From 4 to 7 hours

[ctitanic]

According to this review:

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/...-the-first-surface-i-can-recommend-to-anyone/

The battery life could be between 4 to 7 hours.

 

[ctitanic]

The reason why I opened this thread is because I hate when manufacturers set the expectations to high. The fact is that 90% of users will never see those promised 10 hours.

In another hand, I have read many reviews and very few of them are talking about the battery life, why?

6 to 7 hours using Chrome means less than 8 hours using IE and around the same time playing video.

Now, the reviewer does not say how high is the brightness and that may take up to 30% of the battery. Still. If all his numbers are right I do not expect to see anyone getting more than 8 hours. Which just a little higher than what can be get with a PRO tweaking it very well.

 

[GreyFox7]

From the PC Magazine Review :
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426263,00.asp

"One area where the Surface 3 leads the pack, however, is in battery life. On our rundown test, the Surface 3 lasted 9 hours 52 minutes, just a few minutes shy of the 10-hour mark" ...

"The Surface 3 outlasts the competition; the Toshiba Encore 2 Write comes closest (9:03 on the same test), with the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 (8:55) clocking in just a bit behind. Our other comparison systems died hours sooner."
​

They use an Industry Standardized Test.

 

[ctitanic]

I would be more than happy if I'm just seeing a ghost. I hate to be wrong but this is one of those cases where I'll be happy. For the record, I stopped reading PC Magazine more than 10 years ago.

 

[leeshor]

That chart shows some pretty respectable figures for an Atom processor.

 

[leeshor]

I would be more than happy if I'm just seeing a ghost. I hate to be wrong but this is one of those cases where I'll be happy. For the record, I stopped reading PC Magazine more than 10 years

I would be more than happy if I'm just seeing a ghost. I hate to be wrong but this is one of those cases where I'll be happy. For the record, I stopped reading PC Magazine more than 10 years ago.

I did too but figures are what they do best and they're hard to dispute using a standardized test.

 

[GreyFox7]

As always YMMV depending on what you do.

PC Mag uses BAPCO Battery test, it's not as tough as some other tests but by comparison if system X lasts longer than the next guy it's all relative.

No doubt there will be those complaining of only getting 4-5 hours of game play on battery to which I say boo hoo plug in.

 

[GreyFox7]

For the record, I stopped reading PC Magazine more than 10 years ago.

I use Google/Bing search and a News Aggregator to find what's published.

 

[leeshor]

Exactly. When you do a comparison x vs y that's the only valid test no matter what the tool was used to do the test.

 

[ctitanic]

Exactly. When you do a comparison x vs y that's the only valid test no matter what the tool was used to do the test.

Their numbers is too far from these numbers. They look more like MS numbers and we all know those are not realistic.

 

[leeshor]

PC Magazine has been known to be a little less that impartial in the past which is why I stopped reading the Magazine but when you do comparison testing it's very difficult to argue with. Long ago I used BAPCO extensively and though it is a little long in the tooth it's still a resoable tool only to use for comparison. It's one of the few tests that the manufacturers could not find a way to cheat on. It's a very well rounded test.

 

[ctitanic]

So then how do you explain the difference in the numbers. I do not have the S3 yet but I would be surprised in anyone with normal use get 11 hours after seeing the numbers in this review.