The Chromebook Pixel (2015) Review
by Brandon Chester on March 16, 2015 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
- Chrome OS
- Chromebook
- Chromebook Pixel
Battery Life
One area where Google claims to have made large improvements over the original Pixel is battery life. The 2013 version of the Pixel would typically manage six or seven hours of battery life, which was decent but not outstanding at the time. Given that the Pixel did not run much more than a web browser, it was actually somewhat disappointing to see it falling behind other laptops like the 13" MacBook Pro with Retina display which was substantially more powerful and capable. Google claims that the new Chromebook Pixel will achieve up to twelve hours of battery life, which is quite a lofty goal considering it is around twice the battery life of the original. Given that the new Pixel has the same 59 Wh battery as its predecessor, all of the battery life improvements have to come from reduced component power usage and software optimizations.
The two main areas where power usage has been reduced are the CPU and the display. The CPU is one of Intel's new Broadwell-U processors, built on their 14nm manufacturing process. While it is faster than the Ivy Bridge Core i5 used in the original Pixel, it has significantly reduced power usage due to architectural improvements and the move from a 22nm to a 14nm fabrication process. The display is similar to the original, but Google is now using Content Adaptive Backlight Control (CABC) to manage backlight brightness based on the display's Average Picture Level (APL), as well as Panel Self Refresh (PSR). It should be noted that although PSR is a display feature, it's actually a method of reducing CPU/GPU and display bus power usage, not LCD panel power usage.
To see if Google achieved their goal of a twelve hour battery life, I have run the Pixel through our standard web browsing test as well as our H.264 video playback test.
In our WiFi web browsing test, the Pixel is only two minutes short of Google's up to twelve hours rating, and with that battery life it sits well above all the other tablets and Chromebooks. In our video playback test it still performs very well with 9.77 hours, but it doesn't end up lasting quite as long as some of the most recent tablets. Regardless, the battery life in both scenarios is an absolutely massive improvement over the original Pixel, with almost two times the battery life during web browsing and over three times the battery life when playing back videos.
Charge Time
As mentioned earlier, the new Chromebook Pixel uses USB Type-C for charging. Since the Pixel has a Type-C port on each side, you can charge it from both the left and the right. While this doesn't sound like a big deal, it can be the difference between charging and not charging in situations where you're far from an outlet. It is also just a great connector in general, and the fact that it is just USB means that you can use a USB Type-A to Type-C cable to charge off of any existing USB port, with the caveat that it's going to charge slower. Google includes a 60W USB Type-C charger with the Pixel, and offers a Type-A to Type-C cable for $12.99.
The Pixel does exceptionally well in our charge time test, reaching a full charge nearly an hour quicker than the XPS 13 which was previously the quickest to charge. The quick charging combined with the extremely long battery life should ensure that Pixel users are never stuck tethered to a power outlet.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
123 Comments
View All Comments
Selden - Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - link
New Macbook: mobile processor, 480px camera, *1* USB Type-C port, 5 Gb iDrive space. $1299.New Pixel: i5, 720px camera, 2 USB Type-C, two USB Type A ports, 1 Tb of Google Drive space for 3 years. $999
I'
BackInAction - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
I don't think Google intends for this to be something Joe Public will purchase. More of a ChromeOS Developer tool?Any comparison between this and other laptops is meaningless because it isn't meant to be compared with anything.
chlamchowder - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
I don't know if it's the best idea to develop for a device more powerful than what most of the userbase will buy.The 64 GB version looks like a decent platform to put Linux on, as long as you don't try to store too much. After all, the lowest end original Surface Pro had 64 GB, and Windows programs tend to be heavier on storage. But I'm not sure I'd pay $1300 to tinker with Linux on it.
coder543 - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
In general, developer machines *have* to be more powerful than the consumer machines the software will run on. Just because you're developing on a powerful rig, doesn't mean you won't test your software on weaker hardware along the way.It's not exactly the same thing, but a great example of this is game development. I literally could not run the Unreal Engine 4 development tools reliably on a Mac mini with 4GB of RAM. It would crash often due to running out of memory. Once I upgraded it to have 16GB of RAM, these problems all disappeared. UE4 allows you to develop games for everything from smartphones to the most powerful desktops, yet there is absolutely no way you could run the developer tools on a smartphone -- even if it is the platform you're targeting, and you don't think it's good to develop on more powerful hardware than you're targeting.
chlamchowder - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
I said develop for, not develop on. I really doubt developers will want to code right on Chrome OS. They're probably following a similar model to cell phone app development, where you write/compile your code on a 'real' machine, and then package/deploy it to a test machine (cell phone, or Chromebook).With that model, using the Chromebook Pixel as a test platform might not be the best idea. An app that performs decently on the Pixel might not do so well on lower end Chromebooks.
I suppose you could drop a full blown Linux distro or Windows on a Chromebook Pixel and use it for coding...but then limited storage could be an issue.
extide - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
But its not a *testing* platform, it's a *developing* platform. Also, great for users who'd like to put Linux on.chlamchowder - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
Developing *on* Chrome OS seems like a horrible idea, even on the Pixel.To start, Chrome OS doesn't come with any development tools (though there's a messy way to get GCC on it). Assuming you manage to get a build environment set up, you then have to deal with very limited storage. Want to store local copies of several large projects? GLHF. Then, what about compilation times? A Broadwell i5 ULV chip is great for an ultrabook, but a desktop with an adequately cooled, higher clocked i7 will blow it out of the water.
Any laptop or desktop for the same price is much better for coding.
melgross - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
A developer tool doesn't need to be made out of aluminum. No, Google is clearly trying to make a high end laptop to compete with Apple. Since Chrome still isn't nearly as useful as either Windows of OS X, this is a very limited device. Are they worth more than $1,000? No way nearly.Hanoveur - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
No, Google is on record saying they gave these away to the developers at the Google Developers Conference and were simply making them available for the general public to buy. They aren't expecting to sell many of them. Look it up.And why wouldn't someone buy this? People could buy a Toyota Corolla to simply drive from point A to point B, but there are those that choose the Infinity to do exactly the same thing. It's all about preference. It might seem insane to some people, but people like what they like. Everyone elses world and tastes do not revolve around yours.
chlamchowder - Monday, March 16, 2015 - link
It's just difficult to imagine who's tastes this would fit.