AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › New iPad is almost worst case scenario in battery life
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New iPad is almost worst case scenario in battery life

post #1 of 37
3/8/12 at 8:06am
Thread Starter 
Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.

Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.

Anandtech found that the LTE was the 40nm MDM9600 and not the more efficient MDM9615

The A5X processor is also still 45nm as well. Add 1GB of RAM and a higher end display and GPU and you've pretty much got a worst case scenario.

A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #2 of 37
3/8/12 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big batter update to accomplish.

Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.

Anandtech found that the LTE was the 40nm MDM9600 and not the more efficient MDM9615

The A5X processor is also still 45nm as well. Add 1GB of RAM and a higher end display and GPU and you've pretty much got a worst case scenario.

A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.

And you're complaining because you were able to construct a more efficient version in your basement lab? Apple has to balance out features with cost considerations. There's likely a lot they could have done but not necessarily at their desired price points. In any event, it's a fine end product for the price.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 37
3/8/12 at 11:53am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

And you're complaining because you were able to construct a more efficient version in your basement lab? Apple has to balance out features with cost considerations. There's likely a lot they could have done but not necessarily at their desired price points. In any event, it's a fine end product for the price.

More than fine is the premise of my posting. When I say worst cast scenario I mean that as the newer LTE radios come in smaller more power efficient designs and as the SoC shrinks as well the ability to deliver either a smaller package or a 15 hour iPad will be presented. IMO of course.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #4 of 37
3/8/12 at 12:50pm
How do you know the A5x is a 45 nm part?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 37
3/8/12 at 1:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

How do you know the A5x is a 45 nm part?

A most excellent question sir.

It's not proof but the presumption comes from:

Some discussion I read from some in the microprocessor industry but just a few hours ago this was posted

I see no mention of the process of the A5X from Gwinapp so I was mistaken.

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/03/0...-32nm-process/

32nm sounds more plausible to me
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #6 of 37
3/8/12 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big batter update to accomplish.

A lot of that is clever marketing. If you just use the wh and v that Apple disclosed on their website to calculate the ipad 2's battery capacity, you would have ended up with 6579 mah. But when you tear the ipad 2 down, the actual battery capacity is much higher at 6930 mah.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad-...eardown/5071/1
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 37
3/8/12 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

A lot of that is clever marketing. If you just use the wh and v that Apple disclosed on their website to calculate the ipad 2's battery capacity, you would have ended up with 6579 mah. But when you tear the ipad 2 down, the actual battery capacity is much higher at 6930 mah.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad-...eardown/5071/1

You are misrepresenting what ifixit is saying. Here is what ifixit is saying about the iPad 2 battery:

Also listed on the battery is a capacity of 6930 mAh, which may appear to contradict the already mentioned 25Wh at 3.8V ((25Wh/3.8V)*1000=6579 mAh), but 3.8V is the listed nominal voltage, not the average voltage. The average voltage of the battery over a full charge/discharge is closer to 3.6V leading to a more accurate calculation ((25Wh/3.6V)*1000=6944 mAh).

There's no conspiracy here.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 37
3/8/12 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

A most excellent question sir.

It's not proof but the presumption comes from:

Some discussion I read from some in the microprocessor industry but just a few hours ago this was posted

I see no mention of the process of the A5X from Gwinapp so I was mistaken.

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/03/0...-32nm-process/

32nm sounds more plausible to me

I'd assume it is 32 nm prior to the teardowns.

While it being a 45 nm part would contribute it to needing a 42 WHr battery, I've got some reservations that they'd use such a large part. The extra GPU cores would add about 40 mm^2 to the SoC for a total of about 160 mm^2. Then they would have to put that into a package along with 2 512 MB DRAM chips. This would be about a 300 to 350 mm^2 package size.

That's pretty big for Apple to accommodate in an iPad that needs a huge battery and it would likely be impossible for an iPhone.

At 32 nm, it'll be about 70 to 80 mm^2 which would be a much more advantageous size for packaging.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 37
3/8/12 at 4:45pm
I think 'murch is just trying to make himself feel better about needing to buy a new iMac more than the new iPad he wants to buy...
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 37
3/9/12 at 3:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.

A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.

I don't think they will try to maintain the large battery but get the power consumption down. Eventually, they might end up better off moving to Intel CPUs. Intel claims 20x lower power usage with Haswell chips in 2013. It's a new architecture based on 3D transistors and a 22nm process so they can probably make some dramatic improvements.

One big problem with the large battery is the charging times. These will go from over 3 hours with the iPad 2 to over 5 hours with the new iPad. I don't know why they didn't increase the power supply, even to 15W.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 37
3/9/12 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

You are misrepresenting what ifixit is saying. Here is what ifixit is saying about the iPad 2 battery:

Also listed on the battery is a capacity of 6930 mAh, which may appear to contradict the already mentioned 25Wh at 3.8V ((25Wh/3.8V)*1000=6579 mAh), but 3.8V is the listed nominal voltage, not the average voltage. The average voltage of the battery over a full charge/discharge is closer to 3.6V leading to a more accurate calculation ((25Wh/3.6V)*1000=6944 mAh).

There's no conspiracy here.

As I said it before --- it's clever marketing.

If you go back to all the news coverage last year --- you will not hear a single thing about the massive increase in battery size from the ipad 1 to the ipad 2. Apple under-reported their battery capacity by 5%. Admittedly Apple managed to put a much more massive battery in the iPad 2 yet making it thinner is quite an engineering feat.

And when we have the new iPad teardown --- we will once again see Apple under-reporting the true capacity of the new battery.

The only conspiracy on the tablet battery life last year was the idiotic rumors about QNX being used in cars so RIM needs a car battery to operate the Playbook --- which all the rumors occurred BEFORE the Playbook's launch. The Playbook has been out for 10 months, and not a single peep about battery life problems. There are a lot of faults with RIM's launch of the half-finished Playbook --- but battery life isn't one of them.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 37
3/9/12 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

As I said it before --- it's clever marketing.

If you go back to all the news coverage last year --- you will not hear a single thing about the massive increase in battery size from the ipad 1 to the ipad 2. Apple under-reported their battery capacity by 5%. Admittedly Apple managed to put a much more massive battery in the iPad 2 yet making it thinner is quite an engineering feat.

And when we have the new iPad teardown --- we will once again see Apple under-reporting the true capacity of the new battery.

The only conspiracy on the tablet battery life last year was the idiotic rumors about QNX being used in cars so RIM needs a car battery to operate the Playbook --- which all the rumors occurred BEFORE the Playbook's launch. The Playbook has been out for 10 months, and not a single peep about battery life problems. There are a lot of faults with RIM's launch of the half-finished Playbook --- but battery life isn't one of them.

I'm not really following this. Apple puts in a somewhat (not "massively") larger battery to accommodate somewhat larger power draw engendered by the screen, ram, and cpu/gpu, reports that they've maintained 10 hour battery life.

But because they don't put "Now with bigger battery to handle more better!" on the box or something it's "clever marketing"? They're implying that they're being real efficient with battery life when if fact they merely put in a larger battery which is, I dunno, cheating? Cause I would have thought that the final package is all that matters. Size, weight, performance, battery life, there you go. Why should I care how Apple juggles the balls as long as the final result is good?

Maybe your apparently lingering indignation over how everyone was being unfairly mean to the Playbook has something to do with it?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #13 of 37
3/9/12 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I'm not really following this. Apple puts in a somewhat (not "massively") larger battery to accommodate somewhat larger power draw engendered by the screen, ram, and cpu/gpu, reports that they've maintained 10 hour battery life.

But because they don't put "Now with bigger battery to handle more better!" on the box or something it's "clever marketing"? They're implying that they're being real efficient with battery life when if fact they merely put in a larger battery which is, I dunno, cheating? Cause I would have thought that the final package is all that matters. Size, weight, performance, battery life, there you go. Why should I care how Apple juggles the balls as long as the final result is good?

Maybe your apparently lingering indignation over how everyone was being unfairly mean to the Playbook has something to do with it?

Clever marketing is that the industry (from your AA Energizer batteries to laptops to tablets) have used mAh for their battery capacity --- which Apple does not follow.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 37
3/9/12 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Clever marketing is that the industry (from your AA Energizer batteries to laptops to tablets) have used mAh for their battery capacity --- which Apple does not follow.

This is still strange. iPad 1 battery capacity was reported in Watt-hours. They've maintained the status quo. They use watt hours for all of their laptop battery capacities. They have never reported battery capacity for iPhones and iPods.

I fail to see how reporting the battery capacity, whether it is in amp-hours or watt-hours, as clever marketing. What's clever marketing is advertising the usage performance as 10 hours for WiFi browsing and video watching, and 9 hours of cellular browsing, then typically delivering, or better yet, over delivering.

Lastly, you are implying that Apple is lying about the battery capacity? Honest question.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 37
3/10/12 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

This is still strange. iPad 1 battery capacity was reported in Watt-hours. They've maintained the status quo. They use watt hours for all of their laptop battery capacities. They have never reported battery capacity for iPhones and iPods.

I fail to see how reporting the battery capacity, whether it is in amp-hours or watt-hours, as clever marketing. What's clever marketing is advertising the usage performance as 10 hours for WiFi browsing and video watching, and 9 hours of cellular browsing, then typically delivering, or better yet, over delivering.

Lastly, you are implying that Apple is lying about the battery capacity? Honest question.

Apple has listed BOTH the original ipad and the ipad 2 to have the same 25wh battery capacity --- but when 3rd parties did the teardowns, the ipad 2 has a much bigger battery than the original ipad. The ipad 2 has a battery that has 400-500 mah more capacity.

Apple is giving end-users MORE battery capacity than they listed on their website. That's not implying --- that's just the truth.

This is like you bought a pound of coffee from some fancy imported store. You went home and you peeled off the temporary sticker (by American importers to comply with American food labelling laws) --- and then found out that you actually bought 500 grams of coffee (even though a pound of coffee is only 454 grams). Well, you can't sue Apple for giving you more than they advertised.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 37
3/10/12 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Apple has listed BOTH the original ipad and the ipad 2 to have the same 25wh battery capacity --- but when 3rd parties did the teardowns, the ipad 2 has a much bigger battery than the original ipad. The ipad 2 has a battery that has 400-500 mah more capacity.

Apple is giving end-users MORE battery capacity than they listed on their website. That's not implying --- that's just the truth.

I think you are definitely confused. What 3rd party teardowns?
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 37
3/10/12 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

I think you are definitely confused. What 3rd party teardowns?

The teardown that I listed earlier in this thread.

It is what it is --- you go to Apple's website and you will find that the first and second generation both sported the same 25 wh battery capacity. But if you teardown the two ipads and you weighted the two batteries, there is a large difference between the two. You look at the mah capacity that is printed on the two batteries, there is a large difference between the two.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 37
3/11/12 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The teardown that I listed earlier in this thread.

It is what it is --- you go to Apple's website and you will find that the first and second generation both sported the same 25 wh battery capacity. But if you teardown the two ipads and you weighted the two batteries, there is a large difference between the two. You look at the mah capacity that is printed on the two batteries, there is a large difference between the two.

The ifixit teardown said if you use the average voltage of 3.6 V, then the amp-hour rating on the battery and the Watt-hour rating advertised by Apple works out.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 37
3/12/12 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

The ifixit teardown said if you use the average voltage of 3.6 V, then the amp-hour rating on the battery and the Watt-hour rating advertised by Apple works out.

Then you have to go back and recalculate every single non-Apple handset and tablet out there with this kind of new labeling. The WHOLE industry uses average voltage to calculate their battery capacity --- because it makes the number larger.

This is like how the whole fast food industry will tell you that their hamburger has 1/4 pound of beef --- that is weighted BEFORE cooking. When you cooked the meat patties, you lose maybe 1/3 of the weight.

Have you ever seen a fast food chain advertised their hamburgers with cooked patty weight?

So your argument is deeply flawed because everybody else uses average voltage to calculate their numbers. So you have some Android 10 inch tablet with a 6500 mah battery (using average voltage calculation) and this Android tablet has a 9 hours battery life. Then you have an iPad 2 with a 6930 mah battery (using average voltage calculation) and it has a 10 hour battery life. Guess what? 30 minutes of that battery life advantage comes from solely the ipad's larger battery.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 37
3/12/12 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

So your argument is deeply flawed because everybody else uses average voltage to calculate their numbers. So you have some Android 10 inch tablet with a 6500 mah battery (using average voltage calculation) and this Android tablet has a 9 hours battery life. Then you have an iPad 2 with a 6930 mah battery (using average voltage calculation) and it has a 10 hour battery life. Guess what? 30 minutes of that battery life advantage comes from solely the ipad's larger battery.

My argument? It is your supposition that the 2011 iPad battery is larger than the 2010 iPad battery, even though Apple advertises them as 25 WHr and 25.1 WHr respectively. I'm still waiting on some semblance of proof.

An ifixit tear down is some sort of proof that Apple is gaming their battery size advertising, even though ifixit themselves don't find anything strange with it. For what reason Apple would game their battery rating, not their battery performance, their battery rating, I do not know, as the end-user performance of the 2011 iPad is about the same as the 2010 version.

It's a rather strange line of thought. What is the 2010 iPad battery rating in mAH?

Lastly, amp-hours are not a unit of energy. It's entirely dependent on the voltage supplied which varies in use, and not to mention the current varies too. That the mah rating doesn't precisely match a WHr rating isn't surprising whatsoever.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 37
3/15/12 at 12:32pm
Apple once again under-reported the new ipad's true battery capacity.

Go and look at the teardown is live right now --- the label on actual battery is printed as 3.7v 43 wh (not 42.5 wh on their website) and 11560 mah. Ifixit managed to over-look this on their website and still talking abuot 42.5wh.

And if you look at the label on the individual batteries --- it's 3x14.6wh = 43.8 wh.

What more can you say? Apple listed their battery capacity as 42.5 wh on their website but the actual battery is printed with 43 wh and 11560 mah.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 37
3/15/12 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

What more can you say? Apple listed their battery capacity as 42.5 wh on their website but the actual battery is printed with 43 wh and 11560 mah.

It's pretty simple. A conversion from WHr to mAH using the quoted nominal voltage isn't straight forward.

Now, I still have no idea what the conspiracy is with this. Apple is underquoting the battery capacity for what purpose? How does it help them?
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 37
3/15/12 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

It's pretty simple. A conversion from WHr to mAH using the quoted nominal voltage isn't straight forward.

Now, I still have no idea what the conspiracy is with this. Apple is underquoting the battery capacity for what purpose? How does it help them?

And precisely because it is not straight forward that I said it is all about marketing.

There are multiple sets of numbers printed on the actual battery. It's either 3.78V with 14.6Wh for each cell --- for a total of 43.8wh. Or it's 3.7V 43wh for a total of 11560 mah. Both numbers are higher than the 42.5wh listed on Apple's website.

I didn't say anything about conspiracy (except on the idiotic QNX car battery stuff).

I don't care what purpose as to why Apple is under-reporting. I simply said that Apple under-reported the true capacity of their battery capacity.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 37
3/15/12 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.

Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.
<snip>
A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.

Is it expediency or budgetary? Apple had a slotted release date. Newer components are going to be more expensive, as well as more difficult to resource. Apple most likely went with components that fit the build cost and could be reliably sourced. Sure in a year when Apple does the refresh, they can go to more efficient devices, but even a company with short development times like Apple is not going to risk a shortage of build parts.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 37
3/15/12 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Apple once again under-reported the new ipad's true battery capacity.

Go and look at the teardown is live right now --- the label on actual battery is printed as 3.7v 43 wh (not 42.5 wh on their website) and 11560 mah. Ifixit managed to over-look this on their website and still talking abuot 42.5wh.

And if you look at the label on the individual batteries --- it's 3x14.6wh = 43.8 wh.

What more can you say? Apple listed their battery capacity as 42.5 wh on their website but the actual battery is printed with 43 wh and 11560 mah.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

How dare they underpromise and overdeliver.

The next thing you know, they'll start underclocking components to increase battery life...

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply
post #26 of 37
3/15/12 at 5:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

How dare they underpromise and overdeliver.

The next thing you know, they'll start underclocking components to increase battery life...


It's like that Seinfeld episode where the gang loves the taste of that fat free frozen yogurt --- only that the taste is good because it contained massive amount of fat.

There is nothing really magical about the ipad in terms of battery life --- except that Apple engineers masterfully managed to insert a massive battery inside a really thin case. We should commend Apple for this really cool engineering feat.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 37
3/15/12 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It's like that Seinfeld episode where the gang loves the taste of that fat free frozen yogurt --- only that the taste is good because it contained massive amount of fat.



I'm just kiddin' with ya, sam! It's all good.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply
post #28 of 37
3/15/12 at 9:23pm
From what I've read, the charging time for the new iPad is going to be long--possibly needing overnight (circa seven hours) for a full charge using the 10W USB power adapter that comes with it.

I use an iPad 2 and when I drain the battery down to 25%, a recharge to 100% takes about little over two hours.

In short, people traveling with their new iPads may want to keep the USB power adapter and the USB cable with them at all times.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 37
3/15/12 at 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

And you're complaining because you were able to construct a more efficient version in your basement lab? Apple has to balance out features with cost considerations. There's likely a lot they could have done but not necessarily at their desired price points. In any event, it's a fine end product for the price.

He brought up a legitimate issue regarding the power efficiency of the device. Whats wrong in that?

Right price points? I dont think so. It has to do more with the parts availability more so than the price.

The lower manufacturing fabrication techs werent available in abundance when Apple started developing the next generation iPad. I'm speculating that those samples were available after Apple was in knee deep development stage. If it were Steve Jobs, I'm sure he would've halted all development and jumped on the newer tech first. But this is Tim Cook we are talking about. He is more conscious about costs.

For me, I'm unimpressed with the "new" iPad.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #30 of 37
3/16/12 at 12:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

For me, I'm unimpressed with the "new" iPad.

Then don't buy one. Easy, peasy.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply
post #31 of 37
3/18/12 at 12:20pm
There's no need speculate about charging times. Test it. My iPad 1 typically charged about 20% an hour, or five hours for a full charge. I recharged my new iPad 3 last night from the 50% level, checking its progress every half hour. It averaged about 17% an hour, or a little less than three hours back to full. That means a little less than six hours for a full charge. That's fine for the benefit of the new screen.
- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 24" 2.8GHz x 2, MacBook Air 1.8GHz, iPad 3G
Reply
- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 24" 2.8GHz x 2, MacBook Air 1.8GHz, iPad 3G
Reply
post #32 of 37
3/18/12 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.

Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.

Anandtech found that the LTE was the 40nm MDM9600 and not the more efficient MDM9615

The A5X processor is also still 45nm as well. Add 1GB of RAM and a higher end display and GPU and you've pretty much got a worst case scenario.

A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.

When the MDM9615 and 32nm A6 chips inevitably arrive in next year's iPad, do you think Apple will take that opportunity to reduce the current battery size and slim down the iPad itself, or will they maintain the capacity/size and advertise greater battery life? I personally believe they'll stick with 10hrs battery life and reduce the weight of the iPad by eliminating some battery that will be no longer needed with the more efficient chips.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 37
3/18/12 at 5:32pm
I'm actually having a difficult time running down my new iPad's battery in order to better calibrate it!
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 37
3/18/12 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon_PhoneApart View Post

I'm actually having a difficult time running down my new iPad's battery in order to better calibrate it!

Crank the screen brightness to max and it'll drain pretty fast.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 37
3/18/12 at 9:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

More than fine is the premise of my posting. When I say worst cast scenario I mean that as the newer LTE radios come in smaller more power efficient designs and as the SoC shrinks as well the ability to deliver either a smaller package or a 15 hour iPad will be presented. IMO of course.

I get where you are going with this line of thinking. You're probably right as well. Next year should see an actual bump in battery life.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 37
3/19/12 at 9:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

When the MDM9615 and 32nm A6 chips inevitably arrive in next year's iPad, do you think Apple will take that opportunity to reduce the current battery size and slim down the iPad itself, or will they maintain the capacity/size and advertise greater battery life? I personally believe they'll stick with 10hrs battery life and reduce the weight of the iPad by eliminating some battery that will be no longer needed with the more efficient chips.

I could see a smaller battery in the next iPad in conjunction with lower geometry parts leading to weight reduction and increase in battery life to 12 hours on Wifi models. Lasting half a day would be a nice marketing bullet point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post

I get where you are going with this line of thinking. You're probably right as well. Next year should see an actual bump in battery life.

Agree. Wouldn't be surprised to see Retina display added to most of the Apple portable products. The eyes can easily get used to higher resolution and it looks like Apple's battery tech is up to the task.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #37 of 37
3/19/12 at 9:25am
We should start posting our battery usages and the times were getting. So far I'm getting about 7 hours of continuous use with wifi on and screen at 50%. No video, just surfing and listening to music. I've had mine since last Friday. I'll take my sim card out of phone and put it in the iPad to test the modem.
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
I've seen things you little people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium. I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched c-beams glitter in the...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › New iPad is almost worst case scenario in battery life