Toshiba N304 vs Asus 1005PE

[mike01]

Hi all,

EDIT: typo in subject...meant N305.

I have a question about the battery life of these two. They have nearly identical specs...same processor, same amount of ram, same size HD, same resolution, etc. However, all the online reviews give the 1005PE one or two hours of batter life over the N305B. In one test, the Tosh played video for 6 hours and the Asus for 8.

I have one of each, and I looked at the battery specs.

ASUS: 10.8v 4800mAh

Tosh: 10.8v 5300mAh

So...I don't get it. In practice, they seem to have about the same battery life, but these online tests...I don't know what to make of them.

How could a laptop with the same processor, screen, etc., on the same brightness setting, and 500mAh less battery capacity last two extra hours?

Did these tests screw something up on the Toshiba? Maybe their "Eco" mode sucks?

[ThisIsNot]

It is likely due to the Asus having a setting that scales the processor down. In other words, it isn't operating at the full 1.66GHz (I don't know the specs of either model but the processor speeds will be 1.66GHz for the Atom N280 and N450 processors). I know that the Asus netbooks feature this speed step technology. Technically speaking, the Toshiba should too. However, I know that my HP Mini 311 operates at 1.66GHz the entire time. I have yet to see the processor step down to a lower speed.

Another option is that the Asus uses a more efficient motherboard and/or LCD panel. There are other options aside from processor speed, RAM, and battery capacity that determine the battery life of a netbook.

[mike01]

I doubt that Toshiba would not utilize the same processor scaling. According to CoreTemp, CPU voltage varies on both. Is there a clock speed utility you could use to check that?

More efficient MB/LCD, yes, that would accound for it, but we're talking about 2 hours longer on a battery that has 500mAh less capacity. That would be some LCD panel.

[ThisIsNot]

The Asus Eee PCs have always been power efficient. Even looking at the older 1000HE model. It has the same processor, chipset, and battery capacity as my HP yet it can get about 8-9 hours of real world usage while my HP gets about 5.5-6. Look at the MacBook Pro line of notebooks. They have a 17" model that can get 7-8 hours of real world usage on a single charge yet other 17" notebooks with larger batteries, the same GPUs (the Nvidia 9400M), and the same processors get about 2 hours on a single charge. Even Apple's 13" MacBook Pro gets about 6.5-7 hours of real world usage yet companies such as Dell, Toshiba, HP, Acer, etc. must rely on single-core or dual-core CULV/ULV Intel processors along with bare bones Intel GMA graphics to get something like that out of a 13" notebook (and they won't come with an optical drive either). So how is Apple doing this with a power powerful Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia 9400M graphics?

Having efficient notebooks/netbooks is nothing new and it is all due to a combination of software and hardware. What is Asus's specific formula? Who knows. The point is that it works. It allows Asus to come out with smaller Eee PC netbooks that can still push 9+ hours of real world usage. So why does Asus need to use the dinky Atom processor to get 7+ hours of usage when Apple can do this with a full on Core 2 Duo processor? Even the Mac Mini is about as power efficient as a net-top running a dual-core Atom processor. Again, it runs a full on Core 2 Duo processor.

[mike01]

Well that's good and fine, but I'd like to know what it is.

Perhaps they disabled or crippled indexing and so there is less constant HD useage, or does Windows 7 not do that?

As I said, I have both, and from what I've seen so far the battery life is about the same. I'm going to run some tests tommorrow, but from what I can tell just from occasionally checking the remaining battery life, they're about even.

As an owner of both models, I would be shocked if the Asus gives you 2 extra hours of movie watching time. I have experienced nothing so far that would tell me this can be so.

[mike01]

Oh, and I was watching resource monitor, and both use CPU frequency scaling about the same way.

[ThisIsNot]

You may want to contact Asus or visit the Eee PC forums for this information. There might be some Asus proprietary technology in there.

[mike01]

I think I might have an anwer.

I'm starting the video test...I was going to do them both at max brightness and I noticed that the Toshiba's screen is considerably brighter than that of the ASUS. To get them to the same brightness, I had to lower the Tosh's setting to about 65%. So if you lower both to 65% as the reviewers did, the Toshiba's screen will be using a lot more juice and will be a lot brighter. Since the LCD panel is one of the biggest power hogs on a laptop, that could explain the discrepancy in battery life.

To make the test fair, I am going to run the ASUS at full brightness and the Tosh at 65%, which would make them the same in terms of percieved brightness.

I will also have to lower the volume of the ASUS to match the Toshiba's, since the ASUS has much better (and louder) speakers.

I'll let you know how it turns out. Right now they are both charging...I want to make sure they are at 100% before I start. I plan to loop a divx movie until they die.

[netbooking]

Originally Posted by mike01

...all the online reviews give the 1005PE one or two hours of batter life over the N305B...

What I read from your post is that, since you have both of these computers and both batteries actually last the same amount of time, why do reviewers give the Asus credit for longer battery life when you don't get a difference in real experience. Is that right?

Asking that question goes to the heart of specifications versus testing programs so it's an appropriate question. You just have to make sure the conditions are the same.

Manufacturers have special knowledge of their own equipment and know how to make them do things that seem unbelievable. Battery life of 6, 8, 10 or 12 hours is reached using controlled lab conditions. Reversing the screen to black with white type minimizes its use. They can change the testing procedure moment by moment with temperature or which program is running to get the extreme results or, and I like this, extrapolate to a theoretical result.

On the other hand, some reviewers use special battery testing programs that are fixed to perform the same way all the time for comparison purposes. Did you notice any battery program names like Battery Eater or UserBench Battery 2008? Sometimes switching a battery program from XP to Windows 7 will change the results because battery programs are not designed to be OS independent. Some of them are not appropriate on netbooks which are at the bottom end of their testing range.

Some reviewers set up their own testing and dim the screen plus turn off wi-fi to get maximum results or on the other hand run what they call real world programs like movies to get a time.

So, why do reviews give different ratings? Writers create endless theoretical differences so they can write more. It's what they do. Specification density is not related to real world use except in the most narrow sense. Your own use proves that.

[mike01]

Well I think I'm on to something with the screen brightness. As I said above, the Toshiba's screen is considerably brighter, and had to be set to about 60-65% to be on the same level as the ASUS on full brightness.

If the reviewers set both machines to 65%, the Toshiba will be much, much brighter and will therefore be using more juice.

There is no way to match the brigthenss...the Tosh can be either a bit dimmer or a bit brighter. I chose to go with a bit brighter. As it is right now, they are both at 91% battery (playing Kingdom of Heaven), and the ASUS is reporting 5:34 left, while the Toshiba is reporting 6:14.

Also, can one of the mods please fix the "304" typo in the subject? Please change it to NB305.