Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
testing methodology had nothing to do with how users have used their laptops so the obscure and intermittent bug that impacted their testing wouldn't have affected consumers battery life.
That's my understanding as well although it is theoretically possible that the fix for this issue may impact other parts of Safari. But I generally don't think so.
[doublepost=1484335490][/doublepost]
It seems the MBP is more powerful than many people claims here. Appleinsider tested the MBP 15 2016 agains the 2015 model and found that with more demanding workloads the 2016 model performs more that 50% better than the 2015 model.
It probably is. It's certainly not going to be much different, though, overall. But not "worse" in performance. AppleInsider's methods... well I'd rather point to Lloyd Chambers as his methodology is a little more thorough:

https://macperformanceguide.com/blo...Apple2016MacBookPro-test-results-updated.html
https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161203_1242-Apple2016MacBookPro-PhotoshopFilters.html
https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161201_1214-Apple2016MacBookPro-LightroomImport.html

As a start
 
I'm still having battery issues with mine and it's on 10.12.3 beta 4. Is anybody else having this issue?
 
The point i was attempting to make - but i guess failed in doing so, is that the test made no sense. you cannot, under the circumstances they described, get 4 hours one time and 19 the next. A CPU cannot suddenly require less electricity to do the exact same task (again everything else being equal) unless there is a software bug. I guess it would be the law of physics that governs the amount of energy a particular task requires (I'm sure there is something) ;)
[doublepost=1484329063][/doublepost]
CR is secretive of their testing methodology, as they should be because they don't want manufacturers gaming the system. Because of this, they are asking us, as consumers, to take a huge leap of faith in accepting their results. For example, do they regularly update their tests to reflect the ever changing ways we use computers as the years go on? So, when they show test results that are completely illogical I feel they owe us a higher standard of due diligence.
I think they did get those results though. CR is usually good at using sufficient test procedures and documentation. The WHY they got those results is the real question and I suspect we will never know the answer to that. But I suspect their testers can tell time :)
The other questions I can't really answer as the answer would basically be subjective vice objective. I know that for me, I give a little credence to their auto testing. If something unusual comes up, I will go to the automotive websites/magazines to gain a deeper understanding.
In the computer world, that doesn't seem as easy. There is Macworld (clearly biased in my estimation) and Mac Performance guide and maybe a couple of others that have the capability of doing major testing.
But I do believe CR has it's heart, and methodology, in the right place.
 
That's great, although I haven't trusted "Consumer Reports" since they said "Aunt Jemima's Pancake Mix" was the best on the market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonjelly
Ok, I'll get coconut battery. Was wondering what app you guys were using to get these wattages.
I've been keeping an eye on activity monitor, and didn't see anything that stood out to me.
What would you say, on the 13" tb model, how many percentage points should it go down within one hour, doing regular stuff?
Well, for a sophisticated wild-a** guess, I'd say you can use Apple's numbers. IOW, if Apple sez you should get 10 hours doing surfing with the brightness set at 75% and auto-brightness OFF, then I would expect around 10-15% per hour would be about right, with maybe a little more if you are watching videos. But I don't know what Apple claims for your model; you're going to have to go look that up.

Do a little testing and "report back". The battery power has to be going SOMEWHERE. That's the law of conservation of energy. We just have to figure out where...
 
I think they did get those results though. CR is usually good at using sufficient test procedures and documentation. The WHY they got those results is the real question and I suspect we will never know the answer to that. But I suspect their testers can tell time :)
The other questions I can't really answer as the answer would basically be subjective vice objective. I know that for me, I give a little credence to their auto testing. If something unusual comes up, I will go to the automotive websites/magazines to gain a deeper understanding.
In the computer world, that doesn't seem as easy. There is Macworld (clearly biased in my estimation) and Mac Performance guide and maybe a couple of others that have the capability of doing major testing.
But I do believe CR has it's heart, and methodology, in the right place.
we do know what went wrong, that's the point of this article - it was a software bug in a non-user facing switch in Safari - Apple fixed it - CR re-did their tests and are now recommending the macbook pro.
 
Obvious troll is obvious.

A s a photographer Apple eliminated one key feature that pro photographers need and use. The SD card slot. Second, they limit the ram to only 16 gigs. Try processing 4K video or high resolution images. Next time keep your fly trap shut unless you know what you are speaking about.
 
You've picked the right word in your railroad of praise. YOU THINK. It also happens to be a heavily compromised, overpriced workstation that no Pro I know or heard of has enjoyed working with. I know developers fed up with the dongle labyrinth and to whom the TouchBar mishaps cause anxiety, designers whose frozen MBPs need be let to run out because the TouchID/Power button is unresponsive, and copywriters who can't get used to the keyboard after weeks of use.

The prevailing sentiment seems to be: "If i was spending my own money instead of my employers, i would look elsewhere"

PS. "The best laptop Apple has produced" is a moot, use-case specific point. For me, as a designer and video editor, it was the previous MBP retina gen. By a long shot.
I'm not sure why a "pro" would call it "heavily compromised", when last year's model throttles itself down as far as 50% speed due to insufficient cooling, whereas this model seems to chug right along at full speed all day long.

If someone feels they are caught in a labyrinth of "dongles" (adapters and docks), they simply haven't sat down and figured out what they want/need. If they take that "shopping list" and head on over to Amazon, Most people should be able to get want they want/need in only one or two multi port mini-docks. The problem is, people aren't used to this level of I/O freedom. And you know what they say: "With freedom, comes responsibility." I am reminded of the Lyrics to a Devo song:

Freedom Of Choice; that's what you've got.

Freedom From Choice; that's what you want.

Seriously, people, even some "pros", simply aren't used to being able to say "yeah, I need 2 or 3 USB 3 ports, and an Ethernet port would be nice", or "Ok, I think that one USB 3.0 port would do it, since I already have a Hub, but I'd kinda like to not use another USB-C port for HDMI, and I really miss that card reader", etc., and then take an hour or so pouring though the USB-C docks on Amazon. In fact, a lot of people would be satisfied with something like this, which has 3 USB 3.0 ports, Gigabit Ethernet (which does not require a driver), 4K HDMI, SD and microSD slots, plus a pass-through USB-C port for charging without stealing another port on the MBP, for $80. It comes in Silver and Space Grey (ahem), and is small enough and Inexpensive enough that most people could just keep one hooked up to their stuff at home, meaning you only have to hook up ONE cable, and one to throw into their computer bag for on the go.

https://www.amazon.com/Satechi-Aluminum-Multi-Port-Adapter-Ethernet/dp/B01FWT7MEA

So you see? NOT a "dongle labyrinth". Just one simple "port expander". And after all that, you STILL have THREE MORE ports left! Seriously, what's not to like? BTW, there are MANY other choices, depending on what you need.

As far as the "Ignoring the Power Button" goes, do those people know about the "Long Press", which SHOULD make the MBP "suicide" (Power Down)? Press and Hold the "Button" for about 5 seconds, and the MBP SHOULD shut down immediately.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
  • Like
Reactions: Tompkinson
5hours maximum time on a 13" with touchbar, does this mean update 3 (in beta) is the solution?

Brand new MacPro with maximum specs should've been a whole lot more machine for the price!
[doublepost=1484340792][/doublepost]5hours maximum time on a 13" with touchbar, does this mean update 3 (in beta) is the solution?

Brand new MacPro with maximum specs should've been a whole lot more machine for the price!
 
Oh good, now it was tested the right way ... finally I can buy it.
This is so stupid.

The whole discussion is still pointless. It's still the same machine, same price, same shortcomings.

I don't care what people tested on it.
Now Apple has appropriate feedback and we can all move on ... nothing to see here ... or complain about.

Whatever side people are on, it's all good ... I still do not care.
Apple does not get my money ... no media spin will solve that.
 
I to use a (2013) 11" Air (8GB) and am thinking of buying a new MBP. I know I do not need much power - and if I ever did we have a home Imac (27" 5K with 32GB). I bought my oldest daughter a 2015 13" rMBP (16GB) last year and 2 new 13" (16GB) touch bar MBP laptops for Christmas (2 younger kids). I really appreciate the screens on the retina machines vs my Air. I actually wonder if the MacBook would be good for me - since I use it for mostly spreadsheets and email?

Both will do your tasks. Both are very significant screen upgrades, the 2016 MBP being even brighter and better color. Both operate silently. There is also an opportunity for increased SSD if that is an issue. I like the light snappy feedback of the butterfly keyboards. Others seem to have issues with the travel. I'm a fan of USBc.

The MBPro will have untapped processing power, I/O bandwidth, and class leading speakers. None of that hurts you though...

It mostly comes down to screen size vs. portability and price for the tasks you listed. Good luck and enjoy.
 
"The 13-inch model without a Touch Bar had an average battery life of 18.75 hours, the 13-inch model with a Touch Bar lasted for 15.25 hours on average, and the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar had an average battery life of 17.25 hours."

Uh ??

Yah definitely trusting Consumer Reports.
Battery life is one of those things that can't be estimated at all, it is totally dependent on the user, usage pattern is not same between 2 different people, each user will have their own number, depending on the type of applications he is running, is BT/WiFi on, is he using BT Key Board/Mouse ? BT headsets ? best battery test would be to ask users to use laptop for a week and then determine battery life for each person & average it, running these automated test is not accurate.
 
we do know what went wrong, that's the point of this article - it was a software bug in a non-user facing switch in Safari - Apple fixed it - CR re-did their tests and are now recommending the macbook pro.
And here I thought the point of the discussion between us was to figure out why the variance in the times.
 
While some may prefer speculation, I actually have the 15" and battery life has been very good.

My battery time is not that good (15" 2,7G 16Gb Touchbar model), will last maybe 4 hours and when I'm lucky 6 hours but I will definitely need to have a charger with my when going to work even if I only use basic software although I often use more intense software like Illustrator and XCode.
 
Discovered I had notifications while screen was asleep set on, and this is by default. Unchecked everything, I don't need my laptop to notify me of the same thing my phone will. Hopefully this and not leaving the brightness at 100 percent will get me closer to the ten hour mark (est. 6 last cycle). Using the latest public release of macOS on a 15/455 stock config.

(In System Preferences, turn off all Notifications esp. if you have an iphone sitting next to you with notifications).

Bash Apple. It's the thing to do. w/e

It's a slick computer but I think we're spoiled and more critical this time around. Go ahead and use it all day, then sit down on a $400 PC laptop (unplugged) and enjoy what the haters are using...
 
I got CCNB. What's a "normal" discharge rate in your opinion?
Well, I don't exactly know, and it most DEFINITELY depends on what you are doing at any given moment.

Having said that, if you are simply doing some surfing with Safari and email, with little to no videos, you should be seeing run-times (I know that's not "Discharge Rates") approximately equal to what Apple claims on their website.

I'm sorry I can't give you more exact information, but if you want an EXTREMELY ballpark figure, my 2012 Macbook Pro 15", with a somewhat more power-hungry CPU and a HD not SSD, sitting here typing this with the screen at about 50%, CCNB is showing my battery discharging at a rate of 13.5 Watts. At that rate, with the 69 W/h battery in this MBP, I can get around 7 to 8 hours of sitting here typing on MR.

So, doing similar stuff, I'd expect that your "Usage" should be NO MORE than that 13.5 Watts, and very likely a bit less than that. And now it has gone down to 10.5 Watts. Apple's Battery menu claims 6:13 remaining, so that makes sense, since I have been running on battery, starting with 90% charge, for about 45 mins.

Hope all this helps. Let us know what you are seeing as far as "Usage" vs. "Application Load" vs. "Run-Time".
[doublepost=1484345182][/doublepost]
My battery time is not that good (15" 2,7G 16Gb Touchbar model), will last maybe 4 hours and when I'm lucky 6 hours but I will definitely need to have a charger with my when going to work even if I only use basic software although I often use more intense software like Illustrator and XCode.
Xcode only sucks on the battery during a "Build" (Compile); but Illustrator probably just turns-on the dGPU, which DOES burn the battery-charge. I'm not surprised that you need to find an outlet in just a few hours when using stuff like Illustrator. That would be true on any laptop. Actually, 6 hours using Illustrator is probably pretty good, honestly, with ANY laptop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonjelly
Both will do your tasks. Both are very significant screen upgrades, the 2016 MBP being even brighter and better color. Both operate silently. There is also an opportunity for increased SSD if that is an issue. I like the light snappy feedback of the butterfly keyboards. Others seem to have issues with the travel. I'm a fan of USBc.

The MBPro will have untapped processing power, I/O bandwidth, and class leading speakers. None of that hurts you though...

It mostly comes down to screen size vs. portability and price for the tasks you listed. Good luck and enjoy.
Thanks - I've actually been using my kids 2015 rMBP and the 2106 touch bar laptops - I like both models...a lot of money (paid 4700 for the 2 touch bar models- with tax)...but honestly the 2015 at the refurb store only saves me a couple hundred (with 256 SSD)...my air only has 128 and it's half full/empty...don't save a lot. I will probably just use this Air for a while...not sure - it only has 256 on the cycle count. LOL - depends on what day you ask me - horrible day in the market today...so my air seems OK...thanks for your reply.
 
I agree, everyone knows it's Krusteaz! LOL
You are so correct!

Although, I'm cutting back on my aluminum intake, and pancakes are pretty easy to make from scratch, but in a pinch, Krusteaz has always been the best mix.

"Aunt Jemima's" is for people that use "Pancake Syrup", like "Aunt Jemima's", which is the breakfast equivalent of waterboarding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martyimac
ok it lasts 3-5, depending on the workload. But still. How should I prove it to you?
Not sure, actually.

Maybe this $2 app will do it. It's called "Battery Logger", and seems pretty cool. I just installed it on my machine.

Here's a Product Page that links to the Mac App Store for this.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battery-logger/id473673114?mt=12

It will even warn you on high CPU usage and has timers for how long you've been running on battery, which is cool. It also has a "history" database which can be exported, and can monitor CPU usage, and has a bunch of other cool stuff. Well worth two bucks!

Give that a whirl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonjelly
It seems the MBP is more powerful than many people here claims. Appleinsider tested the MBP 15 2016 agains the 2015 model and found that with more demanding workloads the 2016 model performs more that 50% better than the 2015 model.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...acbook-pro-with-touch-bar-vs-2015-macbook-pro

'In photo editing, both machines edited smoothly using Adobe Lightroom, but the latest 15-inch Macbook was about 8% faster in converting 50 edited raw photos to JPEG. That's not a big difference, as Lightroom along with most photo editing apps are more dependent on the processor and generally don't max out the machines unless you're applying a series of filters.

For video editing we see much more of a difference. The latest MacBook Pro is on average about 50% faster with heavier tasks showing the bigger improvements. Rendering a 5-minute 1080p video with luts and film grain applied was 52% faster, and the same project in 4K was 54% faster.

A much heavier project with multiple scaled 4K clips with effects was 94% faster. Along with these speed improvements the 2016 Macbook Pro runs cooler and quieter.
'

I wish I could give you more than one thumbs up. So I will just add that this testing was with base CPU machines. The base 2015 machine is already limited by the cooling capacity of the chassis. The performance difference would be even greater with max CPU machines. The performance testing I've seen is with standard color gamut. The GPU in the 15" is wide color gamut native, wider color pipes. If this testing was repeated with wide color files the performance difference would be even greater. Wide color gamut is here and growing.

They want to dislike it. Therefore they dismiss: the best display on a laptop made better, the best track pad available made better, faster memory, industry leading storage, significantly better cooling, best laptop speakers, and it runs quiet. They ignore the machine is significantly faster because of the cooling! They site memory and CPUs that don't exist except in desktops and big-loud-ultra-short-battery-life 17 inch gaming machines. Then they complain about some initial battery life issues so far tied to software not fully optimized or people running the GPU. Discreet GPU in all laptops give short battery life of course, but lets ignore inconvenient facts. They cling to obsolete ports and refuse to see it has the fastest most flexible I/O in a laptop by a huge advantage. Oh the pain of a couple new cables, a new thumb drive and an SD card reader. What are you going to do when those legacy USB-3.0 ports in the competition won't cut it and your one Thunderbolt port is in use? They nit-pick a great keyboard over personal preference, as if everyone likes the mushy "quiet long travel" keyboards they pine for.

Thanks for the link. I will leave these quotes from the same article: "During an online speed test we were slightly more accurate with the 2016 MacBook Pro keyboard, even though we have years of experience with the old style keyboard."

"So from our testing, during simpler tasks like web browsing, the efficiency of the latest processor doesn't completely make up for the smaller battery. In medium to heavy tasks, the 2016 MacBook Pro stacks up or is better than the older model."
 
Last edited:
It's a developer setting any normal user would not be using. Should not be reviewed by consumer reports.
If you read my posts, you'll find that I agree. However, CR explained that they disable caching to create a standardized testing framework to compare machines against each other. Essentially, they want to avoid the opposite of what happened - that caching causes a bug or that different caching algorithms allow for battery improvements that are inconsistent between machines.
 
RlHa85U.png


I love how professional the printed out paper with a red rectangle ensures me as a consumer that they are legit. The video doesn't show any proof that battery life has improved. Numbers and diagrams please.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bobob
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.