Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#2Um, I doubt this, very very much.
The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts!
Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#3Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
I would guess that "computer that is identical to a Macbook Air" is key here: it means the current Air's power. That would probably be a mainframe in those days?
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#4Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
If you read the article, it's clear they mean an hypothetical 1990s computer with the computing power of the modern macbook air, and the power efficiency typical of computers of that era.
Completely nonsensical, I'll grant you.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#5Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
I read it to mean they were factoring in the computing power as well.
i.e. they estimated that it would take 72,000 Watts-worth of 1990s computers to match the processing power of a Macbook Air.
Though that does add further caveats to an already less-than-ideal comparison (as an MBA is not going to last seven hours at 100% CPU load).
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#6Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
I would guess that "computer that is identical to a Macbook Air" is key here: it means the current Air's power. That would probably be a mainframe in those days?
I'm not sure that such a thing existed.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#7Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
I read it to mean they were factoring in the computing power as well. i.e. they estimated that it would take 72,000 Watts-worth of 1990s computers to match the processing power of a Macbook Air. Though that does add further caveats to an already less-than-ideal comparison (as an MBA is not going to last seven hours at 100% CPU load).
Sounds like they ought to mention how long that is in football fields.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#8Um, I doubt this, very very much. The Air has a 50 W/h battery. That's 50W for a full hour. So if they are saying that it would last 2.5 seconds, that means the putative 1990s computer would have to consume 60 x 24 x 50 = 72,000 Watts! Someone at the Atlantic needs to figure out basic math.
I think rather that a 1990s computer would take the full battery (or 180 kJ) to accomplish the same tasks that the macbook air could in 2.5 seconds of operation (~50 J?). So if you changed the task efficiency of the Macbook air to be that of an old computer, but kept the same processing power, the Macbook Air would be consuming 72,000 Watts.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#9Makes sense to me. If they calculated that in 1990 it took x watts to generate y processing power by now x has gone wayyyy down if y remains the same. They don't have the best documentation but it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Re: Air Battery Would Last 2.5s on Machine with 1990's Efficiency
#10so if someone could make a 68030 as efficient as an i5, I could have a PowerBook 170 that would run for a week on a charge? Yes, please.
( I'll need someone to knock up a Twitter reading client in MPW too, pls)