4 ms·

And quite apart from the unit error (W should be Wh) and calculation error (30 × 6 ≠ 160), the figure of 30W is probably wildly off target. The wording implies

And quite apart from the unit error (W should be Wh) and calculation error (30 × 6 ≠ 160), the figure of 30W is probably wildly off target. The wording implies that figure was looked up somewhere rather than found experimentally (despite the context), and 30W is vastly more than any even vaguely recent and sensibly configured laptop will use for most tasks: the true typical figure is probably a quarter to a half of that, and could be even less for some hardware: e.g. https://www.apple.com/au/macbook-pro-14-and-16/specs/ https://www.apple.com/au/macbook-pro-14-and-16/specs/ says of their current latest hardware that it has a 70Wh battery and “Up to 11 hours wireless web” and “Up to 17 hours Apple TV app movie playback”, implying that the entire system consumes about 6.4W and 4.1W (probably a bit more) for those two tasks; a 30W load would be draining the battery in 2h20m—by no means impossible, but not the typical case. In fact, for things with batteries of their own, this kind of power consumption calculation based on battery life is very convenient, generally more so than measuring at the wall (though if you’re cutting things fine, you’ll want to consider that too because of losses in the charging infrastructure). Later in the article they mention they’re dealing with a 2010 MacBook Pro running Elementary, and yeah, that’ll definitely consume quite a bit more power than a new MacBook Pro running macOS, but I’d still be surprised if it was as much as 30W.

2143 5y ago
> yeah, that’ll definitely consume quite a bit more power than a new MacBook Pro running macOS Considering they're targeting (or at least ought to target) efficiency, I feel they should probably get the newer macs with the efficient M1 chips. That way they would probably be able to get more done using a given amount of power. But then again (from what I understand) they're on a tight budget. And I read somewhere else that they're trying to reduce electronic waste. Hence they're on the old Macbook. Here's their situation: 1. Keep using older Macbook, thereby contributing less to electronic waste. However, this consumes a lot of power. 2. Switch to the more efficient newer Macbook. However, then their older Macbook would be wasted. This puts them in a bit of dilemma, doesn't it?
madaxe_again 5y ago
I’ve a 2013 MBP, and I can confirm that 30W is about right for trundling use. About 65W when I make the fans go whee. It’s nothing compared to my desktop running an intensive game - that’ll chew up 600W no problem.
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  Huh, my memory is evidently the thing that’s wildly off target. Thinking things through more carefully, I suppose 2–3 hours of battery life was pretty common back then, and none of their batteries would have been over 100Wh. I’d have thought 2013 would be well past the worst of that, but perhaps not. I admit that I wrote the first paragraph of that comment before realising it was that ancient a MacBook Pro that was being mentioned, but I erroneously thought my comment was still probably close enough. Not so.

2143 5y ago

> yeah, that’ll definitely consume quite a bit more power than a new MacBook Pro running macOS Considering they're targeting (or at least ought to target) efficiency, I feel they should probably get the newer macs with the efficient M1 chips. That way they would probably be able to get more done using a given amount of power. But then again (from what I understand) they're on a tight budget. And I read somewhere else that they're trying to reduce electronic waste. Hence they're on the old Macbook. Here's their situation: 1. Keep using older Macbook, thereby contributing less to electronic waste. However, this consumes a lot of power. 2. Switch to the more efficient newer Macbook. However, then their older Macbook would be wasted. This puts them in a bit of dilemma, doesn't it?

madaxe_again 5y ago

I’ve a 2013 MBP, and I can confirm that 30W is about right for trundling use. About 65W when I make the fans go whee. It’s nothing compared to my desktop running an intensive game - that’ll chew up 600W no problem.

chrismorgan 5y ago
Huh, my memory is evidently the thing that’s wildly off target. Thinking things through more carefully, I suppose 2–3 hours of battery life was pretty common back then, and none of their batteries would have been over 100Wh. I’d have thought 2013 would be well past the worst of that, but perhaps not. I admit that I wrote the first paragraph of that comment before realising it was that ancient a MacBook Pro that was being mentioned, but I erroneously thought my comment was still probably close enough. Not so.