3 Comments

Summary:

Overnight I ran battery life tests on the Samsung Q1 SSD to compare the battery life of a device without a hard with Kevin’s Q1 with a hard drive.  I used Battery Eater to run the test and here are the results (click to enlarge): Bottom […]

Overnight I ran battery life tests on the Samsung Q1 SSD to compare the battery life of a device without a hard with Kevin’s Q1 with a hard drive.  I used Battery Eater to run the test and here are the results (click to enlarge):

Samsung Q1 SSD Battery test

Bottom line – worst case scenario (all radios on) 2 hours exactly.  This compares with Kevin’s run time of 1 hour 44 minutes, a 15% increase.  This is not bad and correlates with the 3 hours I am regularly getting in real use.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. good work guys. i can’t wait for the solid state disks to drop in price. hopefully in a year they will become semi affordable.

  2. A 15% improvement in battery life for a huge increase in price.

    Not that the price is important at this stage (it’ll get cheaper), but I find the increase in battery life from going totally solid state to be extremely disappointing.

  3. I think the reason for the small increase in battery life is that the hard drive doesn’t suck up a propotionally large amount of power to begin with. The screen and processor, use up more power than any other component. So it’s not like comparing an Ipod nano to the 30GB version, where storage makes a huge difference compared to the rest of its components. For mobile computers the virtues of flash memory lie in performance and durability rather than solely energy efficiency. With OLED screens and even lower voltage processors can we truly see a real difference in battery life.

Comments have been disabled for this post