New MBP Battery Life

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by monaarts, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. monaarts macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Location:
    Kennesaw, GA
    #1
    7 HOURS!? They went from 10 hours on the 13" to 7 hours!?!? That seems outrageous, I wonder why the loss.


    - Joe
     
  2. amoergosum macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #2
    Sandy Bridge....Quad-Core....
     
  3. babyt macrumors regular

    babyt

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Location:
    texas
    #3
    Hmm the processor it has in it may be the reason ..
    Just saying.
     
  4. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #4
    Apple changed their procedure for testing battery life, it's now more 'realistic'.
     
  5. Caris macrumors 6502a

    Caris

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Location:
    Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    #5
    They are using more strict battery tests so it won't be a 3 hour difference, probably more like 1.5.
     
  6. Richard1028 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #6
    Yeah... might be deal breaker for me.

    The processors better be worth it.
     
  7. solarein macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    #7
    The quad-core Sandy Bridges are 45w TDP processors, the Arrandales were 35w TDP. Makes sense for the battery life to go down on the quad-core models.
     
  8. presdaddy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    #8
    Imagine if they replaced the ODD with 50% more battery...
     
  9. jp700p macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    #9
    Can someone explain this? So that means maybe the 2010 10hr = 2011 7hr new rating?
     
  10. monaarts thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Location:
    Kennesaw, GA
    #10
    I heard the sandy bridge processors were more energy efficient? So why did the 15" and 17" battery life stay the same and the 13" went down 30%.... And as far as battery testing goes, my old MBP was right about 7 hours as they advertised and my current MBA is over the 7 hours they advertise.


    - Joe
     
  11. solarein macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    #11
    More efficient != Consume less
     
  12. monaarts thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Location:
    Kennesaw, GA
    #12
    More efficient than the C2D == Consume Less
     
  13. davie18 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    #13
    More efficient does not necessarily mean consuming less power.

    It would mean consuming less power for the amount of horsepower you are getting from the processor. At least that's how I see it.

    So even if the new processors are more efficient they might still consume more power.
     
  14. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #14
    http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/features.html
     
  15. ChronoIMG macrumors regular

    ChronoIMG

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #15
    7 hours is leaps and bounds over my current 15" MBP which can muster a "real world" usage of about 2 hours, if I don't use it for "real world" stuff too much.
     
  16. solarein macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    #16
    An engine that consumes 100 joules of energy and does 80 joules of work in an hour is more efficient than an engine that consumes 50 joules of energy and does 10 joules of work in an hour, but the former engine is going to give you less battery life. Makes sense?
     

Share This Page