Intel Browser Battery Life

Up next are results using the Gateway NV58, which uses Intel's GM45 + ICH9M chipset with integrated GMA 4500MHD graphics. Again, we use Vista's "Power Saver" profile instead of "Balanced".

Gateway NV5807u Specifications
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo T6500 (Dual-core, 2.1GHz, 2MB shared L2, 45nm, 35W, 800MHz FSB)
Chipset Intel GM45 + ICH9M
Memory 2x2048MB DDR2-667
Graphics Integrated Intel GMA 4500MHD
Display 15.6" Glossy LED-Backlit 16:9 WXGA (1366x768)
Hard Drive 320GB 5400RPM
Optical Drive 8x DVDR SuperMulti
Networking Gigabit Ethernet
802.11n WiFi
56K Modem
Audio 2-Channel HD Audio (2.0 Speakers with headphone/microphone jacks)
Battery 6-Cell 10.8V, 4400mAhr, 47.5Whr
Front Side None
Left Side SD/MMC/MS/MS Pro/xD reader
Microphone/Headphone Jacks (2.0 audio with S/PDIF support)
2 x USB 2.0
Gigabit Ethernet
AC Power Connection
Kensington Lock
Right Side DVDRW Optical Drive
2 x USB 2.0
56K Modem
Power Button
Back Side Heat Exhaust Port
Operating System Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Dimensions 14.6" x 9.8" x 1.0"-1.5" (WxDxH)
Weight 5.8 lbs (with 6-cell battery)
Extras Webcam
Alternate colors/models available
Black: NV5814u
Red: NV5815u
Warranty 1-year standard Gateway warranty
Extended warranties available
Price NV5814u available online starting at $580

Gateway NV58

The graph is about the same as the Gateway NV52, but the standings are slightly different. In testing, the T6500 processor ends up around 25% faster than the QL-64, so it could be that the Intel setup is able to run at lower power states more than the AMD laptop. IE8 once again comes out on top, this time leading Chrome by 4.1% and Firefox + AdBlock in by 2.25%. AdBlock manages to provide a 5.7% boost to battery life over vanilla Firefox.

Each browser setup is slightly better than the one below it, typically by just 1% to 3%, but taken together IE8 provides 8% more battery life than Firefox 3.5.2, Opera 9.6.4 beats Opera 10 by 5.5%, and Opera 10 leads Safari 4 by 9.2%. Safari 4 under Windows is again the worst solution for battery life, perhaps because it doesn't handle Flash content as well as the other browsers. CPU usage is definitely higher under Safari 4 with our test websites, and it trails the best option by 23%.

AMD Browser Battery Life Netbook Browser Battery Life
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • ProDigit - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    I just read the Intel senior vice president is called Anand Chandrasekher. I wonder if he has anything to do with Anadtech?
  • Wwhat - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link

    Adblock doesn't just help by blocking flash but also by preventing tons of scripts the adcompanies run I bet, you should test that by also trying it with flashblock instead of adblock if you want to be sure.
  • JarredWalton - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link

    In progress... obviously, the impact of Flash/FlashBlock will depend on how many Flash ads are on a page as well.
  • Starcub - Friday, September 18, 2009 - link

    I just installed Safari 4 a few days ago along side Explorer 8. Then I saw this article, and when I saw the large difference between IE8 and S4, I decided to test out how much processor usage they each used. So I closed out IE8 and loaded the article up in S4 and found that both cores on my T5500 CPU went from ~5% to over 20% usage on the same page.

    S4 pages seemed to look nicer than on IE8, and the performance seems a little better too. S4 also has a TSR spellchecking feature enabled by default, and puts borders around text boxes. All these things, and there are probably still more default processes, require CPU cycles to execute.

    I've decided I'm going to do my civic duty and use IE instead of Safari in order to reduce my carbon footprint (except on pages IE8 has problems with @!#%$!) :)

    Thanks for a very informative article!
  • - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link

    I'd love to see the different power usage differences between XP, Vista and Win7. Maybe you could test different OS's on older and new laptops, as well as older and newer desktops then compare the differneces. It could even be combined with different browsers, and see how each browser interacts with each different OS.

    I've heard someone say that actually XP is the most efficient power wise when they did an impromptu test of their own, but not sure whether it's really true.

    If web developers could develop more green friendly web sites on the server side, and consumers on the client side could make use the best combo of efficient OS, browser and plug-ins, it would be a step in the right direction.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link

    You're about one day early... I should have the results up for OS comparisons in the next day or so.
  • Fanfoot - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link

    Thought provoking piece. Also enjoyed your many well argued riposts to the various trolls here. Nicely done. I quite enjoy the people who won't accept that IE8 is better at power saving than other browsers simply because they don't like it.

    Power management is obviously just one of many reasons to choose a web browser. Personally the only thing I learned is you really shouldn't install Safari on a Windows Laptop. I'm planning to continue using Firefox for now. I'm too used to it, and all the plugins I use to switch FOR THE MOMENT.
  • neogodless - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link

    "If there is interest, we may look at extending this testing two other laptops in the future"
  • JarredWalton - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link

    Fixed, thanks. Bad speech recognition... BAD!
  • strandbygaard - Monday, September 14, 2009 - link

    Interesting experiment. Unfortunately, the article does not help us determine which is the more efficient browser. Lowest power usage DOES NOT equal most efficient!

    "Work done per watt" is actually the metric we're interested in. "Work" being defined as the number of web pages you can load per watt (multiplied by the load time to get the power usage).

    Consider this. If IE8 lets you run 10% longer, but Chrome gets you 40% more page views during the total runtime, it's rather obvious that Chrome would still be the most efficient choice.

    What would be really interesting would be for AnandTech to redo the experiment while counting the number of page views, so we could determine the efficiency of each browser.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now