Battery test shows equivalent performance of Apple A9 chips from Samsung and TSMC

A battery test seems to indicate that the various Apple A9 chips used for the iPhone 6s models, built by Samsung and TSMC, are very similar. The test in question seems to confirm Apple’s earlier claims.

Ars Technica has tested two iPhone 6s models, one of which had an A9 chip from Samsung, while the other model had that from TSMC on board. The tests with Wi-Fi browsing, WebGL and GFXBench show that the two socs differ little in terms of battery life: the differences between the socs amount to a few percent. However, when testing in Geekbench 3, larger differences arise, in favor of the TSMC chip. This one performs about 30 percent better than the Samsung variant.

Apple indicated last week that the differences between the Samsung and TSMC soc are only two to three percent in terms of battery life. The tests performed by Ars Technica seem to support that, with the exception being the Geekbench 3 test. Earlier it appeared that the TSMC chip in Geekbench 3 performs significantly better than that of Samsung, but according to Apple, this test does not give a good picture of the battery performance.

It should be noted in the tests that Ars Technica of both the Samsung and TSMC model only examined one device. Also, the battery tests have not been performed enough to exclude measurement and test variation and not all usage scenarios have yet been tested. As a result, the results do not yet provide a completely reliable picture of the battery performance of the two SOCs.

Last month it emerged that Apple has contracted both Samsung and TSMC to build its A9 soc. That is striking, because the Cupertino company always chose one manufacturer to build its processors. It is unclear why two manufacturers were chosen, but it may have something to do with the production capacity that can be delivered. Shortly after the discovery, the first claims emerged that the TSMC chip would provide better battery performance, something that has not been confirmed by Ars Technica.

Comments
Loading...