Honest Apple: Battery Life

I mentioned this in my iPhone 3GS review and I believe it bares repeating: Apple's battery life estimates have been ridiculously accurate over the past couple of years. I swear Apple must have my office bugged because my battery life numbers almost always equal theirs and they have no access to my test files.

To test battery life on the iPad I ran a modified version of the process I use for smartphones. I use the WiFi connection to browse a series of 20 web pages varying in size, spending 20 seconds on each page (I timed how long it takes me to read a page on Digg and came up with 36 seconds; I standardized on 20 seconds for the test to make things a little more stressful). The test continues to loop until the battery dies. This test is designed to simulate a relatively heavy, but realistic data load on the phone. We're stressing the WiFi radio, SoC, memory and display subsystems here. This should also be the sort of battery life you get when you are using any apps that use data (but not 3D acceleration). The display brightness was set to 50% on the iPad.

That's the test I use for smartphones, but to make it a little more stressful on the iPad I continuously played music using the iPod app, one of the only apps that's allowed to run in the background. I also told the mail app to automatically check my AnandTech email account every 15 minutes. I get a good amount of mail so this constant checking would add another realistic component to the workload. I also ran this same test on ASUS Eee PC 1001P:

The iPad came in just shy of Apple's 10 hour claim. At 9 hours and 45 minutes, it's long enough to get you through the greater part of a day. But calling Apple's battery estimates conservative is misleading. A single charge won't last you all day.

The iPad does last longer than ASUS' 1001P, however ASUS tells us that the 1005PE will buy you another 2 hours of battery life for an extra $79.

What about watching movies? Our resident smartphone expert Brian Klug put together a 6 hour loop of The Bourne Ultimatum. This was from a 1080p source but re-encoded using Handbrake's Normal profile resulting in a 1.3GB 720p rip that was looped three times.

I imported the movie into iTunes, synced it to the iPad and looped the already 6 hour loop until the iPad died. Display brightness was set to 50%, auto brightness control was disabled, automatic email downloading was also disabled.

Video playback is actually a fairly light use case. In these SoCs there's usually a dedicated video decode block, most likely the PowerVR VXD (same as in the iPhone 3GS). This block decodes each frame and sends it to the display output engine. The only things working in this case are parts of the CPU, the video decode engine, memory bus and the display engine. There's no 3D rendering and the vast majority of the CPU is idle. With this in mind, it's no surprise that the iPad can last 13.6 hours when playing back a 720p H.264 movie.

  Apple iPhone 3GS Apple iPad ASUS Eee PC 1001P
H.264 Video Playback 9.5 hours 13.6 hours 5.3 hours

The iPhone 3GS however can almost hit 10 hours performing the same test. This gives you an idea of how much power the display is consuming on the iPad. The netbook doesn't stand a chance by comparison. The iPad was made for watching lots of movies on a single battery charge.

My final battery life test was a 3D gaming benchmark. I ran Real Racing HD on the iPad (and Real Racing on the iPhone) until the devices died. The cellular network was turned off on the iPhone 3GS and brightness was set to 50%.

Anything GPU intensive is going to be the worst case scenario for these SoCs. Here we’re stressing the CPU, GPU and memory subsystem. The added load is reflected in the battery life numbers:

  Apple iPhone 3GS Apple iPad
3D Gaming 3.9 hours 8.8 hours

The iPhone 3GS approaches 4 hours, while the iPad manages almost 9 hours while gaming. I’d also consider this to be a best case scenario gaming benchmark. A more intense 3D game could easily drop these numbers even further.

The iPad and its Performance USB/Accessory Charging & A Super Head Unit? Nope
Comments Locked

108 Comments

View All Comments

  • dagamer34 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link

    Anyone who looks at the raw costs of materials and bases decisions of a product being "overpriced" has never taken Business 101.

    I'll limit myself to 4 things which that "50-60%" pays for:
    1) Running Apple stores and employees
    2) Running Apple itself in Cupertino (and worldwide) - employees, board, executives, etc.
    3) Apple product support for the first year (phone support, in-person support, etc.)
    4) Warranties (i.e. - your iPad breaks in the first year and you complain they should fix it on their dime)

    NEVER assume a company gets a "huge" profit when only looking at BOM. That's just idiotic. And it's almost impossible to know how much the points I listed above factor into a product's cost in any great detail without making huge assumptions or pure guesswork.
  • manicfreak - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link

    Doesn't change the fact the profit gained from the iPad is higher than the iPod from the last few years.

    Overpriced.
  • GTaudiophile - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link

    That is indeed one of the best episodes of TOP GEAR ever.

    And then at the end, they all drive home to Sigur Ros playing in the background.
  • semo - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link

    "There's also an optional VGA output, but I won't point out what issues I have with that."

    Why?
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link

    I was poking fun at it, I thought it was obvious what my issues with a VGA dongle would be. Especially given that Apple's own products haven't supported VGA in years, and the input is definitely not common on modern HDTVs.

    It looks like the iPad is missing a TMDS as we don't get any options for digital out (HDMI, DVI, DP). I'll clarify in the article :)

    Take care,
    Anand
  • PhilipHa - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link

    You may be interested in

    http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2010/4/7/the-...

    contains some interesting performance comparisons between x86 and ARM (but not IPAD)
  • pervisanathema - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link

    You would be much wiser to wait for the inevitable widescreen version with a camera and faster CPU. I guarantee Apple has one in the works and they are simply waiting to screw the early adopters. The 4:3 aspect ratio was obviously picked solely so they would have a compelling reason to force people to buy the next revision.
  • dagamer34 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link

    OR 4:3 works better with books and it's the same ratio as the iPhone?
  • Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link

    You pick a heck of a time to start complaining about apple's app pricing. Of course they are going to charge an arm and a leg for apps. That's what apple does. That's ALL apple does. This device, all told, requires an over $1500 investment for 2 years.

    iPad $500
    Bag $30
    10 Apps $120
    2 years of service $720
    Other accessories $50
    Taxes ~$100

    Total >$1500

    It is a ripoff of epic proportions. It's no faster than a penium III notebook I can buy on ebay for $68. This is outrageous. Are you out of your flippin mind? The real economy is in the middle of a depression. Real private GDP is down close to 20%. By and large, the only people who are going to be able to afford this overpriced garbage are people sucking off the government teat. (Like union trash collectors and station agents who make 6 figure salaries.) Nobody who actually works for a living in the private sector is going to spend $1500 on something like this, not if they wish to remain solvent anyway.
  • strikeback03 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link

    Umm, your numbers are slightly off. There is no service fee for the WiFi-only $500 iPad. The 3G version starts at $630.

    Besides that though, I know plenty of people who have the disposable income to buy a toy like this of they wished. Sure it is overpriced, but just as there are consumers who pay $500 and up for video cards ther are some who pay $600-700 for expensive toys like this. It is arguably a better use of money than that $800 netbook Sony came out with last year.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now