Gizmodo
UPDATE: We've been trying to understand the new Apple Macbook Pro battery life ratings compared to the old models. It's been hard to quantify generational differences because Apple is now testing using a more challenging battery benchmark, while improving the efficiency of the new machines via Penryn chips and LED backlights. Is it a wash, then? Not quite. We just got comparative numbers between the previous and current generation notebooks from Apple. They read as follows: Macbooks and Macbook Pros have 30-45 minutes more life than the previous generation using the same Wireless Web test. With LED backlighting, the numbers jump to an hour. Note that the 17-inch notebook is not standard with an LED backlit LCD, so those are not the estimates given. Lastly, while Apple's test is harder than it used to be, as we saw in the Air, the battery life you or I will get on these machines will likely be even less. (The battery claims in the previous generations were much higher because the old test was basically typing on a text editor with Wi-Fi off, which obviously inflated previous battery life estimates beyond reason.)
Previously (and depreciated):
I just spoke with Apple and found out why the new test numbers are lower when in fact, the actual absolute battery life in these models are higher. It has to do with their testing methodology. Instead of reporting the battery life as the longest of three tests (one test being DVD playback, one test being standard Wi-Fi usage and web browsing, and one test being absolute power saving mode doing just Text Editing), Apple's just reporting the middle test, which approximates average usage much better than the other two. Previously, they reported numbers for the unlikely scenario that you'd just be editing a text document while not connected to the internet. If you ran the same tests in the three models, the newest laptops would actually rate higher than before, says Apple. – Jason Chen
Before that (and depreciated):
The battery life of the new MacBooks and the MacBook Pro 17" has dropped dramatically in the new revision. From being the top battery performer with 5.75 hours, the 2.6GHz MacBook Pro 17" has fallen to 4.5 hours. There are some explanations, but none of them can explain the change because the number don't add up:
First is Apple's new "Wireless Productivity" battery life. According to Apple, this measures the battery life under typical Wi-Fi use, browsing web pages, working with mail and other internet-related applications. It seems like if Apple is now being a lot more conservative and strict in their battery performance tests. But while this may explain the drop, it doesn't seem that simple.
The MacBook Pro 15 battery life, for example, remains unchanged across all CPU speeds even with the new battery test method. Apple sources point out that the use of LED screen backlighting saves about 30 minutes of battery life. But is that enough to compensate against the drop in battery life of the MacBook Pro 17?
[MacBook and MacBook Pro]
Comments
I guess buying early was a good thing. i got a remote and better battery life!
Oh no, does that mean that the battery life in my macbook is going to get worse???
Work faster. Get back to living.
wow that sucks(sorry i couldnt get anything smarted out of myself now)
What is the number one gripe about ALL laptops? Advertised battery life. The previous spec listed 5 hours, and NO ONE gets that amount of battery life out of any laptop unless it's just sitting there. I suspect this is a switch to more "real world" numbers with the computer being used. If it is, I applaud Apple for taking this step towards truth in advertising.
Is it possible that they're actually trying to get the numbers down to what it's really been getting all this time?
I agree with ggore, if this apparent drop is a result of better measuring methods, then I'm all for it. It's hard to imagine that somebody could've gone to Penryn and increased power consumption!
We're applauding Apple for taking this step towards truth in advertising?
Then why did they just get finished BSing the world about the battery life of the Macbook Air?
I get around 5 hours (on average, sometimes more) of internet/itunes/pages use. I think the battery life in the MB is pretty awesome. This is of course with a new battery and it will only get worse.
Hah! 5 hours? 6 hours? I couldnt get that out of my macbook/pro if my life depended on it.
@thechansen: I only get around 3 hours or less on my MB during a light load session. Fortunately, this computer is also two years old now.
I'm lucky to get 2 out of my Dell Latitude I was issued at work, so an honest 4.5 still sounds pretty good.
Since installing leopard, I get about 1 hour tops out of my 12" PowerBook. This morning, a 96% charge had an estimated 47 minutes remaining. It also has a tendency to simply shut off when you're within 20 minutes of battery drainage. It's a brand new battery, and I reset the PRAM, the PMU, and calibrated the battery. Nothing has worked. I need a MacBook Pro.
@workingonyourinvoice: It sounds more like you need an extension cord!
@jetexas: Well, fine, captain bringdown. I'll just get a boring old extension cord.
Who cares?
Speed kills... your battery.
:P
I'm sure Giz wouldn't mind doing an independent run down test of the battery, complete with an actual test description, would you? Apple "facts" are oftentimes over-cooked in Job's reality-distortion kitchen. As it stands ... Giz is right ... the numbers DON'T add up.
If 4.5 hours was a replicable finding, it'd still be damn fine. As in ... great battery time, given the screen size, video power and the competition.
@lianna_g: Hmmm, perhaps you and I should get together and give it a rundown?
@jetexas: Don't let the avatar fool you!
Does it bug anybody else that these are absolutely terrible graphs? This is vapid chartjunk; decoration over data.
Why don't they just put the hard numbers up? I don't want to count giant green battery icons, i want numbers. There isn't any kind of precision in the data. Is that semi-battery icon at 50%? 60%? 2/3? 75%?
It took 200,000 pixels to convey the following:
MB
2.16G 05/07: 6
2.20G 11/07: 6
2.40G 02/08: ~4.5
MBP 15"
2.33G 10/06: 5
2.40G 06/07: 5
2.60G 02/08: 5
MBP 17"
2.33G 10/06: ~5.5
2.40G 06/07: ~5.7
2.60G 02/08: ~4.5
That's the same information in 183 bytes, including punctuation, aesthetic trailing zeros and whitespace.
In case you can't tell, I have read Edward Tufte. [www.edwardtufte.com]
Does it bug anybody else that these are absolutely terrible graphs? This is vapid chartjunk; decoration over data.
Why don't they just put the hard numbers up? I don't want to count giant green battery icons, i want numbers. The semi-battery icons have no precision at all, are they in 1/3 increments? 1/4? 10%?
It took 200,000 pixels to convey the following:
MB
2.16G 05/07: 6
2.20G 11/07: 6
2.40G 02/08: ~4.5
MBP 15"
2.33G 10/06: 5
2.40G 06/07: 5
2.60G 02/08: 5
MBP 17"
2.33G 10/06: ~5.5
2.40G 06/07: ~5.7?
2.60G 02/08: ~4.5
That's 183 bytes for the same data, including punctuation, aesthetic trailing zeros and whitespace.
In case you can't tell, I have read Edward Tufte. [www.edwardtufte.com]
Is it me, or was this article poorly written? Im far from an english major, so I may be wrong.
I think those graphs make perfect sense. The 15" is the only platform to add LED-backed screens this time-- the other two (17" and Macbooks) kept their prior screen technologies while cranking up the CPU speed.
The only reason that the 15" doesn't show the same dip in battery life is due to the screen change.
The bump up on the 17" from October to June was the addition of the LED screen.
What the hell is the question here?
Ummm...you're forgetting significant details, I think. You're comparing a 2.33 GHz machine from Oct. 2006 to a 2.4 GHz one from June 2007, to a 2.6 GHz one from Feb. 2008. As processors get updated (even just revisions of the same processor without reduction in transistor size), power consumption goes down. In nearly a year and a half, I'd expect significant improvements in clockspeed per watt. And don't the new ones use the 45nm Penryn core? That'd take the power consumption down considerably. Thus: clockspeed up, power consumption *might* stay the same or even drop!
As to the rest of your concerns, the processor isn't the only thing that eats power in a notebook. I'm primarily thinking video card here. Isn't there now a significantly beefier video card in the newest MBP 17"? Wouldn't that consume more power?
You can't just compare processor clockspeed and screen size between laptops that come out 1.5 years apart and expect the analysis to be simple. The processors are different (not just the same exact processor forced to run faster), the video card and other components in the system are different, most of the chips on the motherboard are probably different. This is the world of technology...developments happen. You wouldn't look at a 300 MHz laptop from 1999 that had a 2 hour battery life and compare it to a modern 2 GHz machine that gets 4 hours of life and say "How can it be!??!!" would you?
hm. my macbook pro 15 has never gotten over 3 hours of battery life with brightness turned down and everything =\
@ferrdidly:
Why do you hate Jesus? He is the Savior!
@wlcrm: You're absolutely right. I think the entire Internet should be ASCII
You can probably thank CREE, INC. in North Carolina for the expensive LEDs. I guess when you pretty much have the US by the balls, you can charge whatever you want. Yay to tax-funded-research-grant-money-to-develop-products-that-are-sold-back-for-a-large-profit
to-the-very-tax-payers-who-funded-you!!!
@wlcrm: I think it's funny that you're arguing about wasted space and useless things and then you went ahead and double posted.
Not saying I disagree, it's just humorous.
@nachobel: lols. Giz took forever to update so i thought it had timed out.
Anyone know of a good battery drain benchmark app?
i need someone to put this in perspective,
how many pornos are we talking about?
@CaptNobody: It just depends. Do you only watch in 5-10 minute intervals or are you in it for the plot?
@CaptNobody: 5 hours works out to 1800 10-second clips.
did the base memory config change? that can affect battery life.
There are bigger hard drives (4200RPM vs 5400RPM faster spinning ones consume more juice, atleast on spinup).
More RAM. And faster, larger memory GPU (512MB).
Mabe they think that the new cpu's will get things done faster so they cut the battery life down. Don't ask me, ask Apple.
@skyshard:
Dead right. My old iBook 12" really would give me 6 hours' battery life, so the battery life on the MBP was a shock.
Let me guess apple fan boys, this is "innovation", right? Like failing to include an optical drive in the MBA and making the battery, cpu, and ram non-user-replaceable.
Yawn.
I'm a long time Giz reader, but this is my first post.
First off, in case any of you haven't noticed, Apple has a descriptor at the bottom of the 'Tech Specs' for both the new MacBook and MacBook Pro:
"Battery life depends on configuration and use. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%." [emphasis added]
It seems as though Apple is now using a more realistic estimate than before:
"Battery life depends on configuration and use."
Now I don't own either of the new portables (or the previous gens, for that matter), but it seems to me that Apple did not reduce their notebooks' battery life, but rather they are now providing a more accurate estimate by testing with AirPort on while text editing with screen brightness up. Again, I could be wrong --- this is just my take on the issue.
If people weren't too involved in hyping up the mac releases and giving Apple time, the battery problem could have been solved. impatient douche bags!
My macbook Pro Late 2007 model with 2.6ghz C2D, 4Gb RAM, 250gb 5400RPM hard drive get's about 2 1/2-3 hours of battery with screen at 50%-75% brightness
With my MacBook from June 2007 with Leopard I can get around 5 hours out of it if the backlight is on 2, and if I only have Word and Camino open. This is with solid use (not stopping) for 5 hours connected to wifi.
Sounds like the way auto fuel mileage is calculated in the states. Always lower than advertised on the window mileage stickers.
They don't really take into consideration things like open windows, air conditioning and the way drivers actually drive. Sounds like crapples battery life calculation works the same way.... just pump up the numbers and the consumer will think that it's a fluke or its just theirs that is off.
The fuel mileage calculations are just now (with the new system), coming down to reflect more realistic numbers.
I only get about 30 minutes on a full charge with my Powerbook 15" 1.67ghz :hsughno:
I'm too cheap to buy a new battery for 130 bucks that I know will turn to crap in 2 years
OH NOES!