The Moto G (2015) Review
by Brandon Chester on August 19, 2015 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
Battery Life
Battery life is obviously one of the most important aspects of any mobile device, whether it be a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, or a wearable device. To examine battery life on mobile devices we run them through a number of tests. The first is a web browsing test run both on WiFi and on LTE, which is primarily a display bound test. The next test is BaseMark OS II, which stresses the CPU. After that is PCMark which attempts to simulate various real world workloads, and is a good indicator of real world battery life. Finally, we test using GFXBench 3.0 to see how long a device lasts and how well it performs with a constant GPU load.
In both of our web browsing battery tests the Moto G performs very well. Through a combination of reduced platform power and a larger battery we see the 2015 Moto G last nearly 2.5 hours longer than its predecessor in the WiFi test. Unfortunately I don't have data for the 2014 model on LTE, but at 9.27 hours the Moto G's lifetime when browsing on cellular is also very respectable.
BaseMark OS II's battery test stresses the CPU a great deal, and in it we see the 2015 Moto G lasts roughly as long as its predecessor. Since the 2015 model has a significantly larger battery this implies a greater amount of battery drain in a given unit of time, which is what leads to the lower battery score for the 2015 model. If Snapdragon 410 were produced on a lower leakage process like 28nm HPm or HPC rather than 28nm LP we would see a significant improvement to power consumption in CPU heavy workloads.
In PCMark's battery test the Moto G is in a league of its own. Due to its relatively large battery it pulls ahead of other mid range devices by a large margin. The downside of course is that if you were a user going through the workloads PCMark performs you would have substantially worse performance than a device like the Zenfone 2. I think the Moto G's runtime in PCMark demonstrates an important consideration for consumers, with a device like the Zenfone 2 being much faster than the Moto G at roughly the same price, but offering only a little more than half the battery life in a mixed workload. If battery life is your priority in a mid range device the 2015 Moto G appears to be the best option by far.
Low and and mid range devices with big batteries and relatively low GPU performance tend to do well in GFXBench's battery test. While they do last long, the performance during the T-Rex HD test that continually loops is well below what would be considered a playable frame rate, and so it's not really worth discussing in much detail.
Overall, I'm very happy with the new Moto G's battery life. Both the web browsing results and the PCMark result confirm my experience in the real world which is that the Moto G lasts for a really long time. I often found myself only charging it every other day unless I had been using it very heavily, and it's really one of the only devices I own where I didn't even bother to take a look at the battery percentage from time to time. The only disappointment is the knowledge that if Snapdragon 410 were produced on a lower leakage process we could see even higher performance with the same great battery life that the Moto G achieves.
Charge Time
While the Moto G has a fairly substantial battery life, it will eventually die and need to be recharged. We've seen a large improvement in the charge time of mobile devices with the adoption of fast chargers that supply as much as 18W of power to a device. Unfortunately, this hasn't trickled down to low end and mid range devices yet, and as a result they often suffer from very long charge times using their included chargers.
The combination of a 9.39Wh battery and a 2.75W charger leads to the longest charge time on record for a mobile device. While it's only a couple minutes longer than the Huawei P8 Lite, it's substantially longer than most other phones. Since the Moto G has very good battery life users can just charge their phone at night, which puts it in a better situation than the P8 Lite. Despite that, I wish Motorola had considered the additional charge time their larger battery would require and included a 5W charging block to compensate. If a user has a spare 5W or higher charging block or lives in a region where the Moto G comes with one they will see the charge time drop to as low as 2 hours and 50 minutes, which is much more reasonable.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
Cod3rror - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
I wish Motorola hadn't released two different versions (1GB / 2GB). I knew what would happen and what I expected is exactly what happened... almost all retailers and carriers in Europe/UK are stocking only the 1GB version and 2GB is nowhere to be found. Plus, because of the weak Euro, the 2GB version, if ordered from Motorola UK, comes out at 300 euro, which is very expensive. But don't get me wrong, even if it cost almost the same, the retailers and carriers would still stock the cheaper version.dan.swain - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link
I agree with you, My wife has the Moto G 2015 16GB. Got it from Moto website the sales experience was terrible but I couldn't just buy the 16Gb in a shop so frustration ensued. The phone itself is great though, my wife can get multiple days out if it. At just over £200 it seemed a better deal than £200 Apple wanted for a refurbished IPhone 5c.wurizen - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
It seems like this review confirms my suspicion of the new Moto G 2015 regarding the back cover flush gate. Feeling the back cover of a phone inch forward or push inwards when gripping it is a sign of a cheap phone to me. And we know that this is a cheap, budget phone, but, the Moto G 2014 doesn't have this issue. I am also looking at the profile picture of the Moto G 2015 and it looks bulkier than the Moto G 2014. Or it seems bulkier because the removable back cover of the 2015 is not halfway but below the Power and Volume buttons. Whereas, the Moto G 2014's back cover is exactly halfway from front to back, so it goes halfway up from the Power and Volume buttons making the phone--on a design perspective--look and feel balanced!What makes me sad is that I don't think Motorola had to sacrifice this decrease in "Phone Feel" and "Phone Ergonomics" or "Phone Design." Whatever you wanna call it.
I mean, did the design of the Moto G 2015 change because Motorola wanted it to be waterproof? Or, did Motorola purposely make a fatter Moto G 2015 so people will buy their other more expensive phones? Let the conspiracy theories begin!
My other gripe is that Best Buy, which is the only store I know in the U.S. that carries the Moto G unlocked version doesn't even have the new Moto G 2015 on display so customers can feel and hold it in their hands. I mean, imagine Samsung or Apple doing this? It would never happen. Yet, Motorola is letting Best Buy not have a display version. I also asked if they had the phone on sale and if they could open a box and let me hold one. But, they said that they didn't have any available. I then asked if they had sold out and they said, yes.
Also, there is no white version available at Best Buy and no 2 GB/16 GB variant available. Just the 1GB RAM and black one.
Can someone tell me why this is? What kind of marketing scheme is at work here?
Demon-Xanth - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
The reason why no 2/16 variant is that they are basically sold out everywhere. I'm guessing production focused on the black 1/8 due to anticipated demand. They aren't mythical devices. Just selling like cold beer at a county fair. Yes, I will be replacing my ATT XT1045 with a retail 2/16 when I can. The only problems I've had have been I'd like more RAM, a better camera, less "extra apps", and updates that aren't delayed until the second coming of christ. This covers all of them.stlc8tr - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
"I don't think anyone buying a device like the Moto G will have adopted an 802.11ac router at this point anyway due to cost reasons."An AC router is roughly $75 on Amazon. It's not exactly a huge outlay so I think more points should be deducted for the lack of 5Ghz support. The 2.4Ghz band can be very crowded so being limited to only 2.4Ghz is a serious flaw, IMO.
Moto1 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
Dude, its 179$. Seriously?stlc8tr - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link
Yes, I'm serious. In my neighborhood, there are so many 2.4Ghz WiFi networks that using my 2.4Ghz WiFi is hit or miss. I can't even use a Chromecast as the streaming times out half the time.So I avoid any devices that are 2.4Ghz only.
neogodless - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
As this is a phone, could you comment on the speaker quality at all? It sounds like it still has stereo speakers like the 2014 model. Are they the exact same?hans_ober - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link
They're not stereo, bottom is a loudspeaker.neogodless - Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - link
That's too bad! The 2014 had stereo. In the search for "no compromises" including stereo speakers, I ended up with a Nexus 6.