I believe they actually shrunk the battery capacity. This allowed them to make the Macbook Pro thinner and lighter with a modest gain in battery life. I think the trade off was good.
Although that sounds logical, I would not call that a good tradeoff. I much rather have a bit more weight and 12 hours battery, than anorexic and only 8 hours.
The screens did not change for either line. Stills seems disproportionate:
Air: 7-12 hours is 70% improvement?
Pro: 7-9 hours is 28% improvement?
It doesn't sound logical to you that Haswell only affects the power efficiency of Haswell and not other components, most of which aren't even made by Intel?
It doesn't sound logical to you that Haswell only affects the power efficiency of Haswell and not other components, most of which aren't even made by Intel?
No, its not logical that the MBA received such a huge increase in battery and the rMBP did not, especially when the rMBP has reduced processor speeds and Mavericks. I'm not sure how 'other' components enters into this logic? If the Haswell saved that much battery life, and Mavericks added another hour to the MBA, then why were there not equal gains in the rMBP?
If the Haswell saved that much battery life, and Mavericks added another hour to the MBA, then why were there not equal gains in the rMBP?
Because Haswell doesn't affect other components! If they used other components that use more power than the previous MBP that will then use more power just as if they reduced the battery size it will then have a lower capacity in which to store power and no matter how great Haswell is it won't be able to do any comparative power savings exact without the functionality of that chip.
As for percentages, you will need to determine how much power the microarchitecture used within the entire system for their battery testing parameter. As previously noted the components that drive the display (IPS LCD, backlight, and GPU) likely use a higher percentage of the overall power of the system than in the MBA.
Finally, there are testing parameter changes to consider, but in this instance I would think Apple has not altered them to make them more strict. Even though they have done this several times I believe they have informed us when they did.
Because Haswell doesn't affect other components! If they used other components that use more power than the previous MBP that will then use more power just as if they reduced the battery size it will then have a lower capacity in which to store power and no matter how great Haswell is it won't be able to do any comparative power savings exact without the functionality of that chip.
Correct, which is then to my original question, why not similar gains as the MBA? Or you can easily say, what changed in the MBP? Is PCIe that much more an energy hog? Did they shrink the batter that much to gain the increasingly anorexic look? The processor speed was reduced (thus voltage) so that should use less. Mavericks was added which gained MBA an extra hour.
If all things being equal from the last version, the rMBP should have seen a larger percent increase in battery life. So what I am asking here is, also changed? If the battery was reduced in size that much, I think that is a horrible tradeoff. I much rather have last years size/weight with an additional 3 hours of batter.
Correct, which is then to my original question, why not similar gains as the MBA? Or you can easily say, what changed in the MBP? Is PCIe that much more an energy hog? Did they shrink the batter that much to gain the increasingly anorexic look? The processor speed was reduced (thus voltage) so that should use less. Mavericks was added which gained MBA an extra hour.
If all things being equal from the last version, the rMBP should have seen a larger percent increase in battery life. S<span style="line-height:1.4em;">o what I am asking here is, also changed? If the battery was reduced in size that much, I think that is a horrible tradeoff. I much rather have last years size/weight with an additional 3 hours of batter. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">All in all, it is curiosity. </span>
I would also much rather have longer battery life, but I do have to say that I'm quite happy with my new 15" MBP. I have been saying for years that I prefer the portability of the 13" MBP but after just an hour I don't know I ever got along with a 15" and can't imagine going to a smaller size.
That said, there is a nicety about my new 15" being ever so slightly lighter than my old 2010 13" MBP and it was a key part in getting me to spend about $1000 more on the larger size notebook.
I would also much rather have longer battery life, but I do have to say that I'm quite happy with my new 15" MBP. I have been saying for years that I prefer the portability of the 13" MBP but after just an hour I don't know I ever got along with a 15" and can't imagine going to a smaller size.
That said, there is a nicety about my new 15" being ever so slightly lighter than my old 2010 13" MBP and it was a key part in getting me to spend about $1000 more on the larger size notebook.
My curiosity is not a factor in whether I get a new 15" MBP, as it is what it is. I also like the lighter and thinner, but question that at the expense of performance and/or battery life.
My curiosity is not a factor in whether I get a new 15" MBP, as it is what it is. I also like the lighter and thinner, but question that at the expense of performance and/or battery life.
What is your take on real world performance?
Thanks!
Coming from a 2010 model which only had the iGPU my perception of the performance is very substantial. I haven't had a dGPU in a notebook since the 12" PowerBook back in 2006(?). I used an after-market SSD in that machine but we're only talking about about a 2011 model that was still using SATA II to connect so it was no where close to today's SSD performance or the PCIe that Apple now uses. I am quite happy all around, which includes the Retina display and at doubling my battery life.
Coming from a 2010 model which only had the iGPU my perception of the performance is very substantial. I haven't had a dGPU in a notebook since the 12" PowerBook back in 2006(?). I used an after-market SSD in that machine but we're only talking about about a 2011 model that was still using SATA II to connect so it was no where close to today's SSD performance or the PCIe that Apple now uses. I am quite happy all around, which includes the Retina display and at doubling my battery life.
Comments
The Intel Turbo feature is available to every application, not just benchmarks.
Ah, that explains a lot. Thank you SuddenlyNewton.
Originally Posted by MikeJones
Horrible trolling is horrible.
No, not intending to troll. Just a simple question. Thanks to those who actually replied in a helpful manner.
I believe they actually shrunk the battery capacity. This allowed them to make the Macbook Pro thinner and lighter with a modest gain in battery life. I think the trade off was good.
Although that sounds logical, I would not call that a good tradeoff. I much rather have a bit more weight and 12 hours battery, than anorexic and only 8 hours.
It doesn't sound logical to you that Haswell only affects the power efficiency of Haswell and not other components, most of which aren't even made by Intel?
It doesn't sound logical to you that Haswell only affects the power efficiency of Haswell and not other components, most of which aren't even made by Intel?
No, its not logical that the MBA received such a huge increase in battery and the rMBP did not, especially when the rMBP has reduced processor speeds and Mavericks. I'm not sure how 'other' components enters into this logic? If the Haswell saved that much battery life, and Mavericks added another hour to the MBA, then why were there not equal gains in the rMBP?
Because Haswell doesn't affect other components! If they used other components that use more power than the previous MBP that will then use more power just as if they reduced the battery size it will then have a lower capacity in which to store power and no matter how great Haswell is it won't be able to do any comparative power savings exact without the functionality of that chip.
As for percentages, you will need to determine how much power the microarchitecture used within the entire system for their battery testing parameter. As previously noted the components that drive the display (IPS LCD, backlight, and GPU) likely use a higher percentage of the overall power of the system than in the MBA.
Finally, there are testing parameter changes to consider, but in this instance I would think Apple has not altered them to make them more strict. Even though they have done this several times I believe they have informed us when they did.
Because Haswell doesn't affect other components! If they used other components that use more power than the previous MBP that will then use more power just as if they reduced the battery size it will then have a lower capacity in which to store power and no matter how great Haswell is it won't be able to do any comparative power savings exact without the functionality of that chip.
Correct, which is then to my original question, why not similar gains as the MBA? Or you can easily say, what changed in the MBP? Is PCIe that much more an energy hog? Did they shrink the batter that much to gain the increasingly anorexic look? The processor speed was reduced (thus voltage) so that should use less. Mavericks was added which gained MBA an extra hour.
If all things being equal from the last version, the rMBP should have seen a larger percent increase in battery life. So what I am asking here is, also changed? If the battery was reduced in size that much, I think that is a horrible tradeoff. I much rather have last years size/weight with an additional 3 hours of batter.
All in all, it is curiosity.
I would also much rather have longer battery life, but I do have to say that I'm quite happy with my new 15" MBP. I have been saying for years that I prefer the portability of the 13" MBP but after just an hour I don't know I ever got along with a 15" and can't imagine going to a smaller size.
That said, there is a nicety about my new 15" being ever so slightly lighter than my old 2010 13" MBP and it was a key part in getting me to spend about $1000 more on the larger size notebook.
I would also much rather have longer battery life, but I do have to say that I'm quite happy with my new 15" MBP. I have been saying for years that I prefer the portability of the 13" MBP but after just an hour I don't know I ever got along with a 15" and can't imagine going to a smaller size.
That said, there is a nicety about my new 15" being ever so slightly lighter than my old 2010 13" MBP and it was a key part in getting me to spend about $1000 more on the larger size notebook.
My curiosity is not a factor in whether I get a new 15" MBP, as it is what it is. I also like the lighter and thinner, but question that at the expense of performance and/or battery life.
What is your take on real world performance?
Thanks!
Coming from a 2010 model which only had the iGPU my perception of the performance is very substantial. I haven't had a dGPU in a notebook since the 12" PowerBook back in 2006(?). I used an after-market SSD in that machine but we're only talking about about a 2011 model that was still using SATA II to connect so it was no where close to today's SSD performance or the PCIe that Apple now uses. I am quite happy all around, which includes the Retina display and at doubling my battery life.
Coming from a 2010 model which only had the iGPU my perception of the performance is very substantial. I haven't had a dGPU in a notebook since the 12" PowerBook back in 2006(?). I used an after-market SSD in that machine but we're only talking about about a 2011 model that was still using SATA II to connect so it was no where close to today's SSD performance or the PCIe that Apple now uses. I am quite happy all around, which includes the Retina display and at doubling my battery life.
Thanks!