[Galaxy S II General] AndreiLux:
It is not signal related. The international version has been out for 4+ months now, I've had mine for 3 months and think I know enough of the behavior of the device and how it acts than you who has had for not even 2 weeks on AT&T. I already responded to you in the AT&T thread so I won't bother repeating myself here once again.

The CPU architecture is similar? What the **** are you on? The S5PV210/S5PC210 are last generation architectures based on Cortex A8 designs while the 4210 are A9's, and googling even for 10 seconds will give you quotes like:

Cortex-A9 also boasts numerous improvements in efficiency, claiming power consumption numbers nearly half that of the Cortex-A8, as well as the ability to use multiple-core technology to scale processing power in accordance with energy limitations.​

They are as similar as saying a Core2 is similar to a Pentium 4 because they have the same instruction set.

Yes, they are both 45nm processes, but with a 2 year gap in between them, the 4210 being the last one before shrinking to 32nm so 45nm is as mature right now as it will ever get, and if you think there's no yield and process improvements between mask shrinks then you are just plain ignorant.

Go read on the tear-down article of the S2 and you'll see how it has almost exclusively new, never used, high-end components for almost everything.

Yes, it pulls current drain statistics out of its ass. Go read on it for your ****ing self. And yes, I've seen that there's a fuel gauge in the source code and hardware, just as you've said, but it's not used, so it might just as well not be there.

Oh really? First of all, go put that thing in damn airplane mode so I don't have to listen about your damn radio power rhetoric anymore. Turn on Wifi to reproduce the bug, again, it's a different chip, the Broadcom one, vs the Infineon baseband. It's as far away as it gets from radio usage, don't you agree?

Well if it's a reporting bug, under the conditions above: then it's damn ****ing big one as:

1) the kernel is reporting false CPU real time % use on suspend and events/0

2) the kernel is reporting false frequency state statistics

3) why is my CPU out of deep sleep for amounts of time way larger than the sum of time of all wakelocks for that period?

Look, I'm not trying to play the messiah here or pretend to know it all, because I don't. All that I'm doing is collecting evidence on the issue, and the evidence points out to that there's something wrong. If your explanation that battery drain can increase 10 fold for the same circumstances (and yes, the battery dies, it's not just playing around and acting dead), on the same desk, under the same signal reception conditions, without even data connectivity for that matter as it's idling on GSM when under Wifi, and that's all how it should be, then you need to get a clue.

What's the matter with this bull**** attitude? I presented my findings and argued them and all you're doing is saying I'm talking out of my ass while you're not even backing up the things you're saying as seen above.

________________________________

Edit:

Just looked again through my screencaps.

Left side: not bugged, how it should be; Right side: bugged, how it behaves sometimes in severe cases.

​

Same network, same location, same signal strength, same ROM (Changing my font maybe fixed it....) , same wakelocks between them, same background apps running. Not even 5 minutes screen time on the two. The only difference with .14 patched kernels I'm experiencing is that it's not showing up anymore in the stats, but it drains just as much as in the right screen, showing the same CPU state behavior. It's also happening less often, and many say it's not happening at all anymore, but how would they know it it's hidden now?