Batterygate: Asus cheating customers? GL702ZC laptop battery has 76 Wh spec but actual ~60 Wh capacity

[pitA]

With a desktop Ryzen CPU, the all-AMD Asus GL702ZC is not known for great battery life, at only 1-1.5 hours, but part of that may be due to the battery not being up to spec.

 

Software reports the "design charge capacity" at 76 Wh, as do vendor spec sheets, review sites, and possibly the label on the battery itself. BUT, the "full charge capacity" which is the actual charge held by the battery is reported by virtually every owner who has checked...at only ~60 Wh on brand new units.

 

Many reports at the NBR forum: http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/asus-rog-gl702zc-owners-lounge.809882/page-57

 

So far Asus has not commented on the discrepancy, offering only to RMA the entire laptop, which most users won't want to do given the weeks of disruption, for testing and possibly replacing the battery... with similar ones?

 

How would you feel about getting a battery with ~20% less capacity than advertised?

 

=====

 

Battery information can be generated with the following commands:

 

Windows 10 Powershell (Admin):

powercfg /batteryreport /output "C:\battery_report.html"

Linux:

upower -i /org/freedesktop/UPower/devices/battery_BAT0 

 

[Matu20]

I'd feel like asking for a refund.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

There is a discrepancy between charging and discharging capacity. It could be that the battery needs 76 Wh to fully charge, but can only discharge 60 Wh at full capacity.

 

How they overlooked this is beyond me.

[Misanthrope]

I'm sure they can probably claim that you could charge them up to 76wh with only a 60% increase in the likelihood of an explosion.

 

You know sounds dramatic but you've gotta get those extra 30 minutes right? Better risk it, Samsung knows all about that.

[whoisit1118]

I think it is because they wanted to protect the battery on a laptop with such a high power usage. They probably left out the 16 Wh as a buffer. Nonetheless, that is overadvertising.

[ScratchCat]

1 hour ago, pitA said:

Battery information can be generated with the following commands:

 

Windows 10 Powershell (Admin):

powercfg /batteryreport /output "C:\battery_report.html"

Linux:

upower -i /org/freedesktop/UPower/devices/battery_BAT0 

 

This is not always accurate, my netbook has a supposed full capacity of 30Wh while its actual capacity is ~15Wh, both according to measurements in the powercfg command (measured, not original capacity) , the manufacturer and the cells themselves. 

However if people are using other tools to measure this discrepancy as they seem to be this might be a problem for Asus. This tactic is mostly known from shabby knockoff phone manufacturers, certainly not what one would expect from a large company such as Asus.

 

Has anyone opened up the laptop to check the cell capacity?

[Mooshi]

People with desktop class hardware inside a laptop complaining about battery life are the same people who try to sue fast food places because they're fat.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Mooshi said:

People with desktop class hardware inside a laptop complaining about battery life are the same people who try to sue fast food places because they're fat.

There's a difference between complaining about battery life and complaining about not getting what you paid for, although arguably you pay for expected battery life based on reviews not on raw WH as there are too many factors to accurately and easily compare WH. So in this case I'd say the (reasonable) complaints are more about getting Asus to allow the batteries to be charged more if they're artificially limited or give them some money back than about not getting what they paid for.

[Blackie Sheen]

I mean who cares. Its not like you expect not to carry a power brick all the time with these laptops. And anyway, the change would be minor. If you just do a simple crossed product by considering that 1.5 hour is tied to 60 Wh, you get a whopping a whopping 1.9 hour battery life. Are people really complaing for less than 30 an hour of difference on a laptop basically meant to be plugged in

[Coaxialgamer]

3 hours ago, Mooshi said:

People with desktop class hardware inside a laptop complaining about battery life are the same people who try to sue fast food places because they're fat.

Especially when said desktop hardware includes an RX580 ...

But still , this is false advertising

[Mr.Meerkat]

I suspect what has happened here is 76Whr is the actual capacity of the battery however Asus decided to artificially limit the battery to 60Whr to prolong its life span. I mean it won't be the first time a company has artifically limited a battery so it doesn't die as quickly. 

 

On the other hand, batteryreport/upower is definitely not the most accurate thing ever so it could just be software errors.

[aisle9]

3 hours ago, Mooshi said:

People with desktop class hardware inside a laptop complaining about battery life are the same people who try to sue fast food places because they're fat.

For the most part, I agree with you, but there's a difference here. Buying a laptop with desktop hardware and complaining when you only get an hour of gaming before it's bleeping for dear life is stupid. Buying a laptop advertised as having a 76Wh battery and finding out that it's really only a 60Wh battery is reasonable, given that you paid for 27% more battery capacity than you're getting.

 

I'd want a refund, actually. There's a line between unrealistic expectations and misleading advertising.

[Mooshi]

2 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

For the most part, I agree with you, but there's a difference here. Buying a laptop with desktop hardware and complaining when you only get an hour of gaming before it's bleeping for dear life is stupid. Buying a laptop advertised as having a 76Wh battery and finding out that it's really only a 60Wh battery is reasonable, given that you paid for 27% more battery capacity than you're getting.

 

I'd want a refund, actually. There's a line between unrealistic expectations and misleading advertising.

Not justifying the advertisement, but I guess I'm looking at it kind of like expecting 1TB from a 1TB drive instead of the realistic 931GB instead.

 

Desktop class hardware on a battery will never pan well no matter how accurate the battery is advertised.

[aisle9]

9 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

Not justifying the advertisement, but I guess I'm looking at it kind of like expecting 1TB from a 1TB drive instead of the realistic 931GB instead.

 

Desktop class hardware on a battery will never pan well no matter how accurate the battery is advertised.

No, it's not even remotely the same. When I buy a 1TB drive, I understand why there are actually 931GB on it. That can be explained. Manufacturers measure 1KB as 1,000 bytes, but a computer considers 1024 bytes to be a kilobyte. Your drive has the promised 1,000,000,000 bytes on it, but that's only 931GB in computer brains.

 

In this case, there is no difference between a Watt hour and a Watt hour. Selling a 76Wh battery that only holds 60Wh is not an issue caused by two different standards for measuring the same unit. It's someone telling you that a battery holds 27% more energy than it actually does. There is no explaining that away.

 

The issue isn't that battery life on a laptop with desktop-grade hardware sucks. We know that. The issue is that a buyer is being promised a 76Wh battery, and what they're getting is only 60Wh. It's like buying a bag that promises you 76 M&Ms, then tearing into it and finding out that it only has 60. Are you happy with your 60 M&Ms for the price of 76, or would you feel screwed out of your M&Ms?

[Sauron]

Before we jump to conclusions, it's possible the sensors report capacity incorrectly. After all, the tools listed rely on what the battery tells them. Maybe Asus was ill intentioned and is trying to sweep it under the rug, or maybe they're as baffled as their customers and are looking into what could be causing the false report. Either way a sensor reading doesn't strike me as definitive evidence.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

There's a difference between complaining about battery life and complaining about not getting what you paid for, although arguably you pay for expected battery life based on reviews not on raw WH as there are too many factors to accurately and easily compare WH. So in this case I'd say the (reasonable) complaints are more about getting Asus to allow the batteries to be charged more if they're artificially limited or give them some money back than about not getting what they paid for.

It would be more akin to bring mad that a big Mac has more calories than. Advertised. Yeah it is false advertising but you already knew it was pretty bad.

[mr moose]

Where does Asus claim it has a 72Wh battery?  I used the wayback machine and found the specs list only a 4 cell battery in oct last year. So they haven't changed the specs page.

 

 

[pitA]

To address some of the comments:

1) The capacity is shown as 76 Wh or 74 Wh in software tools like Windows powercfg, HwInfo64; advertised by vendors' spec sheets; provided in reviews; and in at least one case reported to be printed on the battery pack itself. The capacity does not seem to be advertised on Asus' product page.

It is possible that the issue is a software reporting problem. In that case Asus should still address it. However, it would be surprising given how many factors point to 76/74 Wh and not 60 Wh.

2) Power management strategies like avoiding charging to 100% (to protect battery, avoid overcharging, reduce battery charge cycles) are irrelevant as they would not affect the fully charged capacity. The current charge level would simply be lower, not to be confused with the full charge capacity.

3) The issue is about consumers receiving what they paid for. A 20% difference in battery charge capacity is substantial and not within the margin of error in this case. That the 20% difference in battery life is not a lot of time on a DTR is totally besides the point. That is not a reason to cheat them.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, pitA said:

To address some of the comments:

1) The capacity is shown as 76 Wh or 74 Wh in software tools like Windows powercfg, HwInfo64; advertised by vendors' spec sheets; provided in reviews; and in at least one case reported to be printed on the battery pack itself. The capacity does not seem to be advertised on Asus' product page.

It is possible that the issue is a software reporting problem. In that case Asus should still address it. However, it would be surprising given how many factors point to 76/74 Wh and not 60 Wh.

2) Power management strategies like avoiding charging to 100% (to protect battery, avoid overcharging, reduce battery charge cycles) are irrelevant as they would not affect the fully charged capacity. The current charge level would simply be lower, not to be confused with the full charge capacity.

3) The issue is about consumers receiving what they paid for. A 20% difference in battery charge capacity is substantial and not within the margin of error in this case. That the 20% difference in battery life is not a lot of time on a DTR is totally besides the point. That is not a reason to cheat them.

So it could easily be a 76/74 Wh battery pack that is just operating at 60Wh on average. This is actually possible and not a fault nor is it false advertising.  It's just a error in reporting.

[pitA]

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

battery pack that is just operating at 60Wh on average

What do you mean? The concept of average does not make sense for the maximum capacity. Consider an analogy of a 76 L fuel tank. If the fuel pump says a maximum of 60 L can be filled from an empty tank, either the tank is not 76 L, or the fuel pump is misreporting, or the fuel pump is unable to fill the tank to full capacity.

 

Possibilities:

1) Battery is actually 76 Wh; Full charge is 60 Wh; Software is reporting 60 Wh.

2) Battery is actually 76 Wh; Full charge is 76 Wh; Software is reporting 60 Wh.
3) Battery is actually 60 Wh; Full charge is 60 Wh; Software is reporting 60 Wh.

[mr moose]

54 minutes ago, pitA said:

What do you mean? The concept of average does not make sense for the maximum capacity. Consider an analogy of a 76 L fuel tank. If the fuel pump says a maximum of 60 L can be filled from an empty tank, either the tank is not 76 L, or the fuel pump is misreporting, or the fuel pump is unable to fill the tank to full capacity.

 

Possibilities:

1) Battery is actually 76 Wh; Full charge is 60 Wh; Software is reporting 60 Wh.

2) Battery is actually 76 Wh; Full charge is 76 Wh; Software is reporting 60 Wh.
3) Battery is actually 60 Wh; Full charge is 60 Wh; Software is reporting 60 Wh.

The Wh rating comes from multiplying amps by rated voltage.  If the battery is 12V (I don't know just using it as an example) and the capacity is 6333mAh then the Wh is 76.  But not all batteries can supply the full 6.3Amps at any one time. It may only be able to supply 5amps.  which would measure as a 60Wh battery even though the battery is actually 76WH because it supplies 1200mA constantly over 5 hours at 12V.  

 

I am really just surmising an explanation though.  Because I do not know how the software calculates Wh outside of the above measurements nor do I know the type of management the Asus batteries use.

[pitA]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

If the battery is 12V (I don't know just using it as an example) and the capacity is 6333mAh then the Wh is 76.  But not all batteries can supply the full 6.3Amps at any one time. It may only be able to supply 5amps.  which would measure as a 60Wh battery even though the battery is actually 76WH because it supplies 1200mA constantly over 5 hours at 12V.  

This is actually a plausible explanation. Unfortunately, difficult for users to verify. Btw, voltage is ~15 V, no idea on max current.

 

Note that Asus has offered to RMA units when presented with the 20% capacity discrepancy, without providing any explanation. Not that customer service is likely to know such technical details. IF the 60Wh full capacity is normal (which was asked of them) there is a lapse in communication that could cause trouble for consumers and Asus alike.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, pitA said:

This is actually a plausible explanation. Unfortunately, difficult for users to verify. Btw, voltage is ~15 V, no idea on max current.

 

Note that Asus has offered to RMA units when presented with the 20% capacity discrepancy, without providing any explanation. Not that customer service is likely to know such technical details. IF the 60Wh full capacity is normal (which was asked of them) there is a lapse in communication that could cause trouble for consumers and Asus alike.

It is difficult without knowing the exact power draw from the system.

 

The number of people likely to be checking and actually wanting to go through the process of RMA will be low, so offering RMA it is just cheap PR for loudest users on the Internet.

 

 

 

 

[pitA]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The number of people likely to be checking and actually wanting to go through the process of RMA will be low, so offering RMA it is just cheap PR for loudest users on the Internet.

Precisely. Nobody wants to RMA for this issue given the downtime they'd have to put up with. And considering how everyone consistently reports the same thing on their units, the replacement would likely be no different.

 

When asked if just the battery could be sent back, Asus support has stated that "disassembling the battery pack" would void the warranty.

[pitA]

On 3/23/2018 at 4:00 AM, mr moose said:

If the battery is 12V (I don't know just using it as an example) and the capacity is 6333mAh then the Wh is 76.  But not all batteries can supply the full 6.3Amps at any one time. It may only be able to supply 5amps.  which would measure as a 60Wh battery even though the battery is actually 76WH because it supplies 1200mA constantly over 5 hours at 12V.  

Upon reflection, I don't think this makes sense. If the battery is limited in the max current it can provide, it might throttle the device performance, but the reduced current (rate of discharge) would not decrease capacity (total charge).

 

However it is true that these values of current and voltage are averages. The actual voltage the battery provides at a constant current (or vice versa) will vary over time and its level of charge, i.e. its characteristic curve. In particular, drawing higher current results in a lower characteristic curve and thus capacity. If I had to guess, I'd say this is the most significant factor for the GL702ZC with its high powered CPU and GPU. We also know nothing of the voltage cutoff that the manufacturer has chosen at which point the battery is considered empty. This video is really interesting in its entirety, but the summary covers these and other points:

 

There is still no information from Asus about the capacity discrepancy. At least it is plausible that it is due to design choices, and hopefully not a defective product. Nevertheless, even if this is the correct explanation, it's still misleading to have a battery with a certain capacity, but have a product design with a different capacity. Imagine a vehicle with a 76 L fuel tank, of which only 60 L can be used. This could be why Asus does not mention battery capacity on its site, although it's unclear why vendors and review sites do advertise the 76 Wh capacity, and where they got this value. And again, all of this assumes the above explanation is correct.