Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by unagimiyagi, Jul 25, 2010.
Can anyone who has used both tell me if there really is a noticeable battery life increase?
Yes. I've used (Not owned) both for about 1 week each.
The 2010 model gets about an hour better real life, with full brightness, bluetooth, and using multiple apps at once.
Glad to know that. Interestingly, I only saw one review that said the battery lasted 8.5% longer, whatever that means. But I assumed that it would be about half an hour longer.
With full brightness lasting 1 hour longer, that to me is significant.
another review stated that playing a quicktime movie, it lasted about 1.5 hours longer, from 5:15 to 6:45.
I had a 17" 2010 model and it's being replaced b/c of a dead pixel. Now with the microcenter deal, I'm wondering if I should get the 2010 model or not, b/c in the short time that I had it, 2 days, I found the runtime to be 4 hours surfing the internet reading ebay, craigslist, cnn (no videos), typing word, and checking email. Really, I measured it. So I was very disappointed.
I had the chance to use a 2009 for a day, and I was measuring and I got 5 hours doing the same thing, so 2009 > 2010 for me, but intuitively that did not make sense, but that is what I measured (not perfectly scientifically, but I used it for about 2 hours and took note of the discharge rate (regardless of what the meter said) and it extrapolated to 5 hours. The 2009 model had 150 cycles on the battery, the 2010 had 2.
The $1599 microcenter deal has me on the fence now. 1 hour is significant; my own informal tests that were not rigorous showed the 2009 to be better, if anything. And I'm wondering if the i5 processor is really a power hog, b/c some tests on anandtech showed the i5 processor on the 15" doing worse in some battery situations than the core 2 duo 2009 model.
Well, the older '09 MacBook Pro had about 180 charge cycles, and 90% battery life, while the '10 had 2 cycles, so I guess I should have said that. Also, I got that battery performance while mainly on MR the whole time. xD
You also have to factor in battery calibration, as I did not calibrate the two units I used, and did not know the last time they were.
Also, the switchable graphics really helps on the '09. With the '10, you could be locked into the more powerful nvidia vs the intel for all you know. With the '09 you have a choice, and can get better battery life when locked into the 9400M
If I were you, I'd go with the '09, especially considering the price, and the money you can save. You could invest that in a very large SSD and get even better battery life.
You're not really missing all to much in specs, because i've heard (Someone please correct me if i'm wrong, this is just off of the top of my head) The new i series of processors are not really "quad core" They are instead 2 cores with 2 virtual cores per core, thus, quad core, but not really. I have yet to notice a difference in speed, but then again, I do web surfing, email, and occasional light gaming.
You're not really missing anything with that '09 model, although you are gaining a signifigant amount of green paper in your wallet.