Just hours after I commented on JKontheRun that the Q1P didn’t have a LED backlit screen, Kevin runs a test and throws a statistic down that proves me wrong. Actually I’m not sure that he’s spotted it himself yet ;-)
I knew the Q1P-SSD had the 280nits LED screen (as opposed to the 200 nits on the Q1) but that the Q1P has it too is news to me.
And its important news too because Kevin ran Battery Eater and got 50% more battery life out of the Q1P than with the Q1. Its not because of the speed-stepping of the Pentium (Batter Eater will drive both Celeron and Pentium at max so they will have roughly the same battery drain rate.) Its because of the LED backlight.
But hold on, I’m amazed that we haven’t seen this result before. I’m wondering if the early Q1P’s had the normal screen. Its possible. Either that or there’s an anomaly in the results (captain?)
Now here’s a quick calculation.
The battery is the same 29W/hw device in the Q1 and Q1P right (please check that Kevin.) The difference in battery drain between the two devices is about 5W. Its very high. I’d expect 2-3 watts of saving using the LED screen. 5W is not impossible though.
Here’s a thought. Under battery power, the BIOS could over-ride the speed-step settings. This is the case on the i7210 in order to get better battery life the BIOS gives you a 600Mhz UMPC! We need to confirm that this is not the case.
I’m a little suspicious of the result at this stage, especially as others have reported only 2.5 hours normal battery life with the Q1P. However, as I said before, the old Q1P might have had the old screen so its not possible. I’ve asked Kevin to do a few more tests for me so that we can work some more figures out.
Whatever the other results though, the LED backlit screen is great news.
Steve.
