Not All iPhone 6s Processors Are Created Equal (itworld.com)

itwbennett writes: Apple is splitting the manufacture of the A9 processor for its iPhone 6s between TSMC (~60%) and rival Samsung (~40%) — "and they are not created equal," writes Andy Patrizio. For starters, Chipworks noted that Samsung uses 14nm while TSMC uses 16nm. A Reddit user posted tests of a pair of 6s Plus phones and found the TSMC chip had eight hours of battery life vs. six hours for the Samsung. Meanwhile, benchmark tests from the folks at MyDriver (if Mr. Patrizio's efforts with Google Translate got it right) also found that the Samsung chip is a bigger drain on the phone's battery, while the TSMC chip is slightly faster and runs a bit cooler. So how do you know which chip you got? There's an app for that.

Comments

Re:Too little, too late

[Grishnakh]

Simple: don't buy it at all. If a company is going to play shenanigans like this where products marketed with the exact same name and part number are significantly different and it's just a luck-of-the-draw ass to whether I get the good one or the crappy one, I'm just not going to buy their product at all.

Re:Battery Life

[TWX]

I've found that battery life on standby is very much dependent on carrier accessibility. My employer's campus has a power distribution station on the East side and is ringed on the North, South, and West sides by power lines that reach the station. We get very poor signal strength and my old Galaxy SII is lucky to survive the eight hour shift on battery if I'm at the office all day, even on standby.

Contrast to at home, where that city mandated all infrastructure be buried, and the power lines are only for neighborhood final distribution as opposed to regional distribution, and my phone can go a whole weekend on standby.

One no sim??

[Anonymous Coward]

How come

On the chinese test, the Samsung has an extra app installed on it (see the screen of the doc).
And on the Reddit users test, the TSMC has a sim card installed, the Samsung not.

Really would it have killed them to keep the same spec for each?

16 nm vs 14 nm

[chris200x9]

It's kind of interesting the CPU built on a larger process is faster, cooler, and has less power draw.

Re:Too little, too late

[DarkOx]

I don't understand why people freak out when a tech vendor releases a new model, as if they are forced to buy it or the one they have is suddenly going to explode. I do think some large vendors are guilty of abandoning support for their legacy products a bit to quickly. Nobody gets all nuts about the fact the Chrysler/Ford/GM/Honda/VW/Mercedes/etc bring out new models every year; often with slight improvements, usually with other changes you may or might not like.

Re:Too little, too late

[DerekLyons]

But who is playing shenanigans Samsung or Apple.
Did Apple Spec out the correct specs to Samsung and they made a cheap knockoff, after sending a batch that seems to meet initial QA, in a very German style. Or did Apple know about/agree to giving different quality products.

There's a third possibility that should not be discounted out of hand - Samsung meets the specification, while TSMC exceeds it. Without access to internal information, it's hard to tell what's going on behind the curtain and all too easy to leap on the 'obvious' conspiracy.

Of course, the various mega corps routinely indulge in behavior that makes conspiracy theories not all that far fetched...

Re:Too little, too late

[khellendros1984]

And you fail to understand the whole point of using multiple suppliers. The parts ARE NOT supposed to be different in terms of function. They are made by different people/processes.

Well, they are. They vary in a metric that's very important in a mobile device. I'll just wait here while Apple fixes the problems with the inferior version of the CPU that they accidentally released in their hardware, shall I? If Apple sent a design to multiple manufacturers, I'd expect those manufacturers to produce identical parts. As you note, that's the whole point of using multiple suppliers. As everyone else has been trying to point out: these parts aren't identical. Either Apple sent out 2 designs, for the different lithography scales, or one of the suppliers modified Apple's design. Either way, Apple has to know about the difference from internal testing, and implicitly agreed that knowingly releasing two differently-performing pieces of hardware under the same model number was acceptable.