UMPC battery discharge: Samsung Q1 vs. Paceblade P7


Ultralife9vplastic_1 I noticed the other day that Carrypad listed the battery discharge rates of the Paceblade P7 UMPC in their review, so I promptly downloaded the same application they used and gave it a whirl on the Samsung Q1. If you’re interested, the software is called Notebook Hardware Control and it’s actually very useful for any notebook computer, not to mention it’s free.

Since battery life seems to be particular concern for the UMPC class of computers (and rightly so), I’ve got a comparison of the battery discharge between the Q1 and the P7 after the jump. Bear in mind that the P7 has a 26 W/hr battery, while the Q1 sports a slightly higher capacity battery of 29 W/hrs.

WiFi off, screen brightness at 50%:

  • P7 = 11.3 Watts for a runtime of 2.3 hours
  • Q1 = 10.0 Watts for a runtime of 2.9 hours

WiFi off, screen brightness at 100%:

  • P7 = 11.9 Watts for a runtime of 2.18 hours
  • Q1 = 10.8 Watts for a runtime of 2.68 hours

WiFi off, screen brightness at minimum:

  • P7 = 8.1 Watts for a runtime of 3.2 hours
  • Q1 = 8.7 Watts for a runtime of 3.3 hours

USB devices disabled (through windows hardware control – disables Bluetooth and wifi) screen min:

  • P7 = 7.37 Watts for a runtime of 3.52 hours
  • Q1 = 8.3 Watts for a runtime of 3.49 hours

Remember that there could be some variance if you perform the same tests; the battery drain tends to jump around a little bit and I’ve tried to let it "settle" to provide an average scenario. Clearly one aspect that helps the battery life on the Q1 is the extra 3 Watt/hours in the battery; however, it appears that the Intel Celeron configuration is slightly more efficient than the Via setup from this preliminary analysis.



Mike Cane

Ctitanic, I’ve been reading your eo blog. Keep on their necks! I want to see the eo succeed!


I said, that I did not mention AMTek when I was talking about to learn because I don’t think that they are capable or learning. :D If I was TabletKiosk I would run away from them with all my money.


No problem. Like I said, if we are talking about performance Intel is a clear winner, but if we are talking about battery efficience or encryption/decryption processes VIA is a clear winner. The Premature release of the eo without having been properly tested by TabletKiosk/AMTek and properly configured by AMTek/VIA has done a “very good job” missleading the market to wrong conclusions. I hope that VIA and TabletKiosk learn from this costly mistake. Yes, and I do not mention AMTek in my words because as you can see, in both problems AMTek is present. They did not tested the eos, they did not configured the eos, they promised TabletKiosk to have battery issues fixed in the final release units and TabletKiosk trusted them. As result, we have what we all know, buggy drivers and a hardware recall.

Kevin C. Tofel

WOW! All good points and I appreciate the extra analysis provided as well as the constructive criticism on my thoughts. I’m going to modify the post to strikeout my statement about the Celeron being more efficient than the Via. There are other factors involved here in the overall efficiency numbers and in hindsight: my statement was likely jaded by all of the news on the eo’s power issues. Thanks to all for the help on this!


I can’t stop from coming back with more thoughts :(
IF AMTek and VIA finally release a fix that allows VIA processor to enter in C3 state we will see the eo with the same battery life than the Q1 all this with a battery that is about 11% smaller than the one installed in Q1.


If you are talking about performance, measured in how fast the processor works with daily applications, etc. The Intel Celeron is faster than VIA processor. If you are testing both processors encrypting/decrypting files you will find that VIA processor is up to 3 times better than Intel Processors. And if you are talking about Battery Life I have to say that according to all tests that I have seen and I have done VIA processor is around 10% more efficient than the Intel Celeron.


There are other numbers on that comparisson that are very interesting, for example. With brightness set at minimum both UMPC use almost the same amount of power. If the USB controllers are disabled in the eo this units enters in C3 state and having the processor working in that state you can see how the VIA processor becomes 13% more efficient than the Intel Celeron installed in the Q1. The reason why the VIA processor does not enter in C3 State is due to a bug in Windows XP SP2 that stops processor from entering in this state if an USB device is connected. In the case of the eo, the WiFi and BT are just usb cards connected to the main board. This is why to have the eo entering in C3 State we had to disabled the USB Controllers.


In another words, even not being configured at all, the VIA processor is saving battery life compared to the Intel Celeron fully configured. That should be the conclusion after reading these numbers.


Kevin, I think you got a very wrong conclusion this time. Lets do a little bit of math.

29 Wh in Q1/26 Wh in eo = 1.11 (around 11%)

Now lets take one of the readings:

11.3 in eo/10.0 in the Q1 = 1.11 (around 11%)

So, from this simple operation you can conclude that both processors are consuming the same amount of energy. But…and here is the good part, if you check your Q1 processor performance, you will find that your processor in entering in what is called C3 State. Processor have 4 states of power saving, in the first 2 states C1 and C2, the processor is not saving almost any battery. After that you have C3 state where the processor save around 10 to 15% of battery compared to one processor that does not enter C3 state. Processor should enter in C3 state when the processor is not used heavily. The last one is C4 state; this gives the maximum of battery saving but to be honest. I only have seen this C4 state mentioned in some articles. I have not found a notebook with this state listed in the Performance Monitor Tool.

The Q1 enters and works in C3 state, while the eo does not enter at all in this state due to bad configuration of the VIA processor in these devices. So the right conclusion would be that the VIA processor installed in eo/PlaceBlade is around 15% more efficient from the point of view of battery saving than the Intel Celeron installed in the Q1. But unfortunately, AMTek has not done a good job at all implementing these processors in these units.


RMClock is a very good cpu clocking tool that dynamically scales the cpu speed … but does not have the battery part.

Bjorn Stromberg

Thanks for the link to the Notebook Hardware Control software, I’ll be using that heavily to monitor my power usage.

I guess I don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that the “Intel Celeron configuration is slightly more efficient than the Via setup.”

Your numbers indicate a discrepancy in the power consumption of the LCDs not in the processors. I don’t think your numbers can really be used to show that the Intel or VIA processor is more efficient as they support both claims at this point.


Very interesting, Kevin.
I really appreciate your posting this information. Now I have an idea of what to actually expect during a day at the office. Good Info!

BTW – Thanks for your video the other day too. It helped me resolve a screen rotation issue I was experiencing.

Rich (Illuminator)

Mike Cane

What do you get with:

WiFi *on* and

– screen minimum
– screen 50%
– screen 100%

On the Q1?

Still awaiting LimeWire and eD2k on the Q1../

Comments are closed.