2.6 GHz worse battery life than 2.3 GHz?

[T5BRICK]

But, I would really like to know if there is a 1-1.5 hour battery life difference. I know it doesn't really make too much technical sense.

As others have said, there really shouldn't be a difference. Just consider that most of the time your CPU is going to be throttling itself down to conserve battery life. At those times both the 2.3GHz and 2.6GHz models are likely running at a fraction of their full speed with the unused cores turned off.

Even running at full speed both chips should be pretty close.

 

[houkouonchi]

Gigahertz are a measurement of energy consumption. It's pretty obvious that a higher energy consuming chip would use more battery power.

Dude i think you know what ur talking about but this was a case of bad execution. The problem is you made a blanket statement and didn't include some stuff.

It probably would have been fine if you included something like 'all other things being equal' and then you said its obvious that a higher energy consuming chip would use more battery power... Uh well when you state that its kind of a 'duh' because you just said a higher energy consuming chip so why even say that?

I assume you maybe meant to say a higher performance or a higher frequency chip would use more energy but even then if not all other things equal than that is not true.

I think the way some people could take your statement is higher Ghz chips always use more power which is not true for example my Atom 1.6 Ghz uses less power than a pentium 4 1.4 Ghz =P. I am sure you already knew this but just pointing it out why I think u got pounced.

 

[gentlefury]

Dude i think you know what ur talking about but this was a case of bad execution. The problem is you made a blanket statement and didn't include some stuff.

It probably would have been fine if you included something like 'all other things being equal' and then you said its obvious that a higher energy consuming chip would use more battery power... Uh well when you state that its kind of a 'duh' because you just said a higher energy consuming chip so why even say that?

I assume you maybe meant to say a higher performance or a higher frequency chip would use more energy but even then if not all other things equal than that is not true.

I think the way some people could take your statement is higher Ghz chips always use more power which is not true for example my Atom 1.6 Ghz uses less power than a pentium 4 1.4 Ghz =P. I am sure you already knew this but just pointing it out why I think u got pounced.

well said, thank you.

 

[Jiten]

This intellectual debate is most annoying. If you know something to be true why try to convince someone else? You are not getting paid for this so let them stay uninformed and ignorant so that you may take advantage of them in the future.

Its not even intellectual. Its just annoying.