The "new" iPhone to use 1440 mAh battery

Every year we come across rumours involving the next iPhone, and after finding out that the device could feature a 4-inch display with a 16:9 aspect ratio, we have now found out that the device will likely sport a dual-core processor.

9to5Mac has got hold of a couple of pictures reportedly showing off the battery which is set to feature inside the new iPhone. We can see from the images that the device will sport a 1,440mAh battery, which is only a small increase on the 1,430mAh pack found in the iPhone 4S. It is the battery capacity which really makes us believe that this will be a dual-core device, as most quad-core smartphones have battery sizes ranging from 1,800mAh and 2,100mAh.

While some may think a dual core CPU is a bit of a letdown, iOS runs quite well on its current processor so a small bump in clock speed along with a larger screen, should still provide the silky smooth performance we all expect out of iOS. 

The new iPhone is scheduled for release in September, but Apple will likely remain quiet about the details of its next smartphone up until its launch.

Source: 9to5mac

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Giveaway: Win one of five Death Rally PC Steam Codes

Next Story

Chrome update cuts down on Windows crashes caused by Flash

60 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I know on android if you get beyond 12-15hrs your lucky. I had the razr maxx and while it was pretty good with battery it gave me no where near 2-3 days as moto claims.

my galaxy nexus has 1750 mAh and its almost a year old LOL maybe next time apple. Its sad that people will be sucked into buy your junk product.

droidkid said,
my galaxy nexus has 1750 mAh and its almost a year old LOL maybe next time apple. Its sad that people will be sucked into buy your junk product.

Glad to hear that the specs of the battery in your phone are so important to you.

a0me said,

Glad to hear that the specs of the battery in your phone are so important to you.

yeah they are, I don't carry a portable charger with me...so yes it is important

droidkid said,

yeah they are, I don't carry a portable charger with me...so yes it is important


You're aware that battery life is determined by a combination of factors, not only on the battery's specs, right?

WOW a whole 1440mah. Apple need to get with the times and release a phone with updated specs. I dont expect a big spec bump with the next iphone.

some phones/os's/processors/ etc are more efficant then others... the mah is just a number when comparing Battery to Battery, NOT phone life to phone life

smooth3006 said,
WOW a whole 1440mah. Apple need to get with the times and release a phone with updated specs. I dont expect a big spec bump with the next iphone.

rippleman said,
some phones/os's/processors/ etc are more efficant then others... the mah is just a number when comparing Battery to Battery, NOT phone life to phone life

well this os "ios" sucks battery on the iphone 4s so hmm maybe in the iphone 5 they should of put a bigger battery. the phone will be pretty much the same os as the 4s

some apps suck batteries worse than others... turn off some of your apps, thats not IOS's fault, its the App maker..

droidkid said,

well this os "ios" sucks battery on the iphone 4s so hmm maybe in the iphone 5 they should of put a bigger battery. the phone will be pretty much the same os as the 4s

rippleman said,
some phones/os's/processors/ etc are more efficant then others... the mah is just a number when comparing Battery to Battery, NOT phone life to phone life

rippleman said,
some phones/os's/processors/ etc are more efficant then others... the mah is just a number when comparing Battery to Battery, NOT phone life to phone life

You have no idea what your talking about apparently.

Some interesting viewpoints on a decent thread thats not descended into bashing I like what people can do with "just" a dual core on a mobile device. Thinking this it's almost like a throwback to the old 16 bit era where hardware was what it was and you did what you could to make things work.

Surely there comes a point where chucking more cores doesn't improve the overall experience. If you had a fast enough phone with a great display vs a faster phone but without a great display where would consumers look to? Surely with phones its about an overall experience not just a PC numbers, mine runs faster game?

My iPhone 4S is running a 2430mah battery. Every iPod I have ever owned ended up running a far bigger battery than the wimpy ones Apple decide to put in and I have never had any issues with them - just fantastic battery service. Sorry but just adding 10mah to the capacity of the battery doesn't impress me, not when aftermarket battery's long ago left 1430mah far behind.

I'd be more worried about LTE. At least until this point, LTE has created a drop in battery life.

If LTE is added to the next iPhone without increasing the battery capacity, there would likely be a reduction the battery life.

From What I am seeing a longer screen is not enough for me to upgrade my iphone 4s. I have siri 1080p video recording and the map updates when ios 6 comes out.

as of right now the only upgrade would be a huge camera update. Not just a mega pixel update.

"as most quad-core smartphones have battery sizes ranging from 1,800mAh and 2,100mAh"

Ergo, quad-core SoCs require such batteries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...on_does_not_imply_causation
You have to look further. It turns out that all quad-core smartphones have 4.7+" screens, which can be much more of a battery hog than the SoC.
I'd be more confident in deducing that the next iPhone won't have a very large screen. As for the number of SoC cores, quad-core has too few benefits in practice for Apple to choose it over dual-core, regardless of what the battery capacity could imply.

dismuter said,
"as most quad-core smartphones have battery sizes ranging from 1,800mAh and 2,100mAh"

Ergo, quad-core SoCs require such batteries?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...on_does_not_imply_causation
You have to look further. It turns out that all quad-core smartphones have 4.7+" screens, which can be much more of a battery hog than the SoC.
I'd be more confident in deducing that the next iPhone won't have a very large screen. As for the number of SoC cores, quad-core has too few benefits in practice for Apple to choose it over dual-core, regardless of what the battery capacity could imply.

And let's be honest, if you had to put your money on someone being able to get a quad core phone running on a battery this size it would be apple because they control every element from software to hardware so they are able to optimize it better

besides, quad core is pointless for these toy operating systems that run on phones. It's not like you have a good windowing system or the screen real state like those on windows 8 tablets where you can do true multi tasking.

additionally unlike windows 8, which has been optimized from the ground up for multiple cores after years of experience with the NT kernel and multi core cpu's iOS and android are years behind and don't really take as much advantage of multiple cores compared to win 8

Windows NT-based OSes don't magically introduce multithreading to single-threaded applications, just as iOS/Mac OS X doesn't unless you use GCD.

Also newsflash: multitasking on Windows 8 is more or less the same as iOS, assuming you're referring to Metro apps. Background apps are frozen on both platforms (minus a few exceptions, i.e. playing music).

But that battery looks like it has a connector, ipod/iphone batteries are soldered to the board...
Wait nevermind, just looked it up and the iphone has a cable for the battery, bah!

n_K said,
But that battery looks like it has a connector, ipod/iphone batteries are soldered to the board...
Wait nevermind, just looked it up and the iphone has a cable for the battery, bah!

Yeh, iPhone batteries are actually quite easy to replace

My iPhone 4 with IOS 4 ran a lot faster than iOS 5 on a 4s. I was hoping to have a quad core to compensate for this and the bloated ios6. Having said that the iPad 3 proves you don't need more grunt of quad core to run super high res but it does help.

They need to put the capacity of macbook pro battery into the iPhone. Can't they understand how to make a better product>? Since SJ is gone...they are having trouble getting new design and feature to the future product.

Master of Earth said,
They need to put the capacity of macbook pro battery into the iPhone. Can't they understand how to make a better product>? Since SJ is gone...they are having trouble getting new design and feature to the future product.

Why? Bleeding edge tech doesn't necessarily mean better, especially if it means the costs are coming out of your pocket for it... Apple has always been rather practical at least with their designs, that's how they often find their success.

A lot of people would like to see a quad-core processor in the iPhone i'm sure, though is it necessary is the real question.

Yes, iOS runs pretty damn smooth with the current processor though is that enough for higher end apps?

Are a majority of app developers pushing the processing power currently in the iPhone?

There are quite a few questions which only Apple at this point will have the statistics to answer.

If game app developers in particular are demanding more juice will Apple implement the additional processing power?

jakal121 said,
A lot of people would like to see a quad-core processor in the iPhone i'm sure, though is it necessary is the real question.

Yes, iOS runs pretty damn smooth with the current processor though is that enough for higher end apps?

Are a majority of app developers pushing the processing power currently in the iPhone?

There are quite a few questions which only Apple at this point will have the statistics to answer.

If game app developers in particular are demanding more juice will Apple implement the additional processing power?

There's CPU and gpu

jakal121 said,
A lot of people would like to see a quad-core processor in the iPhone i'm sure, though is it necessary is the real question.

Yes, iOS runs pretty damn smooth with the current processor though is that enough for higher end apps?

Graphically demanding games such as Infinity Blade 2, Real Racing 2 HD, Galaxy of Fire 2 HD and the recently announced Wild Blood all seems to run perfectly fine on iPhone. Sure we could use more power hungry processors, but is it really necessary considering the effect on costs and battery life?

jakal121 said,
A lot of people would like to see a quad-core processor in the iPhone i'm sure, though is it necessary is the real question.

Yes, iOS runs pretty damn smooth with the current processor though is that enough for higher end apps?

Are a majority of app developers pushing the processing power currently in the iPhone?

There are quite a few questions which only Apple at this point will have the statistics to answer.

If game app developers in particular are demanding more juice will Apple implement the additional processing power?

I don't really care if game performance get better, but I would like to see faster all-around load times. I'm not sure where the bottle neck is but even small apps like Twitter take about 5 seconds to load if they haven't been opened in awhile (and that's showing what was previously loaded not a refreshed feed). It should all be instant. Instant gratification is the best kind of gratification IMO .

Lolz ... I remember when people went after WP7 for having only single core. They ignore the fact that WP7 runs buttery smooth with only single core. They call WP7 is outdated hardware. For me, I don't really care much about how many cores, as long as it can run smoothly. Just want to point out the funny thing when people defend new iPhone now for having only dual core.

MDboyz said,
Lolz ... I remember when people went after WP7 for having only single core. They ignore the fact that WP7 runs buttery smooth with only single core. They call WP7 is outdated hardware. For me, I don't really care much about how many cores, as long as it can run smoothly. Just want to point out the funny thing when people defend new iPhone now for having only dual core.

Probably not the same people...

Osiris said,
Sounds the spec obsessed crew was hoping for 4 cores or some other unnecessary amount of cores/cpu

I can guarantee you the iphone 5s will have a quad core and your dual core will struggle to keep up with the iOS 7.. just to force you to upgrade to the latest.

A let down? Why?

If the OS runs buttery smooth with a dual-core, why increase the energy envelope just for the sake of bragging about a quad-core CPU?

Aside from geeks comparing their scores, today's average consumer smartphone needs do not require highly parallel computing justifying a dramatic increase in computing power. Regular and moderate increase does the job more efficiently.

This number game is a dead-end that does not benefit the consumers.

People need to get over the myth that more cores = better performance. That's simply Android's method to make up for their crappy software optimization. Windows phone already proved you can have silky smooth performance on crap hardware. So why sacrifice size and battery life for cores that won't make a bit of a difference?

Astra.Xtreme said,
People need to get over the myth that more cores = better performance. That's simply Android's method to make up for their crappy software optimization. Windows phone already proved you can have silky smooth performance on crap hardware. So why sacrifice size and battery life for cores that won't make a bit of a difference?

I'm sure it's possible to optimize software well for low end hardware, but of course a dual core CPU makes a difference in a multitasking operating system. Since these devices only have limited multitasking (but multitasking nevertheless), I can agree that quad cores and beyond may make a small difference. But with a dual core processor, the processor can completely offload an entire background app to one CPU, while running the active one with the other. This can in turn allow the operating system to use a lower clock speed for performance comparable to a single core CPU running at a higher clock speed, which would be of interest in a mobile device.

Astra.Xtreme said,
People need to get over the myth that more cores = better performance. That's simply Android's method to make up for their crappy software optimization. Windows phone already proved you can have silky smooth performance on crap hardware. So why sacrifice size and battery life for cores that won't make a bit of a difference?

Used properly it's a world of difference, I have a quad APU @ 3.0 ghz that runs PS2 games at 60 fps, then, you disable the multithread hack.... and the speed lowers.

Astra.Xtreme said,
People need to get over the myth that more cores = better performance. That's simply Android's method to make up for their crappy software optimization. Windows phone already proved you can have silky smooth performance on crap hardware. So why sacrifice size and battery life for cores that won't make a bit of a difference?

To say that adding cores doesn't equate to better performance is only true if the software is not written to take advantage of multiple cores. If it is, then there will be a performance gain. But adding cores has diminishing returns. Two cores doesn't come close to equaling twice the performance gain over a single core, and the comparison between four cores and two cores is similar.

Astra.Xtreme said,
snip

It's OEMs and carriers that do crappy customization's, I'm running Jelly Bean on a 1Ghz single core CPU with a custom rom and it is flast, fluid and no lag whatsoever.

thealexweb said,

It's OEMs and carriers that do crappy customization's, I'm running Jelly Bean on a 1Ghz single core CPU with a custom rom and it is flast, fluid and no lag whatsoever.


truth !! JB is running perfectly smooth on my captivate

(Spork) said,


truth !! JB is running perfectly smooth on my captivate

*high fives* The software devs that work for OEMs should be ashamed of themselves, not so much for the bloat because the highers up make the deals with other companies to cram in that stuff but for the poor optimization.

Astra.Xtreme said,
People need to get over the myth that more cores = better performance. That's simply Android's method to make up for their crappy software optimization. Windows phone already proved you can have silky smooth performance on crap hardware. So why sacrifice size and battery life for cores that won't make a bit of a difference?

Not all Android users/products are like this.

Sony makes great phone with very optimized UI using only dual-core SoC.

thealexweb said,

It's OEMs and carriers that do crappy customization's, I'm running Jelly Bean on a 1Ghz single core CPU with a custom rom and it is flast, fluid and no lag whatsoever.

Very true. If Google really wanted Android to be pleasant for people, they would stop the UI overlays that trash most stock phones. I've always thought it was really sad that a custom rom magically gets rid of some lag and makes it more stable. Android just gets a bad wrap because the majority of people use the stock roms that run like crap. But even the custom roms have bugs and instabilities since it is 3rd party software, so you really can't fully win either way.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Very true. If Google really wanted Android to be pleasant for people, they would stop the UI overlays that trash most stock phones. I've always thought it was really sad that a custom rom magically gets rid of some lag and makes it more stable. Android just gets a bad wrap because the majority of people use the stock roms that run like crap. But even the custom roms have bugs and instabilities since it is 3rd party software, so you really can't fully win either way.

Don't forget about the unwanted bloat/crapware that comes loaded on the phones when purchased. Unless it's unlocked from the manufacturer themselves. But rooting the phone to get rid of the crapware installed by default, will help with the stock rom too.

Astra.Xtreme said,
People need to get over the myth that more cores = better performance. That's simply Android's method to make up for their crappy software optimization. Windows phone already proved you can have silky smooth performance on crap hardware. So why sacrifice size and battery life for cores that won't make a bit of a difference?
People now not just wants to send a text message, make a call, post something on facebook or twitter... People want games as well. High end games...

Astra.Xtreme said,
People need to get over the myth that more cores = better performance. That's simply Android's method to make up for their crappy software optimization. Windows phone already proved you can have silky smooth performance on crap hardware. So why sacrifice size and battery life for cores that won't make a bit of a difference?

But it's not just the OS that people care about, better games, better graphics, shorter loading times on Apps, apps with more capability.

thealexweb said,

It's OEMs and carriers that do crappy customization's, I'm running Jelly Bean on a 1Ghz single core CPU with a custom rom and it is flast, fluid and no lag whatsoever.

Not a slowdown in sight on my Galaxy S3 with Apex Launcher (which has jelly bean code, although I'm not sure if it has all of the optimisations.)

McKay said,

But it's not just the OS that people care about, better games, better graphics, shorter loading times on Apps, apps with more capability.

All of which are easily accomplished on a dual core. The 4S isn't hurting at all in terms of performance. And if the 5 still has a dual core, it won't be hurting either. Like I said, having 4 cores doesn't automatically unleash a new level of performance.

If people want gaming insanity, it's going to be heat dissipation and the battery that will be severe limiting factors. Not the CPU.

Hardcore Til I Die said,

Not a slowdown in sight on my Galaxy S3 with Apex Launcher (which has jelly bean code, although I'm not sure if it has all of the optimisations.)

A phone with that much power inside there should be no slouch, by point was most OEMs and carriers bundle in crapware.

ACTIONpack said,
I thought the iPhone already had a dual core processor from the A5.

And you are correct. The iPhone 4s consists of a Dual-core 1 GHz Cortex-A9.

Why is the iPhone 5 featuring a dual-core a shocker? It was obvious.

ACTIONpack said,
I thought the iPhone already had a dual core processor from the A5.

Yes, the iPhone 4S, the iPad 2, and the third generation iPad all run dual-core A5 processors.

Northgrove said,

Yes, the iPhone 4S, the iPad 2, and the third generation iPad all run dual-core A5 processors.
I thought the iPad 3 had an a6 quad core processor?

ACTIONpack said,
I thought the iPhone already had a dual core processor from the A5.

It will be a while if ever apple switches to quad core in the iphone. I fully expect the iPhone 5 to use the same A5 processor as the 4s. The ipad 3 uses the A5X processor which has better graphics but is only really needed in the ipad because of the high resolution screen.

Expect the iphone 6 to use an A6 processor which will be a dual core cortex A15 chip.