Jump to content


Anyone have Battery Eater Results to post?


19 replies to this topic

#1 andyman58

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 01:33 AM

I loaded Battery Eater on my EEE and ran it in classic mode, with everything on, nothing shutting off and no screen saver, to see how long the battery would last under the most extreme conditions...Click on the link to see the results. Also would like to see other results as well...

As you can see, the battery died after 2:29:51.

P.S. My HP 17" Notebook only made it 1:05:43.

Battery Eater EEEPC Results


Andy

Edited by andyman58, 11 January 2008 - 01:38 AM.


#2 Ultimate Chicken

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 400 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 01:42 AM

That's somewhat like my estimation actually. Were you running at 900mhz with something in the SD slot?

#3 .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 783 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 11 January 2008 - 02:03 AM

Does that test constantly write to the SSD?
701 4G 7B | 0910 BIOS | 1GHz OCCT Stable | 1GB 667MHz RAM | nLited XP Pro

Visit my tutorial website! Cyb3rGlitch Tutorials

#4 andyman58

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 03:01 AM

"Battery Eater Pro is an application that exists solely for the purpose of making life hell for your portable computer's battery. Rather than giving you a best case scenario prediction of the battery life in your notebook, Battery Eater Pro uses every power-hungry option to try to drain your battery as fast as possible. This is in many ways a better benchmark, since it's consistently repeatable, and lets you know what you can expect under the worst conditions. During testing the utility stresses the CPU, RAM, HDD and videocard. For optimal results (meaning the worst battery time), make sure that you turn on WiFi, BlueTooth and IR ports. Despite it's name, Battery Eater Pro is free." downloadsquad.com

#5 Nate

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 05:46 AM

Quote

That's somewhat like my estimation actually. Were you running at 900mhz with something in the SD slot?
Had you bothered to click the link, you'd have your answer.

#6 .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 783 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 11 January 2008 - 05:51 AM

Is there an option to stop it writing to the HDD, I know the SSD will last ages, but prevention is better than cure. :)
701 4G 7B | 0910 BIOS | 1GHz OCCT Stable | 1GB 667MHz RAM | nLited XP Pro

Visit my tutorial website! Cyb3rGlitch Tutorials

#7 andyman58

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 01:11 PM

It has a custom setting so you can just have it run @ idle to get your maximum battery life...But it's only a 2-3 hour test @ max stress anyway, and it's good to give a new computer a "burn in" to stress components to see if anything will fail anyway.

#8 andyman58

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 January 2008 - 01:15 PM

I'd be curious to see anyone elses test (hint...run the darn test and post!!!), as my HP had a pretty linear power graph from the battery, but the EEE dropped fast, then levelled out for the duration of the test.



Posted Image

Edited by andyman58, 11 January 2008 - 02:04 PM.


#9 HKCU

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts
  • LocationThailand

Posted 15 January 2008 - 07:09 AM

Wanna post my results with Battery Eater v2.70:

CPU@630MHz

Classic mode:
2h 23min

Pi calculations: 3768 Cycles
HDD read/write: 22576Mb
Frames rendered: 329102 Frames

Reader's Test:
2h 41min

Pi calculations: 645 Cycles
HDD read/write: 0Mb
Frames rendered: 0 Frames

Anyone who don't like too much SSD read/writes can use the "Reader's Test" Option.

Edited by HKCU, 15 January 2008 - 07:20 AM.

Eee PC 1000H, BIOS 1206, Fine Ebony - 1GB DDR2 RAM - Windows XP Home

#10 andyman58

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 01:07 PM

Did your battery graph look similar to mine?

Edited by andyman58, 15 January 2008 - 01:07 PM.


#11 The_T

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:40 PM

So, does something get turned off with 10% left, or does the eee really report <10% battery for half the battery life?

#12 andyman58

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 09:19 PM

Quote

So, does something get turned off with 10% left, or does the eee really report <10% battery for half the battery life?
Computer ran OK till end, wondering why I have such a unlenear pattern also...

#13 HKCU

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts
  • LocationThailand

Posted 17 January 2008 - 08:16 AM

@andyman58

my graph:

Posted Image

I just wonder, why it doesn't go under 7% until it turn off?
Eee PC 1000H, BIOS 1206, Fine Ebony - 1GB DDR2 RAM - Windows XP Home

#14 geoelectric

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 298 posts

Posted 17 January 2008 - 09:54 AM

That has to be an ACPI glitch. There's no way it would run for 75 minutes on 10%, even if Chevy made it. HKCU's looks more like what I'd expect.

What BIOS are you each using?

I sense an Eeeclock battery test coming...

#15 HKCU

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts
  • LocationThailand

Posted 17 January 2008 - 11:52 AM

Just updated my sig.

BIOS is 0401.
Eee PC 1000H, BIOS 1206, Fine Ebony - 1GB DDR2 RAM - Windows XP Home

#16 DeLLyCeM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • LocationTURKEY

Posted 21 January 2008 - 07:44 PM

I was thinking about if there was a difference between the last 2 stable bios revisions 0401 and 0703
So I tested both about 8 hours :D Here are the results which make me think that there is a difference in 0703 Power management...


0401 Bios Results
Posted Image


0703 Bios Results
Posted Image

WWW.TECHNOMODEL.COM

#17 jkkmobile

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 446 posts

Posted 22 January 2008 - 12:17 AM

Quote

I'd be curious to see anyone elses test (hint...run the darn test and post!!!), as my HP had a pretty linear power graph from the battery, but the EEE dropped fast, then levelled out for the duration of the test.



http://webpages.char...8/Discharge.gif
Your graph is not linear as asus battery meter sometimes jumps from 50% or 40% to 10%



.. they really should fix the acpi and meter related code
.. and that's why it never goes under 7% .. i have set mine to sleep at 8% to avoid hanging..

#18 georg7887

    New member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 06 February 2008 - 04:20 PM

so here are my results:

bios: 0703
total memory: 504

CPU@630MHz

Classic mode:
Total time: 2:41:12

Pi calculations: 7524 Cycles
HDD read/write: 16403 Mb
Frames rendered: 338489 Frames


i deactivated (normal) lan and the webcam. brightness was set to the half.
has anyone an idea, why my HDD bench is much worse compared to the posted results?

#19 DeLLyCeM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • LocationTURKEY

Posted 07 February 2008 - 01:09 AM

Quote

so here are my results:

bios: 0703
total memory: 504

CPU@630MHz

Classic mode:
Total time: 2:41:12

Pi calculations: 7524 Cycles
HDD read/write: 16403 Mb
Frames rendered: 338489 Frames


i deactivated (normal) lan and the webcam. brightness was set to the half.
has anyone an idea, why my HDD bench is much worse compared to the posted results?
Maybe a software working @ background which is using resources making your ssd slower.
WWW.TECHNOMODEL.COM

#20 geoelectric

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 298 posts

Posted 07 February 2008 - 07:15 PM

I don't know that that's a benchmark. Pi, HDD, and Frames are all over the place on everyone's runs. I'd also assume that time spent doing Pi and rendering can't be time spent doing HDD, and those values are somewhat higher in yours than most of the others.

Sure, the numbers indicate work across time, which is -part- of a benchmark, but they may not be properly isolated to be a solid measurement.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users