But you gotta realize IE10 was only 4 minutes better than IE9. That's not a lot and people also need to realize 126% speed increase for using chrome is miliseconds.Vrmithrax said:
Smoke and mirrors. IE10 should not be in the mix at all. Comparing one browser that was tested in a completely different (and, as noted, more power efficient) operating system setup to the rest just makes no sense. Honestly, with all of the optimization and efficiency work they've been putting into Windows 8, I would have been absolutely shocked if the native IE10 performed worse than the others - after all, it also has a distinct advantage of the inside scoop on the OS code as it is being created and finalized. So, that just leaves IE9 vs the competition, with IE9 squeaking out better battery life while displaying terrible speed.
I'd be much more interested in seeing a true "apples to apples" comparison, with all of the browsers running in Windows 8. Gotta wonder if IE10 would maintain its power efficiency advantage on an even playing field?
From the post:VitalyT said:
If Chrome 18 is 126% faster, doesn't it mean that it has more than twice the amount of information to process during the same time as IE10 has? This means IE10 lasts longer because more than half of the time of activity in Chrome IE stays idle, because it is so much slower. Which means if IE 10 were to match the speed of Chrome 18, its battery life could be hypothetically eaten up to 108 / 2.26 = 60 hours of life time.
In all, if you are doing the same web browsing in Chrome as in IE, then Chrome will live much longer than IE 10, unless i miss here something...
And before you ask, Ruse noted that there isn't a parallel between performance and longevity: "Peacekeeper runs its tests in a loop until the battery dies. The browsers which lasted longer went through more test loops, not fewer. For example, Chrome went through 17 iterations while Internet Explorer went through 23. The tests do not take less or more depending on the browser."
No, one feature if programed to constantly run can use more power than 100 other features. The number of features has nothing to do with power consumption. It's the way they are programmed and when they are called to run that use power.Well, having less features DOES consume less battery, right? :-D