|
||||||||
IPhone 6s breaks battery efficiency records. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,206
|
Quote:
2 days, do you even use it throughout the day?
There's no way I'd get 2 days out of my 6s plus, just about manage a day. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,478
|
My 6+ lasts a full day most days I work 13 hours a day and I'm on about 20% by the end of the shift. No other smart phone has done this. I would always go plus
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,206
|
Quote:
But the challenge is to always try and make things thinner (hence the battery size reduction allegedly).
I'd be quite happy to have another couple of mm on my phone if it gave me more battery life. I suspect that (all sides) have got so embroiled with being thinnest/lightest that they sometimes forget what's important. If my nexus 6 was 2mm thicker but had twice the battery life id be quite happy. A more efficient battery is great, but I want it to give me more battery life, not the same but smaller. Obviously just my opinion and that's a hardware/OS neutral opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
From Gsmarena we know the battery stats near enough match those of the Edge Plus, but what I am still curious about is the small nuances of having 2 different A9 Socs in the very same phone.
It sounds likely that the one with the 10% bigger Soc is worse on battery, more so if Apple needs to overclock the bigger 16nm Soc to match the speed of the smaller, likely faster 14nm Soc. In the past Samungs phones varied more when Samsung multi sourced , but their Qualcomm models sold in a different market c/w battery benchmarks for each SOC |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,983
|
I suppose this gives Apple fans something else to convince themselves they've done the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,644
|
Just noticed a report in the Gardian to say the iPhone 6S has a bad battery so don't know which report is correct?
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...h-battery-life Maybe they should have increased the battery size slightly? |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
Just noticed a report in the Gardian to say the iPhone 6S has a bad battery so don't know which report is correct?
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...h-battery-life Maybe they should have increased the battery size slightly? ![]() To be honest though battery life is a very personal thing. Reliance on a couple of specific apps van mean the difference between hours of extra life. I also find in low signal areas, or where the signal keeps changing (such as on trains) my battery life is much worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 8,954
|
Quote:
Just noticed a report in the Gardian to say the iPhone 6S has a bad battery so don't know which report is correct?
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...h-battery-life Maybe they should have increased the battery size slightly? Quote:
receiving hundreds of emails and push notifications, conducting 2.5 hours of browsing, three hours of music playback via Bluetooth headphones, taking a couple of pictures and playing the odd game of Angry Birds 2 on the train home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,644
|
Quote:
There was quite a bit of usage throughout the day from 07:30 and the battery lasted till around 23:00, that's pretty good going for a smartphone isn't it?
).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,153
|
Initially my new 6s plus didn't seem to have the same battery life as my old 6 plus, but it's great now after bedding in with a few re-charge cycles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
Regardless of how long a battery lasts the new celebration point is how efficient it is
![]() Excuses for smaller batteries? Reality stranger than fiction, you couldn't invent this spin Why the negativity? More efficient batteries is a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
|
What does battery efficiency mean here? Longer lifespan?
Surely what you're interested in is how much power the SoC uses, the screen etc. You have nn,nnn mAh to play with - how long can you make that last? When it comes to the efficiency of a car, it's the engine not the fuel tank that you're looking at to make things more efficient. On a phone you either make the chipset less power hungry OR use a larger battery (fuel tannk) or both. But designers think we all want phones that are 4 or 5mm thick - and I don't recall phones that were 10mm thick feeling bulky. In 1994, my Nokia Orange 2140 felt portable and that was 25mm thick with the SLIM battery! (Oh and the slim battery was good for 18 hours) |
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Totnes, Devon
Posts: 6,683
|
Quote:
What does battery efficiency mean here? Longer lifespan?
Surely what you're interested in is how much power the SoC uses, the screen etc. You have nn,nnn mAh to play with - how long can you make that last? When it comes to the efficiency of a car, it's the engine not the fuel tank that you're looking at to make things more efficient. On a phone you either make the chipset less power hungry OR use a larger battery (fuel tannk) or both. But designers think we all want phones that are 4 or 5mm thick - and I don't recall phones that were 10mm thick feeling bulky. In 1994, my Nokia Orange 2140 felt portable and that was 25mm thick with the SLIM battery! (Oh and the slim battery was good for 18 hours) About 10 if you did!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Totnes, Devon
Posts: 6,683
|
I have noticed my iPhone 6 since iOS 9.0.1/2 is now doing 2 days easily. it's a bit bonkers really.
I used to have to plug it in in the car if I was using navigation otherwise it would be too low once I got to my destination. Now I hardly use the car charger at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 38
|
Quote:
From Gsmarena we know the battery stats near enough match those of the Edge Plus, but what I am still curious about is the small nuances of having 2 different A9 Socs in the very same phone.
It sounds likely that the one with the 10% bigger Soc is worse on battery, more so if Apple needs to overclock the bigger 16nm Soc to match the speed of the smaller, likely faster 14nm Soc. In the past Samungs phones varied more when Samsung multi sourced , but their Qualcomm models sold in a different market c/w battery benchmarks for each SOC http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/which-chip-does-your-6s-6s-have.1922967/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
Quote:
Efficiency is important...you can always develop a larger battery that is also more efficient and lasts even longer.
Why the negativity? More efficient batteries is a good thing. . I expect more from you, really!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
|
Quote:
Or you could bring out a new phone with a smaller battery and spin it as more efficient
. I expect more from you, really!![]() The true test is the 10s of millions who buy and use them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,450
|
Quote:
What does battery efficiency mean here? Longer lifespan?
Surely what you're interested in is how much power the SoC uses, the screen etc. You have nn,nnn mAh to play with - how long can you make that last? When it comes to the efficiency of a car, it's the engine not the fuel tank that you're looking at to make things more efficient. On a phone you either make the chipset less power hungry OR use a larger battery (fuel tannk) or both. But designers think we all want phones that are 4 or 5mm thick - and I don't recall phones that were 10mm thick feeling bulky. In 1994, my Nokia Orange 2140 felt portable and that was 25mm thick with the SLIM battery! (Oh and the slim battery was good for 18 hours)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
Apple haven't provided any spin
![]() The true test is the 10s of millions who buy and use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
But could your Nokia Orange 2140 talk you through your route home and give you onscreen maps, play console like games and shoot 4K videos etc? Didn't think so
![]() Do people really crave slimmer and slimmer phones ? Especially with the issues they often bring. It seems like so much willy-waving from all sides to say we are now 8mm thick, or 7.6 mm etc. Most aren't when you add in the camera bulge anyway. Does anyone buy a new phone because its 0.5mm thinner than a previous model ? How many of you would seriously prefer a phone to be 2mm thicker and have twice the battery life ? I certainly would. Even if my phone "usually" lasts 2 days I'd love it to "always" last 2 days regardless of what I throw at it. A few years ago it was all about phone size. Phones ended up tiny but it was just a fashion. Phones are now getting bigger but thinner. Again I would assume this is just a fashion too. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
|
Quote:
So popularity is a guage of quality ? I'm sure we could both think of many, many examples where that isn't true
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
No. Customer satisfaction is a gauge of quality.
![]() Its a potential guage of quality. It could also be a guage of value for money (unlikely in this case), pack mentality or many other things. I'm more than satisfied with buying bottled water from Morrison's. I'm not sure its quality stuff though, but it does the job
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,010
|
Improved efficiency comes from the hardware needing less power, thus lasting longer. The battery, if the same capacity, is no more or less efficient.
You can play with stats by saying that the 1,500mAh lasts as long in device X as a 2,000mAh battery lasted in device Y, but that doesn't mean the battery is more efficient. The phone is. Put a 2,000mAh battery in device X and you've just increased battery life. What's happening now is that as power consumption falls (in SOME areas) designers feel free to make even smaller phones. Christ, they did this in Japan in the mid 1990s. Absolutely minute phones. Virgin even released a ridiculously tiny phone in the UK (and some others) but then people began to want to do all the things that the Nokia 2140 couldn't (as mentioned above by someone who I suspect missed the point). Now people want larger screens. I don't feel many people really want a thinner phone and would be happy with something a bit thicker but with the same hardware performance and increased battery life, so carrying a charger or portable battery pack isn't so important. People have little choice though. Apple, Samsung and others aren't giving a choice. I recall Motorola had the Razr and Razr Maxx and the Maxx did very well. Every now and then a phone comes along with a larger battery, but often it compromises somewhere else (like a lesser SoC, weaker camera etc). In my opinion there's no need. Apple and Samsung should be proud of using the latest chipsets that are more efficient, but for goodness sake, still increase the battery so people can EASILY get a full day of usage from their phone. That's a full day even when you are using the device more heavily than normal. By rights that means ending most days with over 50% less, so you've got a large margin to play with. |
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comm..._14nm_vs_tsmc/
Whilst data seemed to show the Samung one 1% faster in overall benchmarks, things rapidly swung against Samsung with claims the battery in the TSMC one lasts as much as 33% longer. (8 hours versus 6 hours)) http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/06/d...or-bad-a9-cpu/ |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:44.




).


