x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • iPhone 6s breaks battery efficiency records, manages excellent score

iPhone 6s breaks battery efficiency records, manages excellent score

Posted: , by Chris P.

Tags :

iPhone 6s breaks battery efficiency records, manages excellent score
When we discovered that the iPhone 6s packs a slightly smaller cell — a 1,715 mAh unit — than its predecessor, we weren't sure what to think. The drop of 95 mAh in capacity isn't big, and Apple cited identical battery endurance figures during its presentation. Naturally, then, we were interested in putting the device through our proprietary battery life benchmark and see what happens. We did, and the results are incredible: the iPhone 6s' comparatively tiny juicer packs a mean punch.

We clocked the iPhone 6s at 8 hours and 15 minutes, which is an impressive showing considering the size of the battery, and excellent even if you disregard capacity. In fact, the iPhone 6s actually broke the record for most efficient running, dethroning the Sony Xperia Z3 Compact, which offers amazing battery life relative to the size of the cell within it. And not by little, too: If we assume uniform performance, the Sony Xperia Z3 Compact would have clocked about 13 hours and 30 minutes did it have a 3,500 mAh battery, while the iPhone 6s would push that to 16 hours and 50 minutes — a significant improvement.

Compared to the actual results posted by other, similarly sized devices, including the Sony Xperia Z3 Compact, the iPhone 6s does very well. It trails Sony's golden boys, but leads over Samsung's Galaxy S6 and HTC's One M9. Obviously, you have to account for the 6s' lower resolution, which doesn't impose as high a toll on the cell, but that's that. See for yourself:

Battery life

Battery life (hours)
Higher is better
Apple iPhone 6s 8h 15 min (Excellent)
Apple iPhone 6 5h 22 min (Poor)
Sony Xperia Z3 Compact 10h 2 min (Excellent)
HTC One M9 6h 25 min (Average)
Sony Xperia Z3+ 7h 15 min (Good)
Samsung Galaxy S6 7h 14 min (Good)
Samsung Galaxy S6 edge 8h 11 min (Excellent)
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active 12h 9 min (Excellent)
View all

When it comes to charging times, however, the iPhone 6s posts rather disappointing results, with 150 minutes required to top off the battery. That's significantly worse compared with devices such as the Galaxy S6, which also has a much larger cell, but not quite as tragic as others.

Charging time

Charging time (minutes)
Lower is better
Apple iPhone 6s 150
Apple iPhone 6 147
Sony Xperia Z3 Compact 208
HTC One M9 106
Sony Xperia Z3+ 189
Samsung Galaxy S6 78
Samsung Galaxy S6 edge 83
Samsung Galaxy S6 Active 103
View all

  • Options

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 09:02 17

1. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 13625; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)

Let the haters be silenced.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 09:04 5

3. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)

How's that for Low Power Mode? 6SP. Friday morning - Saturday night. :)


posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:18 12

92. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 10278; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)

Haha, this is funny. So what was the phone doping, just sitting.

If you were actually using the phone, there would be apps using more power of the battery.

We know a fact the Internet would use more battery, only second to the display. Also so would some games if you play any.

I'm not saying Apple didn't do a good job. I am saying that it looks like you didnt do anything with your device.

If you were actually using it, it would be impossible to get 13 hours, because most devices are 5-6hrs SOT

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:43 30

108. maherk (Posts: 3884; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)

Dude please, just give it a rest.
We get it, you don't like Apple products, so move on with your life.
And kudos for the "short" essay this time, might be the 1st time I finished one of your comments, or should I say, articles.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 17:59 1

214. arch_angel (Posts: 1651; Member since: 20 Feb 2015)

I Didn't Finish It LOL.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 11:13

133. elitewolverine (Posts: 5185; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)

I get some 13hrs of web browsing time on my phone (non iphone).

However, no one ever uses their phone in a constant usage status.

He uses his phone little compared to what I do. I get 18-32hrs off mine with a good amount of usage through the day for those 18hrs.

So far my screen brightness is on full, I have played at least 45mins of video, been off the charger nearly 6hrs and I have 77% battery.

With how the 6sPlus has done here in our testing, it lasts nearly the same, it is no slouch in battery that we have tested.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 18:22

215. j2001m (Posts: 2963; Member since: 28 Apr 2014)

Please also note Apple speed of there new iPhones is down to hd as they got there own new format and they not using Emma, but something that like as fast as ufs, but uses ther MacBook controller, no joke, I.e. All the new speed is not down to CPU and also why reviews was saying transfer speeds was faster on files

posted on 29 Sep 2015, 20:43

233. jalebi2000 (Posts: 180; Member since: 01 Mar 2015)

i know right. This battery test is pure bullsh+t. I said it. Everywhere else I go, I notice that the iPhone 6 lasts longer than the iPhone 6S in some websites, and by a good margin, while other places like Phonearena show the exact opposite.
Some how the iPhone 6 with 5 hours of battery is winning against the 6S that has a 8+ hour battery life. I smell corruption...

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 11:20

139. marorun (Posts: 3762; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)

So what i get at least 12 hours minimum of screen time on my Android phone :)
3 days whitout charging is the minimum.

I use it to do all my business calls , 3 email , 2 calender ect ect ect.
And i also play about 2 hours of games a day.

Its also Waterproof , Dust proof , shock proof and covered by a 3 years warranty thats include physical abuse and liquide damages.

For me thats the best phone as its cover all my need whitout slowdown or issues.

as for this iphone i will see with my clients if there is a real improvement those battery benchmark are a joke most of the time phone end up with less battery life thats what they say in those benchmark.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 15:26

194. elitewolverine (Posts: 5185; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)

Which phone are you getting onscreen usage time of minimum of 12hrs?

posted on 29 Sep 2015, 04:39

228. Shocky (unregistered)

Ignore him, he's an idiot.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 18:31 1

216. solidsnake695 (Posts: 132; Member since: 04 Jan 2013)

usage 13 hrs is this guy giving fake results just like phonearena

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 09:06 20

7. Carl3000 (Posts: 192; Member since: 11 Oct 2014)

We need to compare and contrast other credible sites results as well. Just saying, what if every other major credible site scores it lower, then what?

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 09:45 4

48. Tizo101 (Posts: 399; Member since: 05 Jun 2015)

in what world does the z3 compact have a 3500 mah battery? getting less credible by the day lol

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 11:00 3

123. Finalflash (Posts: 3134; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)

They're making a linear extrapolation to guess what equivalent sized batteries in both handsets would be like.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 13:53

183. Tizo101 (Posts: 399; Member since: 05 Jun 2015)

that I understand, but why are they trying to confuse people? why don't they use the actual size of the battery in the z3 compact? ( using linear extrapolation is dumb because it only has x and y, which is abstract in its truest form).

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 13:56

184. Tizo101 (Posts: 399; Member since: 05 Jun 2015)

that I understand, but why are they trying to confuse people? why don't they use the actual size of the battery in the z3 compact? ( using linear extrapolation is dumb because it only has x and y, which is abstract in its truest form).

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 09:57

59. hound.master (Posts: 1044; Member since: 27 Feb 2015)

I'll just wait for gsmarena one this s**t is surely not true cause the soc is not even that consumable so that the phone could have any efficiency!

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 09:06 2

10. mistercarter (Posts: 360; Member since: 01 Sep 2011)

can't wait to see the iPhone 6S Plus results, could easily take on the S6 Active

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 09:08 3

12. InsertUsernameHere (Posts: 426; Member since: 31 Aug 2014)


posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:09 12

79. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 10278; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)

Yes they lasted the same. But consider this. In that same amount of time, the Note is doing far more work. Its running a heavier operating system, then it has the touchwiz layer, plus the S-Pen layer, plus it offers full multi-tasking.

A brand new phone is only as good as a phone using hardware that came out 6 months ago really isn't all that great.


Think about it. The 6S Plus is pushing half the pixels, its only dualcore and it only has 2GB of RAM vs a battery that is power 4 times the pixels, dual quads, 4GB of RAM and all its other hardware features that the iPhone doesn't have.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:13 8

85. miket1737 (Posts: 2801; Member since: 17 Mar 2013)

how is 2204x1248 half the pixels of 2560x1440?? did you smoke a blunt before coming on PA this morning techie..? also the 6s plus holds open more applications then the note 5 so in reality while your applications are reloading on you when you get back to them, the 6s plus is holding them open without losing your spot in the application.

why cant a 8 core octo core processor with 4 GB of RAM mutli task better then a 6S with a dual core and 2GB Of ram only? why does the 6S hold open more applications then the note 5 despite that?

from what i have been seeing on speed tests on the web, the 6s plus and 6s are actually noticeably faster then the note 5 with much less app reloading then the note 5. if apps are reloading less on you, that provides for a more robust experience.


posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:42 10

107. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 10278; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)

No...what are YOU smoking? The iPhone 6S has a 1080p display dies it not? Please correct me if I am wrong. GSMARENA says the ^ S Plus is 1080p@401PPI. IS THIS WRONG?

There is no way 2GB of RAM can hold open more apps than 4GB of RAM. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING.

Android itself has far more services running vs iOS. Then he compared it to the Note 5. The Note has Android services, then it has services for Samsung Knox, Samsung Pay, S-Pen and so much more.

Octacore? Yes with only 4 cores running at any one time. Also Android is a Virtual machine and apps dont have direct hardware access. Considering also all the apps are still written for a single core. Its dual quads. They dont all run at the same time.

Again as I stated before. You aren't looking at the whole picture. You look ata single number and say look, my device is as good as yours. NO IT ISNT. because the Note 5 does way more than a 6S Plus...in fact it does more than an iPad too out the box.

I don't care about speed tests. They don;'t mater to me because both OS's dont work the same. I could care less even if the Note was winning in the speed tests.

iOS app language gives it an advantage because they have direct hardware access. if Android apps had direct hardware access, they would blow the iPhone out the water. A virtual machine since you have no idea how they work, has direct access to the CPU and GPU and RAM just like on a PC. The apps you load run inside the VM. That is why VM add hardware acceleration to try to help it get as close to matching speed as if the apps had direct hardware access. But speeds tests have show with VMware vs Windows being directly installed, that even though it has gotten better, a VM can't match clock per clock.

Again, as I stated; I am very happy that the iPhone battery-life has significant improved by nearly 2hours over the last model. But, considering the power of the Note 5, the S6 Edge and the S6 Edge+ and what capabilities those phones offer and yet get the same amount of usage, shows Apple is lagging behind.

The iPhone possess half the hardware capabilities...GET OVER IT. It is fact!


There is a link to the hardware specs of the 6S Plus and the Note 5. I dont know where you got that resolution from. Whatever blunt you arse smoking, GIVE ME SOME!

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:46 15

110. miket1737 (Posts: 2801; Member since: 17 Mar 2013)

Im gonna shut down your whole entire garbage posts in just a few short sentences. I thought you were a iOS developer like you claimed few times before??? Cause if you truly were one, you would know that the 6S Plus runs at internal resolution of 2208x1242


For iPhone 6 Plus:

1242 x 2208 (@3x) for portrait
2208 x 1242 (@3x) for landscape

Yeah dude your not no iOS or android developer, otherwise you would of easily known this. Im not even a developer and i know this. your just a phony lier who has android inferiority complex. Here is your box of tissues now, go run off with them

You defitnetly seem bitter at the fact that the 6S plus and 6S are able to hold more applications open in background and that the A9 gpu can offer 15-20 higher FPS in all applications/games/torwards UI, etc

Cry me a river dude and please stop talking out your rear if you dont have a clue on this topic so called "iOS developer" LOL....

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:52 8

116. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 10278; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)

None of that matters because the display is only 1080p. If you make a bitmap at a higher resolution it is going to scale down to 1080p. DUH! You still cant see more pixels vs what your display can show. If I make a bitmaps for 2560x 1600 which is the display size of the Note Pro and bring it to the S6 Edge for example, its gonna be at a lower resolution.

The GPU is still only pushing 1920x1080 no mater what size the bitmap is. STICK TO THE NUMBERS BRO!!!

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 10:55 12

119. miket1737 (Posts: 2801; Member since: 17 Mar 2013)

of course it does matter bro ROFL, it is called downsampling, the SoC has to downscale the 2208x1242 image to the native screen resolution of the device. techie what scales down the image then? it doesnt happen on magical air free computational resources lol......, the chip itself has to downscale the image, which is much more resource intensive then upscaling, just run a relatively modern game on your PC and enable the downsampling option, you will see your PC go to a crawl because downsampling is resource intensive. you know jack s**t about this topic and i have already proved that countless times


the same dam f**** link you linked me other week says the same exact thing, your a moron dude you have certainly proved your incompetence and lack of knowledge on this topic. good day sir, you have been owned again. hold this L

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 11:30 6

143. TechieXP1969 (Posts: 10278; Member since: 25 Sep 2013)

Dude. There is no benefit in making a bitmap at a higher resolution for it to be scaled down.

In fact this is what happens. The GPU has to take the image and scale it down to the native resolution. Because of this the bitmap loses ios it sharpness.

Here is a simply tests for you - if you take a bitmap or any lossless format and put it in photoshop. Take this resolution of an actual image created at 1242 x 2208 and then resize it too 1920x1080 and see how much quality it loses.

It's actually better to make bitmaps at native resolutions in certain types of apps. For example, in a app media players or social media where the graphics don't move, scaling an image down wont tax the GPU as much. But in games especially HD games where you have to move graphics at higher rates, its best to use exact resolutions for several reasons. If you have a game where you may have more than 200 sprites moving, if you make all the bitmaps at native resolutions, then you dont waste the GPU's clock on so much scaling and it can use the power to move the sprites so they have less or no slow down and less or no ghosting effects.

If you made apps, you would know this.

The apps I make are not for consumer retail usage. They are in-house logistics and specific apps used by the schools we do in-house work for. We make specific apps for teachers for lessons.

But I have made simple games. Again you aren't considering this. If you make a HD games that needs to move at 60FPS, you arent going to fill it with resolutions that are larger due to latency and how much RAM you have. Since most iPhones have 1GB of RAm and apps cant use more than 50%, you can't waste valuble RAM space with a much of images that constantly have to be scaled down and keep such a high frame rate.

I'm not like you just going to a website and cutting and pasting something, I'm going by my experience.

Android doesn't have the same RAM restrictions as iOS. I could make a full games with all 4K bitmaps if I wanted too. But the game would suc, because all the scaling would hog up GPU timings and cause far less frame rates.

Also since you want to talk about frame rates? Windows because of DiectX offers far better rates vs the Mac even when the Mac is running Windows. Even vs OS X games where we are rinnign the same game, games with fast graphics suck on OSX vs Windows. But macs are better at graphics that don't move. Which is why applications liek AutoDesk and CAD are so much better on the mac because OpenGL is better at high resolution graphics that are stationary or have very little movement and why DirectX is better than OpenGL for games because the devs can get away with not having as much details in graphics that you aren't going to see because they are zipping past you do fast

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 12:05 10

159. miket1737 (Posts: 2801; Member since: 17 Mar 2013)

you have no experience and you dont know what in the world your talking about dude. What does DirectX have to do with MOBILE dude? mobile devices use Metal on iOS and/OpenGL 3.0/3.1 on android with soon Vulkan coming hopefully

SMH. your not no developer and you dont know anything about computer hardware because you dont even undertand what downscaling means. im not copying and pasting anything, im speaking straight facts/true knowledge.

and what are you talking about? iOS games have just as good high resolution textures/light sources in games as Android games with devices that sport more RAM. so that argument is a fail...

you never MADE ANY applications dude stop lying, because you would know that the 6s plus runs at a higher internal resolution then 1080p, but you obviously forget/didnt know that.

mac running on windows runs games just as fast as a window PC does with same specs, stick a similiar Intel CPU with a nice AMD GPU/nvidia GPU in both machines that are same specced and they literally run DirectX games in windows the same, what are you talking about?the A9 has a better GPU then the Exynos 7420.

and you clearly dont understand what downscaling means at all, you actually think you lose quality when you downscale/downsample a image/video dude?? have you ever watched a 4k video on your computer monitor?? and how it looks alot sharper then say a 1080p video even though your monitor is 1080p? that is called downscaling to the resolution of your monitor, it will look alot better downscaled. but downscaling from 2204x1248 is not much of a difference going to 1080p.

ever watch a video/see a image that is higher resolution then the device your viewing it on? it is sharper then a native resolution image of your device, due to downscaling/downsampling. its the reason why so many youtuber's make video's in 4k and downsample it to 1080p for better quality then regular 1080p recording.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 17:08

210. kevin91202 (Posts: 567; Member since: 08 Jun 2014)

"and you clearly dont understand what downscaling means at all, you actually think you lose quality when you downscale/downsample a image/video dude?? have you ever watched a 4k video on your computer monitor?? and how it looks alot sharper then say a 1080p video even though your monitor is 1080p? that is called downscaling to the resolution of your monitor, it will look alot better downscaled." -miket1737

I'm no expert, but you are wrong about down scaling not losing quality. Your conclusion that because a 4K video that appears to "look" better on a 1080p screen vs the same scene shot in 1080p means downsampling does not affect quality is simply incorrect and misguided. You are comparing apples and oranges. A downscaled 1080p video from 4K will always "look" better than native 1080p because of 4:2:0 chroma subsampling being converted to 4:4:4. Compared to the "downsampled" 1080p video, the native 1080p may appear worse because it has a lower bitrate, so it's not a 1:1 comparison.
The downscaled 1080p video will not look better than native 4K on a 4K screen. You can't magically create pixels and chroma/luma values out thin air.

Downsampling ANYTHING will cause in the loss of quality. Just because you don't notice it, it doesn't mean that loss hasn't occurred.

posted on 28 Sep 2015, 20:38

221. miket1737 (Posts: 2801; Member since: 17 Mar 2013)

I never said you dont lose quality downscaling... I simply said it provides more detail for Youtube shooting at 4K then downsampling to 1080p rather then shooting in 1080p then uploading it in 1080p...

Of course you lose some quality from the video being downsampled to 1080p for Youtube.. And obviously a 4K video would look better on a 4k display then a downsampled 1080p video i never argued that.. 4K video on 4K screen is a native 1:1 pixel layout which is optimal

My point was 4K image on a screen that is lower resolution then 4k will look better then a image that is lower then 4K viewed on same monitor.

Of course this applies to Youtube as their is compression in youtube videos as youtube applies compression to the video

You get me?

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories