Battery Life

With a similar display and a smaller battery, Lenovo will need to have upped their overall system efficiency to come close to the Yoga 2 Pro. The Yoga 3 Pro has a 44 Wh battery, as compared to a 55 Wh in the Yoga 2 Pro. Core M is certainly going to be more efficient than Haswell-U, but it is still a big ask to drop the battery size by 20% and keep the battery life the same. As we saw with the XPS 13, high resolution displays are a big hindrance to overall battery life.

To test battery life, we set all of the displays to 200 nits, and the laptop is set to power saving mode. Our light test consists of web browsing, and for our heavy test we ramp up the number of pages loaded, add in a 1 MB/s file download, and play a movie.

Battery Life 2013 - Light

The Yoga 3 Pro manages 30 additional minutes over the Yoga 2 Pro on our light test, which is more of a test of display efficiency than CPU, since the CPU is not being worked very hard. It may seem like a poor score, but due to the smaller battery size in the Yoga 3 Pro, it is certainly an improvement. It will not give you the all-day battery life of the XPS 13 though. With the same resolution display, the XPS 13 gets an additional two hours of battery life, but it also has a 52 Wh battery.

Battery Life 2013 - Heavy

On our heavy test, the Yoga 3 Pro drops behind the Yoga 2 Pro in battery life, and falls well short of other Ultrabooks. The XPS 13, with the same resolution display, manages just over an hour more battery life in this test. We also like to look at a normalized score which takes the battery size out of the equation so we can look at overall efficiency of the system.

Battery Life 2013 - Light Normalized

Battery Life 2013 - Heavy Normalized

Here we can see how much progress Lenovo has made over the Yoga 2 Pro. On our light workload, the Yoga 3 Pro is much more efficient than the Yoga 2 Pro, and comes close to the competition. The XPS 13 is still a bit more efficient though with the 3200x1800 resolution, which is the main power draw in this test. On the heavy score, Lenovo is once again quite a bit higher than the Yoga 2 Pro, and is inching in on the MacBook Air and XPS 13. They are not quite there though, which makes the smaller battery choice have an even greater impact on the overall battery life.

Battery Charge Time

One aspect of mobility is battery life, but charge time can also play a factor. The Yoga 2 Pro had a larger battery, and also came with a larger charger.

Battery Charge Time

The Yoga 3 Pro charges roughly the same as the Yoga 2 Pro. It would have been nice to see a faster charge rate here though due to the smaller battery size, but that is not the case.

The Yoga 3 Pro does not spend very much time hovering around 99% like some devices do, and the charge rate is very linear until over 80%.

Wi-Fi

One of the pain points on the Yoga 2 Pro was the included single band Wi-Fi card. The maximum connection speed on the Yoga 2 Pro was only 300 Mbps, and sustained transfers are much lower. Lenovo did replace the single band card with the Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7260 later in the model run, which improved matters quite a bit. For the Yoga 3 Pro, they have switched to a Broadcom 802.11ac solution, which offers connection speeds up to 866 Mbps.

WiFi Performance - TCP

On a $1000+ device, the Yoga 2 Pro had unacceptable wireless performance, but the Yoga 3 Pro suffers no such indignities. The Broadcom 802.11ac solution is one of the fastest we have tested on various platforms, and here again performance is very good with over 500 Mbps transfer rates.

Speakers

Lenovo has upgraded the speakers in the Yoga 3 Pro as well. JBL now provides the two speakers, and they are powered by a 1.5 watt x 2 amplifier. In addition, they have implemented WAVES MaxxAudio, which switches the speaker profiles depending on which mode the device is in. The Speakers are down-firing when in laptop mode, but fire up in Stand Mode, so they have a different equalizer mode for each orientation.

I tested the dB output in all four modes. The loudest was in laptop mode, where I hit about 80 dB playing music with the meter 1 inch over the touchpad. This is not a very strong result, and I would classify the Yoga 3 Pro as a device which cannot fill a room with music. The next loudest was tablet mode, at 76 dB, followed by tent mode at 73 dB and stand mode at only 67 dB.

Looking at the frequency response of the Yoga 3 Pro, we have not the best result either. The push to make devices thinner and thinner means that there is not a lot of room for quality speakers. The Yoga 3 Pro has almost no response at all below 200 Hz, and really there is not much response at all below 400 Hz. As great as the design of the Yoga 3 Pro can be for media consumption, the speakers leave a lot to be desired.

Noise

Even though the Core M can be put in a completely fanless device, Lenovo has included a fan to keep the temperatures down. On balanced or power saver configurations, the fan is normally either off, or on very little. During workloads, the fan can kick in, and for the most part it is fairly quiet. It is certainly audible though. The noise floor in my room is 35 dB, and at low loads, the fan would kick on around 36.3 dB. Heavier workloads would ramp up to 37 dB. So it is not overly loud, but you can hear it.

Software

Due to recent events, included software needs to be brought up. The Yoga 3 Pro that was sent as a review sample did not have Superfish, and Lenovo has stopped installing it on new devices. This was a major blow against Lenovo’s reputation, but it also brought to light how much extra software is installed on PCs, and made people realise that they not only do not need it, but it can harm the experience, and possibly their system security.

The Yoga 3 Pro does come with quite a bit of extra software. Some of it, like the Harmony software, is kind of useful. Some people may also enjoy the trial version of McAfee. A lot of it is not very useful though, at least not for me. I can’t speak for everyone out there, because if I say software X is not useful, I am sure someone will disagree.

I am not here to defend Lenovo for Superfish. It was clearly a bad idea from the start, and I am sure there has been some fierce internal discussion within the company about how they even fell for it.

The only good thing to come out of Superfish was that it has woken the industry up, and they are taking action. Lenovo has stated that they are going to “significantly reduce preloaded applications” and they want to be the leader in cleaner PCs. They have stated that by the time Windows 10 is launched on Lenovo products, they will only include the OS, hardware drivers and software to power said hardware, security software, and Lenovo applications. This will be a good step, because it has become a big problem. Hopefully they will go far enough.

For those that are still wary, any PC purchased from a Microsoft Store will be a “Signature Edition” of that device, and all bloatware will not be installed.

GPU Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

113 Comments

View All Comments

  • nathanddrews - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    Broadwell GPU performance is such a letdown. Is there any chance of combining Core M with a dGPU or would that only work with the other Intel SKUs? It would be nice to get the battery efficiency of Core M when you need it, but then have the option for GPU power when you need it.
  • Zizy - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    I don't see any gains using M (vs U) in perf/W. Adding dGPU would mean fans so you lose that benefit as well. Therefore, why bother? :)
  • nathanddrews - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    Cost savings, perhaps? Remember the Atom/Ion combos?

    I admit it seems like a waste of time and effort given what's already possible with a regular U-SKU.
  • Gigaplex - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think the Core M chips are cheaper. In fact I heard they were more expensive.
  • fokka - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    intel lists a price of 281$ for its core m CPUs, from the 5y10 to the 5y71, which incidentially is the same price it asks for its i5 5200u.

    http://ark.intel.com/de/products/series/83614/Inte...
  • CaedenV - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    The CPU is so extremely low performance that it would choke almost any dedicated GPU. Plus you would get terrible battery life, have to add fans, a thicker design, etc. etc.
    If you are going to put in a dGPU then you really need a u-SKU product in the first place. This is just a glorified netbook. Fine for browsing the web, watching shows, and playing simple games like cards or angry birds, but that is it.
  • 3ricss - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    That is exactly right. We need to remember the purpose and audience this device is designed for. And based on this being a netbook I feel the price point is way to high. Better off considering the dell xps 13 or even SP3 at this point.
  • defferoo - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    not sure why everybody thinks Core M = netbook. netbooks use Atom processors, this CPU is clearly in a completely different league in comparison. I'm almost certain that you wouldn't be complaining about it being a netbook if Intel kept using the old Y-series branding and the CPU was called a Core i5-5071Y.
  • fokka - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    it might also have to do with the low tdp why people keep comparing it with netbooks.

    on another note, if intel would keep the core-i naming scheme for the chip, i'm sure the 5y71 would be an i7 (and cost 400 bucks...)
  • mkozakewich - Sunday, March 15, 2015 - link

    Also considering that newer Atoms have like 2x the performance at less power, and Core-M has nearly an order of magnitude more performance.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now