Here's how 2014's flagships fare against each other with equalized battery capacity
posted by Peter K. / Nov 19, 2014, 11:49 AM
The quest for better battery life will hardly ever cease to push manufacturers to try hard to boost their game in this so vital and most-appreciated department. Sure, we value big and sizable batteries as much as the next man, but isn't software optimization a tad more important that pure battery capacity? We decided to check out if this is truly the case by normalizing the battery capacity of some of 2014's most popular devices.
How did we do it? First things first, we took our battery life tests (in minutes) of 11 noteworthy devices from 2014 and divided them by the capacity of their respective batteries (in milliampere-hours). For each device, the resulting value (min/mAh) is then multiplied by the average battery capacity of all 11 phones - and voila! - we have the equalized battery life for all devices. Here's the formula, simplified even further:
[battery life (min) ÷ battery capacity (mAh)] × average battery capacity = normalized battery life
What does the results listed below actually show us? It will show us how long would each tested device last if all had the same battery capacity - in this case, roughly 2933 mAh. Figuratively speaking, it's like putting different race drivers in one and the same cars for a 1-mile drag race - the only thing that matters will be the very driving skills of the racers and not the properties of their vehicles. Thus, we can easily see which manufacturers have succeeded in optimizing their devices and which have not. All in the name of science!
|Phone||Battery capacity (in mAh)||Actual result in our battery life test||Estimated battery life with a 2933mAh battery|
|Sony Xperia Z3 Compact||2600||10 hours and 2 minutes||11 hours and 19 minutes|
|Sony Xperia Z3||3100||9 hours and 29 minutes||8 hours and 58 minutes|
|Apple iPhone 6||1810||5 hours and 22 minutes||8 hours and 41 minutes|
|HTC One (M8)||2600||7 hours and 12 minutes||8 hours and 7 minutes|
|Motorola DROID Turbo||3900||10 hours and 42 minutes||8 hours and 2 minutes|
|Samsung Galaxy S5||2800||7 hours and 38 minutes||7 hours and 59 minutes|
|Samsung Galaxy Note 4||3220||8 hours and 43 minutes||7 hours and 56 minutes|
|OnePlus One||3100||8 hours and 5 minutes||7 hours and 38 minutes|
|Google Nexus 6||3220||7 hours and 53 minutes||7 hours and 11 minutes|
|Apple iPhone 6 Plus||2915||6 hours and 32 minutes||6 hours and 34 minutes|
|LG G3||3000||6 hours and 14 minutes||6 hours and 5 minutes|
Posts: 360; Member since: Jan 30, 2014
Nokia 3310 : 10 years (exellent)
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 4:20 AM 36
Posts: 1442; Member since: Nov 19, 2012
Homing pigeon: 20 years (if you feed it...)
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 5:35 AM 5
Posts: 15; Member since: Mar 06, 2013
This is so stupid that they have order the phones with Estimated backup with 2933 batter". How can they order like that. Most important thing is what is the backup we are getting. Phonearena sorted the content in a way if it has a battery of size 2933mAh. How does it matter. For example, Look at iPhone 6. It has 1810mAh battery and has 5h of backup. But they have sorted the content in way that if iPhone has 2933 battery it would have got 8h of back up. But iPhone doesn't have such battery and it will not. So, what is the point projecting these numbers. Its just misleading.
posted on Nov 21, 2014, 4:29 AM 0
Posts: 7; Member since: Mar 28, 2013
There is no point in increasing the capacity of traditional lithuim ion batteries, smartphone companies need to search for alternatives. CPU, GPU and Display are three major power drainers.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 4:53 AM 1
Posts: 158; Member since: Jun 12, 2013
That's the point. The search for an alternative to the ever-traditional Li-ion or Li-Po batteries inside the smartphone is slower these years than the rapid growing advancements on the SoCs and displays.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 5:03 AM 0
Posts: 4744; Member since: Jan 28, 2011
Conspicuously missing from the list: Droid Turbo, which already has a 3900 mAh battery. I feel like the article could have been one long Turbo ad.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 6:45 AM 1
Posts: 13; Member since: Sep 06, 2011
I've noticed Droid Turbo doesn't get much mention on PA and has conspicuously been left out of the last few "battery" & performance" articles....
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 7:10 AM 0
Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010
They must have updated the article... In the graph below the slideshow the Turbo is clearly present in the middle of he pack at 8 hours 2 min. I was interested in the Turbo, still am, but I'd like to know why exactly it didn't well enough to make it in the top 5.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 11:01 PM 0
Where's galaxy alpha. it would last beyond 16 hours.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 7:09 AM 1
Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010
It is nice to dream of more hours of use per day. But, we need to look at the overall problem of the battery lifespan. The current typical Li/Po battery has a charge cycle of 400-550 times. It is also very fragile in terms of discharge limitations. Completely draining this type of battery then initiating a charge cycle will kill the battery. Increasing capacity to allow 10 hours of use is still less than a full 24hr day. So with a recommendation of not allowing a complete dischage, a charge once a day will only give a battery lifespan of 14 months respectively. Add the fact that most people like a full charge to start the day, they will charge it evey night anyway. Adding 4000mah battery will not increase the lifespan of the battery. We still be looking at a possible battery replacement at 14-15 months regardless. I think everyone knows where I'm going with this. Sealing a battery in where it can't be replaced means the battery will possibly die before the two year contract is up. This means rather than just spending 25-40 dollars on a replacement battery, the customer may be forced to pay up to $200 for a refurbished phone just for a battery issue. With Apple, a battery replacement can be done for $80 but is still 2-3 times the cost of a customer being able to perform their own replacement. To summerize: This whole battery fiasco leads to point that everything reported on this or that accessory or expanding battery capacity is useless when sealing in the very component that has the highest fail rate of any part in the phone with the exception of cracked screens. Let's keep batteries accessible until we can force the battery manufacturers to redesign the common rechargeable battery. John B.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 8:04 AM 3
Posts: 646; Member since: Aug 20, 2014
That's the idea. OEM's want battery degradation to be a driving cause of cell phone replacement now that general performance is excellent across most devices. Quick Charge tech was designed to exacerbate this problem. Since you took a long time to write this response, I'll offer an alternative solution. Personally, I think that there is absolutely no reason to continue increasing performance with the A series reaching half the singe threaded performance of a Intel laptop CPU. Companies could easily flip Moore's law to keep the performance the same, and half the power draw. Even if the battery tech is slow to improve, there is plenty of room to continue reduce power draw with ever shrinking NM processes, and improved software enhancements. As long as we aren't constantly looking for double the processing power every year. Less power draw means, less charging and longer battery cycles.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 12:31 PM 2
Posts: 151; Member since: Feb 25, 2012
quick charge was designed to exacerbate this problem? Lol. thats like saying cpu power is up to drain the battery quicker to we have to upgrade sooner. stupid comment. It is a very valuable feature
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 2:19 PM 0
Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010
Strudelz100 is correct. Quick charging current technology batteries is a huge detriment due to heat buildup. The cells are not designed for administrating a flash charge. Quick charging should be reserved for emergencies only. All these quick chargers are often backed by the battery manufacturers. Why do you think that is? Wireless charging is even worse. Most of the device manufacturers are trying to design software and components to compensate for 30 year old battery technology. If battery life is getting better, it is due to device design; not battery. John B.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 2:47 PM 0
Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008
correct. the faster you charge the battery the more it stresses the chemical and physical components of it, be it from heat, damage from the current, whatever. Also I bet money once a battery becomes damage it will be much more likely to explode under "quick charge" then regular charge. All of our longevity increases are due to better SoC's and better optimized software.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 3:02 PM 0
Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010
Thank you for understanding the issue at hand. It is important that when people purchase a device without removable battery, that they have full knowledge of the implications that can arise from such purchase. John B.
posted on Nov 19, 2014, 3:01 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):