Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 10, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Incredible Battery Life Under OS X
Over the summer I stumbled onto something interesting: the new 15-inch MacBook Pro delivered an ungodly amount of battery life. By shrinking the battery, Apple was able to cram a 73Whr battery where they used to only have a 50Whr pack:
The rest of the lineup got a similarly sizeable upgrade in 2009:
| New Lithium Polymer Battery (Integrated) |
|
Increase in Capacity | |
| MacBook Pro 13-inch | 58WHr | 45WHr | 29% |
| MacBook Pro 15-inch | 73WHr | 50WHr | 46% |
| MacBook Pro 17-inch | 95WHr | 68WHr | 40% |
I only tested the 15-inch over the summer, but recently I had the opportunity to try the entire lineup. I brewed up some new battery life test and put Apple's "up to 7 hours" claims to the test.
Light Web Browsing
Our first test is the one that yields the longest battery life: the light web browsing test. Here we're simply listening to MP3s in iTunes on repeat while browsing through a series of webpages with no flash on them. Each page forwards on to the next in the series after 20 seconds.
The display is kept at 50% brightness, all screen savers are disabled, but the hard drive is allowed to go to sleep if there's no disk activity. The wireless connection is enabled and connected to a local access point less than 20 feet away. This test represents the longest battery life you can achieve on the platform while doing minimal work. The results here are comparable to what you'd see typing a document in TextEdit or reading documents.
All of the new unibody MacBook Pros here get over 7 hours of battery life. This isn't idle folks, this is actual, real world battery life with real world settings. The worst was actually the 15-inch MacBook Pro at only 7.4 hours, while the 13-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro got closer to 8 hours.
If you own a previous generation MacBook Pro (non-unibody) then the battery life is nearly double (a 76% increase). My personal 15-inch MacBook Pro is the first laptop I've owned where I was happy with both the performance and the battery life. It's what a notebook should be.
Flash Web Browsing
Our next test more closely simulates a very heavy web browsing scenario. The test here has three Safari windows open, each browsing a set of web pages with between 1 - 4 animated flash ads per page, at the same time. Each page forwards onto the next after about 20 seconds.
As always, the display is set to 50% brightness, audio at two bars, screensaver disabled and the hard drive is allowed to go to sleep if idle. The wireless connection is enabled and connected to a local access point less than 20 feet away.
Battery life drops significantly. Our 7.4+ hours now drop down to 3.7 hours on the 13-inch MacBook Pro, 4.6 hours on the 15-inch and 4.4 hours on the 17-inch. That's still not bad but between these two numbers you get a reasonable idea of how long one of these systems will last while browsing the web. The smaller capacity battery on the 13-inch appears to be really holding it back here as the 15-inch manages nearly another hour of battery life.
Here we're actually doubling the battery life of the older 15-inch MacBook Pro from early 2008. It's interesting to note that Apple's lightest notebook, the MacBook Air, offers similar battery life to the MacBook Pro from almost two years ago.
XviD Video Playback
Watching movies on your laptop is very realistic usage model, but I wanted to spice it up a bit. The DVD playback test is so done, I wanted something a little more forward looking. I ripped The Dark Knight to XviD and played it back continuously in QuickTime X with Perian installed.
For this test the display was set to full brightess and audio was set at two bars below maximum. Once more the hard drive was allowed to go to sleep if it was idle. The AirPort (wireless LAN) was enabled and connected to a local access point less than 20 feet away.
The 13-inch MacBook Pro comes in with the shortest battery life of 3.45 hours. The 15-inch is the winner at 3.83 hours, with the 17-inch close at 3.76 hours. All of the notebooks promise good enough battery life to get you through one long movie, but not quite enough for two back to back at full brightness. A couple of short ~100 minute movies is definitely doable though.
The older notebooks could only do a single long movie, the MacBook Air could barely finish one. Apple was very smart with its roadmap - when Intel could not provide significantly better performance, it delivered much better battery life to give users a reason to upgrade.
Multitasking Battery Life
Our final battery life test is the worst case scenario. In this test we have three open Safari windows, each browsing a set of web pages with between 1 - 4 flash ads per page, at the same time. We're also playing an XviD video in a window all while downloading files from a server at approximately 500KB/s.
This test proved to bring our notebooks to their knees. The 13-inch MacBook Pro managed under 2.5 hours, while the 15-inch came close to 3 and the 17-inch actual broke it with 3.1 hours.
Between these four tests you can get a general idea of how long these notebooks will last. The 13-inch will last you between 2.5 and 7.4 hours, the 15-inch is more like 3 - 7.8, and the 17-inch is fairly similar at 3 - 7.9 hours. On average expecting four to five hours of battery life while doing real work isn't unrealistic.
Which, I should mention, is freaking awesome on these notebooks. It's also worth noting that these aren't just benchmarks, these are scenarios I've created and also vetted with my own experience with the 15-inch MacBook Pro. For a writer, any of these MacBook Pros are perfect, especially when traveling. The lack of a removable battery just isn't an issue.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
115 Comments
View All Comments
The0ne - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
I read the article.The battery life is amazing and I like the uni-design. This is however, not worth the $2500 that "I'm" willing to pay for it compare to my Vostro 17". It does what I need. Stating that Anand is a writer and assuming he has to use the laptop without the PS is at most ludicrous. Even on travels I will be able to find an outlet to plug in. Would I want to not have to plug in all the time, sure...but that's a luxury you're paying for.
Here's what I find humorous of this particular statement by most laptop users. The user gets it into their head that they don't need to plug in even if the environment has the outlets. Do you know how stupid this person looks to me. There are those that don't even bother looking for an outlet when there is one right next to them. I'm not saying you are or Anand is.
We are talking about 7-8 hrs here. This many hours on battery alone requires a person to be in a specific situation where an outlet is non-existent. Not many people are going to run into these situation. That is unless you do all your "writing" at the beach.
Exelius - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Sometimes it can be very difficult to find an outlet; namely while traveling. Even now, many airports do not have easy to access outlets. Most airplanes don't either unless you're in first class. Given that the average flight is 2-3 hours and the average laptop battery lasts 1-2 hours, that's not very convenient.Ideally, you would be able to treat your laptop like your cell phone: run it all day, plug it in overnight.
But as for the cost... yeah, it is a bit high. But OS X on a mobile computer is really, really good. This OS is wired tight and performs *extremely* well on a 2 year old laptop with 4 GB RAM, even while punishing the CPU by running Windows 7 in VMware, Firefox with 20 tabs open and a Citrix session in another space (spaces, btw, is the single greatest implementation of virtual desktops I've ever used. It's one of those amazing productivity boosters that you wondered how you ever lived without.)
Too often, Windows laptops suffer from a disconnect between software and hardware. The fact that you don't have to deal with this is why the MBP can continue to command such a price premium. It's fast, has great battery life, good graphics performance and an awesome keyboard. Good luck finding all of that elsewhere. The MBP is the laptop for users who don't want to compromise.
ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Maybe Microsoft should start making laptops too. They can spend some extra resources in making a Windows version customized for the hardware that they use in it, then sell it for half the price of Macs.About the battery life difference when running Windows on Macbooks, I think Apple may be buying top-binned processors from Intel that can idle at very low voltages. The idle voltage may be implemented in software which would explain the difference. If that's the case, I wish they implement it in BIOS or something because I just can't sand OS X but I'd like to have a 7 hour battery-life.
pcfxer - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
Ppl don't get it and I understand. They are the same people who don't "get" why some people purchase Infiniti's, BMWs, Mercedes, etc."Why would you buy an Infiniti G37? I get 3-4 times better gas mileage and I drive around town like you do in my Ford Focus!"
Let's compare:
- BETTER build quality
- BETTER electrical components
- BETTER mechanical components
- Infiniti CARES about sound to let Bose take almost full control of the interior for sound quality and that's just the SOUND SYSTEM.
- BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE (free oil changes, different experience at the dealership during maintenance, etc.)
- BETTER systems integration, HVAC, comfort and convenience, driving dynamics (steering, shifting, turn signals, lights, etc.)
THAT is why you pay "MORE" for an Apple. That is it, if you STILL don't get it then just accept that you never will and continue to enjoy your plasticky, flexible, bargain bin PCBs and PAY SO MUCH LESS FOR THE "same thing".
pl1n1 - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
yeah makes perfect sense to me, beautiful design and mediocre hardware. I get the part about design I really do,I just don't get the part about paying $1500 more for mediocre hardware. How about lower the profit margins a bit and try a current gen CPU & GPU in the mix.my 2c,
PS: yeah I run a WINDOWS 7 PC with 0S X running virtualized in VMWARE when I need a walk in the sterile garden of Apple, not that Micro$oft is so much better.
michael2k - Friday, November 13, 2009 - link
You get better battery life. It's like the Atom, right? Sacrifice a little performance, get a huge windfall on battery life.windspast - Thursday, April 1, 2010 - link
stop comparing Apple computers to luxury cars. They aren't. In cars, there's a reason why BMWs, Mercedes, Jaguars cost more. They're usually better. They have better horse power, more room or just better over all. That's why it costs more.Macs aren't even CLOSE to that.
macs cost more
-worse performance
-outdated hardware
-crappy ergonomics
-longer
-OOO SHINY SCREEN
That's it. It's not a luxury car at all. All of the important feature Mac lacks. Who cares about how it looks if it can't perform worth squat. I want a COMPUTER, not a damn coffee coaster. I don't need a computer to look good; I need one to perform good.
The i7 out performs the outdated core 2 duo in every way. I'm not paying twice as much for a crappier machine.
Macs aren't BMWs. Macs are beat up Hondas with a new paint job and a higher price tag.
darwinosx - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
Hmm... that would be news to all of the people who own Apple products and love the personal attention and top quality support they get from Apple.SirKronan - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
I noticed a gain in battery performance when I upgraded to 4GB in my 13" MBP model. The HD and DVD drives seem to spend less time spinning, and the computer has more memory to do work with, rather than spinning mechanical parts.I also upgraded to a faster, larger 7200rpm 320GB drive. Performance did improve, but battery life went a little backwards. In real world usage, which involves typing, editing and printing documents most of the time, as well as a lot of web-browsing and emailing, I am consistently getting over 6 hours of usage, generally at 50-70% brightness.
I've NEVER had a laptop that I could take into a client's house with 10% of the battery left, and still know I had enough to get the job done. I also own an HP laptop, and it takes TWO much larger, thicker extended life batteries to even come close to matching the battery life of the Macbook Pro.
Seriously, though. Try the battery life tests with 4GB of RAM on the 13" and see if the times don't improve by at least 20-30 min. consistently.
omikun - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
One thing Snow Leopard botched was the screen brightness. At least in my case, turning the brightness all the way down wasn't even close to what half brightness used to be. 10.6.2 fixed that. I would think that would have an impact on battery life (maybe 10%)?