Well, it certainly squashes the myth that the Samsung process is a great advancement.

It being a full Apple design, including stuff like the speed governor, Samsung are only really doing the lithography.

It is likely yet another spoof.

That's fair enough. Only recently some have claimed that the speed and power improvements are as a result of Samsung. However, we seem to agree that it is down to the apple design.

Perhaps different reviews/testers had different chips in their iPhones as this report says the battery life varies upto 2 hours depending on who manufactured the chip:

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-chip-supplier

Doubtful I would have thought! More likely, perhaps, that the Guardian did not let the handset settle down in their initial (poor) battery life report. I have always found that a new iPhone uses battery faster until its second or third charge.

Hi

Just read this on here:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/new...pqxNbj2XnZ08HR

Unfortunately that App isn't available in the UK App Store. R there any alternatives in the UK App Store?

Thanks

Baz

The Lirum app was available earlier today as I downloaded it, but it seems it may of been removed from the App Store.

Well it's back now and I've got the better cpu ... And for the record I used to have a 5S and now I have a 6s and it has to be said the battery life is great!

Guys as long as you've had a low battery warning since you've had your 6s you should be able to find out what cpu you have without any apps.

Go to Settings - Privacy - Diagnostics & Useage - Diagnostics & Useage Data. Scroll through the list until you find out that says lowbattery. Open the text file and near the bottom it will say the cpu version.

I'm quite surprised there is (allegedly) so much difference between versions of the same handset. It does make you worry a bit more about what you are buying. In the wake of the vw troubles does this mean that the test units were perhaps the better chips and the consumer units are more likely to be the lesser ones ?

Well, no one seem to worry when Samsung were corrupting benchmark tests, so I think I'll sleep easy on this one

I would say no company should be fixing the results be it Samsung, Apple or VW.

Can't believe you would have lost sleep if it had been a first though.

It has nothing to do with the battery being efficient though it is the software, it isn't a magic battery.

Yes they did/do. Indeed, many benchmarking apps were re-written to detect and expose such cheating.

In some cases, manufacturers now allow the 'cheat' mode to be enabled so you can run at full performance all the time, at the expense of battery life, rather than previously saving it only for benchmarking and throttling the hell out of the device at other times of heavy load.

Also, Samsung uses either its own camera image sensor on the Galaxy S6 models OR a Sony sensor and the net is full of people showing differences. Sony also used different screens on some Xperia phones, with varying viewing angles. Both have caused many hundreds of people to get upset (it may be more, but most people won't know so will live life in blissful ignorance).

It's a risk when a manufacturer sources components from multiple suppliers and it's ironic that it has only become 'news' because it has been found to cause an issue on an Apple device.

Of course, the common theme will be that every manufacturer will have it written somewhere in a document you never read that there can be tolerances and couple that with people who will say 'get over it', 'stop moaning' these problems will continue.

No point in trying to turn this into Apple vs Samsung, or try and link it to the VW scandal. It's not a scandal, but now people are at least aware that this is something that probably applies to almost every phone out there, and will also apply to other electronic products too.

People often quote this "Samsung did it too" type response. Firstly, I'm no Samsung fan either. Secondly, does that make it right ?

I would say that selling two (allegedly) very different products as the same item is quite dubious. Or do you think it's acceptable practice ?

The car I drive comes in two "flavours". A 240bhp version and a 275bhp version. Would it be acceptable to sell them as the same product and let it be random " luck" which version you get ??

Don't get me wrong I won't lose sleep over it either. IMHO though it's very poor practice and I find it wierd that anyone would think it's OK ??

Same if Samsung do it, or HTC, or VW or anyone. I would be equally critical.

Apple have already said that the difference between the 2 is a tiny percentage and well within the tolerance of a production device.

Your car example is a very good one as every manufacturers of cars will use multiple suppliers of the same components.

It would be interesting to see what the "tiny tolerance" is.

These reports are suggesting that the differences are quite significant.

It needs more scientific testing to see if the two hour difference (which is quite significant) is real, or if there are other factors.

But Apple is going to come along and say it's not an issue, and that will be it. Perhaps Apple will throttle one of the chipsets to more evenly match the performance/battery consumption and solve the problem (i.e. reduce the battery life on the models that perform better).

Apple quote 3%.

On a sample of one I have the (allegedly) better one but it is a consumer unit.
However, do you really think Apple would put out two different versions of the same phone with such a vast difference in battery life and pretend they were the same. I really think not. I am pretty sure we will look back on this "CPUGate" as yet another storm in a teacup.

quite possibly.
other sources are quoting hours of usage.
proper independent testing would be useful.

quite possibly.

i wouldnt have believed VW diesels would have software to deliberately cheat tests a few weeks ago ......

http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/08/tsmc-i...sung-chipgate/

Differences seem to be linked to specific usage patterns. Not sure I'd want to be caught with the Samsung one though. Wonder why the app has been pulled ?

Quite bizarre that a instance of one manufacturer doing something makes everything acceptable. Of course this even applied to criminal behavior at the far end of spectrum.

Apple has always had this problem such as huge differences in screen performance, which were dismissed as not an issue by Apple. Of course this from a company which said only 9 phones had bent before changing to proper aluminium in the next 'generation'

You really have to look at the history of this when attempting to make any sense of it, suppliers and manufacturers seldom telling the public anything.

What we know is that there are now 3 chip suppliers involved, 2 providing 14 nm and 1 latecome, TSMC providing 16nm.
Newcomer Global Foundries's new 14nm was said to be at a low production rate so it forced Apple into last minute using TSMC, Apple having only signed up to Samsung to buy what spare capacity Samsung had available.

There is a shedload of missing info here. Are the Global Foundry chips of low quality neccessitating a higher voltage requirement and lower battery life. Or did TSMC give a mixed supply of Finfet and Finfet+, the + version having ULV capabilities for lower wattage?

Or are some TSMC ones at fault, running slower when warm, thus improving battery life at the cost of performance? I doubt anyone will find out, and as well as having 3 suppliers and a theoretically 4 possible Socs, we also have that possibility of Apple using various battery supplies, of mildly mixed performace/quality.

The only confidence I see is that the 14nm Samsung and Global Foundries silicon runs faster, but not the 10% faster CPU some have claimed. Yet even there, TSMC Finfet+, if used, could be overclocked to compensate for 16nm slowness, and still use less battery!