Battery Life - Reading

MobileMark's next battery life test is the Reader 2002SE benchmark, which only provides a battery life metric: The workload in this category models a notebook user reading a book on his computer.

MobileMark 2005 - Reader 2002

Here there's no difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo, which in the mobile world is important. If Intel isn't going to give us any more battery life, it had better not take any away.

Battery Life - DVD Playback

The DVD Playback 2005 test is just as it seems, this benchmark measures battery life while playing DVD content. The content is provided by BMW:

MobileMark 2005 - DVD Playback

The DVD playback test agrees with the previous three tests, there's no change to battery life with Core 2 Duo.

Battery Life - Wireless Web Browsing

Our final battery life test centers around wireless internet browsing.

This test requires a web server to wirelessly feed content to the machine being tested, as it browses the web pages stored on the server until it runs out of battery.

MobileMark 2005 - Wireless Browsing

In our final battery life test, the Core 2 Duo T7600 actually falls behind its Core Duo counterpart by 2 minutes, but the margin of error for battery life tests is usually at least 1%, so overall battery life is essentially identical.

Battery Life - Business Applications Final Words
POST A COMMENT

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • juanpoh - Friday, August 4, 2006 - link

    Looking at http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumm/i...">Intel Pentium M link, only 915 and 855 chipset is supported. However 945 chipset is listed as supported in http://www.intel.com/products/processor/celeron_m/...">Intel Celeron M link. Reply
  • jaybuffet - Friday, August 4, 2006 - link

    I have the nx9420 notebook with the 945pm chipset... i was on hp support yesterday, and they said they would not support upgrading the CPU.. does that mean i am SOL because they wont upgrade the BIOS to support it? Reply
  • Pjotr - Friday, August 4, 2006 - link

    Please correct the percentage numbers on http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    "17.5% increase in performance" -> "17.5 % less time used" OR "21.3 % increaase in performance"

    Same mistake for all other time based benchmarks.
    Reply
  • shecknoscopy - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - link

    Given the nearly identical architectures of the desktop Conroes and the new Merom chips - how well do all of you think the two would stack up in a direct side-by-side comparison? This is open to blatant conjecture, of course, as the necessary hardware to <b>really</b> make a single-variable experiment isn't out there. But for those of us considering mobile-on-desktop options, how much of a performance cut would we see jumping from a Conroe to a Merom? Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Saturday, August 5, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Given the nearly identical architectures of the desktop Conroes and the new Merom chips - how well do all of you think the two would stack up in a direct side-by-side comparison? This is open to blatant conjecture, of course, as the necessary hardware to <b>really</b> make a single-variable experiment isn't out there. But for those of us considering mobile-on-desktop options, how much of a performance cut would we see jumping from a Conroe to a Merom?


    Intel mentioned something about having different prefetchers that match the market, meaning Woodcrest's Prefetchers are fit for workstation/server, Conroe for desktop, Merom for mobile applications(performance/battery life).

    If you look at Core Extreme X6800 vs. Core 2 Duo E6700 benchmarks, you can see that in some reviews the differences are greater than the 267MHz clock difference(10% clock difference). Maybe Core Extreme has superior prefetchers to the Core 2 Duos, giving advantage in select few applications.
    Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - link

    This was the exact question I just signed on to ask....so I await and answer as well. Reply
  • shecknoscopy - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - link

    Woohoo! Great minds think alike, eh? Also, so do ours! Reply
  • JackPack - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - link

    Which stepping did you use in this test? B1? Reply
  • EagleEye - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - link

    I think the asus barebones configuration is mislabeled in this article. The s96j has the WXGA 1280x 800 screen while the z96j has the WSXGA 1680x 1050 screen. They either had an s96j or the native resolution is wrong as they stated it. Reply
  • Kalessian - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - link

    I noticed that, too. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now