http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201510135006-1.aspx
Ars Technica 第三方實驗證實: A9晶片差異僅2~3%如蘋果官方所言.
所以不要再哭夭了~~~~~~
2015-10-13 13:47 發佈
calvinhsia58 wrote:
http://www...(恕刪)
不過Ars Technica測試結果，台積電代工版本在Wi-Fi瀏覽網頁、GFXBench效能相對略佳，在跑分測試效能速度軟體Geekbench 3的測試上，台積電效能相對高於三星版本，差距達28%。
我看到重點了：第三方証實，網友測的沒錯
設定一樣，跑一樣的軟體分數要差不多才是！才能說他們是一樣的東西
差到20%以上這是什麼情形.....
退貨有理.........
原文連結如上.
中文翻譯, 讀完後 覺得部分翻不清楚 才跑去找原文.
ars tech的測試是說 他用限定使用的方式 去觀察battery life.
譬如 全程限定跑wifi browsing 或是 全程限定跑WebGL...etc..
總共四種情境.(wifi browsing, webgl, geekbench, gfxbench)
其中三種情境 tsmc跟samsung battery life差異 只有2-3%
但在 唯一在跑geekbench測試時, battery life差異到達28%.
所以就看各位看官如何解讀囉.
There are two big takeaways from the results here. First, the Samsung phone did have consistently lower battery life results than the TSMC phone. The one exception was the WebGL test, in which the Samsung phone barely edged out the TSMC phone.
Second, even though that's true, the Geekbench test was the only test that caused what we would believe to be a significant difference, one that we can definitely attribute to the SoC rather than the screen or the battery itself or some other system component. All three of the other tests showed the two phones scoring within two to three percent of each other, which just happens to be the same figure Apple quoted to the press last week. The heavier Geekbench test, on the other hand, showed the TSMC phone lasting an average of 28 percent longer than the Samsung phone.
So there are definitely circumstances under which the TSMC phone will last longer than the Samsung phone, but it's not a universal problem.
再次證明來自不同廠的A9，在低負載下，如蘋果所說的差2~3%；在高度負載下，差異可以高達20%以上。
看不懂英文也沒關係，好歹也要知道測試項目在測什麼；不知道也沒關係，那就安安靜靜吧。
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X