Droid Turbo does not deliver on battery life

[Mew]

Seems like many of you guys fell for Motorola marketing.

According to Gizmodo, which also cited Tom's Hardware, the Droid Turbo was only able to deliver 27 hours of battery life before it shut off. The reviewer's phone usage wasn't even that heavy-

 

After setting up my 64GB ballistic nylon reviewer's unit, downloading my usual apps and logging into way too many accounts, I slipped the Turbo on its charger and filled up to 100 percent overnight. In the morning, off the cord at 8 AM, I've used the smartphone quite a bit, but still well within the realm of normal use. I listened to Spotify on my commute, used Google Maps to find my way to a meeting, snapped some photos at said meeting, recorded about an hour of audio, and Google Maps'ed my way back to the office. Now all of that may seem like a lot, but I didn't stream any video or play any games. For the rest of the day, I checked a few messages, took a few more pictures, and pretty much just let Moto Display blink on and off in standby mode. By the time I left work, I was at 35 percent.

 

 

Source http://gizmodo.com/droid-turbo-is-here-but-about-that-battery-1652801400?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/droid-turbo-battery-life,news-19846.html

 

Edit: What do you guys think that manufacturers should use for standardized battery testing?

[ilikemacandpc]

Totally disappointing. Snapdragon 805 and 1440p must be more power taxing than expected. 

[Suika]

I'd be OK if that was heavy usage, but not even? Ehh...

[Victorious Secret]

So Motorola for all their hype and huge battery and everything else managed to get what phones these days are getting anyways?...

 

AFAIK, this isn't even better than the Note 3? 

[LAwLz]

Those are not great results but don't lose hope yet. It's just one test. It might be a pre-release software issue or maybe Tom's hardware just had a bad run for some reason.

Hold off judgement until we see full reviews from multiple sources saying the same thing.

 

 

Edit: I just looked at some of the other results on Tom's battery chart and they don't make any sense to me. For example the S5 and Note 4 are far too close to each other compared to tests from lots of other sites (GSMArena, Anandtech etc).

I wonder what their test consists of.

[AlexGoesHigh]

what @LAwLz said, and if it is a problem moto either picked a shitty battery or a shitty display, i'm more towards the display if its a real problem

[Mew]

Those are not great results but don't lose hope yet. It's just one test. It might be a pre-release software issue or maybe Tom's hardware just had a bad run for some reason.

Hold off judgement until we see full reviews from multiple sources saying the same thing.

 

 

Edit: I just looked at some of the other results on Tom's battery chart and they don't make any sense to me. For example the S5 and Note 4 are far too close to each other compared to tests from lots of other sites (GSMArena, Anandtech etc).

I wonder what their test consists of.

 

Well, they showed that they calibrate their tests to some point-

 

 

To gauge the staying power of the Droid Turbo, we ran our standard Android battery test, which involves surfing 50 of the most popular websites over 4G LTE on 150 nits of brightness. Verizon's new exclusive device lasted 9 hours and 30 minutes. That's more than an hour longer than the smartphone average and the Verizon Galaxy S5.

 

But, it seems that the Verizon phones didn't perform as well, maybe due to signal strength?

[patrickjp93]

Totally disappointing. Snapdragon 805 and 1440p must be more power taxing than expected.

Why people continue to think ARM can remain a 2-4 Watt TDP is beyond me. There's a reason they lack performance vs. Intel on the CPU side, and all that control logic is electrically&ethereally expensive. Now Intel is moving towards efficiency and catching up on ARM in TDP at a stunning rate.

[Yoinkerman]

Seems about the same as my gs3, which is now old tech, so it seems really mediocre performance.

[CatCloud]

Why isn´t the Z3 in the graph? 

[Mew]

Why isn´t the Z3 in the graph? 

 

These are preliminary results that are just an early impression of battery life. Battery life should improve but the stated 48 hours still seems like a stretch. 

[cubercaleb]

Doesn't this thing have a battery twice the size of most these phones?

[Heisenbleurgh]

*patiently waits for Marques Brownlee's review*

[Techhog]

... Now I'm terrified for the Nexus 6.

[nicholaswillems]

Cheapest phone has the best battery life (in this chart). Hehe.

[Scheer]

Those are not great results but don't lose hope yet. It's just one test. It might be a pre-release software issue or maybe Tom's hardware just had a bad run for some reason.

 

I never did testing, but it really seemed like my Moto X would have a longer battery life every time after they did an update.

 

Its a year old now and lasts just as long or longer as it did new, and once you factor in battery degradation I really think they push updates to help out. Its really hard to do comparisons as my usage has surely changed, but my Droid Razr at a year lasted about 6 hours... so I can't complain.

[Frix]

I wouldn't be surprised if they are working on a possible update to fix these problems. Much like the Moto 360.

[Mew]

I wouldn't be surprised if they are working on a possible update to fix these problems. Much like the Moto 360.

 

But a phone marketed to have 48 hour battery at launch should have at least more than 1 day of battery life should it not?

[Frix]

But a phone marketed to have 48 hour battery at launch should have at least more than 1 day of battery life should it not?

Not saying its not a problem but almost anything is possible with software updates.

[TroubleKlef]

When will people realize that specs =/= performance.

[LAwLz]

When will people realize that specs =/= performance.

But... It is, assuming there is not some obvious flaw in the device.

[TroubleKlef]

But... It is, assuming there is not some obvious flaw in the device.

specs are an indicator of performance but is not equal to.

[LAwLz]

specs are an indicator of performance but is not equal to.

I disagree, and so do benchmarks. Just look at benchmarks of different phones with similar hardware and you will see that they perform very closely. Of course there will be some deviation but once you address things like driver version, thermal limitations, other components affecting the results (for example VRAM in GPU tests) then they usually make sense. When taking all aspects into consideration then there will of course be some deviations but they are in general fairly small.

A lot of people like to use the iPhone as an example of "specs don't matter" but what they fail to realize is that the iPhone have always had good or great specs. Apple has always picked a really really powerful GPU for their phones and tablets. Far more powerful than most of their competitors.

 

Motorola must have messed up big time somehow (or maybe the test was flawed in some way). It doesn't make sense otherwise.

[totjup5]

That sucks,  I wanted that phone.

[Octagoncow]

That makes me a sad panda...