Battery Life

While AMD’s rebirth in the notebook market brought with it some changes that have shaken up the laptop market, one area where AMD’s Ryzen APUs have suffered is in terms of battery life. Thanks to a high base power draw, both the AMD Ryzen 2000 and 3000 series could not match the competition in terms of outright battery life. With the new Ryzen 4000 series, AMD has not only moved to the Zen 2 CPU cores, but also to the 7 nm TSMC process, so they should have a chance to rectify their previous shortcomings.

Despite the 14-inch notebook size, the Acer Swift 3 ships with just a 48 Wh battery, which is much smaller than you would see as an average for this size of device. Of course battery capacity is only one side of the equation, with the other being power draw, so to test the overall battery life the notebook was run through our laptop battery suite, which consists of a low-impact web test, a high-impact web test, and movie playback from a local file. As always, the display is set to 200 nits of brightness to normalize display power across all of the notebooks.

Light Battery Life

Battery Life 2013 - Light

The Acer Swift 3 does quite well in our lightest test, offering over ten hours of screen-on time. A great comparison is the Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 15-inch, which had Picasso and a battery of similar capacity.

Web Battery Life

Battery Life 2016 - Web

Our revamped web test is much more demanding on the CPU, and generally especially impacts thin and light designs where the base power draw is quite low. That is the case here, with almost 100 minutes less runtime than the light battery test. But the results are still encouraging, with almost nine hours of runtime.

Movie Playback

Battery Life Movie Playback

The Acer Swift 3 offers good battery life with the movie playback as well, closing in on ten hours straight with the display at 200 nits brightness. This is one area where the previous AMD APUs struggled, since it does mean offloading the video decode to the GPU. Intel has incredibly efficient hardware blocks dedicated to this, and the AMD APU can’t quite match that, but is still an improvement over Picasso.

Battery Life Tesseract

In terms of overall movie playback time, the Acer Swift 3 would let you watch four complete sittings of The Avengers in a row, although you’d miss the end of the credits in the final loop.

Normalized Battery Life

Battery Life 2013 - Light Normalized

Battery Life 2016 - Web - Normalized

Removing the battery size from the battery life equation lets us take a look at platform efficiency across the different notebooks. In our light test, there is a big jump in efficiency when comparing to the Microsoft Surface Laptop 3 AMD edition, and as the light test is mostly an idle scenario, gives hope that Renoir has finally solved AMD’s extra power draw. The Web test is more demanding, meaning more CPU power is used, and only shows a small gain over the previous generation.

Platform Power Draw

To get an idea how much power draw there is on the new Renoir based platform, we turned to BatteryBar Pro to log the power draw. The results were impressive. AMD has more or less matched Intel in terms of idle power usage with their Ryzen 4000 series.

The first-generation Acer Swift 3 with Ryzen 5 2500U drew around 2.55 watts at idle, but the new Ryzen 7 4700U Acer Swift 3 idled right around 1.0 Watts, matching the 10th generation Intel Ice Lake equipped Surface Laptop 3. This is a big step for AMD, and allows them to compete not just on performance, but battery life as well.

Battery Life Conclusion

Despite the smaller than average 48 Wh battery capacity, the updated Ryzen 7 4700U in the Acer Swift 3 manages to provide solid battery life. This is a big win for AMD, where battery life was one of the key drawbacks to their previous Ryzen APUs. With right around 1.0 Watts of idle power draw with the screen off, they are no longer playing catch-up to the competition. For light tasks, it should easily get through the day.

Charge Time

Acer includes a 65-Watt A/C adapter with the Swift 3, providing more than enough output to power this laptop. As previously mentioned though, the included connector is a barrel connector, which in itself is not a huge issue, except that Acer’s barrel connectors are very thin and would be prone to breaking. This has been a concern on their notebooks for some time. The good news is that the notebook also has a USB-C connector with power delivery, and you can charge the laptop over USB-C with no issues. Despite the convenience, USB-C is still an expensive standard, so some vendors have not made the switch on all of their devices yet.

Battery Charge Time

As far as charge time, the 65-Watt charger makes short work of the battery, charging the laptop up to maximum in under two hours. The charge rate peaks around 30 Watts, and Acer claims you can charge four hours of battery usage in 30 minutes of charge time.

Display Analysis Wireless, Audio, Thermals, and Software
Comments Locked

191 Comments

View All Comments

  • fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    Because over in Mac land they finally got the butterfly keyboard revolt over with and now talks can resume on the finer points of systems design. But it's not looking good for fine arts because the front burners have been conscripted for the A15 (MacOS on ARM) revolution.
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    Buying a CPU that doesn't have turbo is *not* a worthy trade-off unless you simply cannot afford anything better, because you'll be leaving a whole ton of performance on the table - especially when the device is plugged in.

    The 25% battery deficit isn't as simple as "more cores, more power" either - check out the Zephyrus G14 vs the Razer Blade 15 for a more appropriate comparison of well-designed devices. Put simply, that deficit has more to do with how this particular notebook was designed than it does to do with Ryzen 4000.

    Focusing on single-thread performance when the vast majority of applications users interact with are multi-threaded doesn't really make sense, either. I'd recommend reading in a little more depth.
  • Omega215D - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    Looks like we've got another piece of crap Intel fanboy here intent on spreading FUD on AMD's new mobile processors. So far reviews of the ASUS TUF featuring the new procs do far better on battery life and gaming performance.
  • yeeeeman - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    Looks like we've got another piece of crap AMD fanboy that cannot read the damn graphs.
  • yankeeDDL - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    The XPS and the Surface cost about twice as much as the Swift 3: they are high-end systems with high-end components, especially screens.
  • Irata - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    Actually the Dell's "as reviewed" price on At was $ 1,749.99, the Surface Laptop 3 with a 512GB SSD costs $ 2,199, so we are talking three times the price. The Yoga C930 is almost budget, costing only slightly less than twice as much as the Swift.
  • yankeeDDL - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    Thanks. You're right of course.
  • Irata - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    Eight cores vs. four cores....

    You have surely seen the battery life comparisons between Ryzen 4000 and Intel's eight core counterpart.
  • notb - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    Number of cores is of less importance. Intel makes 16-core processors using 30W and 6-core chips using 100W.

    Comparison of 8-core SoCs are between chips made on TSMC 7N and Intel 14nm, which makes AMD much more efficient.
    This comparison is for TSMC 7N vs Intel 10nm.

    What matters is performance vs power and average these are similar. The gap will be minimal when Intel launches 6 or 8-core models later this year.
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    Is there any evidence that Intel will be releasing 10nm 15W 6-8 core CPUs this year? I thought they were sticking with 4 cores on 10nm and releasing 6-8core 15W 14nm CPUs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now