Apple Event: May 7th at 7 am PT

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Level 1

10 points

15" MacBook Pro i7 battery life mediocre

I figured I'd post on the forums to let everyone know how I'm faring with the new MacBook pro i7. I love the machine, first off. It's fast!!!! However, the battery life is the most important aspect of a laptop to me and this particular battery leaves much to be desired as far as charge longevity is concerned. Just to give you some numbers....after about 3 hours of web browsing, I'm at fifty percent of battery charge capacity. That extrapolates to around 6 hours of total available charge. Brightness is set at 50 percent with wifi and Bluetooth on. Flash sites visited made up approximately 40 percent of the total quantity of sites visited. There was much browsing and skimming occurring and very little in depth reading. More of an aggressive approach to surfing the Internet. I just feel that the battery acts very uneven in it's discharge of energy with respect to the indicator that is given to the user in the form of the battery percentage / time remaining calculation. It seems to discharge very quickly during the first 10 - 15 percent (in a matter of 15 -25 minutes) and then evens off a bit. It seems to give a more instantaneous reading rather than a rolling average usage reading. It's definitely not 8-9 hours, that's for sure. Kind of disappointing given the advertisement.

Message was edited by: hypo luxa

MacBook pro 15" core i7, Mac OS X (10.6.3)

Posted on Apr 19, 2010 10:17 PM

157 replies

Apr 21, 2010 1:06 AM in response to hypo luxa

My MBP (Core I7) seems to have a dreadful battery life, as well. After switching from a late 2009 Core2 Duo model to this, it really seems that the battery life was halved!

One little thing I noticed, though, is that no matter how hard (or better, weak) I try, it seems that the internal "Intel HD Graphics" card (the one that is supposed to be saving energy) never seems to be engaged.

Like, right now! I'm on battery, I only have this browser open (definitely no weird OpenGL crap going on, no games, no photoshop, no nothing) but still I can see that the only card connected to the displays is the "NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M".

I'm using the system profiler to check. After hitting the terminal, I'm running "system_profiler | grep -A 50 ^Graphics", and this is what I see:

Graphics/Displays:

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M:

Chipset Model: NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
Type: GPU
Bus: PCIe
PCIe Lane Width: x16
VRAM (Total): 512 MB
Vendor: NVIDIA (0x10de)
Device ID: 0x0a29
Revision ID: 0x00a2
ROM Revision: 3532
gMux Version: 1.9.21
Displays:
Color LCD:
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Built-In: Yes
Display Connector:
Status: No Display Connected

Intel HD Graphics:

Chipset Model: Intel HD Graphics
Type: GPU
Bus: Built-In
VRAM (Total): 288 MB
Vendor: Intel (0x8086)
Device ID: 0x0046
Revision ID: 0x0012
gMux Version: 1.9.21
Displays:
Display Connector:
Status: No Display Connected

...

See? NVIDIA GeForce engaged, Intel HD Graphics disconnected (or at least, so it seems).

I wonder if the "Automatic Graphics Switching" is not that automatic for me...

Apr 21, 2010 1:17 AM in response to PierFumagalli

Hmm... More investigative work going on, and what I found is that as soon as I start Skype, my MBP engages the NVIDIA chip, while when I quit it the world looks beautiful and my goes back to what it's supposed to be (again, running "system_profiler | grep -A 50 ^Graphics":

Graphics/Displays:

NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M:

Chipset Model: NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
Type: GPU
Bus: PCIe
PCIe Lane Width: x16
VRAM (Total): 512 MB
Vendor: NVIDIA (0x10de)
Device ID: 0x0a29
Revision ID: 0x00a2
ROM Revision: 3532
gMux Version: 1.9.21
Displays:
Display Connector:
Status: No Display Connected
Display Connector:
Status: No Display Connected

Intel HD Graphics:

Chipset Model: Intel HD Graphics
Type: GPU
Bus: Built-In
VRAM (Total): 288 MB
Vendor: Intel (0x8086)
Device ID: 0x0046
Revision ID: 0x0012
gMux Version: 1.9.21
Displays:
Color LCD:
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Built-In: Yes

Also, looking at the little battery status in the menu bar, my time before shutdown goes from less than three hours when Skype is running to almost 5 hours with Skype disabled.

Peculiar, but still, interesting! Are you guys running Skype?

Rod Hagen

Level 7

32,000 points

Apr 21, 2010 2:22 AM in response to hypo luxa

This thread really comes down to two programs that have long been known to have a major effect on battery charge life, Flash and Skype.

Flash has a huge impact on such things and a mix with 40% Flash sites visited is always going to have a huge impact. See http://www.anandtech.com/show/3659/apples-15inch-core-i5-macbook-pro-the-one-to- get/7 for an examination of its impact on battery life in the new computers. This doesn't just affect Macs. It affects all laptops, especially those with powerful processors.

Skype, if used for video calls, is also profligate with power, though not so bad with just audio. It is a bit unfair to blame Skype for this, as the power needed to simply run the camera is not insignificant, and receiving video simultaneously, of course, adds to the load.

Neither, though, are the sort of stuff that computer manufacturers use when suggesting the likely "run time" of their batteries. Try email, wordprocessing and a bit of non-flash browsing and you will see a world of difference - something more akin to the claims made.

Cheers

Rod

Apr 21, 2010 2:37 AM in response to Rod Hagen

Rod Hagen wrote:
This thread really comes down to two programs that have long been known to have a major effect on battery charge life, Flash and Skype.

Rod, I've used Skype for years, and despite its "normal" battery draining effects (yep, it's a CPU hog), on the new Core I5/I7 MacBook Pros it's also forcing the NVIDIA graphics card to be constantly active.

When Skype is running, the +Intel HD Graphics+ (which definitely consumes a lot less power) is disabled.

And I'm absolutely sure that there are more programs exposing the same behavior: so far I've also found that 1Password seem to be showing the same problem.

Rod Hagen

Level 7

32,000 points

Apr 21, 2010 2:49 AM in response to PierFumagalli

You may well be right, Pier, and ,as the Anandtech review I linked to indicates, there are certainly situations where the new set-up uses at least as much power as the old one.

It will be interesting to see whether software developers and / or Apple themselves seek ways to minimise such effects.

My point was really made more in the context of the original post and the questions raised about the claims made than about your particular issue, I must confess.

Are you finding the Intel HD chip to be disabled regardless of whether Skype is in video mode or not? If so, I can see a lot of pressure being brought to bear to get them to change the behaviour in the next version!

Cheers

Rod

Apr 21, 2010 3:13 AM in response to Rod Hagen

Rod Hagen wrote:
Are you finding the Intel HD chip to be disabled regardless of whether Skype is in video mode or not? If so, I can see a lot of pressure being brought to bear to get them to change the behaviour in the next version!

Running few things, it seems that also OmniGraffle, GarageBand and iPhoto are exhibiting the same behavior.

It seems that it doesn't really matter whether those apps (from Skype, to 1Password) are idle, or doing anything specific, minimized, or even hidden: just the mere fact that they're "running" is enough to have the graphics to switch from Intel to NVIDIA (and my battery to halve its life).

Remarkably, no matter what I try, or how hard, Flash doesn't force a video card switch (tried several YouTube/Vimeo streams running at once, all with hardware acceleration on, and the NVIDIA is not engaged).

As far as what I can see, there's no single library or framework that seems to be the culprit: for example the OpenGL framework is used by both Adium and Skype, but Adium doesn't exhibit the behavior, but iPhoto (which is one of the culprit) doesn't seem to be using it (it's not in the "lsof" output).

It'd be great to understand how the +Automatic Graphics Switching+ exactly work, and have a little option to say "no matter what I throw at you, under no circumstances enable the NVIDIA card on Battery Power".

Pier (since 3 hours on battery, still 50% charge)

BeMcJo

Level 1

0 points

Apr 21, 2010 6:17 AM in response to Rod Hagen

Rod - I disagree. I have installed "Click to Flash" and am also experiencing the below advertised battery life when only using Word to write a paper. I have not been on Skype at all. This thread comes down to poor battery life on the MacBook pro core i7.

lhotka

Level 1

97 points

Apr 21, 2010 9:33 AM in response to BeMcJo

I'll second that - I never seem to have the Intel chip active. I like the idea of automatic switching, but I like the idea of manual switching without logging out even better. I'll take automatic when I'm on, or near power, but when I'm on an airplane, I don't care if things run slow - let the user control that.

So Apple - I know you monitor these forums. Please give us these options: 1) Automatic switching. 2) Integrated Graphics Only. 3) Accelerated Graphics Only. We currently have 1 and 3, how hard would it be to add 2?

Seeing 3 hours of battery life running mail, wireless, non-flash browsing (have flash totally disabled).

MacRS4

Level 2

330 points

Apr 21, 2010 2:53 PM in response to lhotka

This is pretty interesting - I've been investigating something similar today after noticing my battery life plummet since I installed all my apps.

See here: http://www.markc.me.uk/MarkC/Blog/Entries/2010/4/21Early_2010_Macbook_Pro_-_Battery_LifePoor.html

Rod Hagen

Level 7

32,000 points

Apr 21, 2010 4:31 PM in response to MacRS4

That is, indeed, interesting, MacR54.

Given its ubiquity I can see "have you turned off Skype" becoming a basic mantra here whenever anyone complains of poor battery life in an i5 or i7 MBP until they fix it!

Certainly be interesting to know what other apps are clearly implicated here.

Cheers

Rod

hypo luxa Author

Level 1

10 points

Apr 21, 2010 7:53 PM in response to eww

eww. Good points, but the extrapolated battery life that I calculated from about 15 battery measurements that I took still fell short of 6 hours. It was more in the 5 hour range once the battery drained. That's 3 hours less than the minimum quoted battery life. I don't know about you, but that is an effload. 40 percent flash sites visited was a very conservative estimate. I had this machine on idle with only a Google home page running for a good 15 minutes with 50 percent battery left and it read 1:15 minutes left. Come on!!!! 15 minutes is ample time for the battery drain to be measured at a pretty stabilized rate. I took the machine to the apple retail store and they offered to replace the battery because they agreed with my findings, but they didn't have it in stock. I promptly returned the i7 machine back to best buy, from where i purchased it from. I'm not quite sold on the automatic graphics switching option. I don't think it's being used wisely by the machine. In fact, there have been some studies done the last few days (as explained on engadget - http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/21/macbook-pros-with-nvidia-geforce-gt-330m-sili con-making-question/) that show this erratic behavior. Apple should really allow the intel graphics chip to be selectable as being used all the time. I know, even 5 hours is great...but this was a 2200 dollar machine with stated battery performance. There's definitely an issue with the software that is controlling the hardware. Personally, the hardware is a very energy consuming design. I actually went back and purchased a 13 instead because it has one GPU in it and that's it. I've tested its battery and it is as advertised. The 10 hour reading is very accurate and I've done more aggressive web browsing on this little machine than the i7 that I had. This little 13 incher is a really sexy design. I'm pleasantly surprised. I love it.

Message was edited by: hypo luxa

eww

Level 9

53,028 points

Apr 22, 2010 7:53 AM in response to hypo luxa

That's 3 hours less than the minimum quoted battery life.

There is NO "minimum quoted battery life" for any Apple notebook nor, I suspect, for any other make either. Your 17" MBP's advertised battery life was *UP TO* 8-9 hours, not *AT LEAST* 8-9 hours. Read the specs.

There do seem to be some kinks to work out in the i5 and i7 models — not surprisingly. No brand new model is ever bug-free, and that's why I never buy one.

I'm glad your 13" MBP is more to your liking. You obviously didn't need the bigger, much faster machine in the first place, and the old Core 2 Duo CPU in the 13" will serve you just fine, as it probably would 95% of all computer users.

BeMcJo

Level 1

0 points

Apr 22, 2010 1:55 PM in response to eww

Even so, UP TO 8-9 hours should mean that if I use my computer under the same conditions/settings that were used to establish those numbers, then I should get the same result. I don't come anywhere near it. I don't expect to get 8-9 hours under any/all conditions, but my comp should get 8 hrs when the screen brightness is at 40%, bluetooth is off, key illumination is off, I'm not surfing the web. I only used Word under these conditions and got 5.5 hrs.

I am trying hard to return my 15'' i7 without incurring the $200 repackaging fee. Every Apple employee I talk to about my battery refuses to recognize the problem and quickly blames it on my settings or the sites I am visiting. Save yourself the headache and either go with the 13'' or wait for Apple to recognize the problem.

lhotka

Level 1

97 points

Apr 22, 2010 4:04 PM in response to BeMcJo

For my first try, light web surfing, flash totally disabled, wi-fi on, I got 3 hours. That's about 1/2 of my mid-2009 Unibody - when it was set to low-power graphics.

I checked - for some reason, the new one is running high-end graphics with only those things. It appears that once the fast chip is triggered, it's not dropping back.

I really wish we could force it to integrated graphics.

hypo luxa Author

Level 1

10 points

Apr 23, 2010 7:39 AM in response to eww

You're not understanding what I am saying. When I said "minimum quoted battery life", that means eight hours. The maximum quoted battery life would mean nine hours for the i5 and i7. Apple suggests up to 8 to 9 hours. I was suggesting that my battery life was 3 hours less than 8 hours....8 being the "minimum of the quoted battery life range". I'm sure many people agree that when you advertise a battery life under certain conditions, that you should come pretty **** close....not 40 percent less with the system under minimal load. There are others experiencing the same behavior. Believe me, I would love the extra horsepower....I perform structural component analyses with special engineering software that is probably some the most demanding software out there and I still would rather have this 13 incher over that i7. Over 2 grand for a 3 to 5 hour dead battery, apple can have it. I'll buy one in the fall or next year when they iron out ALL of the issues and get more energy efficient hardware installed in the pipeline.

15" MacBook Pro i7 battery life mediocre