Samsung Galaxy S7 capable of 17 hours of video playback at full brightness?
posted by Chris P. / Jan 29, 2016, 3:06 AM
Just how Mr. Murtazin got his hands on such intel is unclear (so don't jump to conclusions just yet), but he's claiming that the next Samsung flagship is capable of over 17 hours of continuous video playback, and at full brightness. Since "full brightness" is a vague term throughout the industry, we won't comment, but the 17 hours part we can offer some insight into.
Now, first off, a short disclaimer: this is more than likely 17 hours of video playback using whatever methodology Samsung uses when rating their phones. For example, the Galaxy S6 is rated at 13 hours of video playback, while the Galaxy Note 5 is rated at 15 hours. With these in mind, a rating of over 17 hours isn't at all an absurd claim, and even quite likely if the battery capacity has, indeed, seen an increase. Other factors, such as more efficient Super AMOLED screen tech and Exynos 8000-series processor, along with better RAM and further optimized TouchWiz under Android 6.0 Marshmallow, could have also contributed.
Believable as this may sound, we have to again point out that this information is unconfirmed, so act accordingly. If Samsung really is planning on a February unveiling at MWC 2016, it won't be long until we know for sure anyway.
- Display 5.1" 1440 x 2560 pixels
- Camera 12 MP / 5 MP front
- Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 820, Quad-core, 2200 MHz
- Storage 32 GB + microSDXC
- Battery 3000 mAh(28h 3G talk time)
Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014
Hohoho, wonder how that translates to web browsing and regular use SOT.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 3:10 AM 4
Posts: 86; Member since: Jun 03, 2014
I know right? I'm lucky if i achieve 5 hours SOT with my htc m8, but is rated as 9h video playback.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 4:10 AM 3
Posts: 3060; Member since: Apr 28, 2014
If you think about it the s7 will have the same size battery as the note 5 with a way smaller newer 5.1" screen and a way better CPU on battery and all there other better battery parts, I can see it being that close and 100% better then the note 5 if it's got a 3000 battery
posted on Jan 30, 2016, 8:19 AM 2
Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 2012
Probably well. The 2016 A-series do exceptionally well in web browsing.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 4:51 AM 2
Posts: 3253; Member since: Jul 22, 2014
2500mah batteries should be obsolete on expensive flagship phones. People deserve to get the most features out of their money.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 3:19 AM 7
Posts: 1276; Member since: Mar 22, 2014
DUH...depends on what movie youre watching...if it's ''Underworld'' where the scenes are predominantly dark, you might get that figure, but I still doubt it...10 + hours is a good number though Video playback longevity will depend on the video due to the nature of OLED screens
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 3:26 AM 25
Posts: 240; Member since: Jul 18, 2015
amoled screens actually !! sammy uses amoled & i think s7 will have the same
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 4:53 AM 0
dont forget samsung is king of displays what if it takes 50% less power meaning they are using f.o.l.e.d.p tech under the glass that would give it the 17 hour playback, and high density graphite batterys or lithium oxide battery.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 8:33 PM 0
Posts: 464; Member since: Dec 10, 2014
Don't expect any graphite or lithium oxide batteries in S7. There's 0% chance of that. They just decreased the size of other components to fit a larger battery in and as usual decreased consumption.
posted on Feb 02, 2016, 3:12 AM 0
AMOLED screens are usually good with video. They use PWM which is pretty great for these kind of scenarios. Also in a video the APL is quite low unlike predominantly white apps. On the other hand, LCDs rely on panel self refresh, which fails colossally while displaying videos. Note 4 could do 17 hours of video at around 250 nits, so this isn't much surprising.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 3:31 AM 9
Posts: 1088; Member since: Feb 24, 2014
Who said that Panel Self Refresh is LCD-only tech? I assumed Samsung had been using it for a while in their flagships when their Web browsing stats improved .
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 3:40 AM 0
How can panel self refresh be used on a PWM controlled device. The frequency is 240 Hz already and so it consumes enough energy to refresh at that rate already. I would love to be proven wrong. But i don't see any reason for anyone to use that on an OLED which refreshes anyway.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 4:09 AM 1
I think it stops the panel from refreshing the panel when displaying static images, hence helping in scenarios like browsing. AMOLED refreshes anyway, so there's no need for that. However, SoC downclock may help. I'll look into it.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 5:39 AM 0
Posts: 3259; Member since: Nov 15, 2013
Note 4 could do 17 hours of video? my note 4 was never able to go beyond 6-7 hours with wifi off... SOT was just 4-5 hours... I never trust on websites,because they says note 4 is great in battery and my experience was not the same... note 5 is also in a same league, it doesnt give more than 6 hours SOT but everyone says it has a great battery life... Sometime I think, everyone is a lier on these websites
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 4:32 AM 1
SoT isn't the same as video. Try this: Turn mobile data and wifi off. Turn flight mode on and charge the phone to 100%. Now play a movie at half brightness (around 250 nits). After about 2 hours of movie, your phone will still have about 90% juice left. This is how you test video playback. 17 hours of video isn't the same as 17 hours SoT. As in real life, mobile network and cellular data along with background processes eat up a lot of battery.
posted on Jan 29, 2016, 4:46 AM 5
Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013
Hmmm. But if you watched a video for 17 hours straight without stopping, wouldn't the screen also be on for 17 hours? And wouldn't playing a video be using far more power than just turning a display on at 50% and just letting the phone sit and do its normal routines? I think you might need to rethink what you said.
posted on Jan 30, 2016, 9:51 AM 1
Obviously playing video would consume more power than phone idling. An idle phone with screen on will easily last over 20 hours on screen. However, that doesn't mean that phone will give 17 hours SoT. Normal routines like even cell signal and android auto-sync consume a lot of battery. Those things get turned off in flight mode. Watch a video on your note 5. You'll know what I'm saying. During the 2 hours, your battery will barely drain 10-15%. Compare that to normal SoT you get. I have got over 12 hour screen-on time over a single charge by watching movies. It's hard to get half that with normal usage.
posted on Jan 30, 2016, 10:02 AM 0
Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013
But what you consider "normal" usage isn't equal for everybody. Yes using the radios will use more battery, but not everyone uses them. When I am in the office in turn off mobile data, I rarely get calls roughly 5 per day on average for call that may last 10-15 minstrel at the most. I get 1.5 days on average from a fill charge. I get roughly 12 hours of screen time over 2 days. A fast dying battery means your phone has something install killing it. Not you specifically, but users in general. There really is no such thing as a general normal usage. Maybe with the old flip phones, everyone was forced to a normal usage, but not with smartphones.
posted on Feb 02, 2016, 7:55 AM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):