[RicanMedic78]

So I haven't read anything about this. This is the first time RIM actually uses an advanced piece of hardware in a long long time. So with the way BB's run today on juice, especially how hard cdma devices are on battery life, does anyone know or wonder if these new 1.2's will end up being battery hogs?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

[herculesinwyoming]

I dont see why it would be an issue, they will still beat a android x

[mingus007]

My guess is they'll have to cater to their core user base who will (largely) demand: physical QWERTY, reliable email, BBM and the juice to put most phones to shame. (To be fair, a unit that needs to fuel a big screen to do anything is obviously going to impact battery life. Torch 2 should be interesting in this regard.)

Most of the videos seem to cite "in use/service" device battery life targets, so "comparable" to what we're used to is likely a safe answer. If the 99xx gets screwy ANYTHING, I suspect these forums will be on fire and the Andro-i-Phone crowd will shout RIM shares down to penny stock status. (Meaning, I doubt they'll screw this up at least this way.)

RIM's marketing, on the other hand...

Waitin' on the 9930...still...

[tack]

I think the 4G chips and screens eat batteries a lot more than processor. A single core 1.2 processor should do well. Plus, processors usually get more power efficient as things progress.

[BergerKing]

The bigger screen-faster processor-smaller battery to get an ultra-thin profile I suspect is going to have a fair impact on the attery life. However, if it becomes widely accepted, I can see the room for development of extended batteries for those of us that run them into the ground.

I compromised with battery life with the Style, as opposed to the mondo 2800mah I had in my Tour, but I'd rather have the speed, screen and keyboard combo I have now.

But I expect to move to the BlackBerry Bold Touch as it comes available.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Austerror]

I think the 4G chips and screens eat batteries a lot more than processor. A single core 1.2 processor should do well. Plus, processors usually get more power efficient as things progress.

This. Because new CPU/APU/GPU stuff whilst increasing clock speed can increase power usage, the shrink in die size reduces power usage.

So expect these new CPUs to be power efficient. Also I expect the CPU to throttle down when the phone is not in use. I don't see any reason why the CPU can't be running at 300mhz when its waiting for SMS/Emails. 300mhz is still enough to play MP3s. But when you start up the UI, the CPU would ramp up to max speed.

Thus I would not worry about battery life.

[_StephenBB81]

The bigger screen-faster processor-smaller battery to get an ultra-thin profile I suspect is going to have a fair impact on the attery life. However, if it becomes widely accepted, I can see the room for development of extended batteries for those of us that run them into the ground.

I compromised with battery life with the Style, as opposed to the mondo 2800mah I had in my Tour, but I'd rather have the speed, screen and keyboard combo I have now.

But I expect to move to the BlackBerry Bold Touch as it comes available.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

They have a considerably smaller dyes and thus use less power
The Tour/Bold's had 65nm chips
the Torch has a 45nm chip
the The Bold Touch / Torch 2, are said to have a 35nm chip

power consumption on a 1.2Ghz processor @ 35nm will be very comparable to that of a 624Mhz processor @ 65nm
so the smaller battery should lead to similar battery life.

I REALLY!!! hope to see a nice 2500mAh battery for the Torch 2, or the Bold Touch! I'd sacrifice style for over 2 times the juice!

[RicanMedic78]

You know, with all the talk of blackberries having great battery life, my bold 9650 and every cdma bb before that had horrible battery life. So i can't see how this hardware advancement plus a smaller battery out of the box is going to be "the same" as the lesser devices in the past.

I do realize that GSM is a different ballgame, but for me, I've just always been a Verizon person and if battery life proves bad when the bold touch is launched, there's not much else in the basket that will keep ppl glued to rim any further if you ask me.

I'm willing to bet that negative battery life threads are going to start popping up within the first week of release.... But that's just my guess

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

[MrObvious]

When I had my Bold, I got through the day with my usage just fine. So that said, I think RIM can keep the battery usage just fine.

[Culex316]

You know, with all the talk of blackberries having great battery life, my bold 9650 and every cdma bb before that had horrible battery life. So i can't see how this hardware advancement plus a smaller battery out of the box is going to be "the same" as the lesser devices in the past.

I do realize that GSM is a different ballgame, but for me, I've just always been a Verizon person and if battery life proves bad when the bold touch is launched, there's not much else in the basket that will keep ppl glued to rim any further if you ask me.

I'm willing to bet that negative battery life threads are going to start popping up within the first week of release.... But that's just my guess

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

Try using your Bold 9650 in GSM mode for a day and you'll see your battery life improve TREMENDOUSLY.

Whenever I use it abroad in GSM/EDGE mode, it easily could last me 3 days (from unplugging it in the morning until 10 pm., I only used 20% and was left with 80% battery still..had a 1.6%/hr discharge rate according to meterberry) but on CDMA it jumps to like 4-5% discharge.

Even the UMTS 3G that I used in Europe was a BIG battery drain (since it's technically also CDMA based)

[Austerror]

My 9800 battery life, on BES is around 3 days. I get about 200 emails a day.

The battery life gets cut down if I have an app running that uses the GPS or has any auto update function, like facebook or weather stuff.

I've also noticed that the batteries need conditioning. All my BB handsets have had a battery that does not last 12 hours on their first charge out of the box. But after each discharge/recharge cycle the life has extended. So that is something to keep in mind.

Also new LCD screens are more power efficient. back lighting has come a long way (LED) and the panels also use less power.

I wouldn't worry about battery life.

[Deathcommand]

The thing for me is that even with an extended battery on a 9650, I can't seem to have enough battery. Its actually rather sad.

Hopefully the reason they are making it take so long is because they are putting the entire R&D department on making the battery last 3 days.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[kbz1960]

What is the battery life like in your droid?

[MayorHaji]

I read somewhere that on the GSM side, RIM writes it's own radio stack, so it is heavily optimized to saving battery life and not kill reception, however on the CDMA side of things, RIM just used Qualcomm's radio stack, which hasn't received the same optimizations, which is why the CDMA's battery life is lacking compared to the GSM side.

On a side note, I do believe RIM is doing their own radio stacks for both the 9900 and 9930 so that the battery life on both is quite long, and comparable to each other. Here's to hoping, cause lemme tell ya, I'm spoiled on this 2600mAH I have on my 9650, not sure how I'm going to like the 1230mAH...

[Crucial_Xtreme]

They have a considerably smaller dyes and thus use less power
The Tour/Bold's had 65nm chips
the Torch has a 45nm chip
the The Bold Touch / Torch 2, are said to have a 35nm chip

power consumption on a 1.2Ghz processor @ 35nm will be very comparable to that of a 624Mhz processor @ 65nm
so the smaller battery should lead to similar battery life.

I REALLY!!! hope to see a nice 2500mAh battery for the Torch 2, or the Bold Touch! I'd sacrifice style for over 2 times the juice!

ding ding ding.... We have a winner.

No seriously the smaller dye helps out a lot. But also the processor is newer, has better architecture & is more efficient without a doubt. The difference from 65nm to 35nm would be greater than 7% clock for clock. It's faster than previous CPU's so it's going to do the same thing in half the time of the older processors. Again, their architecture is better and simply more energy efficient than older models.

Right now, with the new devices, there is a lot more power management optimization to be done. But yes the newer devices have the capability to last just as long(if not longer) than previous models even though they have smaller batteries.

As for the T2, it has the same size battery as the original.

[UrbanGlowCam]

35nm? I thought the new BB7 devices were built on a 45nm architecture? Unless they're not using the Qualcomm MSM8655 anymore?

To my understanding the older CDMA Qualcomms (Storms/Tour/Bold 9650/Curves/Style) were on 65nm while the GSM Marvells (9000/9700/9780/9800s) were all on 45nm.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

35nm? I thought the new BB7 devices were built on a 45nm architecture? Unless they're not using the Qualcomm MSM8655 anymore?

To my understanding the older CDMA Qualcomms (Storms/Tour/Bold 9650/Curves/Style) were on 65nm while the GSM Marvells (9000/9700/9780/9800s) were all on 45nm.

I didn't say 35. I was only giving figures of performance differences between the two. 65 to 45 is around 5% clock for clock. Either way, huge difference. 8655 it is.

[UrbanGlowCam]

I didn't say 35. I was only giving figures of performance differences between the two. 65 to 45 is around 5% clock for clock. Either way, huge difference. 8655 it is.

Oh I think deRusett said it. Didn't direct it at anyone.

Definitely huge difference. Looking forward to the upgrade from 65 to 45. Hope RIM is writing the radio stacks for CDMA this time around bud. I want to get in on some-a that 9700 battery life goodness everyone's been raving about.

My 9550 is just NOT cutting it in regards to battery.

Hope the 9850/9930 improves on this because it's the last mystery to me for the new devices.

[Culex316]

Oh I think deRusett said it. Didn't direct it at anyone.

Definitely huge difference. Looking forward to the upgrade from 65 to 45. Hope RIM is writing the radio stacks for CDMA this time around bud. I want to get in on some-a that 9700 battery life goodness everyone's been raving about.

My 9550 is just NOT cutting it in regards to battery.

Hope the 9850/9930 improves on this because it's the last mystery to me for the new devices.

RIM themselves do not write the CDMA radio stacks for their own phones?

[mahen915]

RIM themselves do not write the CDMA radio stacks for their own phones?

Nope. They've been licensing the CDMA radio stack from Qualcomm.

[kbz1960]

Humm, I'm still waiting for Rican to answer how long the battery last on his droid. Just curious since he asking about how long it will last on a bb.

[_StephenBB81]

Oh I think deRusett said it. Didn't direct it at anyone.

Definitely huge difference. Looking forward to the upgrade from 65 to 45. Hope RIM is writing the radio stacks for CDMA this time around bud. I want to get in on some-a that 9700 battery life goodness everyone's been raving about.

My 9550 is just NOT cutting it in regards to battery.

Hope the 9850/9930 improves on this because it's the last mystery to me for the new devices.

I thought I read that the 99XX and new 98xx's would be 35nm
though I've made mistakes before

[RicanMedic78]

Humm, I'm still waiting for Rican to answer how long the battery last on his droid. Just curious since he asking about how long it will last on a bb.

Its slightly better than my BB before it. And the reason i picked the Droid incredible 2, aside from the global capabilities, was the battery life.

I knew the issues with devices like the TB, and that's why I've stayed away from 4g. So for now, i def can't complain

Sent from my DINC2 using tapatalk

[kbz1960]

Thanks for letting me know. I would think RIM could get at least similar life out of their devices but that remains to be seen.

[RicanMedic78]

I sure hope so... only thing I find strange is that when OS and processor technology advances, I dont understand why a company like RIM feels the need to add an even smaller battery in the device. Its as if they dont really want in to last more than a day. And before you know it, when they advance even further, it feels like they are just going to use under 1000mah and continue in that path.

Why cant they just make the thing better ..... STOCK! Out the box! If RIM really did improve battery life with these new wave of devices, then I think its in their interest to come out with a bang! And if your selling a long battery life, then my god, make the thing long! Dont cut corners just to save money. Havent they learned their lession from all their failures?