I am knowledgeable and I no longer deny it.
Climate change is real, man made, and overwhelming scientific evidence proves it. I don't have to believe, because it's proven.
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.
My real world experience with TSMC vs Samsung
- Thread starter Markiie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Climate change is real, man made, and overwhelming scientific evidence proves it. I don't have to believe, because it's proven.
That simply not true if you know the first thing about statistics. The other variables will be random and effectively cancel each other out with a large enough sample (100 phones should be more than sufficient).
First of all despite your claims, the geekbench test doesn't run the COU flat out. It runs things such that a specific number of calculations are complete within a specific unit time. According to geekbench, this results in about 30% CPU usage on a 6s, which is fairly typical during normal use. If the CPU was truly running flat out, the battery would probably be drained in about 2 hours even on the tsmc.
Second, as you said, it proves that running the same load on the Samsung chip results in more power consumption, which of course means the battery drains faster. The CPU is an integral part of the system and if it uses more power, it will result in less battery life.
You are right, there are many variables in the real world. That's why a standardized benchmark exists - to understand how two different devices perform given the same load. As a result it stands to reason that given identical use, the TSMC will have longer battery life. And averaged out over millions of phones, the TSMC pool will have more battery life than the Samsung pool.
No but the big tech company interested in taking our money told us that it's just a 2-3% difference if we use it under their conditions and
And you analyzed how many post exactly ? 10 ? 100 ? 1000 ?
With 20 MILLIONS iPhone sold your "statistically significant" analysis is just trash.
Who said there is a better phone ?
reported for personal attack
unfortunately not .....
you are right, and did a very good analysis, but whiners here aren't going to read a post like this.
Most of them don't even understand what's you are speaking about ...
Wow... Max(IT):
How about you make a test telling us there is no significant power efficiency? Otherwise you are just denying the fact rather than contributing the thread that people already did so many for it.
Who is whinning? It is you.
guys it was all a typo. apple meant 2-3 hours difference not %. the 9 bent phones were 9 million as all their financials are stated in the millions.
Anyone else find it funny college students all have $800 smart phones, data plans, blow money on alcohol and weed each week, but claim to be poor. Love America
Or after graduating living in the cellar of the parents home asking mom what's for dinner.
Mom can you drive me to Apple, I want to exchange the phone you got me.
A slightly faster processor is not noticeable on a phone. Extra battery life most certainly is. Battery life is one of the most important specifications of all.
My first 6S+ had a Samsung A9 and the battery life was sensational. I exchanged it due to a faulty home button and the TSMC-equipped phone I have now returns slightly inferior battery life. I've seen another poster make similar claims so don't be too rash here.
Just injecting my real-real world experience with my "inferior" (this week) Samsung chip.. These are my battery stats for yesterday - a typical daily usage. 6S on 9.1 PB4.
Around 30 - 60 minutes of Navigation via Google Maps, about 20 minutes worth of phone calls, snapped 20 - 25 photos, spent way too long on AMRC (reddit) and Tapatalk, some web surfing, an hour or so of light gaming, dozens of push/exchange emails and texts, listened to Spotify off and on through the day, and whatever else.
9 hours 35 minutes usage / 15 hours 25 minutes standby
Considering how fast it runs and that I have zero other issues with it (no yellow screen, overheating, random reboots, dead pixels, dark corners, etc) - it's hard to have many complaints.
FWIW, today has been lighter..no GPS or photos but most of everything else I rattled off above plus half an hour or more of random YouTube videos. I'm at 4 hours 18 minutes usage / 12 hours standby and have 56% battery left.
Around 30 - 60 minutes of Navigation via Google Maps, about 20 minutes worth of phone calls, snapped 20 - 25 photos, spent way too long on AMRC (reddit) and Tapatalk, some web surfing, an hour or so of light gaming, dozens of push/exchange emails and texts, listened to Spotify off and on through the day, and whatever else.
9 hours 35 minutes usage / 15 hours 25 minutes standby
Considering how fast it runs and that I have zero other issues with it (no yellow screen, overheating, random reboots, dead pixels, dark corners, etc) - it's hard to have many complaints.
FWIW, today has been lighter..no GPS or photos but most of everything else I rattled off above plus half an hour or more of random YouTube videos. I'm at 4 hours 18 minutes usage / 12 hours standby and have 56% battery left.
Last edited:
This is my experience as well. I had to return my TSMC 6s plus because of annoying lower left screen blemish. I now have a Samsung, which by the way has a much more vivid and a whiter screen than the last. I noticed this replacement has been giving me much better battery than the last. I didn't even set as new yet just restore from back up. On my TMSC it was draining much faster than I was accustomed to with the 6+. I even tried restoring as new to no change.
I hope others find this usage experience useful. I'm not here to prove which cpu is better. I could really careless which one I have. At the end of the day, if you are not having issues with your current phone and your battery is great, why waste your time. You could potentially be stuck in a replacement lottery loop. There are other outstanding defects that you could potentially get with the replacement.
I still have the blemish on the lower left screen, but it appears most have this because of the pressure of the clip in that area. I'm now contemplating if I should even return it with the possibility of receiving a replacement with the same issue and possibly other defects and not so great screen quality. I might just wait it out few months until Apple corrects this screen issue. The phone I have now is satisfying my needs as far as battery and screen quality.
Shush, be quiet about that fact. It's not what geektest says. Have you not heard, it's all about the processor. Nothing else in the phone could affect the battery life. You gonna spoil the wine, and we just got the cheese.
No worries, this doesn't prove one chip better than another, just as the few geek tests don't prove one chip is better. What it proves is the phone is a total system and isolating one component via some artificial test does not predict real world performance for any other given phone.
Last edited:
Components vary from one part to another when made by the same company. No two parts are identical. They all have tolerance. Sometimes you get one part that is better sometimes worse, but all should be within the engineering specification. If not then you got defective one to be replaced.Are there several components in the 6s or 6s Plus that are made by different companies. I don't have a dog in this fight (if I can ever get my ESN change to go through to activate my 6s, I may), but it seems that that would produce variable results.
There for sure are phones that have slightly better battery, slightly less power consuming main chip, slightly more efficient radio chips, slightly better screen that uses less power. If you by luck of draw get all the components optimized this way, your phone will be one of the best. If you you get phone that gets comports towards the lower end of acceptable, your phone will be at bottom of whatever. Most phones get a mixture. There is no way to predict or control this better, unless you want to pay $15,000 for a phone. Then we can test and build your phone from only the best possible components. Just like a NASCAR engine is built.
And you know what, with that $15,000 phone you won't be able to do anything more than with the mass produce $1,000 phone. But you would have the best to help you sleep at night.
ANGRY SHOUTY STUFF!
I saw a usage screenshot of 9 hrs 35 up there, Samsung chip. End of discussion.
My years ago iPhone 4 which had yet to be beat by all the iPhones I had after it bar the iPhone 6+ (understandably) set the 9hr+ benchmark on battery usage. I consider this case closed. Quit whining.
IPhone 4S failed it. IPhone 5 failed it. IPhone 6+ had 12+ usage due to a huge battery.
Ok I admittedly only read the first page of this thread. Despite none of these tests being scientific you have to admit that almost everyone's test is showing tsmc to have markedly better battery life. If it was truly random surely some would show even, some Samsung better etc.
And yes Apple released a statement but you cannot expect them to admit to something like this. They love to deflect and then do silent fixes or fix the next model without ever admitting anything was wrong. It would be a nightmare if they admitted to this. Granted no one has done a truly scientific test yet on real world usage but on the data points we have its at least concerning.
I have the TSMC chip and was initially upset bc at first everyone thought that was the better one to have but got over it in about 5 minutes and had no plans to return. But that was thinking it was tiny differences in performance. If it's truly 2 hours and I had a Samsung I'd be exchanging till I got a tsmc. Yes it's not been proven but there's smoke.
And yes Apple released a statement but you cannot expect them to admit to something like this. They love to deflect and then do silent fixes or fix the next model without ever admitting anything was wrong. It would be a nightmare if they admitted to this. Granted no one has done a truly scientific test yet on real world usage but on the data points we have its at least concerning.
I have the TSMC chip and was initially upset bc at first everyone thought that was the better one to have but got over it in about 5 minutes and had no plans to return. But that was thinking it was tiny differences in performance. If it's truly 2 hours and I had a Samsung I'd be exchanging till I got a tsmc. Yes it's not been proven but there's smoke.
Yea I read what he did and commented. I didn't feel I had to read 4 more pages of people arguing and ranting. Was there some factual evidence I missed, or was it the typical this isn't scientific, my Samsung is just fine it gets X hours, geek bench doesn't represent real usage etc etc in every other thread about this?
Guys, the question is very simple: Can the Samsung and the TSMC version of this A9 chip do the same amount of calculations in the same amount of time (=performance) with the same amount of consumed energy (=battery power)?
With other words: Is the PERFORMANCE per WATT equal?
Let's ASSUME the Samsung version has indeed a significant worse performance to watt ratio. The next question is how much you will actually notice considering this A9 chip is one of many other components in your phone?
Situations where you read a lot of email, whatsapp your friends all day and make many phonecalls, you will NOT notice any significant difference. These are all phone usages that typically DO NOT require any real processing power on the A9 chip. However they all DO use your screen and your network/radio chip. Let's keep things simple and say the screen and network/radio chip account for 85% of the power used and the A9 chip the remaining 15% in this particular scenario. A less efficient A9 chip will only make 15% of the phones total power consumption less efficient. Apple's claim of 1-3 % average difference could easily be true.
So if YOUR usage doesnt really stress the A9 chip it doesn't really matter if you have the Samsung or the TSMC version. But consider the fact that the more computing intensive tasks you do with your phone, the bigger the difference will be.
The geekbench battery test is obviously on the other side of the scale and thus shows the biggest difference in battery life. In this case the A9 chip might easily consume 80% of the power used and the screen and radio and other components the remaining 20%. A less efficient chip wil play a much bigger role in this scenario.
But what about gaming? Or recording video's and transcoding them to lower quality or editting them? Or making a lot of live pictures during the day? Or using some TomTom navigation app? How do these stack up? Will the phone still be in the 1-3 % range compared to the TSMC chip?
And last but not least: What about the future? A future where mobile apps and games will quickly get more and more advanced and system requirements will go up. What if a game comes out that really utilizes/needs the processing power the A9 chip from the Iphone 6s has? Will we all be in for a nasty surprise where the significant lower battery life isn't limited anymore to some artificial geekbench battery test?
Im very curious if someone tested a few more scenario's except geekbench and a 1 hour youtube video.
With other words: Is the PERFORMANCE per WATT equal?
Let's ASSUME the Samsung version has indeed a significant worse performance to watt ratio. The next question is how much you will actually notice considering this A9 chip is one of many other components in your phone?
Situations where you read a lot of email, whatsapp your friends all day and make many phonecalls, you will NOT notice any significant difference. These are all phone usages that typically DO NOT require any real processing power on the A9 chip. However they all DO use your screen and your network/radio chip. Let's keep things simple and say the screen and network/radio chip account for 85% of the power used and the A9 chip the remaining 15% in this particular scenario. A less efficient A9 chip will only make 15% of the phones total power consumption less efficient. Apple's claim of 1-3 % average difference could easily be true.
So if YOUR usage doesnt really stress the A9 chip it doesn't really matter if you have the Samsung or the TSMC version. But consider the fact that the more computing intensive tasks you do with your phone, the bigger the difference will be.
The geekbench battery test is obviously on the other side of the scale and thus shows the biggest difference in battery life. In this case the A9 chip might easily consume 80% of the power used and the screen and radio and other components the remaining 20%. A less efficient chip wil play a much bigger role in this scenario.
But what about gaming? Or recording video's and transcoding them to lower quality or editting them? Or making a lot of live pictures during the day? Or using some TomTom navigation app? How do these stack up? Will the phone still be in the 1-3 % range compared to the TSMC chip?
And last but not least: What about the future? A future where mobile apps and games will quickly get more and more advanced and system requirements will go up. What if a game comes out that really utilizes/needs the processing power the A9 chip from the Iphone 6s has? Will we all be in for a nasty surprise where the significant lower battery life isn't limited anymore to some artificial geekbench battery test?
Im very curious if someone tested a few more scenario's except geekbench and a 1 hour youtube video.