1.6GHz Vs 1.8GHz in Battery consumption!

Hello!

My question is, Does 1.8GHz suck more battery than 1.6GHz ?

Thanks

 

Yes, if both CPUs are at 100% utilization the 1.8 GHz would use more battery power. At idle and other intermediate speed states the power usage would be similar.

 

Thanks, so on MBA 1.6GHz + SSD is the best choice battery wise

 

Most definitely.

 

Actually, there shouldnt be any noticable difference in battery life between the two processors. They run at the same voltage and have the same power saving states. So, unless you are running the cpu at its full frequency at all times on battery the battery consumption will be just about equivalent.

So, it doesnt matter what processor you pick, the battery life will be similar.

 

Wow there must be an echo in here.

Unfortunately, the one trait I have personally observed with the slower/low voltage CPUs is that they are at 100% utilization more often than people realize. The newer Intel CPUs idle at a higher frequency than the older CPUs (1.2GHz) so there aren't many transition states between the lowest and fastest speed. So when doing anything even remotely CPU intensive like resizing/dragging a window or even scrolling text the CPU jumps from 1.2 GHz to max speed to handle the load. So in normal day to day use the slower CPU will use less battery power, but at the trade off of being slightly less responsive.

 

It might be the case with ULV but with the MB Air I dont think that should matter much. In any case even if you are running at 1.8GHz full throttle the battery life difference at most is going to be less than 5% but since it has a 200MHz frequency advatage what ever you do will be quicker and so finish in slightly less time and thereby go back into power savings mode quicker.

 

Your right in the sense that the difference won't be tremendous, but it will be a few minutes here and there. Now if the OP visits a lot of flash sites then my money is on the 1.6 GHz (Safari and to some extent Firefox choke on flash sites in Mac OS).

 

Still, the differences in power consumption between those two probably won't be that noticeable in practice. Do you guys think it could save more then ten minutes of battery use? And what processor are we talking about exactly?


Duffyanneal; what is that for intrigueging retro ultra-portable in your sig if i may ask? And how much do you charge for that space?

 

The difference in battery life is not going to be extreme. It really depends on what the user is doing. I say with light use (word processing/spreadsheet) it will be close to 0. With heavier use like editing photos or say running Fusion or Parallels we could see 10 or more minutes. Which on the grand scheme doesn't seem like much, but when that 10 minutes is on a plane and you don't have a power outlet nearby it's the shortest 10 minutes of your life.

That is the original Mac portable. You can check out the Wiki here. It only looks pudgy. It's actually much slimmer and lighter than the Macbook Air. Dunno what Steve is talking about.

Currently the space is available for a Red Bull and a Snicker bar, but I plan on raising the rates next month.

 

True, ten minutes can be a life safer sometimes.

I just noticed that the TS ordered a MBA with ssd btw. My god you, must be filthy rich! Congrats and let us know all about it when you get it.



offtopic; is that a Red Bull and a Snicker bar a month, or for the rest of the year..?


Ah, got it, it looked smaller but that makes kinda sence with these avatar sizes
At first it reminded me of my Psion Revo, but now it reminds me more of my old Bondwell, it might have came out around the same time as that Mac of yours in '89, not sure about the time.

Those were the days man, a 'portable' computer and a free workout at the same time, yay!


edit; when i come to think of it, it was probably more like '86 or '87 when i had that Bondwell suitcase, in '89 i think i was on 286 or maybe even a 386, damn, i feel old now......

 

I am not even close to rich, but I ordered one.. Apple finance $120/month for 3yrs but thats because I am in Sweden, but in USA, the most expensive one costs $74/month!

So no need to be that rich

 

I personally thank you for supporting the American economy! I think you could have saved some by taking a holiday to the US and buying one here.

 

I get back about 25% taxes bec i have small company registered here in Sweden

Plus I will make money from it bec, i am a freelancer..

 

They will use a very simmilar amount of battery power. Yes the 1.8 more, but not by much at all. i guess if your #1 priority is battery, the 1.6 may give you 5 minutes more or so. the 1.8 may cut boot time by maybe 15 seconds. They arent much different, so i would just get the 1.8, just because it sounds better, lol

Hope I could Help

 

Is that possible/true ?

Or you are talking about the case of
1.6GHz + HD Vs 1.8GHz + SSD ?

Cuz I am getting 1.6GHZ + SSD

 

i don't think having the 1.8ghz CPU would cut down boot time at all, as it is the HDD that really becomes the bottleneck on boot.

and trust me it will boot up fast enough the you will never be concerned with boot time.

I don't think people really understand, for normal use, a MBA with a SSD will easily be as quick as a full spec MBP, if not a little quicker in very specific situations, ones that the CPU isn't being fully utilized.

 

Nice, but won't that depend somehow on the SSD Read/Write speed (Which is unknown in case of the Air)?

 

I'd say yes, the 1.8 GHz does take up more battery life, but not noticeable enough to make a significant difference.

 

Yes, you are correct. The one benefit of using OS X vs. XP/Vista is that OS X seems to be much less HDD intensive. I've noticed that a HDD upgrade (5400 RPM to 7200 RPM) is much less apparent (seat of the pants performance) on OS X than on XP/Vista. We won't truely know how fast or slow the MBA (in all configs) is until reviews and hands on evaluations come out.