Apple's 2009 MacBook Pro: Battery Life to Die For
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 12, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Final Words
There’s no other way to say this. If you care about battery life and portability at all, buy the new MacBook Pro. Go to the Apple store and buy one. While I only tested the 15” model, I’m guessing the 13” model should leave a similar lasting impression.
Ever since I first looked at the power consumption specs of Nehalem I thought it didn’t make any sense to buy a new, expensive notebook before Arrandale’s launch in Q4 2009/Q1 2010. While performance will definitely increase considerably with Arrandale, Apple just threw a huge wrench in my recommendation. The new MacBook Pro is near perfect today. If you need a new laptop now, thanks to its incredible battery life, I have no qualms recommending the new MBP.
The only thing you have to come to terms with is knowing that if the roadmaps still hold, that in 6 - 9 months there will be a much faster version of your notebook on the market; most likely at the same price. Combine the performance and power efficiency of Arrandale with the battery advancements in this new MacBook Pro and you’ll have one beast of a notebook.
Today I am more than comfortable saying that this is the best Apple notebook I’ve ever laid my hands on. The build quality is excellent, the base specs are solid and of course, the battery life. There’s no doubt that it could be better; toss in an SSD or drop the price even further, but as it stands the new MBP is an excellent choice if you’re looking for a Mac laptop.
Obviously, you can attain the same battery life with a cheaper notebook and one or two spare batteries. But there’s something to be said for increasing battery life by at least 50% without increasing the bulk or weight of the system.
I’m not sure there’s much else I can add other than Good Job, Apple.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
113 Comments
View All Comments
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
The 9600M was not present in the MBP I tested. I bought the entry level $1699 one.Take care,
Anand
ImSpartacus - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
Yeah, I don't like that Apple doesn't say exactly what kind of processors they offer. It's depressing.Why can't AT tell us what processor the MBP has? Couldn't you just run CPUZ on Windows or something? Is it harder than I think it is?
aeternitas - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
Apple isn't made for people that care that much about that stuff. It just doesn't matter. Faster = Faster. Expensive or not, not everyone wants to hax their way to OS X on a built PC either. Its not depressing, its simplistic and works.PlasmaBomb - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
I should have checked wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro
Processors used in the mid '09 refresh are - 2.26GHz (P8400), 2.53GHz (P8700), 2.66GHz (P8800) Intel Core 2 Duo with 3MB on-chip L2 cache or 2.8GHz (P9700) Intel Core 2 Duo with 6MB on-chip L2 cache.
There is also an optional to upgrade from the 2.8GHz chip to a 3.06GHz (T9900) with 6MB on-chip L2 cache (costs $300).
JarredWalton - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
Worth noting is that the P series CPUs (P8400-P8800) are generally 25W TDP while the T series (T9400-T9900) are 35W TDP. I think that's correct. Anyway, one thing that likely changed with these new MacBooks is that Apple switched to the lower TDP CPUs. Perhaps Anand can confirm?chrone - Saturday, June 13, 2009 - link
intel atom combined with this unibody batteray will do 24hours rock solid macbook mini. lol :D hope they bring that to netbook.ltcommanderdata - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
The previous Late 2008 Unibody's 2.4GHz processor was also a P series with 25W TDP so it isn't a matter of just using lower TDP processors since it's unchanged.It would be interesting if Anand could do a battery life comparison in Windows under Boot Camp comparing the new MacBook Pro with the previous Late 2008 Unibody. If the margins remain the same between the models, then the optimization is likely in the firmware of the various components or the processor has been undervolted. If the battery life improvement margin falls in Windows, then the optimizations are in OS X.
PlasmaBomb - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
Good call :)ltcommanderdata - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
Actually, if you look at Apple's publicly listed processor specs for the 2.53GHz model, I'm pretty sure there is only one processor it can be. Apple quotes the 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo as having 3MB L2 cache. That makes it a P8700. The older T9400 and P9500 had 6MB L2 cache. Similarly the 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo is the P8800 just released by Intel since it too has 3MB L2 cache.PlasmaBomb - Friday, June 12, 2009 - link
Thanks, it does indeed state the cache sizes on the site under tech. spec., however the older spec. isn't there any more and you have to look.It is of interest as the '08 macbook ran a T9400 @2.53 GHz (35W), and the early '09 macbook ran a T9559 @ 2.66 GHz (35W).
So there should be a greater improvement in CPU heavy tasks between the early '09 and mid '09 2.66 GHz MBPs (although not covered by this review).