The 13 has a default res of 1440 x 900 so that particular problem must be unique to the 15.
Yes, but default for the 13" screen is 1280x800 scaled (as on the 2015 MBP) - this will get you better battery life than default on those 2016
The 13 has a default res of 1440 x 900 so that particular problem must be unique to the 15.
Do you have links to said comparisons between the last 2 models? That is good information to have.
My wife and I have been using it in similar fashion for all of our tests:
Safari and Chrome with 2 to 6 tabs open. (sites such as google, disney, facebook)
Pages open with a 5 to 10 pg document being edited
Messaging application open and actively being used
Coconut and Battery Health 2 apps both open
Activity Monitor always open
No music streaming or video playback taking place the entire testing period
We can't, after many attempts, break 8 hours in this scenario. 7 is about the best we can get. I did load version 4 of 10.12.3 this morning and she is doing her normal workflow. She stated she had been on screen for 1hr 45min at 85% so far today.....which is promising!
Nice find. I wish I knew the effects for the 13" though. Not that I have a problem with battery life, but this is just another piece of information that could extend my battery life.
So I just changed my resolution to 1440 x 900 on my 15" and the text does look crisper in fact this looks really good. Too early to say about battery but I'm going to see how it goes with the next few days on this res.Holy crap! Even the change to the default display resolution on the 2016 MBPs adversely affects the battery life:
https://eldartech.com/news/new-default-resolution-on-macbook-pro-affects-the-battery-life
About 20mins of video in that 2hr period.^^wow that's impressive with beta 4, so over 15 hrs, is that with watching videos for an hr or so a day?
I bought the 2016 13" tbMBP (8/256) several weeks ago, and have had zero problems with it, and have enjoyed using it for work every day.
I've been consistently getting around 10-11hrs out of my battery since I bought the machine 3 weeks ago.
Wow, that's really impressive. Even with the latest beta and browsing in Safari I'm on course to get 6. I'd be really happy with 8, so 10+ is fantastic.
[13 tbMBP (16/1Tb) here]
Hopefully my replacement will be as good as yours...
Can people with 16gb ram chime in if their battery is around 8 hours plus or around 6 hours?
Maybe the ram is the difference?
Can people with 16gb ram chime in if their battery is around 8 hours plus or around 6 hours?
Maybe the ram is the difference?
Can people with 16gb ram chime in if their battery is around 8 hours plus or around 6 hours?
Maybe the ram is the difference?
It's nothing scientific but my general impression is that yes, the RAM may be the culprit, based on the various results that were posted on this forum.
I have a i7/16gb/512gb 13" tMBP and I get 5-6 hours under light load.
nTB 2016 13" 16gb 512ssdI have seen this so many times in this thread. Maybe it should be posted as a poll question. Would be curious to hear if 16GB is a problem on the nTB model also.
It does take more power to have 16 GB RAM, especially when you're actually using more than 8 GB of it, but with low-powered RAM the effect on battery life won't usually be very big.
It might just be that the 16gb have something different about the build. Not just about the specifics and physics of Ram usage on a normal system. No one knows the answers but my 16gb got less hours than a 8gb base model and all we can do is guess the answers.It does take more power to have 16 GB RAM, especially when you're actually using more than 8 GB of it, but with low-powered RAM the effect on battery life won't usually be very big.
So looks like Schiller was right in saying 32GB in MBP wasn't feasible for battery concerns. Poor guy got ridiculed from people, talking truth about his product, just because people thought they know more than the makers of the product.
So looks like Schiller was right in saying 32GB in MBP wasn't feasible for battery concerns. Poor guy got ridiculed from people, talking truth about his product, just because people thought they know more than the makers of the product.
I have seen this so many times in this thread. Maybe it should be posted as a poll question. Would be curious to hear if 16GB is a problem on the nTB model also.
Schiller was right because there are currently no Intel processor chip available that supports more energy efficient LPDDR4 memory. Skylake and Kaby Lake processors only support DDR4 memory and that drains energy much faster LPDDR4 memory. So Apple chose to use more energy efficient LPDDR3 memory (up to 16GB) with Intel's Skylake processor because they wanted to still claim up to 10 hour battery life. Many are complaining about battery life now. Just imagine the battery life complaints had they gone with less efficient DDR4 memory (up to 32GB).I will leave a link here to the post I just made in another thread, showing my Activity Monitor energy tab (its the 15" MBP)
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/over-6-hours-battery.2027513/#post-24194190
[doublepost=1484428385][/doublepost]
He was right of course, but for a different reason. MBP uses special (and much more expensive) RAM that was designed for mobile applications, it consumes less power, but unfortunately, it doesn't come in high densities meaning that there is simply not enough space in the laptop to get to 32GB (and no, there wouldn't be enough space if they didn't make it thinner either).
Schiller was right because there are currently no Intel chip available that supports more energy efficient LPDDR4 memory. Skylake and Kaby Lake processors only support DDR4 memory and that drains energy much faster LPDDR4 memory. You guys are complaining about battery life now. Just imagine the battery life complaints had they gone with DDR4 memory.