Does Core Duo sacrifice battery life for performance?

If you've just unwrapped a brand new Core Duo-powered laptop, you may have noticed something a little odd: sure, it offers a noticeable performance boost for certain applications. But Core Duo-powered computers also, apparently, suffer from relatively short battery lives, at least according to tests conducted by Tom's Hardware. According to Tom's, the battery on a typical Core Duo tester laptop will run down after about two hours, barely enough time to watch a film on its DVD drive. However, after extensive testing and analysis, Tom's found that the fault doesn't lie in the Core Duo processor itself, which the site says "is definitely one of the most efficient and energy saving (mobile) processors we've ever seen." So, where's the power going? Tom's hypothesizes that it could be the graphics engine (and its 512MB of video RAM) or Intel's 945GM chipset, but finding out will require further testing. So, in the meantime until we get more conclusive results, rejoice in the fact that you've got a powerful and potentially energy efficient computer  -- and wait it out for the sleuths at Tom's to figure out what's sucking up the spare juice.

[Thanks, Sam]

[Neil @ Jan 17th 2006 11:48AM]

And this is a surprise how?



I'm amazed you can even get 2 hours out of some of these laptops with the spec of them

[Berylium @ Jan 17th 2006 11:53AM]

"(and its 512MB of video RAM)"



Shouldn't this be, at most, 256MB of video RAM?

[SLiKone @ Jan 17th 2006 11:56AM]

Hmmm, interesting, considering how everyone was so excited about Core Duo ginving us longer battery life. Of course, its not surprising that the manufacturers would want to put the latest and greatest hardware intheir system to complement the new chip, maybe the next wave of Core Duo machines we see will give us that extra juice we've been promised

[Shape @ Jan 17th 2006 11:57AM]

I'm willing to bet that it is the video chip causing the issue. Try out a laptop with integrated graphics, and I bet it would get spectacular battery life.

[GeeksAreSexy @ Jan 17th 2006 12:51PM]

Not surprising, these aren't build with battery life in mind.. we got a desktop replacement case here..

[Max Fun @ Jan 17th 2006 1:03PM]

Isn't the Napa chipset supposed to help reduce power consumption by 25%?

[Brian @ Jan 17th 2006 1:22PM]

Isn't this why we've seen companies displaying laptops (I think all prototypes thus far) with Intel's integrated graphics AND a dedicated graphics card, and allows the user to switch between them? No need for a 512MB dedicated video card to surf the web or type a paper! This would be the best of both worlds, assuming it doesn't add a couple hundred dollars!!



And I agree with the above, who needs a 512MB dedicated card!? If you need it, then I suspect you are using this as a DTR, and you can then handle a big heavy battery to help feed that beast of a graphics card.

[Bryce @ Jan 17th 2006 2:16PM]

A gamer-oriented laptop with the most bad-ass mobile video card available gets lousy battery life? Shocking!



Check out this comparison of the Asus W5F (Core Duo) and W5A (Pentium M), two virtually identical systems. The W5F ran 30 minutes longer on the Office Productivity benchmark and was within a few minutes of the W5A on all of the other battery tests.



http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=2663

[Tom @ Jan 17th 2006 3:08PM]

Hmm, battery drain? I think I'll stick with my Centrino laptop for now.

[Boinko @ Jan 17th 2006 4:27PM]

So let me get this straight: we can put a man on the moon in 1969, we can hurl a plutonium powered rocket toward Pluto (and pass the moon in nine hours), but we cannot get more than two hours of battery life out of a brand new laptop?

[ROFLROFFLES @ Jan 17th 2006 5:21PM]

To 9:

Of course we can, but it wouldn't be economical for the consumers. Building a rocket and sending astronaut to moon aren't good examples at all. They are allowed nearly limitless budget as long as the mission can be achieved.

[Peter Camperton @ Jan 17th 2006 6:02PM]

how many would be willing to pay 1200 to 1500 bucks more for a laptop with a 12-15 hour battery life operating at full tilt with screen at maximum brightness. quite a few I'd imagine. if such a thing existed.

[John Doe @ Jan 17th 2006 6:51PM]

Its going to be "enlightening" to see what the MacBooks get.

[Joey Geraci @ Jan 17th 2006 7:09PM]

It will definitely be interesting, especially as they used a lithium polymer battery, which is not as energy dense a battery technology than plain old lithium ion.

[Sean @ Jan 17th 2006 8:34PM]

AAAAAAAH!
What is wrong with you people?!?! Why in the world would you title the article "Core Duo sacrifices battery life" when there is NO evidence to support that?!?
Even historically Intel-haters Tomshardware said it wasn't the Core Duo that is sucking the battery life."
Tom's found that the fault doesn't lie in the Core Duo processor itself, which the site says "is definitely one of the most efficient and energy saving (mobile) processors we've ever seen."
Although they ALSO named the article something absolutely stupid as well.
Of course the graphics card is sucking all the energy. The graphics card and the display can EASILY account for over half of the power used by a laptop.

Futhermore, the processor has a defined power envelope. It WILL NOT USE MORE POWER THAN THIS.

*rolls eyes* More unsubstantiated Intel bashing...engadget, you disapoint.

[Stuka @ Jan 17th 2006 10:43PM]

This is why God invented underclocking....

[ch424 @ Jan 18th 2006 4:46AM]

Well said Sean! If you actually read TFA, it's obvious what was meant. Even my first-gen Banias-based Centrino laptop only has a fan for the graphics card - not the rest of the system.

It's odd Apple don't mention battery perfomance on the MacBooks...

ch424