Browser Face-Off: Battery Life Explored
by Jarred Walton on September 11, 2009 6:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Intel Browser Battery Life
Up next are results using the Gateway NV58, which uses Intel's GM45 + ICH9M chipset with integrated GMA 4500MHD graphics. Again, we use Vista's "Power Saver" profile instead of "Balanced".
| Gateway NV5807u Specifications | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo T6500 (Dual-core, 2.1GHz, 2MB shared L2, 45nm, 35W, 800MHz FSB) |
| Chipset | Intel GM45 + ICH9M |
| Memory | 2x2048MB DDR2-667 |
| Graphics | Integrated Intel GMA 4500MHD |
| Display | 15.6" Glossy LED-Backlit 16:9 WXGA (1366x768) |
| Hard Drive | 320GB 5400RPM |
| Optical Drive | 8x DVDR SuperMulti |
| Networking | Gigabit Ethernet 802.11n WiFi 56K Modem |
| Audio | 2-Channel HD Audio (2.0 Speakers with headphone/microphone jacks) |
| Battery | 6-Cell 10.8V, 4400mAhr, 47.5Whr |
| Front Side | None |
| Left Side | SD/MMC/MS/MS Pro/xD reader Microphone/Headphone Jacks (2.0 audio with S/PDIF support) 2 x USB 2.0 HDMI VGA Gigabit Ethernet AC Power Connection Kensington Lock |
| Right Side | DVDRW Optical Drive 2 x USB 2.0 56K Modem Power Button |
| Back Side | Heat Exhaust Port |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit |
| Dimensions | 14.6" x 9.8" x 1.0"-1.5" (WxDxH) |
| Weight | 5.8 lbs (with 6-cell battery) |
| Extras | Webcam Alternate colors/models available Black: NV5814u Red: NV5815u |
| Warranty | 1-year standard Gateway warranty Extended warranties available |
| Price | NV5814u available online starting at $580 |
The graph is about the same as the Gateway NV52, but the standings are slightly different. In testing, the T6500 processor ends up around 25% faster than the QL-64, so it could be that the Intel setup is able to run at lower power states more than the AMD laptop. IE8 once again comes out on top, this time leading Chrome by 4.1% and Firefox + AdBlock in by 2.25%. AdBlock manages to provide a 5.7% boost to battery life over vanilla Firefox.
Each browser setup is slightly better than the one below it, typically by just 1% to 3%, but taken together IE8 provides 8% more battery life than Firefox 3.5.2, Opera 9.6.4 beats Opera 10 by 5.5%, and Opera 10 leads Safari 4 by 9.2%. Safari 4 under Windows is again the worst solution for battery life, perhaps because it doesn't handle Flash content as well as the other browsers. CPU usage is definitely higher under Safari 4 with our test websites, and it trails the best option by 23%.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
76 Comments
View All Comments
Granseth - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
Opera 10 has something called turbo mode to accelerate netsurfing on a slow connection. Could be interesting to know if that would help or hinder batterylife toosolipsism - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
Could you do comparative tests of browsers under OS X? If I can save 10% power while forced to use my battery I’ll likely do it based on your results. Also, do using plugins like ClickToFlash in Safari on OS X have any overhead that negate any power savings from turning off Flash?orthorim - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
YES, please test Mac too. I run OS X so the tests on Windows are meaningless to me. Presumably, Safari on OS X will be much more optimized than on Windows, and Firefox will be totally different as well.I'd like to see Safari + ClickToFlash because that's what I am running every day. And Firefox with and without Flashblock
Flash should make a huge difference on OS X because it's so poorly implemented by Adobe. Even simple Flash animations use lots of CPU on OS X, whereas on Windows they are hardly noticeable. I want to see how much ClickToFlash/Flashblock help, and which browser is the best.
Firefox
Chrome Beta
Safari
Camino
Opera (?!)
Thanks!
ltcommanderdata - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
If you do run browser battery life tests in OS X, can you make sure to try Safari in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes? I don't expect the browser itself to affect battery life that much between the 2 modes, but 64-bit Safari is capable of playing Flash content. I believe 64-bit Safari is still using the standard 32-bit Flash plugin, but as a separate process, giving crash stability, and using InterProcess Communication to connect the 2. I'm thinking the IPC link in 64-bit mode may use more CPU cycles reducing battery life.JarredWalton - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
Talk to Ryan and Anand - they're the Mac OS X people. I don't have a Mac at my place, or I'd be happy to run the tests. :-)GeorgeH - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
If Anand or Ryan decides to run browser tests on a Mac, they might also want to redo the test where Anand found that OSX 10.5.7 had vastly superior battery life to Vista. Given how poorly Safari under Windows did here, the methodology of that test becomes suspect.In that article Anand found that Vista running Safari offered ~75% of the battery life of OSX running Safari. Here you find that Safari under Windows offers ~75-80% of the battery life of IE (and most other "typical" Windows browsers.) Given the similarity of those numbers, perhaps Anand should have concluded that Safari/Vista is inferior to Safari/OSX, and not that OSX was the superior OS in general.
Article:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3582">http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3582
solipsism - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
I think that when doing OS comparisons that IE8 on Windows v. Safari 4 on OS X, then the same version of Firefox on each OS would be the most apt.foolsgambit11 - Sunday, September 13, 2009 - link
Maybe not. It's difficult to tell how optimized FF would be for each platform, while testing each OS maker's proprietary browser would ensure they've both done their best to ensure maximum optimization. Of course, ideally, the benchmarks would also test FF to see how well it does on each platform.JarredWalton - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
Anand's testing didn't use heavy Flash content, and that appears to be the primary issue with Safari 4 under Windows. If I switch to static images and text without Flash, as you would expect CPU usage drops to nothing after the pages finish loading.GeorgeH - Saturday, September 12, 2009 - link
That's a very valid point, but doesn't quite address what I was trying to get at.What I was trying to say is that by simply using "poorly optimized" (or however you want to phrase it) software on Vista, your battery life can drop significantly. Anand tested OS battery life by running two programs that were designed for OSX, not Vista, and found that the Vista performance deficit was almost exactly the same as the one you found by running "poorly optimized" software.
That the cuplrit in your case was almost certainly Flash (which Anand didn't run) is relevant, but doesn't address the idea that by running software in an environment that it wasn't designed/optimized for it is possible to significantly impact your battery life. To quote myself from the other article:
"I doubt it will make much difference, but in the interest of fair play I too would like to see the tests [OSX v. Vista] redone [using standard Vista programs]."