Battery Life Impact 2.6 vs 2.7 vs 2.9GHZ?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by shadow82x, Nov 17, 2016.

  1. shadow82x macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #1
    Does anyone know if there is a noticeable battery life difference between these processors? I currently have a 15" 2.9GHZ (i7 6920) and my battery life is garbage. I'm at 85% now and it's estimating 4.5 hours of usage remaining...and all I'm currently doing is light browser usage in Safari. Would the 2.6 or 2.7 have improved battery life and have reduced heat?

    Edit - According to Activity Monitor, I'm using integrated graphics as well.
     
  2. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #2
    Bumping this. Seems a lot of people on the forums have been questioning this with no definite answer. I wonder if some of the battery life issues reported are attributed to upgraded processors. Makes you wonder..
     
  3. GBlansten macrumors regular

    GBlansten

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Thick Ascending Limb
    #3
    That has certainly been true in the past for i5 vs i7 processors.
     
  4. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #4
    Really? It's odd because they all have the same TDP, but I'm assuming there are other factors that contribute.
     
  5. GBlansten macrumors regular

    GBlansten

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Thick Ascending Limb
    #5
    Typically the i7 runs a bit hotter and the fans have to do more work so there is a slight battery benefit to having the i5. There are lots of good links if you google i5 vs i7 battery life macbook pro.
     
  6. yillbs macrumors 6502

    yillbs

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    uhhh, no. The fans will kick on at the same temps across the board I've fired up a number of VM's using virtual box, etc, etc. Hell, I'm doing backup right now, CPU is pegged at 70%, fans are not even audible. Temp is like 35c.. that's nothing. It would take a significant amount of CPU throttling to cause what you're describing. From a general use standpoint, their is no difference, the wattage on the CPU is the same across the board on all of them.
     
  7. kokhoong0624 macrumors regular

    kokhoong0624

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    #7
    Is the battery life of the new 15inch.. garbage? ._. I might want to cancel my order if that's the case (there's no returns in my country).
    Can you check how many % you use in 1 hour and report back? Thanks in advance.
     
  8. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #8
    I'm losing about 13% every hour. I'm at 80% now and it's estimating 6 hours remaining.

    If I could, I'd probably drop my processor down to the 2.7GHZ, it might improve efficiency.
     
  9. yillbs macrumors 6502

    yillbs

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    what is your consumption wattage? Download battery health 2, it'l tell you.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 17, 2016 ---
    that's going to be about 12 watts on your battery. Way high. you can turn off turbo on that CPU on a Mac.
     
  10. kokhoong0624 macrumors regular

    kokhoong0624

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    #10
    What apps are open? Is there any indexing (I know this is a stupid question)?
    God... don't even know how Apple states 10 hour battery life. The 2015 MBP states 9 hours and I thought this year improved.
     
  11. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #11
    Right now it's estimating 10.4 watts. It's not like I'm even doing anything medium-heavy task. I'm browsing the web and typing on Microsoft word documents..
    --- Post Merged, Nov 17, 2016 ---
    Safari with 7 tabs, photos (background), messages (background), iTunes (background), mail (background), Microsoft word, activity monitor.
     
  12. yillbs macrumors 6502

    yillbs

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    10 watts would be on par with about 5 - 6 hours of battery. although, because you're on the 15, I'd shoot for high six, low 7. Something is obviously running.

    Check to see if iCloud is enabled and syncing, same with images. Is time machine on ? is it backing up every hour? is flash installed ? do you have mail open ? what apps are actively running atm ?
     
  13. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #13
    Here's my activity monitor. Are you thinking my issues are more software related? I'm not running anything out of the blue, in fact I've even done a reinstall already and the battery life issues persist. I was thinking this was slightly attributed to the higher clocked processor.

    Everything seems in check with the Activity Monitor, I check it quite frequently for rogue apps, but alas safari is the only thing that ever seems a tad bit high sometimes.

    Side note: Safe Connect is a tool required for me to connect to my university network, not sure why it's showing as not responding, however the energy impact on that has never been high.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. skids929, Nov 17, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016

    skids929 macrumors 6502a

    skids929

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    #14
    I will just say this...I bought two 2016 MBP. One is a 15 (the upgraded off the shelf model) and one is a 13 (the one with the 2.9 i5 CPU, 8 GBRAM and 512) and there seems to be a significant difference in the battery life. The 15 is draining quicker than this 13, I am on right now. I turned the 13 on at 5:30 and it's been on steady with a mix of surfing and sleep (lid open) for 4.5 hours and I still have 68% battery left, reading 6.29 hours left. This battery feels very normal and on par with the Lenovo Yoga 900 we own. Love that machine, hate the OS....Anyway, there seems to be a clear difference between these two.

    I am about decided that am going with the 13 (not because of battery life) because of the size and over all feel. But when I configure it I am sticking with the base 2.9 i5 processor, and putting the $$ into the ram and ssd. Hope this helps, not that it's worth much just my experience with this so far. I can tell you there is a clear difference between the two I have here. No idea whats going on, if I had to guess its the processors.
     
  15. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #15
    Thanks for your input. I think it's interesting because most reviewers claimed the 15" had better battery life than the 13" with TB. I definitely think there is some inefficiency with the 2.9GHZ I7. AFAIK reviewers were given the 2.7GHZ i7. Only a difference of .2 when it comes to clock speed, but maybe that equates to a lot for heat/efficiency.
     
  16. yillbs macrumors 6502

    yillbs

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    the CPU uses the same mount of watts. It's not going to be that, they are al the same powerhouses, just different heat signatures. It's not going to consume more based on the fans unless you were really really pushing those higher clocked CPU's. Your issue looks like a combination of steam / word. Word is a hog. If you want good battery, use apples variant. IF you want to use steam... do it on the power adapter, steam is always connected, and sending , receiving data.

    when you're constantly sending / receiving data, it's going to be using battery. Did you check to see if iCloud was syncing with images ?
     
  17. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #17
    I've actually never used Steam on the battery. Upon setting things up, I started downloading so games but usually its plugged in when I do that sort of thing. iCloud/Photos is synced on this computer but AFAIK everything has finished syncing and downloading since startup.
     
  18. 09mac macrumors newbie

    09mac

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    #18
    It's a little old but...

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/4
     
  19. shadow82x thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    #19

Share This Page