But yet the Samsung is consistently the faster of the two chips, admittedly by a small margin, even in Geekbench's test. So how can it be throttling?
I was talking about Tom's Hardware test where they hammered CPU 100% non-stop.
But yet the Samsung is consistently the faster of the two chips, admittedly by a small margin, even in Geekbench's test. So how can it be throttling?
Yes it's bad.
Thermal throttling lowers CPU frequency and voltages, making it look like runs "cooler" and "more battery efficient"...
But yet the Samsung is consistently the faster of the two chips, admittedly by a small margin, even in Geekbench's test. So how can it be throttling?
I know, but if it was throttling in that test surely it would do the same in others? Why are we not seeing any evidence of throttling on the performance side, in *any* test or benchmark?I was talking about Tom's Hardware test where they hammered CPU 100% non-stop.
and in the video I linked above it shows both phones completing heavy tasks in pretty much the same amount of time, which indicates neither CPU throttles or maybe they both do![]()
I know, but if it was throttling in that test surely it would do the same in others? Why are we not seeing any evidence of throttling on the performance side, in *any* test or benchmark?
... unless you are not going to buy an iPhone 6 to run Geekbench all the daythe problem is in the end he bases his conclusion purely on the geekbench battery test still which sadly still doesn't provide any answers, he just states that based on the geekbench battery test the TSMC appears by far to have more battery life which is what we already knew but he uses big words.
in the end the conclusion he makes is as he states:
These results present strong evidence that the Geekbench battery performance of the TSMC chip is on average much better than that of the Samsung chip.
well we know that, the problem is we don't know why and if it affects real world usage or why this one benchmarks result to so different compared to every other benchmark performed on anandtech and tomshardware
basically nothing...so... what does it all mean??
except we don't have any hint about A9 throttling.Yes it's bad.
Thermal throttling lowers CPU frequency and voltages, making it look like runs "cooler" and "more battery efficient"...
Nobody outside of Apple really knows any of that kind of stuff, but it's believed that Samsung are making (or at least selling) their chips for a lower price, so it's in apple's interest to use more of them rather than less.
Then you're willfully not looking and ignoring.so far I saw A SINGLE test on two phones. Two.
Ars Technica and Tom's HW basically said Apple tell the truth.Then you're willfully not looking and ignoring.
Though I'll agree that with the Toms Hardware results going the opposite - we do need more authoritative testing. But Geekbench plus several other real world YouTube tests concluding one thing - and only Tom's on the other side of the argument - it calls into question the validity of the Toms Hardware test paradigm.
The problem is we're dealing with a change of the goal post situation. The original issue was battery life between the two chips. All these tests your pointing to are talking about CPU usage differences. Unless I'm misreading. Please post the pertinent excerpts that support your position.http://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/battery-tests-find-no-chipgate-problems-in-the-iPhone-6s
Now consumer reports is biased toward Apple, right ?