Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

17" 2.93 7200RPM Battery Performance

U

UFOGoldorak

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 25, 2007
54
0
At those specs at average use with graphics set to better performance I'm getting about 4.5 hours. WIFI on. LCD brightness all the way up. It's also taking 4 hours to recharge back to 100%.

I honestly thought I'd be getting a good 5.5-6 hours out of it but hey I still love this machine.
 
Apple openly shows on its site what the conditions were when they tested the battery.

You were using the 9400M graphics card in power saver mode right? Otherwise your test is useless.
 
Me telling folks what I got out of the battery is useless info? It's not like I'm bashing it. I know apple did not give out specs on how long the battery lasts when you get a BTO like mine. At time of purchase, considering apple's claim of 8/7hours.. I thought I would be getting 5-6 with my options.
 
thanks for the info mate, don't compare it to apple, thats the word for their marketing. :D
 
UFOGoldorak said:
At those specs at average use with graphics set to better performance I'm getting about 4.5 hours. WIFI on. LCD brightness all the way up. It's also taking 4 hours to recharge back to 100%.

I honestly thought I'd be getting a good 5.5-6 hours out of it but hey I still love this machine.
Click to expand...

Hey just a couple of questions.
Was this the 9400m or the 9600m gt...
Just curious
If it was the 9600GT i am very impressed....
I get 4.8 hours out of mine on the 9400m and screen brightness on the first level.
 
Usage stats aren't too bad actually, considering the hardware inside. But I would have hoped for something like 6hrs from the usage the OP described to really sell the inbuilt battery to me. Hmm
 
Am I the only one reading this: better performance?

I know know... not everyone's a unibody owner... It's the 9600.

Thanks for posting. I think it's not bad at all.
 
When you set the graphics to "Better Performance" it's using the 9600M GT. There is no checkbox to actually choose between 9400/9600.
 
That seems pretty good, since I code all day I'm guessing I can easily hit 6 hours.
 
Hmmm, 4 hours on a battery rated 7 hours with the good graphics on sucks. This is going to bite them in the rear when the reviewers get a hold of it.

I don't use the battery that often, but after all the hoopla I would expect this thing to last longer than 4 hours. 6 at least.
 
The 7 hour figure was with the brightness at 50%. I'm not really surprised it goes down to 4 hours at 100% brightness.
 
Thanks OP.

Another disappointment with another Apple product? :rolleyes:

Well, considering the specs, I guess this is better than average and almost good :)

I can't wait to see the new 17" Unibody in person ;)
 
I'm not really disappointed. I just over estimated what I would get. Here is apple's test for 8hours (9400) or 7hours(9600)..

Testing conducted by Apple in December 2008 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based MacBook Pro (17-inch) units with a Better Battery Life setting. 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%.

So if I start out with 7 hours by using the 9600, then we add 50% more power for the LCD, then we add the extra juice going from 2.66GHz to 2.93Ghz then we add a 7200RPM drive vs 5400... I also had a couple flash drives plugged in most of the time copying so I'm pretty sure that had and effect on it. Benchmarks were ran.. 3D renders were tested..

It was at 100% at 8AM this morning. Its now 11:45 and its at 25% battery. 1:14 remaining. So it's actually pushing 5 hours now. I'd say that pretty darn good considering I have a brand new battery in the 2.4 15" sitting next to it and it only gets 3 hours with the same amount of use but not even close in specs.
 
Sounds like pretty good battery life. Yeah, I can sure see wanting more - but damn. Other than the battery life, how's the computer feel?
 
UFOGoldorak said:
I'm not really disappointed. I just over estimated what I would get. Here is apple's test for 8hours (9400) or 7hours(9600)..

Testing conducted by Apple in December 2008 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based MacBook Pro (17-inch) units with a Better Battery Life setting. 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%.

So if I start out with 7 hours by using the 9600, then we add 50% more power for the LCD, then we add the extra juice going from 2.66GHz to 2.93Ghz then we add a 7200RPM drive vs 5400... I also had a couple flash drives plugged in most of the time copying so I'm pretty sure that had and effect on it. Benchmarks were ran.. 3D renders were tested..

It was at 100% at 8AM this morning. Its now 11:45 and its at 25% battery. 1:14 remaining. So it's actually pushing 5 hours now. I'd say that pretty darn good considering I have a brand new battery in the 2.4 15" sitting next to it and it only gets 3 hours with the same amount of use but not even close in specs.
Click to expand...

5h of meaningful work. Do you have photoshop? I would be curious to see how long the battery would hold it, on better performance and energy saving.
 
I love the new aluminum body, feels very solid picking it up. There is no give or bending that happens if you try to pick it up form a corner.

So far its been average user load on the machine. Mostly web browsing/email/music.. and installing most of my apps (CS4, C4D, Office etc...)

Next I'm going back to the 9400 with brightness set to 50% with same usage as above. Maybe i'll hit 6hours.

After that I'm gonna make it burn. I will be rendering a few 3D animations while playing movies in the back ground with 9600 GT at 100% LCD.

If I get 3 hours out it at that point I will be extremely happy.
 
Hey, UFOGoldorak

How's the heat? Does it feel hot to the touch between the keyboard and the screen? How about the underside?
 
I'm impressed. I'm under the impression that the 2.93 *apparently not true, so I removed it*. Together with the full screen brightness, dedicated graphics card, and fast hard drive, four and a half hours is pretty stunning.

On a side note, I got a fresh Dell laptop from work on Monday. The battery lasts between 5 and 10 minutes, and the thing won't hibernate. It stays on when I shut the lid. I need to shut it down whenever I move it, and it doesn't always shut down on the first try. This means that the battery is more like a UPS that lasts for 5 minutes than anything else.
 
dwsolberg said:
I'm impressed. I'm under the impression that the 2.93 processor uses notably more energy than the 2.66 even while idle (does anyone know for sure?). Together with the full screen brightness, dedicated graphics card, and fast hard drive, four and a half hours is pretty stunning.

On a side note, I got a fresh Dell laptop from work on Monday. The battery lasts between 5 and 10 minutes, and the thing won't hibernate. It stays on when I shut the lid. I need to shut it down whenever I move it, and it doesn't always shut down on the first try. This means that the battery is more like a UPS that lasts for 5 minutes than anything else.
Click to expand...

They're both 35W processors and use the same amount of energy, the 2.93 should use less infact because it would calculate things faster, unless idle
 
MAGICMOXTER said:
They're both 35W processors and use the same amount of energy, the 2.93 should use less infact because it would calculate things faster, unless idle
Click to expand...

Thats the TDP (Thermal Design Power), not the actual draw power. The actual draw power could be slightly different between the 2.66 and 2.93. Even 1 watt makes a difference.
 
According to Wikipedia, both processors are rated at 35W.

Does anyone know what the Apple Power Schemes actually do as far as enabling/disabling Speedstep?

Tracer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back