Apple iPhone X Vs Samsung Galaxy S9+ Battery Comparison; The Galaxy S9+ Beats Cupertino’s Crown Jewel In Four Out Of Five Tests

Author Photo
Apr 18, 2018
23Shares
Submit

If there is one thing users on both sides of the smartphone world will agree on it’s that the iPhone X and Galaxy S9+ are the best devices in their respective segments. Apple finally overtook Android in multi-core processor performance last year and Samsung managed to catch up (for a short time period) with Sony’s smartphone camera performance.

However, despite our devices being able to achieve more year after year, a couple of features remain stuck. One of these is battery life which dominates both manufacturer and user concerns. So, if you’re wondering how the Galaxy S9+ and iPhone X stack up against each other in this metric, we’ve got you covered. Take a look below for more details.

apple-qcomRelated Qualcomm Is Trying To Get China To Ban Sales Of iPhone XS, XR

Apple iPhone X Vs Samsung Galaxy S9+ Battery Life Comparison Details Major Wins For The S9+

The debate of which platform being better, iOS or Android is as long as the smartphone industry itself. Both sides stick to their positions religiously, offering excellent points in their defense and offense. Comparisons like the one we’ve got for you today help move things forward, settling critical questions once and for all.

Folks over at AppleInsider carried out thorough battery testing for the Samsung Galaxy S9+ and Apple iPhone X. Samsung’s smartphone has a slight advantage here in the form of battery capacity, as it features a 3500mAh cell. The iPhone X, on the other hand, is powered by a 2716mAh pack. The tests demonstrate a clear lead for the Galaxy S9+.

The publication carried out five different tests which test the full spectrum of battery performance. The first of these was an overnight test which left both devices running for 16 hours on standby and tested the battery levels afterward. The iPhone X was at a surprising 99% and the S9+ had 85%, but we’d expect the former to deplete faster for subsequent usage.

tim-cook-10Related Trouble In Apple World As Supplier Stocks Tumble Following Court Ruling

The Galaxy S9+ outperformed the iPhone X on YouTube and in partial discharge. After a three-hour video clip buffered and watched at 80% brightness, the iPhone X was at 55% while the S9+ was at 67%. These translate into 1494mAh left for the iPhone X and 2345 for the Galaxy S9+, indicating 1222mAh and 1155mAh discharged for the Galaxy S9+ respectively. This lends the S9+ a slight lead.

In partial discharge, Apple’s iPhone X scored 2566 while the Galaxy S9+ bagged 4592 points. In addition, the unit AppleInsider tested seems to have problems with battery calibration, a fact that is also present in the 16-hour standby test. Similar results were demonstrated by GeekBench’s full discharge benchmark.

The iPhone X was completely drained after 4 hours and 45 minutes while the Galaxy S9+ lasted for 8 hours and 22 minutes. Dividing the pair’s mAh capacities by minutes, we get a result of 9.5mAh/minute for the iPhone X and 6.7mAh/minute for the Galaxy S9+.

One area where the iPhone X does manage to lead is gaming. AppleInsider ran Vainglory 5v5 on the devices. After an hour of play at 100% brightness, the result was slightly in the iPhone’s favor. Apple’s premium smartphone stood at 87% while Samsung’s gadget was at 84% battery level.

These results are fairly consistent with what we’d expect. The reason we see Apple’s iPhone X lead in gaming is due to the A11’s architecture. Apple’s SoC is designed to use multi-cores only when required and wider designs on its smaller cores result in a power punch with modest power consumption. Furthermore, Cupertino exerts quite a bit of control on hardware and tweaks it according to a gadget’s specific needs.

However, spread this heavy duty usage across a larger time period, and Apple’s premium processor cannot handle sustained performance at high temperatures. This results in decreased power efficiency as the A11 loses execution strength due to inefficient cooling. The processor is simply too powerful for smartphones. Qualcomm, on the other hand, has paid strict attention to throttling after the Snapdragon 810’s disastrous performance.

Thoughts? Let us know what you think in the comments section below and stay tuned. We’ll keep you updated on the latest.

Submit