@anarcat if you have time, we would recommend giving the recently release 3.06 BIOS a try. Some of the scenarios you measured should show improvements.
2 Likes
oh wow, i see: 12th Gen Intel Core BIOS 3.06 Beta
exciting! i’ll give that a try, but i don’t think i’ll make it before the end of the holidays 
2 Likes
I finalized my standby battery tests - anarcat after the 3.06 BIOS upgrade. The TL;DR: nothing is really improved except the DisplayPort which is a little less bad. USB-A still a significant problem.
Result summaries:
| Device | Wattage | Amperage | Days | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| baseline | 0.25W | 16mA | 9 | no cards, same as before upgrade |
| 1 USB-C | 0.25W | 16mA | 9 | same as before |
| 2 USB-C | 0.25W | 16mA | 9 | same |
| 1 USB-A | 0.80W | 62mA | 3 | +550mW!! worse than before |
| 2 USB-A | 1.12W | 73mA | <2 | +320mW, on top of the above, bad! |
| Ethernet | 0.62W | 40mA | 3-4 | new result, decent |
| 1TB SSD | 0.52W | 34mA | 4 | a bit worse than before (+2mA) |
| MicroSD | 0.51W | 22mA | 4 | same |
| DisplayPort | 0.52W | 34mA | 4+ | upgrade improved by 300mW |
| 1 HDMI | ? | 38mA | ? | same |
| 2 HDMI | ? | 45mA | ? | a bit worse than before (+3mA) |
| Normal | 1.08W | 70mA | ~2 | Ethernet, 2 USB-C, USB-A |
Dig below for the procedure and raw results.
Procedure
Basically, the test procedure is:
1. resume
2. add/remove modules, change configuration
3. suspend for 60 minutes
4. collect results
The command, as root:
journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ;\
rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ;\
sleep 10 ; date ;\
/opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; \
journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
Note that for the mA calculations, I just subtracted the
before/after stats as I have found out that the few extra seconds
typically do not change the result, it’s generally a rounding error
and within the margin of error. This runs the risk of expanding the
margin of error by an extra mA of course. But a quick spot check on
a few calculations showed the result typically do not diverge even
after rounding.
Research hypothesis and bias
The theory is that the 3.06 BIOS upgrade improved power usage. I am
biased towards feeling the Framework uses too much power and I am
doubtful of the claims. Let’s see!
Baseline: 0.25W, 16mA, ~9 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ;\
rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ;\
sleep 10 ; date ;\
/opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; \
journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 21 22:22:20 angela systemd-sleep[65127]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1692 [mAh]
jan 22 14:20:05 angela systemd-sleep[65404]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2679 [mAh]
dim 22 jan 2023 14:55:21 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Sun Jan 22 20:55:22 2023
dim 22 jan 2023 14:55:21 EST
dim 22 jan 2023 15:55:31 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.26 Wh, an average rate of 0.26 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 0.49%/hr or 11.88%/day
jan 22 14:55:22 angela systemd-sleep[73362]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2352 [mAh]
jan 22 15:55:23 angela systemd-sleep[73654]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2335 [mAh]
again:
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 22 16:02:38 angela systemd-sleep[75222]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2298 [mAh]
jan 23 10:45:04 angela systemd-sleep[75517]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2822 [mAh]
lun 23 jan 2023 11:38:30 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Mon Jan 23 17:38:31 2023
lun 23 jan 2023 11:38:30 EST
lun 23 jan 2023 12:38:40 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.25 Wh, an average rate of 0.25 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 0.47%/hr or 11.18%/day
jan 23 11:38:31 angela systemd-sleep[83629]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2915 [mAh]
jan 23 12:38:32 angela systemd-sleep[83909]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2899 [mAh]
This is a good baseline, fairly reliable as it’s mostly reproducible
(within the 1mAh margin of error). Using 16mA or 0.25W power usage as
a baseline.
This does show that the BIOS upgrade did not improve power consumption
with no cards, that said. Worse, my battery is slightly more depleted
than the last time those tests were ran: it lost 1.65Wh or 3% of its
capacity in a little over 3 months. At that rate, it will be
completely depleted in 8 years or, more realistically, it will be at
50% capacity in 4 years.
1 USB-C: 0.25W, 16mA, ~9 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 23 11:38:31 angela systemd-sleep[83629]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2915 [mAh]
jan 23 12:38:32 angela systemd-sleep[83909]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2899 [mAh]
lun 23 jan 2023 12:59:04 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Mon Jan 23 18:59:05 2023
lun 23 jan 2023 12:59:04 EST
lun 23 jan 2023 13:59:14 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.25 Wh, an average rate of 0.25 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 0.47%/hr or 11.18%/day
jan 23 12:59:04 angela systemd-sleep[86439]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2829 [mAh]
jan 23 13:59:06 angela systemd-sleep[86741]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2813 [mAh]
root@angela:/home/anarcat#
Same as the baseline. Last time we did those tests, we had better
results than the baseline with the USB-C card, which was strange.
2 USB-C: 0.25W, 16mA, ~9 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 23 12:59:04 angela systemd-sleep[86439]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2829 [mAh]
jan 23 13:59:06 angela systemd-sleep[86741]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2813 [mAh]
lun 23 jan 2023 14:01:20 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Mon Jan 23 20:01:20 2023
lun 23 jan 2023 14:01:20 EST
lun 23 jan 2023 15:01:29 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.25 Wh, an average rate of 0.25 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 0.47%/hr or 11.18%/day
jan 23 14:01:21 angela systemd-sleep[88077]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2801 [mAh]
jan 23 15:01:21 angela systemd-sleep[88313]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2785 [mAh]
Same as a single USB-C.
1 USB-A: 0.80W, 52mA, ~3 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 23 14:01:21 angela systemd-sleep[88077]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2801 [mAh]
jan 23 15:01:21 angela systemd-sleep[88313]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2785 [mAh]
lun 23 jan 2023 15:08:48 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Mon Jan 23 21:08:48 2023
lun 23 jan 2023 15:08:48 EST
lun 23 jan 2023 16:08:59 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.80 Wh, an average rate of 0.80 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 1.51%/hr or 36.32%/day
jan 23 15:08:49 angela systemd-sleep[89636]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2749 [mAh]
jan 23 16:08:51 angela systemd-sleep[89930]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2697 [mAh]
Here we see that the USB-A card uses more power than the USB-C,
which is similar to the result we had previously, so no improvement
from the 3.06 BIOS upgrade.
2 USB-A: 1.12W, 73mA, <2 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 23 17:54:40 angela systemd-sleep[94541]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2558 [mAh]
jan 23 17:55:02 angela systemd-sleep[94770]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2558 [mAh]
lun 23 jan 2023 17:55:08 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Mon Jan 23 23:55:09 2023
lun 23 jan 2023 17:55:08 EST
lun 23 jan 2023 18:55:19 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 1.12 Wh, an average rate of 1.12 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 2.12%/hr or 50.99%/day
jan 23 17:55:09 angela systemd-sleep[95415]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2556 [mAh]
jan 23 18:55:11 angela systemd-sleep[95648]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2483 [mAh]
Even worse, those cards still add up, just like last time. Now your
battery is down to two days.
3 USB-A: N/A
I didn’t have a third USB-A card on hand to test at this very moment,
might come later if requested.
Ethernet: 0.62W, 40mA, 3-4 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 23 17:55:09 angela systemd-sleep[95415]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2556 [mAh]
jan 23 18:55:11 angela systemd-sleep[95648]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2483 [mAh]
lun 23 jan 2023 19:10:54 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Tue Jan 24 01:10:55 2023
lun 23 jan 2023 19:10:54 EST
lun 23 jan 2023 20:11:05 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.62 Wh, an average rate of 0.62 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 1.16%/hr or 27.94%/day
jan 23 19:10:55 angela systemd-sleep[97482]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2419 [mAh]
jan 23 20:10:57 angela systemd-sleep[97793]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2379 [mAh]
Interestingly, the Ethernet card uses less power than the dreaded
USB-A cards. This is just beyond comprehension for me, as the
electronics in the Ethernet card surely must be more complex than
the USB-A card.
1TB SSD: 0.52W, 34mA, ~4 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 23 19:10:55 angela systemd-sleep[97482]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2419 [mAh]
jan 23 20:10:57 angela systemd-sleep[97793]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2379 [mAh]
lun 23 jan 2023 20:17:28 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Tue Jan 24 02:17:29 2023
lun 23 jan 2023 20:17:28 EST
lun 23 jan 2023 21:17:39 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.52 Wh, an average rate of 0.52 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 0.99%/hr or 23.74%/day
jan 23 20:17:29 angela systemd-sleep[99542]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2335 [mAh]
jan 23 21:17:31 angela systemd-sleep[99830]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 2301 [mAh]
This is similar to last time results, but a little (+2mA) worse.
MicroSD: 0.51W, 33mA, ~4 days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 23 22:23:32 angela systemd-sleep[106217]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1980 [mAh]
jan 24 07:16:37 angela systemd-sleep[106523]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1703 [mAh]
mar 24 jan 2023 07:17:20 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Tue Jan 24 13:17:21 2023
mar 24 jan 2023 07:17:20 EST
mar 24 jan 2023 08:17:31 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.51 Wh, an average rate of 0.51 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 0.96%/hr or 23.05%/day
jan 24 07:17:21 angela systemd-sleep[108096]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1693 [mAh]
jan 24 08:17:23 angela systemd-sleep[108339]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1660 [mAh]
root@angela:/home/anarcat#
Within the 1mA margin of error from last test.
normal setup (Ethernet, 2 USB-C, 1 USB-A): 1.08W, 70mA, ~2 days
Then I switched to my normal setup to go home, and ran the test by hand:
root@angela:/home/anarcat# /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
Slept for 3.11 hours
Used 3.37 Wh, an average rate of 1.08 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 2.05%/hr or 49.17%/day
jan 24 08:19:10 angela systemd-sleep[109724]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1646 [mAh]
jan 24 11:25:57 angela systemd-sleep[109965]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1427 [mAh]
So basically, with my normal setup, I have a two-day standby
battery. Not great. It should also be noted that a lot of that power
(~34mA, almost half!) usage is due to the USB-A card. The Ethernet
card takes another good chunk (~25mA) but that’s understandable and I
expected it to take more power. The USB-A card, though, is really
annoying.
DisplayPort: 0.52W, 34mA, 4+ days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 24 11:26:41 angela systemd-sleep[111222]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1420 [mAh]
jan 24 11:27:16 angela systemd-sleep[111456]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1419 [mAh]
mar 24 jan 2023 11:27:24 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Tue Jan 24 17:27:26 2023
mar 24 jan 2023 11:27:24 EST
mar 24 jan 2023 12:27:36 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.52 Wh, an average rate of 0.52 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 0.99%/hr or 23.74%/day
jan 24 11:27:25 angela systemd-sleep[112157]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1418 [mAh]
jan 24 12:27:28 angela systemd-sleep[112388]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1384 [mAh]
Finally, a significant improvement! The previous results were pretty
bad at 0.85W (55mA), now we’re down to a more reasonable number, but
it’s still rather high for an inactive card during standby.
1 HDMI: W, 38mA, days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 24 11:27:25 angela systemd-sleep[112157]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1418 [mAh]
jan 24 12:27:28 angela systemd-sleep[112388]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1384 [mAh]
mar 24 jan 2023 12:28:31 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Tue Jan 24 18:28:32 2023
mar 24 jan 2023 12:28:31 EST
mar 24 jan 2023 13:28:34 EST
Slept for -0.02 hours
Used -0.12 Wh, an average rate of 6.93 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 13.10%/hr or 314.50%/day
jan 24 12:28:32 angela systemd-sleep[113684]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1376 [mAh]
jan 24 13:28:34 angela systemd-sleep[113928]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1338 [mAh]
Here, batterylog seems to have gone a little cookoo and seems to be
counting backwards (Slept for -0.02 hours). We can still calculate
the mA used during that hour (38mA), which is similar to past results.
2 HDMI: W, 45mA, days
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 24 12:28:32 angela systemd-sleep[113684]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1376 [mAh]
jan 24 13:28:34 angela systemd-sleep[113928]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1338 [mAh]
mar 24 jan 2023 13:58:36 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Tue Jan 24 19:58:37 2023
mar 24 jan 2023 13:58:36 EST
mar 24 jan 2023 14:58:39 EST
Slept for -0.50 hours
Used -1.85 Wh, an average rate of 3.69 W
For your 52.88 Wh battery this is 6.98%/hr or 167.55%/day
jan 24 13:58:36 angela systemd-sleep[117036]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1218 [mAh]
jan 24 14:58:39 angela systemd-sleep[117336]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 1173 [mAh]
Again batterylog is unhappy and counting backwards, not sure
why. We’re again close to our previous results, if a little worse off
(by 3mA), so that’s not great.
6 Likes
This is really detailed! Thank you!
I appreciate the testing @anarcat, well put together. Nice to have something to compare notes on. Great work.
I will add that we are doing some in-house testing ( time from full charge to discharge), and we will make this part of an upcoming article. The raw numbers are piped out into a text file then into a spreadsheet.
A sneak preview (second round of testing for 12th gen, 3.06 with two USB-C, one USB-A, one HDMI card, No TLP, OEM kernel oem-22.04 50% brightness, (blacklist=hid_sensor_hub disabled), display on entire time (no blanking), no “low power suspend”, numbers of the actual idle “on time” that are not half bad.
Meaning, go to bed, wake up and it’s still discharging with an active display. This was the case on three separate tests.
Those numbers discharge time periods will be ready when I have 3.04 done and 11th gen with 3.10 completed. It will have the mAh deets, but where the rubber hits the road is when doe the battery finally stops pushing power from the battery and powers the laptop off.
I will also be doing some automated testing as well (simulating casual typing and cursor movement.) It will be interesting to see how it does in actual usage testing which simulated “active use.”
I am hoping to have this ready here in the very near future. My tests will not be focus on duplicating your work, instead, they’re focused on 100 charge to dead battery - how long does it take based on beginning to end drain.
Your efforts are appreciated. 
5 Likes
Are those tests done using deep sleep? I am using 3 USB-C cards and one USB-A card on Fedora 37 with the stock s2idle sleep (aka s0ix or modern standby) and from my observations I see more or less consistent 0.6%/hr drop in battery or ~0.35W draw. Done those tests by looking at battery percentage and time (acpi && date in terminal before and after sleep). The battery percentage “should” just be calculated by charge_now/charge_full from the sysfs interface.
edit: Should add that I do this over a period of 4-8 hours sleep, not just 1 hour
My baseline is done in deep sleep. In my first tests, s2idle was shown to use 40mW more (or 2mA) so I have discarded it. It’s possible the the USB-A module misbehaves because of that.
Note that my baseline power draw is 0.25W, 100mW less than your results, I wonder if that +100mW is because of the USB-A module or s2idle?
Thanks! Happy to hear your team is looking into this as well.
Any idea what could be causing the huge USB-A power drain (300-500mW during sleep, more than at runtime!) in my results? It’s pretty consistent in my tests, and was happening before the 3.06 upgrade.
1 Like
If I remember to do so I could run some tests without the USB-A module over night. Will let you know!
1 Like
Not my focus for this test series, so no. However, it’s not off our radar - we are consisting looking into power improvements. It may not feel like it, but we are.
3 Likes
I’m running a test on my end right now as well.
I reran the USB-A test with s2idle sleep:
root@angela:/home/anarcat# journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2 ; date ; rtcwake -m no -s 3600 && systemctl suspend ; date ; sleep 10 ; date ; /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
jan 25 14:36:34 angela systemd-sleep[26685]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 3460 [mAh]
jan 25 15:36:34 angela systemd-sleep[26914]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 3460 [mAh]
mer 25 jan 2023 15:52:07 EST
rtcwake: assuming RTC uses UTC ...
rtcwake: wakeup using /dev/rtc0 at Wed Jan 25 21:52:08 2023
mer 25 jan 2023 15:52:07 EST
mer 25 jan 2023 16:52:16 EST
Slept for 1.00 hours
Used 0.42 Wh, an average rate of 0.42 W
For your 53.28 Wh battery this is 0.78%/hr or 18.73%/day
jan 25 15:52:08 angela systemd-sleep[30145]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 3175 [mAh]
jan 25 16:52:08 angela systemd-sleep[30435]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 3148 [mAh]
It seems like the power usage is lower in s2idle with a USB-A module! In my earlier tests, I stuck with deep sleep, because previous results seem to show it had better power usage. My baseline tests also confirmed this, but I did not test with expansion cards plugged in. So it could very well be that s2idle is actually more efficient in the general usage case.
Doing the test again shows it’s reproducible:
root@angela:/home/anarcat# /opt/batterylog/batterylog.py ; journalctl -b | grep charge_now | tail -2
Slept for 2.25 hours
Used 0.75 Wh, an average rate of 0.34 W
For your 53.28 Wh battery this is 0.63%/hr or 15.14%/day
jan 25 16:53:26 angela systemd-sleep[31636]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 3138 [mAh]
jan 25 19:08:09 angela systemd-sleep[31868]: /sys/class/power_supply/BAT1/charge_now = 3089 [mAh]
root@angela:/home/anarcat#
… in fact, this second test shows a lower wattage use, which is strange. But that test was done in rather exotic conditions: I was traveling home with the laptop, in a bag, in sub-zero temperatures, instead of just leaving it open on my desk… So to take with a grain of salt.
I find this surprising. @Matt_Hartley have you seen anything like this?
I’ll see if the behaviour changes for my general case as well (Ethernet + USB-C + USB-A), stay tuned!
This result about USB-A is indeed super confusing, since like the USB-C modules it’s not an active module?
Ah although perhaps answering my own question, further down that thread:
2 Likes
Well I have done my over night testing and came out with pretty much the same 0.35W on average.
Battery dropped from 55% to 50% in 7 hours and 45 minutes (or 7.75h in useful)
So calculating 5%*55Wh/7.75h=0.35W
This is on s2idle with 3 USB-C cards and without the USB-A card.
charge_now dropped from 1903mAh to 1750mAh → 153mAh used aka 19.7mA on average. Depending on what voltage you want to multiply this by (the voltage changes with temperature, load and state of charge) it does match 0.35W close enough if we assume it was stuck at 16V constantly, which is a reasonable approach. Might just read out energy next time.
Hope this is useful, can’t test DP or HDMI cards since I don’t have any. Could test with Ethernet card though.
So yeah conclusion the USB-A card does not make any measurable difference in my tests so far.
edit: Also should note I am using 2x8GB 3200MHz memory, whatever brand framework send with the laptop.
1 Like
That’s extremely useful results! It seems to mean that the problem with the USB-A device being polled for nothing happens only in deep sleep and not s2idle, which is extremely interesting to me. @Matt_Hartley maybe that’s something you could use?
I’m using a single 16GB stick. I’ve been meaning to compare the power usage with an extra 16GB stick as well…
This might be worth reading to you then
Still would be worth replicating
Oh wow, thanks! Looks like the idle performance is the same, which is what mostly matters to me… an extra 200mW seems like nothing: the thing is actually in use then.
Nah I’m good, I’d like to start actually using the damn thing now.
1 Like
For my internal testing, we’re looking at 100% to 0% drain, time elapsed. Other teams are working with the data you’re pointing out to circle back to my own findings with 100% to 0% drain.
So this data matters and improving on it matters, but the customer focal point will be 100% to 0% drain elapsed time.
We’re looking at idle, common use and suspend.
I am not sure I understand… the tests I am doing here are about suspend, are you saying you are not seeing the same results in that deep and s2idle sleep behave the same for you with the USB-A module? Or another team is working on that specifically?