[TRACKING] Test results for standby battery use of Expansion Cards

Are you sure USB-A has no effect in idle? I seem to have 0.5W bump every new port.

i’m not 100% sure, but it’s what i have seen in my tests, yes. See the USB-A tests. Are you on a 12th gen?

Perhaps someone with more electronic expertise can provide the appropriate references. From what I understand, the power delivery protocols between USB-A and USB-C are different and while there doesn’t need to be any active electronic components in an adapter, a USB-A adapter needs to connect some leads with a specific resistance in order to signal that power may need to be provided. From what I understand, having that connection forces something in the USB-C interface on the motherboard to change its activity level. For a motherboard that’s on this doesn’t make too much of a difference, but apparently if the system is in suspended state (s2idle or deep) then this difference is measurable.

1 Like

No, I’m on i5-1135g7 atm…

Maybe, then, this is something that was fixed between the 11th gen and the 12th gen? @Nils can you confirm this?

So this is something I found when doing initial research on this. In another long thread (12th gen battery questions on linux), I found:

and:

My bet is that 12th gen somewhat fixed that problem (down to ~10mW) for runtime, but not suspend, as the numbers i’m getting on suspend are in the same order of magnitude of those reported above (i’m getting 300-500mW, they’re reporting ~1W).

3 Likes

Thank you @Nils and @anarcat for explaining what causes the difference in power draw between USB A and USB C expansion cards.

I am looking forward to what solution you will come up with.

Perhaps of interest to people watching this thread, saw this on r/framework

We also have a firmware update in progress now that addresses additional retimer power draw states with USB-A, HDMI, or DP Expansion Cards. This takes learnings from our Chromebook Edition development, where the behavior is much better.

8 Likes

Do we have reliable data on the difference between idle and s2idle for USB-A?

This post seems to suggest that the issues with USB-A disappear in s2idle: High Battery Drain During Suspend - #64 by KiptonK But @Nils’ reports (what you list as previous work) seem to contradict this.

what i have is in this post, that is: i made a test without any cards with deep vs s2idle, then ran all the other tests with deep, because it was the optimal settings (supposedly).

I guess i could rerun the USB-A tests with s2idle to compare… but at this point, I’d rather see that darn BIOS update we’ve been teased about that’s supposed to solve (some of?) those issues before embarking into another series of benchmarks…

5 Likes

I’m waiting for the rumored BIOS update also. Sticking with s2idle for now since I like leaving USB-A cards inserted. Things have been pretty solid for me overall with s2idle under Debian Testing/Bookworm. I could get a couple more days suspend out of the battery if I remove the USB-A and switch to deep but I don’t think it’s worth the hassle. I rarely suspend for more than a few days anyway.

@KiptonK @anarcat it just released

Sorry, what got released? I don’t see a new 12th gen BIOS update in the Framework Laptop BIOS and Driver Releases (12th Gen Intel® Core™) page.

I see a 11th gen beta update, discussed in 11th Gen Intel Core BIOS 3.17 Beta, but that’s different isn’t it? :slight_smile: and it’s not listed in Framework Laptop BIOS and Driver Releases (11th Gen Intel® Core™) either…

It’s beta so they won’t push it to that support page until it’s out of beta. It is for 11th gen only, nothing heard for 12th gen.

2 Likes

For me on Windows, no perceivable difference in s0ix drain on BIOS 3.17:

1 Like

@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 :wink:

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. :slight_smile:

5 Likes