person! Thanks for the feedback!
Also, what part of Europe are you from?
This 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 I have my program in the background, I can generate 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 they deleted comments questioning their background program.
Samsung has a record of dishonest PR.what are you saying??
that Tom's been bought??
Samsung Fined For Paying People to Criticize HTC's Products
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=20671547
paying some posters to bad mouth HTC
is not the same as buying good old Tom!
he CANNOT be bought
A lot of people would like to see the same benchmarks without any background programs, and with display and wifi and others off.paying some posters to bad mouth HTC
is not the same as buying good old Tom!
he CANNOT be bought
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 is misleading, when the test results mostly reflect the power consumption of other components, not to mention the effects of the unknown background programs.
Last edited:
FYI: I just ran my battery down to 5 percent after a full charge on my 6s+ under normal usage for me: I got 7 hours usage with 94 hours stand by. I mainly used Nplayer (movies), messages and maps -- combined they used about 75 percent of the battery.
Don't know if this is good or bad or average. I'm guessing average.
I don't know which chip I have.
Don't know if this is good or bad or average. I'm guessing average.
I don't know which chip I have.
I don't like Samsung either. I'm Taiwanese and I've eyewitness on the scandal you mentioned; I've even battled with those paid-trolls in forum flames. But that's a different case. Honesty had nothing to do with CPU power usage, unless you're accusing that Samsung is cheating on the shipment testing result and all the CPUs in those test sample are defected.
Samsung is a nation-scale megacorp, like those you may see in comics. They DO involve everything from cradle to crypt, literally. Their smartphone department and semiconductor department are in fact two different enterprises by the standard of the rest of world.