With two days left to go until Apple kicks off its massive iPhone 6s event, a new report seems to offer more information another important characteristic of the new phones: screen resolution. Even though the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus are expected to be somewhat iterative improvements compared to their predecessors, the new models will have even better screen resolution than last year’s models.

DON’T MISS: Awesome airline travel hacks you can start using today

Instead, according to a Chinese leaker who posted screenshots on Weibo showing the purported resolution of the new iPhones, the iPhone 6s will have a 2000 x 1125 display, while the bigger iPhone 6s Plus will have a 2208 x 1242 resolution screen. Strangely, this particular detail about the iPhone 6s’ display has not been featured in the wide range of reports from reliable sources that detailed various features of the upcoming iPhone series.

Assuming the images aren’t fake, this would lead to a significant increase in pixel density: 488 ppi for the iPhone 6s (up from 326 ppi on the iPhone 6) and 460 ppi for the iPhone 6s Plus (up from 401 ppi on the iPhone 6 Plus).

The image posted on Weibo seems to be the Chinese version of the upcoming iPhone 6s specs page that Apple will publish on its website after announcing the devices, and appears to be consistent with the current iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus section on the same Apple.com page – see it below compared to the real thing.

rumored-iphone-6s-display-specsImage Source: Weibo

apple-iphone-6-display-specs

The same person also posted a screenshot on Weibo that shows a purported Geekbench score for the iPhone 6s. The image says the iPhone 6s will have an 1.8GHz Apple A9 chip and 2GB of RAM. The phone apparently scored 2248 in single-core tests and 4036 in multi-core mode.

rumored-iphone-6s-display-specs-2Image Source: Weibo

This purported Geekbench score can’t be found by performing a simple search on the site. Actual Geekbench scores for last year’s iPhone 6 are 1610 and 2883 for single- and multi-core, respectively.

View Comments