Does Maverick give 15" rMBP extra battery life?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by questionmark, Aug 2, 2013.

  1. questionmark macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    #1
    Does anyone have a 15" rMBP with Maverick installed? I have read a thread about a 2013 MBA with Maverick installed which resulted in about 25% increase in battery life. Does anyone know if it does the same to 15" rMBP?
     
  2. lagisibuk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Location:
    Always Somewhere
    #2
    From the rumors that i have read, say that retina battrey will increase for 2-3 hours from default.
    But, this battrey life will depends on your activity. Maybe if your task is heavy load/processing, increase will not significant affect.
     
  3. johnnnw, Aug 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2013

    johnnnw macrumors 65816

    johnnnw

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #3
    i call bull
     
  4. lagisibuk, Aug 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2013

    lagisibuk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Location:
    Always Somewhere
    #4
    Why you think it ********? Have u try retina with final mavericks?
     
  5. john123, Aug 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2013

    john123 macrumors 68000

    john123

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    #5
    You would be correct. I can tell no difference in battery life at all.
     
  6. johnnnw macrumors 65816

    johnnnw

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #6
    Just my logical mind tells me there is nothing they can do on the software side to get another 2 hours, that's just silly.
     
  7. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #7
    I am seeing at least 1-2 hours increase in battery life with Mavericks, so yes... I can now last the full office day without the power adapter, which was not possible with ML.
     
  8. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #8
    not really
     
  9. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #9
    AppNap alone is a significant energy saver.
     
  10. petvas macrumors 601

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    #10
    There is definitely an increase in battery life with Mavericks. I think 10-15% more battery should be expected. I have never seen 9:30 hours of standby when using my rMBP. This has happened when using Mavericks.
     
  11. johnnnw macrumors 65816

    johnnnw

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #11
    whats the best tool to track stuff like that? Battery life time etc... I only have the bar and lose track of how many hours its been etc.

    Whats the best way to see how long it's lasting until a certain percentage
     
  12. ohbrilliance, Aug 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2013

    ohbrilliance macrumors 6502a

    ohbrilliance

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #12
    Shouldn't you already know this before calling another's claims bull? :rolleyes:
     
  13. throAU, Aug 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2013

    throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #13
    I wouldn't be so fast.

    I've seen a good 15% battery life improvement on my MBP 15 (non retina).

    ----------

    Mavericks activity monitor includes a battery timer.
     
  14. johnnnw macrumors 65816

    johnnnw

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #14
    Why...?

    I can know a software update won't get an extra 2.5 hours by not knowing my own battery, I never track the time of my own.

    I'm not sure why not knowing my battery life because I've never cared has anything to do with knowing batteries and software in general.
     
  15. srsub3 macrumors 6502

    srsub3

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Location:
    Boston
    #15
    if mountain lion caused a 2 hours loss in battery life, why don't you think is possible to save energy with a more efficient OS, like snow leopard used to be?
     
  16. scbond macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    #16
    25% increase due to a slightly altered OS which doesn't even focus on power management improvement...I would have to fully agree with you here!
     
  17. B... macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #17
    Did you see the WWDC presentation? That's practically all they focused on.
     
  18. johnnnw macrumors 65816

    johnnnw

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #18
    Well then I gotta ask, what sort of bottlenecks are they implementing to achieve this battery life.

    You don't just switch some things up and get 25% increase, whats the downside?
     
  19. B... macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #19
    Bottleneck? Downside? What are you talking about? Anyway, I'm not saying the 25% increase is anywhere near valid, just that Mavericks focuses on saving battery and cutting power consumption.
     
  20. johnnnw macrumors 65816

    johnnnw

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #20
    I'm talking about what did they sacrifice to achieve this improvement in battery life.
     
  21. B... macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #21
    In Mavericks? I would say nothing. Unless you're talking about hardware which is a completely different story.
     
  22. VanillaCracker macrumors 68030

    VanillaCracker

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #22
    No one knows the answer to that. Just watch the Keynote to see the implementations yourself. They seem more like additional tweaks, or removal of inefficient tendencies. Not necessarily taking away important features in light of better battery efficiency. Software isn't perfect, there are things that can be improved still, we're not at the point where in order to do something positive you have to make something else worse.

    I don't remember everything, but one of the "tweaks" they made was that programs that normally run actively in the background (the example they gave was a heavy flash website) would no longer use up CPU processes while the window is covered, or minimized. So if your CPU is at 50% while the active flash page is in front of you, and then you cover the window up with a new window which has google up; it would effectively drop your CPU usage to 5-10%, or normal use. It stops programs running in the background from eating up CPU basically. That's just one thing they showed, not sure if they reworked the entire power management but I doubt it.
     
  23. Quu macrumors 68020

    Quu

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    #23
    Background applications that are covered by forefront windows do not have their interfaces drawn. The background calculations the apps are doing still work but their interfaces do not refresh. This means the GPU and CPU can stay longer in their idle low-clock low-voltage states.

    They also added interrupt coalescing. In computing a lot of apps, almost all of them really, need to perform actions on a timer. It's how almost all software works on a constantly reoccurring loop.

    Now imagine you've got 100 processes running. Everything from your networking driver to your web browser. Tons of services and user apps that all need to send "interrupts" to your CPU. These are the signals that tell your CPU I need you to do some work for me. I need you to check for keyboard input, I need you to check for incoming networking packets, I need you to blink the cursor.

    Millions of these occur while you're using your computer and while most of them are light weight and do not bring the CPU out of its idle sleep states (What Intel calls Speedstep, its dynamically adjusting voltage and clockrate system) some interrupts can bring the CPU out of its idle state because the task needing to be performed is intensive, an example of this may be an RSS feed reader refreshing hundreds of feeds every 10 minutes or your email performing a check for new mail.

    So this is where the coalescing comes in. The operating system already knows how frequently these tasks are going to be performed so it can do some smart heuristics to bring some of those tasks together to be executed at the same time. So instead of having the CPU go from idle to high power say 10 times in a minute, it can do it just once or twice and get all the work scheduled in those moments when the CPU is already in its high powered state.

    This means the CPU stays in its low power state for longer but the interrupt tasks still get done. The iPhone already has this feature, now they are bringing it to Mac OS X. I believe Windows 8 also features it.
     
  24. johnnnw macrumors 65816

    johnnnw

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    #24
    Damn, nice answer.

    Thanks!
     
  25. Badrottie Suspended

    Badrottie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25
    Is this for Haswell based rMBP or Ivy Bridge based rMBP? :apple:
     

Share This Page