The problem is that battery efficiency is a 1000x slower in innovation than the silicon valley's need for more powerful CPU's and bigger LCD screens.....
Silicon doubles speed every 18 months, software lags behind silicon and battery efficiency lags behind software....
Do you know how badly apple is with power efficiency --- the HTC Touch HD (with a 480x800 screen) has a smaller battery (1350 mah) than the iphone (1400 mah).
I doubt anyone will call the HTC Touch HD more power efficient than the iPhone. I also doubt that anyone will consider Apple bad with power efficiency. The iPhone has a 10 hours talk time over Edge and HTC Touch HD has only 5.2 hours only over Edge as well!
So, do you suggest that we will be using the same batteries we use today 3 to 5 years from today?! I really doubt it! Other that batteries there are many technologies being tested now that will make batteries last longer and easier to charge without wires. These technologies might or might not be available in the market but at least someone is pushing the technology forward
Hardcore gamers seem to complain that hardware lags behind software.
Yes Apple's legendarily so bad with power efficiency that the iPhone 3G outlast every other popular HSDPA smartphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
I doubt anyone will call the HTC Touch HD more power efficient than the iPhone. I also doubt that anyone will consider Apple bad with power efficiency. The iPhone has a 10 hours talk time over Edge and HTC Touch HD has only 5.2 hours only over Edge as well!
So, do you suggest that we will be using the same batteries we use today 3 to 5 years from today?! I really doubt it! Other that batteries there are many technologies being tested now that will make batteries last longer and easier to charge without wires. These technologies might or might not be available in the market but at least someone is pushing the technology forward
We still don't have much PC games that run on DX10.
And all the other smartphones in that test come with a smaller battery.
For a laptop or a cell phone like the Touch HD with a 480x800 screen --- the largest power sucker has been the LCD screen. It's a much bigger screen than the iphone.
For a laptop or a cell phone like the Touch HD with a 480x800 screen --- the largest power sucker has been the LCD screen. It's a much bigger screen than the iphone.
The processor is a huge draw on power. What type and how fast is the HTC CPU. The iPhone uses an ARM11 running at 412MHz.
The HTC Touch HD runs an ARM11-based Qualcomm chipset running at 528 MHz.
Nice, it even has double the RAM of the iPhone which will use more power. But do we know if their processor is underclocked to save juice, like the iPhone's 612MHz CPU?
Nice, it even has double the RAM of the iPhone which will use more power. But do we know if their processor is underclocked to save juice, like the iPhone's 612MHz CPU?
The CPU manufacturers offer several speed options --- but it is the handset manufacturer that pick the CPU speed. HTC stated 528 MHz as the speed in their website --- so that is the actual speed without any underclocking.
The CPU manufacturers offer several speed options --- but it is the handset manufacturer that pick the CPU speed. HTC stated 528 MHz as the speed in their website --- so that is the actual speed without any underclocking.
I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.
For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.
I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.
For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.
In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.
It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.
As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.
I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.
For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.
Yeah. That's why I was comparing Edge talk time not 3G since it didn't make since that the difference is 80 minutes, which contradict many tests that compare 3G and Edge talk time for many phones.
In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.
It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.
As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.
Actually the 3G iPhone battery tests conducted by many where within the stated 5 hours talk time.
Yeah. That's why I was comparing Edge talk time not 3G since it didn't make since that the difference is 80 minutes, which contradict many tests that compare 3G and Edge talk time for many phones.
The VAST difference in GSM talk time is easy to explain.
The 3G iphone uses TWO different chips --- one for GSM and a second one for 3G. The Touch HD uses a single Qualcomm chip that does both 2G and 3G.
A specialized GSM chip is going to have a much longer talk time than a 2G/3G integrated chip.
That's good. Hopefully we will see something similar in the next iPhone giving us 10 hours 3G talk time. Too bad I might not be able to buy it unless Apple offers the same deal they offered 1st gen iPhone owners who wanted to upgrade to 3G
That's good. Hopefully we will see something similar in the next iPhone giving us 10 hours 3G talk time. Too bad I might not be able to buy it unless Apple offers the same deal they offered 1st gen iPhone owners who wanted to upgrade to 3G
That offer will have to come from AT&T since they are the ones who have already paid Apple for the agreed upon cost of the handset, but I don't think that will happen as AT&T stopped paying Apple the monthly profit sharing for those who upgraded, so there was no loss to AT&T this last time around.
In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.
The reason we found out the iPhone was underclocked is because CPU speed tests were conducted.
Quote:
It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.
An independent test may find different.
Quote:
As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.
Independent battery tests were done on the iPhone and most found it around what Apple lists.
On the Touch HD spec page the find print says the battery times are subject to network and usage. We need to wait for tests to see what the reality is.
That offer will have to come from AT&T since they are the ones who have already paid Apple for the agreed upon cost of the handset, but I don't think that will happen as AT&T stopped paying Apple the monthly profit sharing for those who upgraded, so there was no loss to AT&T this last time around.
The reason we found out the iPhone was underclocked is because CPU speed tests were conducted.
An independent test may find different.
Independent battery tests were done on the iPhone and most found it around what Apple lists.
On the Touch HD spec page the find print says the battery times are subject to network and usage. We need to wait for tests to see what the reality is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Looking at the link what I see is GSM talk time 310 minutes - 5.1 hours. GSM standby 390 minutes - 6.5 hours.
That's no better than the iPhone.
It was confirmed later by CPU speed test --- but before that, the thought process was from leaked firmware and the teardown, they found out that the CPU was a Samsung ARM11 chip (and that chip has 620 Mhz).
It's a Qualcomm integrated chip for the HTC --- they are a CDMA/WCDMA expert, not a GSM expert. So it is perfectly normal for them to have less than perfect GSM battery life. An hour and a half longer in 3G talk time on a smaller battery, with a higher speed CPU and a bigger LCD screen.
All the ev-do smartphones that had longer battery life than the 3G iphone in the PC World article also have Qualcomm chipsets. They are very good with their 3G stuff.
Also, you people keep on complaining about how bad AT&T's 3G network is and how bad 2G data speed is --- now you are using the slow 2G stuff to make a argument supporting the iphone.
It was confirmed later by CPU speed test --- but before that, the thought process was from leaked firmware and the teardown, they found out that the CPU was a Samsung ARM11 chip (and that chip has 620 Mhz).
That is why you can't look at the CPU speed listed and claim that it's not speculation that it's actually running at that speed. You'll just have to wait for testing and breakdown. The only thing we do know for sure is multiple testings of the iPhone's 2G and 3G talk times and other usage tests from various independent testers, the actual speed of the iPhone's CPU and the clocked speed of iPhone's CPU.
Quote:
All the ev-do smartphones that had longer battery life than the 3G iphone in the PC World article also have Qualcomm chipsets. They are very good with their 3G stuff.
This is a benefit of using CDMA/CDMA2000-based networks. Even with "3G" turned on the phone still uses "2G" to send and receive and calls. GSM/UMTS-based phones aren't capable of this, regardless of the chips used.
Quote:
Also, you people keep on complaining about how bad AT&T's 3G network is and how bad 2G data speed is --- now you are using the slow 2G stuff to make a argument supporting the iphone.
Pointing out the talk times for both network settings is not an excuse, it's being through with the statistical claims. Even on 3G, the only smartphones tested that actually bested the iPhone in real world usage was a BB handset, and it only barely beat it out. If this phone can do better, then it's a definite plus, but using their listed stats as proof is just speculation with plenty of proof that those numbers are probably excessively high. So far, I only know of Apple and Sony are using real world battery tests. I suspect that others will follow suit here, and maybe HTC has already, but you understand if I am reluctant.
That is why you can't look at the CPU speed listed and claim that it's not speculation that it's actually running at that speed. You'll just have to wait for testing and breakdown. The only thing we do know for sure is multiple testings of the iPhone's 2G and 3G talk times and other usage tests from various independent testers, the actual speed of the iPhone's CPU and the clocked speed of iPhone's CPU.
Pointing out the talk times for both network settings is not an excuse, it's being through with the statistical claims. Even on 3G, the only smartphones tested that actually bested the iPhone in real world usage was a BB handset, and it only barely beat it out.
No, there is a real difference here --- Apple never put it in their ads saying that the CPU is 620 Mhz. HTC put it on their websites stating that the CPU is 528 Mhz. If they said it's a 528 Mhz CPU on their website and they underclock it without telling anyone --- then they are going to get sued. So there is no speculation on the part of the Touch HD's CPU speed.
You have to remember that some of these 3G smartphones have a standard battery that is much much smaller than the 3G iphone --- of course the test result in the PC World article is going to favor the iphone.
As the PC world stated, the HTC Touch Dual (not a BB handset, but a Windows Mobile handset) came the closest to the 3G iphone in battery life for the HSDPA network. What they don't say is that the Touch Dual came with a 1120 mah battery. The 3G iphone has a 25% more battery capacity at 1400 mah. The difference in talk time in the PC World test is 5:18 for the Touch Dual and 5:38 for the iphone --- a 20 minute difference for a battery size 25% larger.
No, there is a real difference here --- Apple never put it in their ads saying that the CPU is 620 Mhz.
You keep saying no, but then you make my point for me. Apple has never listed the PCU speed. They also don't list their AEBS as being capable of 540Mbps, they simply say 5x faster than 802.11g. Apple usually doesn't list specs just to list specs, but they also usually won't win in a spec sheet war so why would they. So we have to rely on independent studies to get the facts.
Quote:
What they don't say is that the Touch Dual came with a 1120 mah battery. The 3G iphone has a 25% more battery capacity at 1400 mah.
What difference does that make? According to you the HTC has 24% faster CPU. When you measure how long the unit will last in a real world test you are adding or subtracting time based on the individual parts. It's about the whole device. To say that the HTC gets a 25% handicap because of the smaller battery is disingenuous.
Comments
The problem is that battery efficiency is a 1000x slower in innovation than the silicon valley's need for more powerful CPU's and bigger LCD screens.....
Silicon doubles speed every 18 months, software lags behind silicon and battery efficiency lags behind software....
Do you know how badly apple is with power efficiency --- the HTC Touch HD (with a 480x800 screen) has a smaller battery (1350 mah) than the iphone (1400 mah).
I doubt anyone will call the HTC Touch HD more power efficient than the iPhone. I also doubt that anyone will consider Apple bad with power efficiency. The iPhone has a 10 hours talk time over Edge and HTC Touch HD has only 5.2 hours only over Edge as well!
So, do you suggest that we will be using the same batteries we use today 3 to 5 years from today?! I really doubt it! Other that batteries there are many technologies being tested now that will make batteries last longer and easier to charge without wires. These technologies might or might not be available in the market but at least someone is pushing the technology forward
Hardcore gamers seem to complain that hardware lags behind software.
Yes Apple's legendarily so bad with power efficiency that the iPhone 3G outlast every other popular HSDPA smartphone.
I doubt anyone will call the HTC Touch HD more power efficient than the iPhone. I also doubt that anyone will consider Apple bad with power efficiency. The iPhone has a 10 hours talk time over Edge and HTC Touch HD has only 5.2 hours only over Edge as well!
So, do you suggest that we will be using the same batteries we use today 3 to 5 years from today?! I really doubt it! Other that batteries there are many technologies being tested now that will make batteries last longer and easier to charge without wires. These technologies might or might not be available in the market but at least someone is pushing the technology forward
We still don't have much PC games that run on DX10.
And all the other smartphones in that test come with a smaller battery.
For a laptop or a cell phone like the Touch HD with a 480x800 screen --- the largest power sucker has been the LCD screen. It's a much bigger screen than the iphone.
For a laptop or a cell phone like the Touch HD with a 480x800 screen --- the largest power sucker has been the LCD screen. It's a much bigger screen than the iphone.
The processor is a huge draw on power. What type and how fast is the HTC CPU. The iPhone uses an ARM11 running at 412MHz.
http://www.htc.com/www/product.aspx?id=64796
Touch HD's (with a smaller battery) got better 3G talk time and longer standby time than the 3G iphone.
The HTC Touch HD runs an ARM11-based Qualcomm chipset running at 528 MHz.
Nice, it even has double the RAM of the iPhone which will use more power. But do we know if their processor is underclocked to save juice, like the iPhone's 612MHz CPU?
Nice, it even has double the RAM of the iPhone which will use more power. But do we know if their processor is underclocked to save juice, like the iPhone's 612MHz CPU?
The CPU manufacturers offer several speed options --- but it is the handset manufacturer that pick the CPU speed. HTC stated 528 MHz as the speed in their website --- so that is the actual speed without any underclocking.
The CPU manufacturers offer several speed options --- but it is the handset manufacturer that pick the CPU speed. HTC stated 528 MHz as the speed in their website --- so that is the actual speed without any underclocking.
I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.
For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.
I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.
For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.
In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.
It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.
As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.
I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.
For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.
Yeah. That's why I was comparing Edge talk time not 3G since it didn't make since that the difference is 80 minutes, which contradict many tests that compare 3G and Edge talk time for many phones.
In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.
It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.
As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.
Actually the 3G iPhone battery tests conducted by many where within the stated 5 hours talk time.
Yeah. That's why I was comparing Edge talk time not 3G since it didn't make since that the difference is 80 minutes, which contradict many tests that compare 3G and Edge talk time for many phones.
The VAST difference in GSM talk time is easy to explain.
The 3G iphone uses TWO different chips --- one for GSM and a second one for 3G. The Touch HD uses a single Qualcomm chip that does both 2G and 3G.
http://www.qctconnect.com/products/msm_7201.html
A specialized GSM chip is going to have a much longer talk time than a 2G/3G integrated chip.
The VAST difference in GSM talk time is easy to explain.
The 3G iphone uses TWO different chips --- one for GSM and a second one for 3G. The Touch HD uses a single Qualcomm chip that does both 2G and 3G.
http://www.qctconnect.com/products/msm_7201.html
A specialized GSM chip is going to have a much longer talk time than a 2G/3G integrated chip.
That's good. Hopefully we will see something similar in the next iPhone giving us 10 hours 3G talk time. Too bad I might not be able to buy it unless Apple offers the same deal they offered 1st gen iPhone owners who wanted to upgrade to 3G
That's good. Hopefully we will see something similar in the next iPhone giving us 10 hours 3G talk time. Too bad I might not be able to buy it unless Apple offers the same deal they offered 1st gen iPhone owners who wanted to upgrade to 3G
That offer will have to come from AT&T since they are the ones who have already paid Apple for the agreed upon cost of the handset, but I don't think that will happen as AT&T stopped paying Apple the monthly profit sharing for those who upgraded, so there was no loss to AT&T this last time around.
In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.
The reason we found out the iPhone was underclocked is because CPU speed tests were conducted.
It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.
An independent test may find different.
As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.
Independent battery tests were done on the iPhone and most found it around what Apple lists.
On the Touch HD spec page the find print says the battery times are subject to network and usage. We need to wait for tests to see what the reality is.
Touch HD's (with a smaller battery) got better 3G talk time and longer standby time than the 3G iphone.
Looking at the link what I see is GSM talk time 310 minutes - 5.1 hours. GSM standby 390 minutes - 6.5 hours.
That's no better than the iPhone.
That offer will have to come from AT&T since they are the ones who have already paid Apple for the agreed upon cost of the handset, but I don't think that will happen as AT&T stopped paying Apple the monthly profit sharing for those who upgraded, so there was no loss to AT&T this last time around.
I know.. I was just dreaming
The reason we found out the iPhone was underclocked is because CPU speed tests were conducted.
An independent test may find different.
Independent battery tests were done on the iPhone and most found it around what Apple lists.
On the Touch HD spec page the find print says the battery times are subject to network and usage. We need to wait for tests to see what the reality is.
Looking at the link what I see is GSM talk time 310 minutes - 5.1 hours. GSM standby 390 minutes - 6.5 hours.
That's no better than the iPhone.
It was confirmed later by CPU speed test --- but before that, the thought process was from leaked firmware and the teardown, they found out that the CPU was a Samsung ARM11 chip (and that chip has 620 Mhz).
http://www.gearlog.com/2007/07/iphon...msung_s3c6.php
It's a Qualcomm integrated chip for the HTC --- they are a CDMA/WCDMA expert, not a GSM expert. So it is perfectly normal for them to have less than perfect GSM battery life. An hour and a half longer in 3G talk time on a smaller battery, with a higher speed CPU and a bigger LCD screen.
All the ev-do smartphones that had longer battery life than the 3G iphone in the PC World article also have Qualcomm chipsets. They are very good with their 3G stuff.
Also, you people keep on complaining about how bad AT&T's 3G network is and how bad 2G data speed is --- now you are using the slow 2G stuff to make a argument supporting the iphone.
It was confirmed later by CPU speed test --- but before that, the thought process was from leaked firmware and the teardown, they found out that the CPU was a Samsung ARM11 chip (and that chip has 620 Mhz).
That is why you can't look at the CPU speed listed and claim that it's not speculation that it's actually running at that speed. You'll just have to wait for testing and breakdown. The only thing we do know for sure is multiple testings of the iPhone's 2G and 3G talk times and other usage tests from various independent testers, the actual speed of the iPhone's CPU and the clocked speed of iPhone's CPU.
All the ev-do smartphones that had longer battery life than the 3G iphone in the PC World article also have Qualcomm chipsets. They are very good with their 3G stuff.
This is a benefit of using CDMA/CDMA2000-based networks. Even with "3G" turned on the phone still uses "2G" to send and receive and calls. GSM/UMTS-based phones aren't capable of this, regardless of the chips used.
Also, you people keep on complaining about how bad AT&T's 3G network is and how bad 2G data speed is --- now you are using the slow 2G stuff to make a argument supporting the iphone.
Pointing out the talk times for both network settings is not an excuse, it's being through with the statistical claims. Even on 3G, the only smartphones tested that actually bested the iPhone in real world usage was a BB handset, and it only barely beat it out. If this phone can do better, then it's a definite plus, but using their listed stats as proof is just speculation with plenty of proof that those numbers are probably excessively high. So far, I only know of Apple and Sony are using real world battery tests. I suspect that others will follow suit here, and maybe HTC has already, but you understand if I am reluctant.
That is why you can't look at the CPU speed listed and claim that it's not speculation that it's actually running at that speed. You'll just have to wait for testing and breakdown. The only thing we do know for sure is multiple testings of the iPhone's 2G and 3G talk times and other usage tests from various independent testers, the actual speed of the iPhone's CPU and the clocked speed of iPhone's CPU.
Pointing out the talk times for both network settings is not an excuse, it's being through with the statistical claims. Even on 3G, the only smartphones tested that actually bested the iPhone in real world usage was a BB handset, and it only barely beat it out.
No, there is a real difference here --- Apple never put it in their ads saying that the CPU is 620 Mhz. HTC put it on their websites stating that the CPU is 528 Mhz. If they said it's a 528 Mhz CPU on their website and they underclock it without telling anyone --- then they are going to get sued. So there is no speculation on the part of the Touch HD's CPU speed.
You have to remember that some of these 3G smartphones have a standard battery that is much much smaller than the 3G iphone --- of course the test result in the PC World article is going to favor the iphone.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/14834...ts_rivals.html
As the PC world stated, the HTC Touch Dual (not a BB handset, but a Windows Mobile handset) came the closest to the 3G iphone in battery life for the HSDPA network. What they don't say is that the Touch Dual came with a 1120 mah battery. The 3G iphone has a 25% more battery capacity at 1400 mah. The difference in talk time in the PC World test is 5:18 for the Touch Dual and 5:38 for the iphone --- a 20 minute difference for a battery size 25% larger.
http://www.htc.com/www/product.aspx?id=316
No, there is a real difference here --- Apple never put it in their ads saying that the CPU is 620 Mhz.
You keep saying no, but then you make my point for me. Apple has never listed the PCU speed. They also don't list their AEBS as being capable of 540Mbps, they simply say 5x faster than 802.11g. Apple usually doesn't list specs just to list specs, but they also usually won't win in a spec sheet war so why would they. So we have to rely on independent studies to get the facts.
What they don't say is that the Touch Dual came with a 1120 mah battery. The 3G iphone has a 25% more battery capacity at 1400 mah.
What difference does that make? According to you the HTC has 24% faster CPU. When you measure how long the unit will last in a real world test you are adding or subtracting time based on the individual parts. It's about the whole device. To say that the HTC gets a 25% handicap because of the smaller battery is disingenuous.