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
I've heard that TSMC A9 from Factory 37 are 15% better than those from Factory 39, and Apple didn't tell us !Uhhm maybe a dumb question i'm asking now but how can I see from which factory I have a chip ?
just curious that's all
#factorygate !!!!
/s
just one reason: they read MacRumors
@arnoldkim can we please stop reporting on pointless stories. The entire reason this whole battery issue got blown out of proportion was because you and other media websites reported the findings of one extremely flawed test with a click-bait headline. And then we've had how many follow ups on the same subject? Is ad-revenue down or something? Geeze.
Exactly. same. I do care about cosmetic defects, or if a button acts weird, unusual feel or sound or clicking screen and things like that, but this issue in particular no. and I am incredibly picky.
They should have just put 100% tsmc chips in 6S and 100% Samsung in 6S+, then there wouldn't be any real reason to suspect a difference. In reality the difference is too small to really measure. Splitting the manufacturers between the devices would have just prevented internet people from freakibg out over nothing by eliminating "equivalent" devices to compare against.
Of course apple couldn't have known (maybe have guessed) that this would have exploded like it did.
Of course apple couldn't have known (maybe have guessed) that this would have exploded like it did.
I think, since the beginning , TSMC is better than Samsung as independent foundry.
As usual Samsung's philosophy is to try to impress people with the paper numbers (14nm ... 8 cores ... 3 Gb ... and so on) without thoroughly evaluating real advantages.
So definitely no sympathy for Samsung on my part, but the point here is: is there any actual differences during normal usage ?
multiple suppliers, not.
multiple suppliers for the same SoC, yes.
Samsung image isn't getting any better here ....
As usual they aimed too high and under delivered....
fortunate you can't ....
I don't know. I mean, I am a VERY picky person. I have returned phones for very, very small cosmetic things, buttons not clicking correctly, small cosmetic defects that people would think are insane, but this one just doesn't bother me. From first glance I don't think the testing is accurate and It REALLY probably boils down to like 10 minutes or even nothing at all in real world usage. You want to know what kills your battery? terrible settings , facebook background app refresh, frequent locations, and all of those annoying things that I have fine tuned in my phone to perfection. Have the samsung and have not noticed any difference whatsoever from my 6. Sailing smoothly. That being said, I would return a phone for a very small nick in the aluminum, so, everyone has their thing.
Wow this made its way back to Apple...see the power of the web and forums? It shouldn't be a shock this made news because does Samsung really have our best interest?
True.
This is a big failure in testing methodology as webgl and gfx bench will stress GPU which is a separate chip called PowerVR. No wonder the differences are minimal there.
It's like Environmental testing agency testing Volkswagen's Petrol engines and concluding that Diesel engines are within their pollution norms.
Pretty horrible article.
WiFi Browsing test: The CPU is asleep most of the time. Network access is incredibly slow by CPU standards. Any impact on battery life from the CPU during WiFi browsing would be negligible, as is shown here.
WebGL: GPU-based test. The GPU is an independent part, sourced from a third party. Perhaps customized somewhat knowing Apple, but the claim was that the samsung CPU was using more energy, not the GPU. This test is mostly irrelevant.
Geekbench: The only true CPU-based test isn't valid, because it isn't based on real-world usage? Interesting. Well, then I guess this whole article was a waste of time, since this is the only CPU-based test we have to go on.
GFXBench: Another GPU test. Not relevant, because the CPU is the item in question here.
What a poorly thought-out article. There's basically no data here. Geekbench is the only one that's of any real value, but it truly isn't indicative of real-world usage. Regardless, it still shows a clear difference in battery life between the two CPUs, and at the very least shows conclusive proof of this issue. There is a difference in battery life, and if whatever you're doing is taxing the CPU, you WILL notice it. That's what this has proven. Real world usage is subjective. Not everyone spends their time surfing the net.
WiFi Browsing test: The CPU is asleep most of the time. Network access is incredibly slow by CPU standards. Any impact on battery life from the CPU during WiFi browsing would be negligible, as is shown here.
WebGL: GPU-based test. The GPU is an independent part, sourced from a third party. Perhaps customized somewhat knowing Apple, but the claim was that the samsung CPU was using more energy, not the GPU. This test is mostly irrelevant.
Geekbench: The only true CPU-based test isn't valid, because it isn't based on real-world usage? Interesting. Well, then I guess this whole article was a waste of time, since this is the only CPU-based test we have to go on.
GFXBench: Another GPU test. Not relevant, because the CPU is the item in question here.
What a poorly thought-out article. There's basically no data here. Geekbench is the only one that's of any real value, but it truly isn't indicative of real-world usage. Regardless, it still shows a clear difference in battery life between the two CPUs, and at the very least shows conclusive proof of this issue. There is a difference in battery life, and if whatever you're doing is taxing the CPU, you WILL notice it. That's what this has proven. Real world usage is subjective. Not everyone spends their time surfing the net.
Last edited:
Their actual battery life might interest them, not the worse case if I download the most processor intensive crap I have no interest in and use that crap till it dies, battery life....
Also, they probably trust Apple more than joe schmoe'S gut feeling I'm doing it right tests... Just like bendwhatever didn't impact the Iphone 6 sales at all.
CPU-intensive work that the Samsung chip seems to struggle with
That's not good either way
That's not good either way
What's noone? Is that like a nooner? Can't stand people writing it as noone. It's NO ONE! If you're going to write in English get it right.
I really want to call out all the people that first of all, think this is actually a significant hardware issue, and second of all, claim to be the "battery life buddahs". If all of these people haven't fine tuned their settings in DETAIL to get maximum battery life and personalize the phone, I am calling the bluff, because they havent even taken the steps to extend it in the first place. I am talking about tuning location settings to "never" or "while using" for each app custom tailored to how you use your phone, disabling location settings for apps you don't want to use your location, limiting background app refresh in extreme detail to the apps you use most and like the most, turning off frequent locations, fine tuning the system services location settings, facebook background app refresh, turning off traffic, and sending data to apple if you don't want those things, and all of those annoying things that I have fine tuned in my phone to perfection. I get pretty damn insane battery life by doing this. So while I get why people might be annoyed, I am betting 99.999999% of them have been lazy enough to not do any of the above and have the phone working for things they don't even use or need. Have the samsung and have not noticed any difference whatsoever from my 6. Sailing smoothly. I get that chip for chip it might be a difference, but I just laugh because I know these people probaby don't even do any of the above and then just complain. This issue is stupid, and trust me, I get very caught up about some issues that people would find dumb, but to each their own.
I'm sure people could do more to save battery. Just think if you did all that stuff AND you had a TSMC chip. WOW.
Regardless, I am still happy with my 6s that carries a TSMC chip in it.
That's because you've got the better chip
So, let's see......
I had a 6+ and a Note 5 and both lasted about 1.5 days under moderate use.
I have a 6S+ and a Note 5 and both last about 1.5 days under moderate use.
I checked and my 6S+ has the Samsung chip.
I'm getting great battery life and don't do heavy gaming on a phone.
Next.
I had a 6+ and a Note 5 and both lasted about 1.5 days under moderate use.
I have a 6S+ and a Note 5 and both last about 1.5 days under moderate use.
I checked and my 6S+ has the Samsung chip.
I'm getting great battery life and don't do heavy gaming on a phone.
Next.
Seriously, they could just as easily tested iPhones were the Samsung A9 outperformed the the TSMC A9. Then we'd have neurotic, ignorant people returning their iPhones with TSMC A9s trying to get Samsung A9s. This is no different than the "bendgate" nonsense last year. The only thing either crisis has proven is that if you look for stupid, you'll find it.