So you DO think the non-pro 13 will have better real-world battery life than the Pro model?
Without question, especially someone who rarely reads with a static screen. For instance, a teen using the 13 would most likely outlast a 13 Pro by 1.5 hours as the Pro will be at 120Hz often and with a 100mah less battery capacity to work with.
I am somewhat tempted to change my preorder to a non-pro in this case. Battery life is probably no. 1 in importance for me. Though I am coming from an iPhone X, so maybe the improvement I'll see by that upgrade will be substantial enough to keep me happy.
Oh yeah definitely stick with the Pro, I think you’ll be more than pleased with the battery life!
Yes, hence why I specifically stated the use case that would enable a 13 to have better runtime over the 13 Pro. I didn’t say anything about watching videos.
It’s achieved by the display that can go as low as 10 Hz, which the standard 13 doesn’t have and it’s always locked at 60 Hz.
This test shows the 13 Pro to have better battery life than the 13.
| iPhone 13 Pro | 11:42 |
| iPhone 13 | 10:33 |
We have no idea what continuous web surfing means during their testing though. Did a robot refresh the page every 30 seconds? Truly continuous web surfing with your finger would mean the Pro is at 120Hz almost the entire time, surely using more power than the standard 13, otherwise activating low power mode wouldn’t lock the refresh rate at 60Hz on the 13 Pro. The real world usage (active fingers) will be less than the 13.
We disagree there. The display only reaches 120 Hz when you're scrolling, but the moment you don't scroll, it jumps back down to 10 Hz or whatever the content on the screen dictates. This is a massive difference to 60 Hz all the time.
Whatever. Apple and an independent tester say the Pro lasts longer. I guess you can believe whatever you want.
Well said. Beliefs can be disproven easily by the real world, though. (Religions aside)
Still, it's not as easy as they portray it. Who scrolls all day without looking at content or reading what they're scrolling through? What about typing on the keyboard, what about phone calls, WhatsApp and iMessage? No one is scrolling without pause, think about it.
How did you come up with this 1.5 hours? The 13's battery is less than 4% bigger than the 13 Pro. All things being equal, where would a 4% bigger battery gain you 1.5 more hours usage on a phone that lasts 7-10 hours? On the high end (10 hours), that extra 4% would get you less than a half hour.
I'm not saying it is actually going to last less, but I said that I see the poster's point in saying it isn't a hands down guaranteed beat by the 13 Pro in certain use cases. It's a bit less clear cut than that and really depends on the usage. For most people, the 13 Pro should still win, as you'll have a good mix of content that runs at a lower refresh rate.
Apple specifically stated the 13 Pro lasts 1.5 hour longer than the 12 Pro. The 13 lasts 2.5 hours longer than the 12.
I am interpreting your comments regarding this fact to mean that you have concluded normal power usage will most likely keep the screen in a 60Hz or faster state most of the time and that locking it in low power mode caps it at 60Hz (thereby consuming less power than the >60Hz setting).
On this test the 13 Pro lasted 30 minutes longer than the 13 doing a bunch of different tasks. But you keep believing what you want.
