Database Info

[Q] Battery Life - dual core vs single core

Hi,
Does anyone know if there will be any perceivable difference in battery life between the latest batch of smartphones based on single core 45nm SoCs and the new 45 nm dual core versions.
All manufacturers state state improved performance AND lower power consumption with the dual cores, but I am wondering how this will affect my day-to-day battery life. I actually read somewhere that e.g. Tegra 2 phones may drain the battery quicker instead of saving power.
I was planning to buy the Desire Z or Galaxy S, but I may also wait for their upgrades if this will mean better battery life. I am not too eager about the performance improvements as I am not a gamer and will likely not feel the benefits (I mostly browse 3G or WiFi/use GPS/occasionally may play a movie + a couple of calls a day).

I'm expecting the battery life to be a bit low seeing that they have a "lot" of things in them.... I reckon it maybe the same as current smartphones?

Apparently battery times will be better, let´s see...

what i have learned that dual cores will save energy. (well atleast tegra 2) that soc has sth like 7 different cores if i remember right, each and every one of them made for a specific purpose (audio play/ video encode/ decode/ gpu....a nd other things i dont remember) so the soc it self will use only what YOU need at that very moment, lets say ur watching a vid, so only the video decode core will work whereas other should be in standby or sth.
(imo battery life should increase cuz of this, not sure how much tho)
and excuse me if my knoweledge isnt exatcly correct on this matter

There are two train of thoughts here:
1) as the die gets smaller (65nm[1st gen snaps] to 45nm[2nd gen snaps] to 40nm [tegra2] to 28nm[3rd gen snaps], etc), the processor tends to draw less energy. So yes, most dual cores (having a smaller die) SHOULD be more energy efficient.
2) With dual core, executions get carried out a lot faster than they were on single core. As evident by the benchmark done on dual cores (+2000 and up), it'll take less time to start/process a program and UI, in theory, should be a lot faster and smoother (that is if manufacturers don't start ****ing around with a UI and make it sluggish). Being that it's faster and a lot more versatile than single core, people will tend to youtube a lot, play games a lot, and generally use a lot more multimedia applications. Being that we don't have a self-sustaining energy source that isn't radioactive, the battery will drain from excessive use.
So at the end of the day, it depends on your use. Yes, dual cores are more energy efficient than single core, but in the hands of a 15yo teenage girl with more life than paris hilton, they probably get the same battery life as any other phone out there.

Hi guys,
thanks for the comments and predictions. My prediction would be that there would be hardly any noticeable change between the single & dual core 45 nm chips (given same usage of course), similar to how there was almost no change when switching from 65nm to 45nm chips - which are more energy efficient as well.
the better energy efficiency seems to be quickly soaked up by more power hungry hardware and software. so it all boils down to whether one needs the better performance as the battery life will likely stay the same.
But this of course is only a prediction based on past observation. I hope I am wrong and I am still considering if it is worth waiting for the dual core devices to hit the market. In the meantime if anyone has had a chance to play with such a device (tablet?), any additional info will be welcome

[Q] CPU throttle won't work in surface pro?

In the power options, under processor power management, the maximum processor state on battery seems to always revert back to 100% after a reboot or changing power plans. Any ideas why the setting won't stick?

I noticed this as well
..very annoying
is that the only setting you noticed reverting? or are there more?

I assumed win8 handles processes differently requiring less battery consumption.
Sent from my EVO using xda premium

but that isn't the issue
if u go into settings and change the 100% to anything else
it always reverts back .....very annoying ....marked difference in battery life noticed

If you create a new power plan and use it, the settings will stay after a reboot. This is what I did.

Did anyone try 20% CPU so far ? And if so, how is the battery life?
I won't mind getting Surface Pro if I can throttle down its CPU when on battery to Surface RT's speed for a longer battery.
I currently have a RT version with me

Power consumption curve for CPUs is very non-linear. 90% from 100% will probably save you more power than 20% from 90% will. You'd just be wasting a ton of processing capability.

GoodDayToDie said:
Power consumption curve for CPUs is very non-linear. 90% from 100% will probably save you more power than 20% from 90% will. You'd just be wasting a ton of processing capability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not only that but the windows throttle percentage is not really as specific as a 0-100 range would suggest, so even if you set 20% it might limit the cpu to its minimum frequency.
If you use a tool such as this you can see what the current frequency is: http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/tmonitor.html
With my laptops (much slower) Core2Duo the minimum frequency was too slow, but about 50% of the max worked well and dramatically reduced the heat under load.
Some people reckon it is better to allow the cpu to use its full frequency so that it finishes the job faster and can move back to the lowest idle state. I am not sure that really applies to i5 (which doesn't support the ARM-style idle states that haswell will) and like you say the power consumption at lower cpu frequencies doesn't vary much. My experience with windows is that sometimes for no apparent reason at all programs such as word or chrome sit using 50+% of the cpu and you have to restart the process. It doesn't happen often at all but you might not realise until your battery is low. With the pro's i5 I expect you could get away with quite a low cpu frequency and would at least know you will always get roughly the same battery life.

This is the same problem that w700 has, an even earlier product. This situation made the biggest thread in the acer community because people are angry, some even took back their products and traded for the surface which made it the same than people realized it was not the w700 itself. Throttle stop didnt work because it seems to be more temp related.
Here are some interesting topics
http://community.acer.com/t5/Acer-T...rottling-Turbo-Boost-issues/td-p/6873/page/28
http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/acer-gateway/54122-w700-throttling.html

Walderstorn said:
This is the same problem that w700 has, an even earlier product. This situation made the biggest thread in the acer community because people are angry, some even took back their products and traded for the surface which made it the same than people realized it was not the w700 itself. Throttle stop didnt work because it seems to be more temp related.
Here are some interesting topics
http://community.acer.com/t5/Acer-T...rottling-Turbo-Boost-issues/td-p/6873/page/28
http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/acer-gateway/54122-w700-throttling.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, it is nothing like that problem. The OP is talking about manually limiting the max clock of the device using the Windows setting that has been there for a while now.

Surface Pro 2 CPU Limited

Hi all,
I've had my Surface Pro 2 256/8 since release and all has been fine until (possibly) the firmware update.
Turbo Boost was working fine and the CPU was going up to its maximum of 2.6Ghz but it is now seemingly capped at 2.23Ghz.
I've checked in PC Settings, Task Manager and CPU-Z, the maximum that the CPU ever reaches is 2.23Ghz, as indicated.
Anyone else experienced this? I have tried all power profiles (Performance, balanced, Power Saver and there's no difference).
Thanks!
EDIT: Having used HWiNFO64 on the High Performance profile I can see that the core is limited to x23 which is producing the 2.3Ghz clock speed. It occasionally indicates x26 (2.6Ghz) for a millisecond before ThermMon shows that it is being throttled back to x23. So it appears it's not reaching maximum speed to keep the heat lower, why this has happened is still inconclusive..

Have you tried to change the CPU maximum utilization in power settings?
Sent from CM10.1 U9200

>I've had my Surface Pro 2 256/8 since release and all has been fine until (possibly) the firmware update.
You've answered your own question. One reason to cap speed is for battery life. That's what the latest firmware update provides. You've found the downside.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/4/5064026/microsoft-surface-pro-2-battery-life-firmware-update

So they cap turbo mode to increase battery life, given the SP2 is advertised as having an Intel i5 CPU with no mention of speed on the MS site I think they'll get away with it...

e.mote said:
>I've had my Surface Pro 2 256/8 since release and all has been fine until (possibly) the firmware update.
You've answered your own question. One reason to cap speed is for battery life. That's what the latest firmware update provides. You've found the downside.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/4/5064026/microsoft-surface-pro-2-battery-life-firmware-update
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, in that case, the CPU shouldn't be capped when NOT running on battery power, should it?

There is also cooling to consider regardless of if it is on battery or mains. Although was heat particularly problematic pre-update?

>Well, in that case, the CPU shouldn't be capped when NOT running on battery power, should it?
As another noted, SP2 slicks never said CPU would be running at max spec.
PCs are normally more configurable. But if you enter SP2's UEFI setup, the only thing you can change is Secure Boot. MS is emulating Apple in more ways than one.
The cynics among us (guilty as charged) would say that MS handled this just right: Release the device with uncapped speed to get the best possible performance for reviews. Then afterward, cap the speed to claim "improved battery life" as well. If MS had capped the speed to start with, SP2 would be no faster than SP, and would get slammed hard. SP2 is already slammed as having minimal improvements over SP.
Reviewers aren't going to take the trouble to revise their reviews, and even if they did, not many people will re-read them. So, with this method, you can indeed have your cake and eat it too. Think of it as a more "legal" form of juicing performance tests without the explicit cheating that Samsung and others resorted to.

e.mote said:
> SP2 is already slammed as having minimal improvements over SP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone thats knows the difference between the CPU's will know that theres not a huge speed increase though, the only thing they should of done was stick a decent SSD in there, I've got an unused PX-256M5M sat on my desk that reads/writes at near on full sized 2.5" SSD speeds where as the mSSD's have always had half decent read and poor write.
Other than that what else is there to improve on, the camera perhaps as per the Surface2, battery life, check, the only other thing the Pro/Pro2 needs imho is more accesories, yes they are coming but should of been ready at launch imho, I'm crying out for a dock...

Small Mobile Stick Computer

I'm looking for an Android Stick for mobile, battery driven operation.
Can this be done?
Graphics hardware is not strictly needed - so could be disabled to save energy.

You can use any TV-Stick and power it with a portable power bank like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/6000mAh-Portable-Rapid-Recharge-External-adapters/dp/B00EF1OGOG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1387725779&sr=8-4&keywords=powerbank+5v
There are also ones that run with AA batteries if you prefer that. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that the output curren has to be appropriate. For single-core sticks, 1A will do, but for dual or quad core you should look for a power bank which outputs at least 2A.
But i don't really get why someone would need a battery powered tv stick. You need power for your TV, so why can't you use that for the Stick also?

I don't need a screen for this. I want to disable the graphics chip (or even rip it out). How much power do you think does the typical GPU consume, compared to the CPU? (Or all everything else?)
If such an Android stick is getting hot, is it rather the CPU or the GPU?

These devices (and i think all other devices that run Android) are all based on SoCs (System on a chip). This means that CPU and GPU is the same chip, so sorry, no ripping out of the GPU .
Power consumption depends on the task that is performed by the chip, and so does the the heat generation.

There should be a difference in power consumption between a) not performing any graphics related tasks and b) putting the GPU, the video memory and the HDMI port all into suspend mode - similar to sending a smartphone into suspend mode, while keeping the CPU running.
How much power saving b) will amount to, I don't know. Will it be closer to 5%? Or closer to 30%?
The portable power bank you linked to above is a little big for my use case. I would prefer to use a smartphone battery to power, say, a single core device. Do you think this would be impossible?

Android HDMI sticks are USB powered, so they need 5V. If you have some knowledge about electonics you can use any battery you want. You just have to build a circuit that converts the voltage of the battery (smartphone batteries have 3.7V) to 5V.
The power consumption is very hard to estimate. I would say a single core with idling GPU will consume about 0.3 - 0.5 Ampere depending on the CPU load.
But if you want a small android device powered with a smartphone battery, why don't you use a smartphone? What's the advantage of a hdmi stick?

DaPhinc said:
What's the advantage of a hdmi stick?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not need a screen. So this is an advantage. I hope to find a battery that fits hush with the board. I like to carry the device around in a pocket. In addition to suspending the graphic hardware, I will try to throttle down the CPU, in order to make it consume less energy.
Do you think I will be able to get the power consumption down to levels of an average smartphone? Or are there fundamental differences that make this impossible? In which case I would indeed need to look for a smartphone SOC based solution.

The SoCs in these sticks are also used in cheap smartphones, so the power consumption will be about the same. If you want to underclock you CPU you should look for a device that has custom kernels, because most stock kernels do not allow over- or underclocking.

DaPhinc said:
look for a device that has custom kernels
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
May I ask for HW suggestions, pls? ATM, I have no clear idea what would be the best hardware/vendor relative to my requirements.
Availability of custom kernels would be good. Availability of usable kernel sources would be even better. A big plus would be availability of 4.3.x - due to improvements in the Bluetooth stack, among other things. Any chance to run pure AOSP on any of these stick devices?
Thx.

I am quite sure that there is no device that meets all your requirements.
I know that there are custom kernels and even a (bad) cyanogen mod build for the mk808, but it is a dual-core, not a single core as you wanted.
And Android 4.3 is not available for any of these sticks. Maybe it will come as an update for the current generation of quad core sticks, or maybe not until the next generation (mid 2014) arrives.

All Browsers destroy my battery

I am currently on stock Android 12. I flashed the unlocked stock image (non-verizon) a few weeks back. With Android 11, Android 12, LineageOS, etc. every browser I have tried including Chrome, Brave, Via, etc. all drain the battery way faster than browsers did on my previous Moto G5 plus. i would say when I am surfing the net on my browser (usually just reading forums, no video), the battery drains about 1% every 5 minutes or less. I have tried 2.4Ghz wifi, LTE, etc. and data connection type doesn't seem to impact anything.
Is this normal for this phone? anything to do to reduce browser battery drain?

If you go into battery usage graph, is the browser the only app listed as using up the battery (and not the screen brightness, or another app that may be contributing to the heavy usage)

JohnC said:
If you go into battery usage graph, is the browser the only app listed as using up the battery (and not the screen brightness, or another app that may be contributing to the heavy usage)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
correct. if I am using other apps the battery drain isn't near as severe. I keep the display setting "extra dim" enabled all the time and I keep it down as low as I can tolerate. I use a pitch black wallpaper use dark mode in browsers so they have mostly black background with white text.
Phone idle is the only other thing that seems to use a sizeable amount of battery according to the battery usage data in settings.

Sounds about right. Came from a Moto G7 Play (15 months back) and saw similar drain rates. All three devices have similar battery specs which plays into the units being used to assess drain. Is what it is.
FWIW - Opera

DB126 said:
Sounds about right. Came from a Moto G7 Play (15 months back) and saw similar drain rates. All three devices have similar battery specs which plays into the units being used to assess drain. Is what it is.
FWIW - Opera
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not gonna lie, it makes me want to go back to Motorola when this Pixel bites the dust.

badtlc said:
Not gonna lie, it makes me want to go back to Motorola when this Pixel bites the dust.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Many Moto's bring a nice package with unique tricks. Gotta do your homework on what features are most important when the time comes.

DB126 said:
Many Moto's bring a nice package with unique tricks. Gotta do your homework on what features are most important when the time comes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I definitely did that. I only got the 4a because it was the perfect size and had a headphone jack. I assumed with a newer hardware set and similar sized battery compared to my old phone batter life "should" be better. Nope.

Na, it's more complicated. 4a sports more sensors, brighter/denser display, faster processors, etc. System and personal apps clearly play a role in longevity (behind screen brightness); you'd need to do a detail study to understand what's drawing when and why.
I use to fuss over such matters but find the device lasts a full day for my use case which is all that really matters. Charges up quick from a modest size battery pack when camping/traveling. Just like past Motos.
Not sure who I'll partner with in the next dance. Love Pixel cameras (especially in challenging conditions) and routine updates. Miss some of Moto's innovations, like active display and actions. Needs to be close to AOSP; no Samsung UX butchery. In the end form factor will likely be the deciding factor once non-contenders are ruled out.

badtlc said:
I assumed with a newer hardware set and similar sized battery compared to my old phone batter life "should" be better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know what CPU you came from, but if the Moto only had "small" cores then of course it used less battery. "Big" cores use more power. They go faster too, but if you have a constant load, then they'll eat battery faster.
I don't know if there's a non-root way to disable the big cores, but I suspect you can do it with root (but don't know for sure).
Otherwise, you gotta get your browser to stop running JavaScript. If you're watching video you need to make sure the browser is offloading all the decoding to the hardware codecs rather than doing it on the CPU.
And if the screen is on, it might help to try and get it "more black" (eg. Use night mode) or turn down the brightness. The screen is often the primary user of power when a device is being used.

a1291762 said:
I don't know what CPU you came from, but if the Moto only had "small" cores then of course it used less battery. "Big" cores use more power. They go faster too, but if you have a constant load, then they'll eat battery faster.
I don't know if there's a non-root way to disable the big cores, but I suspect you can do it with root (but don't know for sure).
Otherwise, you gotta get your browser to stop running JavaScript. If you're watching video you need to make sure the browser is offloading all the decoding to the hardware codecs rather than doing it on the CPU.
And if the screen is on, it might help to try and get it "more black" (eg. Use night mode) or turn down the brightness. The screen is often the primary user of power when a device is being used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the suggestions. My power complaints are just limited to the browser so I dont think it is just the larger CPUs. I think my standby consumption issues are related to Stock Android as I am now running GrapheneOS and my standby power consumption now matches my old Moto G5 Plus.
As for browser usage consumption, I have tried everything but disabling Javascript. I will try that and see if it breaks anything I use regularly. Thanks for the idea.
tangent back to general power consumption, I typically disable just about everything behind the scenes as I can. I keep the theme on pitch black. I use the extra dim setting to keep screen brightness as low as I can tolerate. I use night mode in browser to keep as much black background as possible. I disable all tap-to-wake or sensor based features. When I was trying to run Android 12, I disabled all the smart services and removed all the google apps I could. I removed all permissions I could. I restricted all apps I could. I disabled adaptive settings, etc. There is a bunch of stuff running in the background on Android 12 and I just could not

Welcome to the future. Older phones had better battery life

Locklear308 said:
Welcome to the future. Older phones had better battery life
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont think it is all the phone. GrapheneOS has 40% better standby battery usage than stock android 12. On graphene, it matches my old Moto G5 Plus. It is either lazy programmers with inefficient coding these days or it is google having the stock OS do waaaay too much by default with no way to disable it.
I'm trying to figure that out now.

badtlc said:
I dont think it is all the phone. GrapheneOS has 40% better standby battery usage than stock android 12. On graphene, it matches my old Moto G5 Plus. It is either lazy programmers with inefficient coding these days or it is google having the stock OS do waaaay too much by default with no way to disable it.
I'm trying to figure that out now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree on the lazy thing. So many devs now days are so lazy. I develope QuickBase databases and constantly run into extremely poorly setup realms/apps. Just basic stuff. Lol