3 ms·
Here's the original article instead of the linked meta-babble. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955.html http://www.tomshardware.com/review
by pmjordan 18y ago
Here's the original article instead of the linked meta-babble.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955.htm...
EDIT: After trying to read and understand the article, I'm beyond confused. According to the chart on
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955-14.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955-14....
There are two SSDs that consume less power both idle and under load than the tested HDD. There's no summary data for actual battery life. I think they're trying to explain the disparity by saying the HDD spends more time idle. I really can't tell from all the verbose and confusing writing.
- Retric 18y agoHDD peek at a higher power level but they can read and write data without reaching peak power levels when reading and writing sequential data such as large media files. I don't think this is a big deal as other components swamp the SSD's power levels and it's not that hard to significantly reduce the power used in SSD.
- evgen 18y agoPart of the problem with the tomshardware review is that it has been pretty thoroughly debunked. The test just ran through loops repeatedly until the battery died; what the testers ignored was the fact that since the HDD systems were much slower than the SSD systems the CPU spent more time idled waiting for io, leading to more power spent on CPU cycles and CPU cooling in the SSD tests. The test results fail to note the fact that the SSD systems would run through far more loops than the HDD systems and since the testing methodology was flawed we can't know how much of the battery power went to the CPU/fans vs. the storage systems.