New MBP and 2 Hour Battery Life?!?!?!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by nope7308, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. nope7308 macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #1
    OK, I just ordered a new MBP and now I'm worried... PC Mag just released their MobileMark '07 specs which show the MBP at exactly 2:00h of battery life...

    Can anyone confirm or deny this? Preferably with real-world experience?

    Here is the link (scroll to the bottom for specs):
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332514,00.asp

    [I really hope I'm misreading something!]
     
  2. FF_productions macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #2
    I believe they are using lower-capacity batteries, but that is really disappointing.

    Come on Apple, you guys are slipping up big time!
     
  3. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #3
    Why would they be using lower capacity batteries if this is a direct comparison spec? What would the total battery time be on a 'normal' capacity battery? Any other thoughts on this?

    Am I the only one who is paranoid? Do I have a good reason to be paranoid?
     
  4. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #4
    thats in Vista, prolly with the screen on full brightness
     
  5. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #5
    Hmm, that sounds like speculation. If you're right on that, then why did the old MBP score so much higher at 3:56? Almost double!
     
  6. KSpider macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    Did it? let me read again.

    EDIT: I see that stat, but i dont believe it... ; )
     
  7. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #7
    See attached photo...
     

    Attached Files:

  8. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #8
    Yeah it seems a little odd... but these are supposed to be objective specs. What gives?
     
  9. KSpider macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    Well i opened my macbook pro a few hours ago and have not had any time to test battery life, so I cant really comment on it. However, I would like to think it isnt half that of the previous model.
     
  10. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #10
    unless vista is using both video cards and thats sucking the power down
     
  11. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #11
    When you do give it a whirl, can you please post back here with your experience? Mine is on the way, but after dropping $2500+, I don't even want to entertain the idea of a 2h battery life...
     
  12. tnhick macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #12
    Well, it does show they used boot camp, and both vista and xp cannot manage power like OSX, and so you are going to get significantly less battery time, but ESPECIALLY if they did a direct comparison, like they should and used vista, which is what all the other laptops would be running. To me it would make sense to use OSX because that's what most people use when they buy a MAC, but they didn't because it says Boot Camp in the description of the Dual-Graphics MacBook Pro. I think there was already a thread from a few days ago that talked about how much hotter the computer got with vista too, it just isn't designed to run vista all the time.
     
  13. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #13
    No, Vista defaults to the 9600... which should result in 4 hours of battery life (if Apple is telling the truth).
     
  14. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #14
    I fully understand the implications of running the test on Vista under Bootcamp. That said, the previous generation MBP was also run under bootcamp with the results nearly doubling that of the new MBP... ??
     
  15. Atomic Ed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #15
    Here is what I found on the MBP battery specs:

    The full charge capacity of a new MBP battery should be 4600 mAh (nominally, 4630 mAh). According to the specs, the new MBP has a 50 W-hr battery. All batteries are 10.8 V. So, 50000 mW-hr / 10.8 V = 4630 mAh. The previous 15" MBPs had a 60 W-hr battery, so those had full charge capacities of 5600 mAh.

    So looks like one more negative for the new design over the previous one now using a lower 50 w-hr batter instead of a 60 w-hr as in the old one. Oh well saving money is what most manufacturers are doing at exponential rates nowadays especially with the market conditions we see now.
     
  16. KSpider macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #16

    Whats a good base test?
     
  17. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #17
    Surely this can't explain a difference of almost 2 hours. Something else has to be going on here...
     
  18. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #18
    Whatever you see fit (lol). I have no idea - just do what you would normally do (surfing, typing, photoshop, some small games?) and see how long it holds up. I'm more concerned about real world experience over some spec numbers.

    Thanks a bunch!
     
  19. KSpider macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    Sure, Ill see if there is a significant difference (like 50%) I am not good enough to tell if it is (10% better or worse) from just using it...

    I think i would notice half though ; )
     
  20. Atomic Ed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #20
    Well a 60 w-hr battery on the original is already on the low side for capacity but moving to a 50 w-hr is really under doing it. Then when you take into consideration that not only does the new model have a underated battery now but it also has some higher performance components such as a higher speed cu, memory @ 1066 mhz rather than 667 mhz, dual graphics cards, etc so this adds a slightly higher load than the previous one did. Then when you look at Apple's battery life estimates are not only stretching it (as all mfgrs do) but based on a 50% screen brightness and other power settings tweaked down as well. Just read the Apple site on this http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html

    ""Testing conducted by Apple in October 2008 using preproduction 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based MacBook Pro units with a Better Battery Life setting. Battery life depends on configuration and use. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%.""

    Anyway just like everything else nowadays, we can expect to pay the same or more, for less than what could be had for the same money years back. This applies to just about everything.
     
  21. akashhhhh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    #21
    In my experience over the past couple of days, Vista gives 2 hours of battery life. I wish I could find a way to engage the 9400.
     
  22. nope7308 thread starter macrumors 65816

    nope7308

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #22
    Yes, fine. But 2 hours? I mean, common! Who in their right mind will put up with that when the advertised length is 5? I know Vista is a resource hog, but can Leopard really save the MBP 3 hours of battery life? I'm freaking out because my ****-ass laptop that's about to break can hold it's own for almost 9 hours. Clearly, I wasn't expecting 9 hours from the MBP, but I thought 4.5 was a reasonable expectation.

    I always try to factor in the BS when it comes to stated battery life, but 2 hours is completely unacceptable. If I get a battery that only lasts 2 hours, I'm raising hell...
     
  23. Atomic Ed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #23
    I think you are going to see about a 2 hr time regardless of the OS as it is the sum of the hardware consumption requirements that drain against a set capacity battery. So I would expect to see very little difference with different OS on the same machine. The only things that will increase your battery life would be dimming the screen and not running the optical drive with a disc in it etc. I wonder if there will be a larger capacity battery optional for this new design? That would be the only answer I can think of other than tweaking all the settings down.
     
  24. akashhhhh macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    #24
    I think Vista is taxing the 9600, it runs a little warm.
     
  25. jamesarm97 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    #25
    I thought I saw a screenshot in another thread and the battery was showing 4500mah, my 17" 2006 mbp uses a 6500mah battery. That is a pretty big drop is capacity.
     

Share This Page