Battery Life: Good (60Hz) to Average (120Hz)

Last week we had published our initial battery life report on the S20 series, with some interesting findings. First of all, what needs to be mentioned again is that the new 120Hz display modes on the phones come with a quite large battery life impact. The behavior is exhibited on all our S20 models at hand and I think it’s likely due to the panel itself or the DDIC. Samsung had included various display refresh modes varying from 48, 60, 96 and 120Hz, however we have yet to find evidence of any mechanism that actively switches between the various modes. 

Device-On Black Screen Power Consumption (Airplane Mode)

As such, even on a black static screen, running at 120Hz comes with a quite steep power penalty that’s always present whenever the display is on, costing around 160mW of power.

I had noted that I found our variant of the Snapdragon 865 Galaxy S20 Ultra to have worse idle power than our Exynos phone version. Initially I had attributed this to possibly the SoC or even the nature of the external X55 modem, but since then I’ve also received an LG V60 and that device’s idle power is perfectly normal. The only other thing that differentiates our S20 Ultra here is the fact that it has the extra mmWave antennas and RF systems. It would be interesting to see if non-mmWave variants of the Snapdragon S20 Ultra behave any differently (Tip at our Chinese or Korean readers).

I also had made mention that the “Performance” mode of the Exynos S20 phones seemingly behaved quite overzealously in terms of its scheduling settings, and there was a quite drastic increase in power draw for what was not nearly an as drastic increase in performance. I’ve rerun the battery tests in the “Optimized” settings which doesn’t have the “Increased system speed” option enabled, and I’ve confirmed my suspicion as the battery life figures did improve by some notable amounts. I’ve also tested the Snapdragon in the “Optimized” setting and the runtimes only differed by 2% - for users having the Snapdragon versions it’s thus safe to simply leave that enabled.

Web Browsing Battery Life 2016 (WiFi)

In our web test, the new S20 series end up right about where you’d expect them to. The Snapdragon 865 Galaxy S20 Ultra at 60Hz fares the best amongst the tested models, and now represents Samsung’s longest lasting flagship device. Slightly behind it we find the Exynos S20 Ultra at 60Hz. The difference between the two phones here isn’t very big in this test, and I attribute this to the higher constant idle power draw of the Snapdragon phone which counteracts the much higher compute efficiency of the SoC. The Eyxnos S20+ ends up slightly behind the S10+ phones, but still lasts a good 12.65h in this test.

Once we turn on the 120Hz display modes, the battery life results on all the phones drops quite notably. The Snapdragon S20 Ultra goes from 14h to 11.3h, a 20% drop. The same applies to the Exynos S20 Ultra, with a 20% drop, but for some reason the S20+ sees a larger drop of 25%. In the systems performance section I did mention that there’s some software configuration differences between the Exynos S20 Ultra and S20+, maybe some of that plays part here in the results.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Battery Life

Overall, the conclusion on battery life isn’t quite as black & white as we thought it would be. The key point is to stay away from the seemingly broken Performance mode on the Exynos chipset and you’ll have roughly similar battery life results between the two SoC variants of the S20. Naturally, that’s only being achieved by the fact that the Exynos does showcase worse performance, saving energy by using the more efficient lower performance states more.

What’s valid for all variants of the phones is that the 120Hz display mode is quite the power hog. Samsung probably has the opportunity to improve this by introducing a better managed variable refresh rate mode that actually changes between the different refresh rates based on content, something that seemingly isn’t happening right now. Also switching to lower refresh rates when showcasing static content would be a huge power saver, but I’m not sure if Samsung would be able to actually deploy such a mechanism.

Display Measurement Camera Architecture: Huge New Sensors
POST A COMMENT

137 Comments

View All Comments

  • Danish_92 - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 - link

    why are these big brands suddenly focusing on big cameras? Reply
  • surt - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 - link

    I'd say they're focusing on camera GPU performance, which are the two areas of the phone where performance is not yet 'good enough'. Everything else just ... works. Reply
  • s.yu - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 - link

    They're focusing on anything that makes a selling point that people could care about. They also focused on the haptic motors and most mid-high tier phones should vibrate better than those 3-4 years ago. Reply
  • watzupken - Wednesday, April 8, 2020 - link

    Big brands are focusing on big cameras because they see Chinese phones, in particular Huawei, making a lot of waves in this area. Since it is very difficult to differentiate their products especially for Android phones, thus, whatever seems to rock with the consumer, every manufacturer will double down on the same features. First it was SOC, then they start spamming ram, follow by cameras, higher screen to body ratio, and now high refresh rate screen. You can tell Samsung is purely focusing on these areas I have mentioned as well. Reply
  • colonelclaw - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 - link

    A slightly unfortunate time to launch such an expensive product. I don't know about you all, but right now I'm saving every penny I can. Reply
  • peevee - Wednesday, April 8, 2020 - link

    "Why Samsung is able to call this a 3x telephoto module is that when cropping a 1:1 12MP picture out of it, it does end up at a 3x magnification in relation to the main camera sensor."

    3x magnification by the sensor would crop 8 out of 9 pixels. For 64MP original, it would be 7.1MP, not 12.
    Reply
  • flyingpants265 - Thursday, April 9, 2020 - link

    No front speakers = no buy.

    Crappy smartphone OS with no proper multitasking, on a phone with 16 gigs of RAM = no buy.

    Can't turn off Google phoning home in software = no buy.

    $999 = DEFINITELY no buy. Pay about $300 for a used S10. Don't be a sucker.
    Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Thursday, April 9, 2020 - link

    I just ordered a brand new SD845 Note 9 for $350 to replace my current Exynos Note 9 with OLED black banding issues out-of-warranty. Replacing the screen aftermarket would cost $250 alone.

    Anyway, I have no idea why anybody would want to pay $1000+ of IQ deficiency taxes for the current breed of half-baked Samsung phones. Even their home appliances and TVs are also rubbish in terms of value per dollar.
    Reply
  • helloworld_chip - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    Do we have 990 kirin 5G GPU efficiency data for comparison? Would be glad to see if it also shows big efficiency improvements over the 4G version. Reply
  • snarfbot - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    How does the 855+ stack up Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now