3 ms·
The 40-odd-hour result was only achieved by loading a webpage, lowering the brightness to 150 nits, and doing absolutely nothing else with the device. That’s no
by dcrazy 7mo ago
The 40-odd-hour result was only achieved by loading a webpage, lowering the brightness to 150 nits, and doing absolutely nothing else with the device. That’s not reflective of real-world laptop usage, though it is a common trick for devices with always-on displays like phones and smartwatches.
By comparison, if we assume that NotebookCheck’s test protocol attempts to emulate real-world use:
> We measured 16 hours and 45 minutes in our review.
I can’t find any statement of how the 14-inch M5 MBP performed in their own like-for-like tests, despite checking several of the articles linked from their review meta-page: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-14-2025-M5.1178580.0.html# https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-14-2025-M5.1...
- HDBaseT 7mo ago[dead]
- PhilippGille 7mo agoThis is their MBP 14" M5 Max review, with a "Battery life" section and their standard web browsing test: https://www.notebookcheck.net/M5-Max-with-inconsistent-performance-and-throttling-issues-Apple-MacBook-Pro-14-Review.1246064.0.html#c15764322 https://www.notebookcheck.net/M5-Max-with-inconsistent-perfo... 15h 10min
- dcrazy 7mo agoThank you for finding that. That seems like a much more plausible comparison. Edit: wait, that’s the M5 Max. What about the stock M5?