There's been a lot of confusion in the blogosphere of late over whether or not one of Apple's iPhone 6s models is better than another based on which A9 processor it happens to have. The issue was being debated in a MacRumors Forum as we noted in our report last week. Apple tried to diffuse the issue by stating that variables would only cause a 2 to 3% difference which is negligible. The debate spread like wild fire and it's now even forcing the Taiwan Government to investigate the matter. Just hours ago, ConsumerReports revealed their extensive testing and found that there was no 'Chipgate' to be found on the iPhone 6s having different processors. More specifically the report noted that "Despite varying chips, the iPhone 6s models we tested showed no significant differences in battery life or temperature."
ConsumerReports put the iPhone 6s under a four step test and the verdict is: "We found no appreciable differences in battery life or temperature between the iPhones 6s models with the varying chips."
The Bottom Line: Smartphones are as complicated as the people who use them, so it's impossible to say with certainty that the battery- and temperature-performance differences we measured in this chipgate testing will be consistent in every imaginable scenario. But if iPhone 6s users are ever disappointed with their phones, we're confident it won't be because they bought the model with the "wrong" chip."
If you want to know what the tests entailed, check out the full report here. At the end of the day it would, at least on the surface, appear to be a sophisticated planted story by Samsung. Didn't they try this tactic last year with Bendgate to slow down iPhone 6 sales? Is it just a coincidence that the last two iPhone cycles have been temporarily disturbed by sudden hysterical issues? I beginning to think, not.