Samsung battery test video shows the Galaxy S7 crush the competition, but we are not convinced

Samsung's German headquarters rounded up the best of this year's flagship smartphones so far for a bespoke battery test that saw the Samsung Galaxy S7 beat the rest, finishing at 10 hours, 59 minutes, and 11 seconds of on-screen use...
This is a discussion for a news article. To read the whole news, click here


1. phonehome

Posts: 812; Member since: Dec 19, 2014

BUT, when you can go 0-100% in less than a minute with the G5, that is the real winner.

4. ebilcake

Posts: 1230; Member since: Jul 16, 2016

Seems LG users need to carry a spare battery Most of us would prefer not to.

8. phonehome

Posts: 812; Member since: Dec 19, 2014

Exactly right. Some would prefer to carry a 50000 mAh brick, while others would like to carry around masonry cinder blocks.

18. Doakie

Posts: 2478; Member since: May 06, 2009

But the G5 is made by LG.... LG makes such faulty hardware.

9. karas

Posts: 85; Member since: Jul 08, 2011

Removable battery is highly over rated in the age of super fast quick charging. It was need in the times of mediocre batteries

35. chenski

Posts: 770; Member since: Mar 22, 2015

Still, 0 to 100% in less than a minute on the go does make a difference

48. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

No it doesn't. If you can blow through a battery in one day on a single charge, that means you have no life, no job and shouldn't have a phone anyways. No one using today's phone should be able to kill a battery in a day. Not when cars have chargers, planes have chargers and you can buy battery packs. If your phones dies before you get home, that means you spent more time on your phone than socializing with people in reality. It means you need to put the phone down. Stop social networking, stop texting and stop playing mindless zombie games. You need to interact with real people and real objects. My phone last 2 days on a single charge...2 whole 8 hour days. Why do I need another battery?

39. irossdrummer

Posts: 369; Member since: Jan 17, 2015

I don't think fast 0-100% matters of it also has fast 100-0%....

47. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Who wants to carry a spare battery all the time? also to have a spare battery, you either need to shove it in the phone to charge it, or vuy a charger for it. Who's gonna do that? Removable batteries are stupid. Fast charging is better because you can charge it for 30 mins and get 60% of the charge. 15 mins last you enough for 4hours of usage. If you are a heavy phone user, you carry a charge pack which offers more usage than some lame tiny battery. Removable batteries have never been a real solid investment because people don't keep phones long enough to justify the extra expensive. I bought an extra battery one time for my GS3 and I never used it.

54. phonehome

Posts: 812; Member since: Dec 19, 2014

Because for whatever reason people would rather amply charge in 30 minutes rather than 30 seconds. Aye-aye-aye-aye!

60. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Dude. If you like them, like them. But don't justify them when better stuff is available. What's wrong with charge packs? Why can't you buy a mophie. With a charge pack in my pocket, my phone NEVER HAD TO DIE. When I see its low, I can just put the charging cable in my pocket and attach it and still use the phone while charging at the same time. The cable is no different then carrying wired headphones. Your solution requires you to power off the phone to swap. Why would I ever wanna do that? When I go to airports, the vast majority of people I see charging all have iPhones. Let's say you have 30 mins before you need to board. How much charge would an iPhone get vs a Galaxy? Which one of those 2 phones stands a better chance to last a flight to Hawaii from LAX, without needing a charge or a spare battery? I don't want to carry a battery of any kind. That is why I buy a phone that can handle my usage habits. B3cUse I am a smart buyer. I don't buy what popular, I buy what beat suits my circumstances. Other fools are to busy trying to be in the in crowd and buy junk and waste money buying accessories they don't have too. I'm not ashamed to use a phone with a charge pack or mop hoe. But I don't want to deal with such which is why I have the Note. It last me 2 full working 8 hour days on a single charge. Why? Because I used them for their utility. It's a tool I grab when I need it. If we're hammering with a hammer all day, at some point you want to put it down right? So to me my phone is like a hammer After hamming for a while, I need a break. I grab the hammer when I need it. I don't love my phone that much.

2. ebilcake

Posts: 1230; Member since: Jul 16, 2016

They must has used the Exynos version, no surprise really.

12. BradyCrack

Posts: 835; Member since: Dec 29, 2015

How big is the difference between the 820 and exynos in terms of efficiency?

22. ebilcake

Posts: 1230; Member since: Jul 16, 2016

For real life usage you might get an extra hour screen on time, which is quite significant really But it depends what your doing and how the manufacturers are managing performance. The OnePlus 3 for example barely throttles at all while gaming so it can drop fairly quickly, while Exynos 8890 throttling will kick in sooner. Not sure they need to do this to be honest, as a power user I prefer performance over battery saving but not everyone is the same.

51. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

I'm curious, what games do you play that would ever make your CPU/GPU throttle? Please list them? I can't think of a time I played a game and the phone ever appeared to be slow while playing. Throttling is to prevent damage to the phone. If you play a power hungry game, which I don't know of any on Android, the CPU/GPU gets hot under the heavy load. If the phone can dispense heat, especially since you're holding it with your hot sweaty hands, which also make the phone gets hot, then it has to throttle the speed down because the phone doesn't have active cooling. The Exynos was designed to be efficient. It wasn't designed to me an Xbox or PlayStation. Anyone who would try to game on a mobile device like a console, has already lost their argument. But I've not seen a game on iOS or Android so powerful it causes throttling under normal circumstances. Tests ate not normal circumstances. Tests are designed to push the hardware to its limit causing throttling. But under normal usage, the changes you will ever do tis is nearly 0%. Please explain what you are doing which would ever cause any phone to throttle that you need to be concerned about it? As Cap'n Kirk told Spock - Enlighten Me!

52. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

There are lots of things we don't know about this test that even video playback can be rigged. Example, the videos that were playing, what was the resolutions. A video closer to the native display resolution will use less power than a video that si larger or smaller than the native display size, because the CPU will use extra power towards scaling. So if you took for example the iPhone 6S native video and played it on the S7, the S7 would use power to scale the video up, while a 1440p video would have to scale down on the 6S. Again in either case, scaling uses more power vs native playback. So I tested my theory and found that when I took a video of 4k with the camera vs a native video at the screens resolution, I got nearly 90 mins of extra time from playing the native video vs the 4K video. The display was at 30% brightness which is bright enough in a well lighted room. But the results of the S's shows they were far less than Samsung's original claims of 14 hours of video playback. Unless we can test the phone playing a video that was recorded at 2560x1440 to see hat the results would be vs the same phone playing a 750p/1080p or 4K video that all have to be scaled.

15. sarcastic_nerd unregistered

I don't think it's the exynos. Anyway, it doesn't matter since both the exynos and SD models perform similarly in video playback. Video playback doesn't use the CPU and GPU all that much. Most SoCs have fixed function pipeline to decode videos. If you notice carefully, all the other devices are LCD panels. LCD devices usualy are very poor in video playback compared to OLED. Most recent LCD devices rely on panel self refresh for battery saving, which has huge battery gains when you view a still image. AMOLED panels on the other hand are very efficient in this kind of usage since they don't get affected by moving objects due to pulse width modulation used in them. TL;DR -> The reason for S7/edge lasting longer is the AMOLED screen, not the processor. IF they used oneplus 3, the difference would be much lower. Maybe identical to the S7/edge.

24. tech2

Posts: 3487; Member since: Oct 26, 2012

I think it probably is Exynos considering its uploaded by Samsung Germany which received the Exynos version being in Europe. However, I agree the processor wouldn't make a huge difference. In favour of S7 I can also say the white background was in favour of LCD and has a disadvantage for Amoled. Its not only about the screen tech itself. The difference is too huge to be only influenced by that but its about the optimization by OEM too. You have to remember the OS is running in the background as well and Samsung is very good at optimizing battery for android when its on standby at least.

30. WPX00

Posts: 511; Member since: Aug 15, 2015

No no no. It's not standby, it's video usage. And I can say Samsung's video player is almost impossibly efficient. Check GSMArena if you don't believe me.


Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015

But they didn't do as much optimization with their 820 equipped handsets, as evidence by numerous tests.

27. Macready

Posts: 1824; Member since: Dec 08, 2014

While true in general, the video displayed actually has a very unusually high (for average video content) amount of whitee that stays in the video the whole time. Which actually comes closer to web browsing in terms of APL.

29. kylebelle

Posts: 74; Member since: May 03, 2016

actually i think it would.

3. BradyCrack

Posts: 835; Member since: Dec 29, 2015

I didn't know the iPhone 6s's battery was THAT good.

7. ebilcake

Posts: 1230; Member since: Jul 16, 2016

4.7" 1334*750 vs 5.1" 2560*1440 display. I think Samsung's results are a lot more impressive.

10. BradyCrack

Posts: 835; Member since: Dec 29, 2015

Certainly, nearly 11 hours. The S7 Edge died before the S7, I presume it's because of the bigger screen size?

14. maple_mak

Posts: 953; Member since: Dec 18, 2013

Yes of course. 5.1(S7) VS 5.5(S7 Edge)

25. ebilcake

Posts: 1230; Member since: Jul 16, 2016

Yep, it's definitely because of the display size. Unless Samsung were using devices using different SoC, which I doubt. For an in-house test you will always use your best performer as well as cherry pick the competition.

37. xfire99

Posts: 1205; Member since: Mar 14, 2012

Tell that to iPhonearena writers. They never mentioned that when iphone batterylife are better than Android devices.

53. jeroome86

Posts: 2314; Member since: Apr 12, 2012

The 6s plus is better. Always have 50 percent when plugging up at night. 6am till midnight. Good enough for me.

5. ebilcake

Posts: 1230; Member since: Jul 16, 2016

Shame they didn't throw in a OnePlus 3 just for comparison, guess they're not high profile enough for Samsung. :-)

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.