Things kind of go this way: doing things faster allows resting earlier.
So a higher performance SSD may drain more battery within a shorter period of active time.
And as for idling…
Depending on what you use the V for, the amount of time spent idling differs.
Say if it’s just surfing the net and doing a lot of reading, the SSD doesn’t have much to do.
So even if you’re using it, the drive itself is idling.
But since it’s also the system drive (i.e. the drive we install Windows on it), it kind of never fall asleep. I.e. it practically never enters the lowest power consumption state. SSD power consumption is not an on or off thing though, so idling outside that lowest power consumption state does not mean full load power consumption.
I believe that for a typical user, the only time the SSD is fully active is during program launch and any forms of file copying (e.g. downloading stuff, installing stuff).
I initially thought about that too (the 2280 form factor),
until someone (was it @iKirin ?) speculated that the Intel 600p might not be the one we can get off the shelf.
Provided that Eve and Intel has some affiliation, it is not impossible that Intel’s making Eve some 2242 600p.
I speculate that it might be technically feasible. First we all know that the V’s initially planned to use M.2 2242. The breakthrough might have been fitting an otherwise large SSD into a small form factor, but not making space for it. Now since the 600p is of a single-sided M.2 2280 form factor, maybe they can custom build a double sided 2242 (wild speculator)?
According to Anandtech review Intel 600p not only consumes more energy when idle, but also much more energy when reading / writing than SATA SSD. While having lower performance in some real applications
I skimmed through the Anandtech review several times and noticed they only tested idle consumption.
And performance is actually higher in their “light workload” benchmark - which makes sense since the performance of the 600p is almost solely within the SLC cache (which is kind of sad, the 850 EVO doesn’t even have anything like that, although the 600p seems to be dram-less which has merits on its own).
This is actually an interesting topic for the 600p, since almost every access has to be done twice: on the SLC cache and the main storage. That essentially doubles the active time. I guess it is the reason behind the ridiculously high idle power consumption.
[quote=“Helios, post:86, topic:5705”]
Eve V is a device with limited space and only a fraction of the SSDs on the market will fit. As these tiny form factor SSDs are generally only sold to OEMs and not to the public, review sites will not have reviews of them.[/quote]
[quote=“pauliunas, post:87, topic:5705”]
In reality, just how often is an SSD totally idle? Guys just think about it, there’s always something that needs to be read, except while the tablet is sleeping.[/quote]
Youre all right, we keep comparing it to the 850 EVO since it is the most popular SATA SSD there is, and it is priced competitively against the 600p (at least in retail market).
However, the fact is 600p is above-average when it comes to power consumption, therefore there is a good chance that the 600p will hog more power than whatever SSD that was chosen before.
Agreed, though its just an offer, Eve doesnt have to swallow it.
“Corporate bullshit on the bottom, community on the top.”
That was one of the selling point of this product, and to be frank, none of us chose the polarizing 600p. It was chosen internally despite the community decided on SATA SSD. I’m not saying 600p is a bad choice here, but there are many things to consider, including power consumption which affects the major selling point of this device, and from what I see, the 600p doesnt really impress me in that sector.
NVMe doesn’t automatically mean better than SATA, especially when you consider that we have one of the slowest NVMe drives.
The question now is:
How much battery life can we get with the other SSD?
Remember, 9 hours is still below our expectation. 10-12 hours, thats what is claimed on this device. More importantly, many of us would be pissed off if we could get much better battery life with a different SSD.
###Poll always helps:
##Assuming there is a SATA SSD that could give an additional 30-60 minutes of battery life over the 600p, which SSD would you pick?
Yes it is, until you find something better and post it here
Eve had chosen a different SSD before and they said very clearly that it was the very best they could get at the time. This one is either an improvement over the old one, or the old one is not available anymore. Either case, I don’t see why Eve would choose anything but the best they can.
NO. It’s far far far far far away from being a valid approximation as it uses the wrong form factor. Size is a limitation too, and you can’t expect the same speed when you squeeze the same amount of storage into half the space.
Or you could be wrong as an SLC Cache is something that is employed in pretty much every SSD nowadays There are some new “cache-less” SSDs, however I’ve not read any benchmarks of those.
It could also be (what I believe) that during those tests there was a bug in the firmware that did not allow the SSD to go to the deeper power-saving modes of the SSD. Because the same controller is used in the Adata XPG SX8000 which features an even lower typical power consumption.
And again, I think there was an issue with the Firmware that prevented it to the lower power states. This is a very similiar issue as Microsoft faced with the Surface line that the CPUs did not go to lower power states (if I recall correctly at least)
Remember, that this is not the final hardware, I mentioned it already. This is literally without the battery improvements that @Konstantinos sent over to me (which should be already applied to the prototypes going out to community) and we’ve not played all our cards in terms of the battery performance, and I think that 10h on WiFi usage (as notebookcheck.com showed) should be possible without much problem.
These are the 2242 SSDs I could find. As I said, the Intel 600p has above-average power consumption. You can pick any random SSD below and there is a good chance that it is more efficient than the 600p.
Results from 3rd party review, unless marked as (claim)
What I meant is the 600p has a ridiculously large cache compared to other SSDs, which means the active time could also be ridiculously higher.
That might fix the idle power consumption, but not the active power consumption which still high, at least compared to the 850 EVO.[quote=“iKirin, post:120, topic:5705”]
we’ve not played all our cards in terms of the battery performance, and I think that 10h on WiFi usage (as notebookcheck.com showed) should be possible without much problem.
As the poll above suggests, whatever battery life the V gets with the 600p, the community would prefer the SATA SSD if it could give 30-60 minutes extra battery life.
As far as I am aware there was never the promise or talk about including an 850 EVO in the V before. So I think it is quite late to talk about that now, right? I mean, there is no reason to not discuss it, but maybe not in a tone that is so accusing and implies that they did not listen to the community , which clearly isn’t the case, also @iKirin has shown that battery life is on a good way.
I don’t think this has something to do with being a fanboy, but with a decent amount of trust that they know what they are doing.
What is the best solution then here? Your poll includes a lot of ifs and maybes and also you have no idea about supply chain, contracts etc.
I personally don’t see why the decision for the 600 is so clearly a bad decision.