[情報] Apple認為TSMC與***的晶片只有2%電力差異
原文請跳轉
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/10/08/apple-a9-chip-2-3-percent-difference/
全文以及翻譯如下 翻譯有我個人加油添醋的語氣,不喜歡的話請看原文。
(其實看第一段就夠了)
Over the past several days, a slew of battery tests on the iPhone 6s and the
iPhone 6s Plus have revealed some performance differences between
models that have an A9 chip manufactured by TSMC and those with an A9
chip created by Samsung. While variousbenchmarking and real world usage
tests have shown differences of 6 percent to 22 percent, in favor of TSMC
chips, Apple says that its own testing has shown battery life variations of
only two to three percent.
在過去幾天,有大量兩種版本晶片製成的6s與6s plus的電力測試。
台積電與三星的A9晶片,在多方測試之下,有著6~22%的電力續航力差距。
但是蘋果認為,實際的差異只有2~3%而已。
In a statement given to TechCrunch, Apple says that it has done internal
testing and gathered customer data to determine the performance difference
between the two chips in the iPhones.
在一份給TechCrunch的聲明稿中,蘋果表示經過內部測試以及蒐集了消費者的資料。
兩種晶片的差異已經有了結果。
With the Apple-designed A9 chip in your iPhone 6s or iPhone 6s Plus, you are
getting the most advanced smartphone chip in the world. Every chip we ship
meets Apple's highest standards for providing incredible performance and
deliver great battery life, regardless of iPhone 6s capacity, color, or model.
Certain manufactured lab tests which run the processors with a continuous
heavy workload until the battery depletes are not representative of real-world
usage, since they spend an unrealistic amount of time at the highest CPU
performance state. It's a misleading way to measure real-world battery life.
Our testing and customer data show the actual battery life of the iPhone 6s
and iPhone 6s Plus, even taking into account variable component differences,
vary within just 2-3% of each other.
我們設計的A9晶片根本是科技的尖端,你拿到的是世界上最棒的手機。
無論你拿哪個型號或顏色,你都可以得到最棒的效能、卓越的電量、快樂的人生。
最近很多人在幫我們做不同製成晶片的電力測試,喔,拜託,誰會那樣測。
現實生活有誰會拿著手機24小時不斷的讓CPU滿載阿。根本一點也不現實。
在一般日常使用下,電力只會差2~3%啦。
Apple says that early battery benchmark tests conducted by customers,
such as those weshared yesterday, are not reflective of real world usage
conditions. The two to three percent difference that Apple has seen in data
gathered from customers is "well within its manufacturing tolerances" and is a
level of variation that could be seen between two devices with the same chip.
Apple's statement on real world usage reflects what recent YouTube tests have
revealed. Side-by-side battery tests comparing a TSMC iPhone and a Samsung
iPhone did not show differences as dramatic as benchmark tests have shown,
but those videos are also not quite indicative of real world usage results. On the
MacRumors forums, opinions on battery life have been highly mixed. While some
users with Samsung chips have reported poor battery life, others have not
reported issues.
這兩段只是做總結,基本上跟前面說的差不多,懶得翻了。
總之,蘋果承認兩種晶片有差異,但認為這只是公差的正常值。
不要噓我QQ,我只是在等官網開賣無聊,轉貼新聞不是在護航。
--
很多飲料店都用保麗龍杯子 飲料你只要20分鐘就可以喝完
但是留下的保麗龍杯子 地球500年都消化不完
如果你買了就直接喝 請不要又拿一個塑膠袋包著喝
夏天冷氣不用開這麼冷 每人冷氣每調高一度
就可以省6%的電力 一整個夏天可以省84億度的電
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 111.251.186.194
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/iPhone/M.1444338961.A.459.html
※ 編輯: mmmmmfff (111.251.186.194), 10/09/2015 05:16:53
→
10/09 05:18, , 1F
10/09 05:18, 1F
→
10/09 05:18, , 2F
10/09 05:18, 2F
推
10/09 05:23, , 3F
10/09 05:23, 3F
推
10/09 05:23, , 4F
10/09 05:23, 4F
推
10/09 05:30, , 5F
10/09 05:30, 5F
推
10/09 05:30, , 6F
10/09 05:30, 6F
→
10/09 05:30, , 7F
10/09 05:30, 7F
推
10/09 05:36, , 8F
10/09 05:36, 8F
噓
10/09 05:46, , 9F
10/09 05:46, 9F
→
10/09 05:48, , 10F
10/09 05:48, 10F
推
10/09 05:50, , 11F
10/09 05:50, 11F
→
10/09 05:51, , 12F
10/09 05:51, 12F
推
10/09 05:52, , 13F
10/09 05:52, 13F
推
10/09 06:03, , 14F
10/09 06:03, 14F
推
10/09 06:08, , 15F
10/09 06:08, 15F
→
10/09 06:08, , 16F
10/09 06:08, 16F
推
10/09 06:12, , 17F
10/09 06:12, 17F
→
10/09 06:12, , 18F
10/09 06:12, 18F
噓
10/09 06:15, , 19F
10/09 06:15, 19F
噓
10/09 06:18, , 20F
10/09 06:18, 20F
→
10/09 06:19, , 21F
10/09 06:19, 21F
→
10/09 06:20, , 22F
10/09 06:20, 22F
推
10/09 06:32, , 23F
10/09 06:32, 23F
→
10/09 07:06, , 24F
10/09 07:06, 24F
推
10/09 07:19, , 25F
10/09 07:19, 25F
推
10/09 07:48, , 26F
10/09 07:48, 26F
推
10/09 08:04, , 27F
10/09 08:04, 27F
→
10/09 08:19, , 28F
10/09 08:19, 28F
推
10/09 08:51, , 29F
10/09 08:51, 29F
噓
10/09 09:08, , 30F
10/09 09:08, 30F
推
10/09 09:13, , 31F
10/09 09:13, 31F
→
10/09 09:13, , 32F
10/09 09:13, 32F
噓
10/09 09:19, , 33F
10/09 09:19, 33F
噓
10/09 09:22, , 34F
10/09 09:22, 34F
噓
10/09 09:26, , 35F
10/09 09:26, 35F
→
10/09 09:26, , 36F
10/09 09:26, 36F
→
10/09 10:02, , 37F
10/09 10:02, 37F
→
10/09 10:03, , 38F
10/09 10:03, 38F
→
10/09 10:10, , 39F
10/09 10:10, 39F
推
10/09 12:09, , 40F
10/09 12:09, 40F
推
10/09 12:42, , 41F
10/09 12:42, 41F
→
10/09 12:52, , 42F
10/09 12:52, 42F
噓
10/09 13:19, , 43F
10/09 13:19, 43F
噓
10/09 13:54, , 44F
10/09 13:54, 44F
推
10/09 15:46, , 45F
10/09 15:46, 45F
推
10/09 17:09, , 46F
10/09 17:09, 46F
噓
10/09 18:29, , 47F
10/09 18:29, 47F
噓
10/09 20:00, , 48F
10/09 20:00, 48F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文:
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 5 篇):