I dont think that is what he is getting at...maybe the tested components were chosen and optimize for low power consumption, far greater than an average system would be...or atleast that is what I think he is referring to.
Read my edit , intel already tried to fool people ,
it was only two years ago , quite a standard , isnt it.?..
No better than nvidia or qualcomm , actualy , perhaps
even worse sometime , as said , ask mooly eden..
An even if it had a slight GPU advantage the Z3770 would still beat it in actual games thanks to its huge CPU performance advantage (>3x in MT!), likely using less power too (especially platform power). At the end of the day both would suck at demanding Windows games (console ports) but one would have >3x higher CPU performance for other tasks. Easy choice.
So why don't you email him and ask if he thinks Intel pulled one over on him about power consumption?
I guess that all thoses "rewiewers" including Anand where
just too happy to be given some food for new articles
so they didnt even try to question the methodology but
what to think when one says 2.6W system iddling with windows
and then Anand that pretend thet power draw was
2.5W whith CB MT test for the SoC .?..
Simply , the numbers dont add up at all...
I think that this chip is effectively 7W TDP at least ,
given the numbers available for other models.
Apple has stuck to the Lithium-Polymer battery of the predecessor. The battery offers a capacity of 42.5 Wh. According to the manufacturer, the battery life should still be the same, despite the stronger SoC. The power consumption is moderate. While idle, we measured between 2.6 W and 8.4 W. The actual consumption should lie around 6 W. At full load (GL benchmark 2.5.1), the tablet requires up to 12.5 W from the battery.
I dont have numbers right under the handIt is using a 10 inch 1600p panel. That alone is sucking up a lot of power.
Notebookcheck ipad 4 review.
I dont have numbers right under the hand
but IIRC a panel should drain 0.8 to 1W or so at 200 nits.
... Depends upon a number of factors, especially display size. Regardless, there was no information provided as to display brightness in any of the previews.
I dont have numbers right under the hand
but IIRC a panel should drain 0.8 to 1W or so at 200 nits.
No way. On my laptop with a 1080p 15.6" panel platform power use goes from 16 to 20.5 watt from highest to lowest brightness.
Power usage for a given level of brightness is dependent upon display size. That's actually why I cringe slightly at the implication many reviews make that display power usage is being normalized by setting all devices to 200 nits... when a 10 inch screen at 200 nits is going to be using roughly half the power of a 15 inch screen at 200 nits.
Power usage for a given level of brightness is dependent upon display size. That's actually why I cringe slightly at the implication many reviews make that display power usage is being normalized by setting all devices to 200 nits... when a 10 inch screen at 200 nits is going to be using roughly half the power of a 15 inch screen at 200 nits.
I guess that all thoses "rewiewers" including Anand where
just too happy to be given some food for new articles
so they didnt even try to question the methodology but
what to think when one says 2.6W system iddling with windows
and then Anand that pretend thet power draw was
2.5W whith CB MT test for the SoC .?..
Simply , the numbers dont add up at all...
I think that this chip is effectively 7W TDP at least ,
given the numbers available for other models.
It actually is true that a higher resolution screen of the same size will require more power to obtain the same brightness due to the greater amount of area taken up by the pixel structures. Basically they scale down the pixel size, but the actual structures remain basically the same size and so more of the area per pixel is devoted to the structures (aperture ratio.) It's the reason why the IGZO displays can have the same output brightness with less backlight.Common knowledge is: pixels are source of light.... more pixels = more light = more power.
But it is only true for OLED screens. In reality the number of pixels is almost meaningless. The only thing that matter is surface, type of light source, and brightness.
Yeah, it's certainly better than just using an arbitrary brightness setting. And there really isn't a better alternative - going with a constant candela value would result in smaller displays having to be set at 300 nits while larger displays were only at 100 nits for example, which introduces the problem of unrealistic brightness settings. There is no 'good' solution, but the least they could do is make it clear that just because all the systems are calibrated to 200 nits doesn't mean that the displays of different sizes are using comparable amounts of power.They are probably using 200/150 nits as a way to factor brightness settings out of the equation, using a common usability baseline (because 50% brightness is even worse).
New leak: some of the Windows 8.1 devices based on Bay Trail-T
Acer: Updated version of 8-inch "Bay Trail" W3-810. Battery: 8 hours. Price: $349
ASUS: 10.1-inch "Bay Trail" Transformer Book Trio T100TA. Battery: 12 hours. Price: $329. (This is a complement to the pricier 13.3-inch Transformer Book.)
Dell: 8-inch "Bay Trail" Venue. Battery: 10+ hours. Price: $299
Dell: 10.8-inch codenamed "Midland" running "BayTrail." Battery life: 9 hours (replaceable). Price: $399
Lenovo: 8-inch "Bay Trail" Miix 8. Battery: 8 hours. Price: $249
Lenovo: 10.1-inch "Bay Trail" Miix 2. Battery: 8 hours. Price: $449.
Toshiba: 8-inch "Bay Trail" Encore. Battery: 6-7 hours. Price: $329
http://www.zdnet.com/several-under-...devices-to-arrive-this-fall-report-7000020615
$299 for the Dell Venue (Bay Trail quad-core, Windows 8.1 x86, Full HD IPS 8'' screen, less than 400g)? If true, shut up and take my money.
I think somebody here was saying that if you ain't in an iPad or a Nexus, then you're not in anything...lol
In fact the problem with them is the Windows logo.