Battery Life

Battery life remains one of the most important aspects of any mobile device. After all, you can’t really call something mobile if it has to spend most of its time connected to an AC adapter. As a result, battery life testing is one of the most critical aspects of our testing, and it’s something that we spend quite a lot of time discussing internally.

Before diving into our results, I want to start things off talking about testing methodologies. This year we're implementing an overhaul of our web browsing test for battery life, with the Galaxy S7 review being our first chance to deploy it. As far as our long-standing 2013 test goes, at a high level our 2013 test was relatively simple in the sense that it simply loaded a web page, then started a timer to wait a certain period of time before loading the next page. And after nearly 3 years it was time for it to evolve.

Internally, we’ve been discussing reasonable measures to push our web browsing test in new directions to both better represent real-world workloads in addition to ensuring that we’re testing more than just display power. For at least a few devices, it had already become quite evident that our old test was almost purely display-bound to such an extent that even video playback was more power intensive. Other issues that were raised both internally and externally included the fact that the test would not test aspects like CPU governor boosts upon touching the display, and that our test almost entirely ignored things like 2D drawing and display pipeline efficiency.

In recognition of these issues, we’ve spent the past few months working on a new test. In addition to new webpages that are exact copies of many popular websites today to better represent modern, real-world workloads, we’ve added a major scrolling component to this battery life test. The use of scrolling should add an extra element of GPU compositing, in addition to providing a CPU workload that is not purely race to sleep from a UI perspective. Unfortunately, while it would be quite interesting to also test the power impact of touch-based CPU boost, due to issues with reproducing such a test reliably we’ve elected to avoid doing such things.

However, we don’t take these changes lightly. While we’ve validated the workload for several devices, it’s important to emphasize that these results could change in the future as much of this data is preliminary. For the second part of the review I’ll be sure to revisit these results with an expanded dataset. Of course, other than the workload the device setup has been held constant across these tests by equalizing brightness to 200 nits and disabling all background sync to the best of my ability.

Web Browsing Battery Battery Life 2016 (WiFi)

As we can see in the results, the Galaxy S7 and S7 edge both do impressively well. One of the more interesting comparison points here would be against the latest devices like the Huawei Mate 8, which has the Kirin 950.

Our previous test was relatively display-bound so differences in SoC efficiency were often difficult to discern and often masked entirely, but here we can see an enormous spread that is almost entirely due to SoC efficiency. The Huawei Mate 8, which under our previous test seemed to be only slightly above the iPhone 6s Plus, has gained a noticeable lead in this test as the Kirin 950’s CPU efficiency is ahead the competition at this time, although it’s important to keep in mind that CPU efficiency is not the only relevant metric for an SoC.

Interestingly enough, the Galaxy S7’s battery life is almost directly scaling with battery size relative to the Galaxy S6. As we’ll see in the display section, the Galaxy S7’s display is pretty much identical to the Galaxy Note5 and S6, so it looks like the efficiency gains from the Galaxy S6 to the S7 are small if you look at the Snapdragon 820 variant.

Of course, the big question that I’m sure a lot of people are thinking is how the Galaxy S7 and the Snapdragon 820 compare to the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus. Unfortunately, due to timing constraints we weren’t able to get data for the smaller iPhone 6s, but looking at the iPhone 6s Plus relative to the Galaxy S7 edge it’s pretty obvious that there is a power efficiency gap between the two in this test. Despite the enormous difference in battery size - the Galaxy S7 edge has a battery that is 33% larger than the iPhone 6s Plus - the difference in battery life between the iPhone and Galaxy in this test is small, on the order of half an hour or 5-6%. This is balanced against a higher resolution (but AMOLED) display, which means we're looking at SoC efficiency compounded with a difference in display power.

Web Browsing Battery Life (WiFi)

In the interest of providing another data point and some validation of our testing results, I ran both devices through our old web browsing test to see what the results would be for something that should be display-bound. Here, it’s obvious that the Galaxy S7 edge holds a significant lead over the iPhone 6s Plus, although the use of a higher resolution display and an AMOLED display in a high-APL test means that the GS7e is using more power in this test as well. However, when you take these results with our new web browsing test, it becomes evident that a difference in power efficiency is growing as the load on the SoC grows. Similarly, despite the Galaxy S7 being neck and neck with the Huawei Mate 8 in our older test, it loses the lead in our new web browsing test.

Of course, I have caution that all of the data that we’re gathering for the web browsing test is still subject to change, but given the interesting data that it provides it’s important for us to include these results, as we’re reasonably confident that these results are accurate.

Overall though, it’s clear that the Galaxy S7 and S7 edge will have solid battery life, even if device efficiency isn’t quite on par with the very best that we’ve seen so far. An improvement of 15% is going to be noticeable if you upgrade from the Galaxy S6, and anyone upgrading from a phone with an SoC older than the Snapdragon 800/801 generation will see huge improvements here.

Introduction and Design SoC and NAND Performance
Comments Locked

202 Comments

View All Comments

  • Arch_Fiend - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    Very good review the S7 is a beast but so is my iPhone 6s plus. I wish I could afford to have 2 high-end smartphones because I would definitely by the S7 if I could because its finally the android phone i've been waiting for.

    Cant wait for review part 2.
  • misteroh - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    I'm very glad you updated your battery testing methodology. I have the LG G4 and my personal experience with its battery life is MUCH closer to your 2016 test results than the 2013. The older test would have you believe it has much better than average battery life, but I personally find myself charging it much more often than I want to.
  • stlc8tr - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    I'm curious about the microSD card slot performance. If you put a fast (<80MB) microSD card in the GS7, are you going to see the difference over a slower card?

    Also, how fast is the USB MTP performance? Did Samsung re-introduce a USB3 connection?
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    It would depend on what you put on the card. Videos and music would probably see no difference. Apps, and if the camera can write directly to the card, maybe.
  • H4CTOR96 - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    I put a Sandisk 64gb Extreme on mine and A1 SD Bench returns 60Mb/s read and 40Mb/s write. For comparison the Internal storage works at 300 read and 150 write.

    ...Then I put in a crappy $7 32gb sd card and it scored 1032 write and 1.02 read, so yeah there was something wrong with that one XD
  • name99 - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    "Of course, other than the workload the device setup has been held constant across these tests by equalizing ... disabling all background sync to the best of my ability."

    Is this really a good idea? Id argue that part of what you are buying when you buy these devices is proper setup. (Certainly, for example, that's part of what Apple would say they are selling.) As such, I'd consider that the right way to benchmark them is in some sort of "as close to out-the-box" state as possible. Sign up for everything the device asks you to sign up for out the box. (For Apple that will be to enter an AppleID, for Android I assume it will always ask for a Google ID and then some random collection of additional logins that people have paid the phone vendor to request.)

    Then see how the phone behaves under those conditions. The Apple pone will presumably occasionally sync with iCloud. The Android phone will sync with various Google Services. And if the vendor asked you to sign up for "MyWannabe Social Network" and "MyWannabe Social Network" delivers ads to the device every three minutes, constantly sucking up power and CPU, THAT IS THE EXPERIENCE THE PHONE IS SELLING YOU.

    Vendors that sell crap like that should accept the consequences in reviews. It's not AnandTech's job to spend an hour scrubbing some phone of useless crap. It is, in fact, AnandTech's job to run the phone with precisely all that crap enabled --- and then let us know the results.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    By background syncing Josh is mostly referring to disabling application auto-updates and other such services which can have an impact on battery life tests. The usual small sync services and GMS have little to no noticeable impact on these tests.

    I disagree on your viewpoint about out-of-box software settings simply because the phones have different software and services depending on your region. North American units from carriers will have different settings and services than the international units. We don't always get samples from the same carrier even. AnandTech has been first and foremost a hardware site so I think it's correct to try to minimize the effect of such services to get a better representation of what the device itself is capable of, not what the carriers choose to add in or not.

    Again, this is all overblown as in practice we see little to no effect on our tests and again we're mostly referring to auto-updates and the like which can eat up singificant amount of CPU cycles.
  • name99 - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    " Always-On Display is nice to have, but for some reason it only polls the ambient light sensor, so the display won’t actually turn off in your pocket. As a result I turned it off as it’s clearly going to be contributing to idle battery drain in situations where it shouldn’t."

    Like I said...
    I think it is not helpful to improving phones generally when reviewers accept stupidity like this.
    If Samsung ship with a feature that's not ready for primetime, the review numbers (in this case battery life) should show it. I don't understand why so many phone users are willing to make excuses for manufacturers and just accept babysitting their machines, manually switching on and off GPS, Bluetooth, WiFi, NFC, etc as the situation demands.

    My devices should damn well operate themselves, not rely on me to do it for them.
  • adityarjun - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    If you do a quick google search, you'll see that a lot of users are still facing keyboard lag. Check reddit and xda.
    I would like to hear your thoughts on the same and whether you are also facing such issues.
  • jhh - Tuesday, March 8, 2016 - link

    Still disappointed that Samsung didn't at least allow enabling using the SD card as extended internal memory. Yes, some people want to swap the cards in and out, but others have found they have run out of internal memory, and have no choice but to buy a new phone without this feature.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now