Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Looks to me like Google Chrome is the issue. Try using Safari. I bet that fixes your problem.

Used safari, actually took up MORE energy than chrome. Flash Player (Safari internet plug-in) is an energy hog.
 
Used safari, actually took up MORE energy than chrome. Flash Player (Safari internet plug-in) is an energy hog.
Flash is sandboxed in the new Safari. Flash objects won't play until you click on it. I agree that Chrome is the likely culprit. On my 2010 MBA, after I upgraded to Mavericks, I got about 30 min extra. Then I stopped using Chrome and started using Safari, and got another half hour (about 4 hours total).

How do you know it took more energy? How did you measure it? Make sure none of the Chrome services are running when Chrome isn't open.
 
Flash is sandboxed in the new Safari. Flash objects won't play until you click on it.
How do you know it took more energy? How did you measure it?

I watched a flash video on both chrome and safari and compared the energy being used in activity monitor invidivually.
 
I watched a flash video on both chrome and safari and compared the energy being used in activity monitor invidivually.
Well Flash itself is a problem. If you're using that a lot, you're definitely not going to get your spec'd battery life. Either in Safari or Chrome. But I'll tell you for sure, on my MBA, using Chrome resulted in the fan firing up a lot. When I switched to the new Safari, it never once came on.

Try Safari for a full charge cycle and see if it gets you past 5 hours.
 
Why don't you just reveal the Energy tab in the middle to see what's using the battery? Now, on Mavericks, you can see the top power hog also in battery menu.
For me, it's almost always Safari.

The poster asked me to see the CPU tab.

----------

At 50% brightness, keyboard light off, wifi on + bluetooth off, and thunderbird + safari open, the estimate says 7:04. This is without me watching anything and just browsing the net. Seems like it's getting a tad bit better!
 
I've got the 2.6 13" and it's getting 9-11 hours. Lowest has been 6-7-ish, but that's because I watched a movie, and was installing apps, downloading big files etc. I just use autobrightness, and I use chrome specifically for my browsing.

What's weird, is that I've also got the high end 15" and it's getting NEARLY the same results. 9 hours usual on a charge, and I haven't been able to get it lower than 6. Go figure.

Also, that estimator has never been right for me. It's always wayyyy too conservative. Just my experience at least.

Do you have the 2.6Ghz or the 2.3Ghz 15 inch? And also on a side note, I don't think Chrome would deduct 2-3 hours of battery life over Safari. Flash isn't helping your battery life, but it isn't hurting it by that much.
 
9:11 here fresh off full charge, currently 60% display, Safari, Spotify, iBooks and iMessages open.

Edit: As I was about to hit 'post' it went to 9:14 go figure
 
9:11 here fresh off full charge, currently 60% display, Safari, Spotify, iBooks and iMessages open.

Edit: As I was about to hit 'post' it went to 9:14 go figure

Got the feeling that 2.3 is the way to go to maximize battery life...

----------

I watched a flash video on both chrome and safari and compared the energy being used in activity monitor invidivually.

Could you use gfxCardStatus and disable the discrete GPU and see if it makes any difference?
 
Got the feeling that 2.3 is the way to go to maximize battery life...

----------



Could you use gfxCardStatus and disable the discrete GPU and see if it makes any difference?

30 min later and at 8:24 (from 9:14)with moderate safari and iMessage usage. Also forgot to mention mail has been running. (On 2.3 Ghz)
 
Left it charging after shutting down last night, booted up and opened thunderbird, little snitch, and safari, and the battery estimate is at 9:03.

Brightness at ~50%, wifi on, bluetooth off, smcFancontrol loaded, integrated graphics shown being used by gfxcardstatus.

Hope this helps!
 
Left it charging after shutting down last night, booted up and opened thunderbird, little snitch, and safari, and the battery estimate is at 9:03.

Brightness at ~50%, wifi on, bluetooth off, smcFancontrol loaded, integrated graphics shown being used by gfxcardstatus.

Hope this helps!

That's more like it. I know my battery estimates were sometimes off when I first got a new Mac or installed a new OS.
 
Do you have the 2.6Ghz or the 2.3Ghz 15 inch? And also on a side note, I don't think Chrome would deduct 2-3 hours of battery life over Safari. Flash isn't helping your battery life, but it isn't hurting it by that much.

My bad, it's the 2.3ghz (the high end stock one you can get from the local Apple store for $2600).

I've got the 13" Haswell with the 2.6ghz as well, so I think that mixed me up.

Either way, the 15" gets nearly the battery life of the 13" one. I can't imagine 300ghz would make it last half as long. That's super weird.
 
My bad, it's the 2.3ghz (the high end stock one you can get from the local Apple store for $2600).

I've got the 13" Haswell with the 2.6ghz as well, so I think that mixed me up.

Either way, the 15" gets nearly the battery life of the 13" one. I can't imagine 300ghz would make it last half as long. That's super weird.

Well, 300Mhz per core.
 
Well, 300Mhz per core.

By that measure, wouldn't "300MHz per core" have similarly drastic effects when comparing the 2.3GHz CPU to the 2.0GHZ one? And yet--GPU factors aside--that doesn't seem to be the case... at least not according to early battery life comparisons.

Still too early to jump to conclusions if you ask me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.