From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

Thank God for the EU (& the UK) for forcing OEMs to truthfully report their mobile device performance (including the UK's battery life requirements).

As of June 20, 2025, all OEMs selling mobile devices in the EU have to
formally report standard benchmarks where all the OEMs used the same
official testing 3rd parties & where all the OEMs knew the standards years ahead of time, such that EPREL is a wealth of benchmark data where all the tests were run similarly on all devices.

IMHO, the EPREL is truly the Holy Grail of benchmarks.
(too bad no USA-specific models were included)

Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669
Enter "Google" in the "Brand or trademark" field.
Battery endurance per cycle
GUR25 49h 12min
GEC77 50h 44min
G6GPR 40h 06min
GZC4K 49h 30min
GTF7P 52h 19min

Google Battery Endurance Summary
Original decimal average:
Total = 241.85 hours, Average over 5 models = 48.37 hours

Rounded to nearest whole hour (Apple-style):
Values: 49, 51, 40, 50, 52 ? Total = 242 ? Average = 48.4 hours

Truncated to whole hour (Apple-style):
Values: 49, 50, 40, 49, 52 ? Total = 240 ? Average = 48.0 hours

Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669
Enter "Samsung" in the "Brand or trademark" field.
Battery endurance per cycle
SM-S937B/DS 40h 05min
SM-X210R 98h 32min
SM-X216R 55h 14min
SM-G766B 38h 15min
SM-X350 142h 50min
SM-X356B 142h 50min
SM-X526E 96h 32min
SM-X620 99h 06min
SM-X520 96h 32min
SM-X626B 99h 06min
SM-X526B 96h 32min
SM-A266B/DS 37h 05min
SM-A566B/DS 44h 34min
SM-A366B/DS 41h 28min
SM-S936B/DS 43h 38min
SM-S938B/DS 44h 54min
SM-A165F/DSB 45h 10min
SM-A166B/DS 43h 30min
SM-X820 73h 44min
SM-X920 85h 18min
SM-X826B 73h 44min
SM-X926B 85h 18min
SM-S721B/DS 42h 00min
SM-G556B 41h 22min
SM-S921B/DS 41h 26min
SM-X300 62h 31min
SM-X306B 62h 31min

Total hours: 2,056.96
Average = Total / 28 models = 2,056.96 / 28 = 73.46 hours

Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669
Enter "Apple" in the "Brand or trademark" field.
A3267 62h 00min
A3268 72h 00min
A3355 67h 00min
A3269 72h 00min
A3354 67h 00min
A3266 62h 00min
A3409 41h 00min
A2993 67h 00min
A2995 67h 00min
A3293 37h 00min
A3290 48h 00min
A3296 48h 00min
A3287 37h 00min
A2836 73h 00min
A2837 73h 00min
A2925 77h 00min
A2926 77h 00min
A3090 34h 00min
A3094 45h 00min

Total hours = 1,199.0
Average = 1,199.0 / 19 = 63.1 hours

Note: It makes no difference if you re-calculate all the numbers
Apple-style, which is a truncation apparently, as I ran all the numbers
three ways, namely as is, by rounding, and by truncation. Hence, Apple's (clever) marketing spin that they reported numbers "lower" than they could
have is meaningless and, worse (much worse) Apple's (brilliant) truncation
cast untoward aspersions on the entire formal process that every OEM,
including Apple, had themselves already long ago been part of.

Overall, Samsung models, based on EPREL data, have a 10 hour advantage.
That's a whopping ~16% higher average battery endurance per cycle.
However, Apple had a decided advantage over Google mobile devices.

I'll send a separate post with a breakdown by smartphones vs tablets. Especially as Google doesn't have tablets to bring the averages up.

And I'll show the proof that it doesn't matter how you round or truncate
the numbers - they still end up being the same within minor differences.
--
I'm all about facts where I generally don't believe marketing benchmarks.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 18:05:30 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

I'll send a separate post with a breakdown by smartphones vs tablets. Especially as Google doesn't have tablets to bring the averages up.

And I'll show the proof that it doesn't matter how you round or truncate
the numbers - they still end up being the same within minor differences.

I'm a scientist and an engineer so I especially delve into benchmarks.
In this case, we need to separate the smartphones from the tablets.
Because they're inherently different in that tablets have better batteries.

Brand Comparison (All using Apple-style truncated values):
Samsung Average endurance 73.07 hours (from 28 models)
Apple Average endurance 63.1 hours (from 19 models)
Google Average endurance 48.0 hours (from 5 models)

Breakdown by tablets versus smartphones in the EPREL database:
Apple 16 smartphones, 3 tablets
Samsung 22 smartphones, 6 tablets
Google 5 smartphones, 0 tablets

Quick summary of the math.
Apple smartphones:
Values = 62, 72, 67, 72, 67, 62, 41, 67, 67, 37, 48, 48, 37, 34, 45, 40
Total = 1,070h, Average = 66.9 hours

Apple Tablets:
Values = 73, 73, 77
Total = 223h, Average = 74.3 hours

Samsung Smartphones:
Models with typical identifiers (e.g. SM-A, SM-G, SM-S):
Values = 40, 38, 37, 45, 41, 43, 44, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 41, 44,
38, 43, 44, 37, 41, 42, 41, 41
Total = 906h, Average = 41.2 hours

Samsung Tablets:
Models starting with SM-X:
Values = 98, 55, 142, 142, 96, 99
Total = 632h, Average = 105.3 hours

Google Smartphones only (no tablets):
Values = 49, 50, 40, 49, 52
Total = 240h, Average = 48.0 hours

Summary of averages by brand & type:
Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)

Looking at tablets only, Samsung dominates with especially high endurance numbers over Apple (Google doesn't seem to have tablets sold in the EU).

Looking at smartphones, Apple shows a clear lead over both Samsung and
Google in terms of benchmarked battery endurance cycle performance metrics.
--
I'm all about facts where I generally are wary of marketing benchmarks.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2