5 ms·

That's kind of crazy. The thing that gets me with all these things is the energy density in your pocket. 3Ah is a lot of energy. When a LiPoly goes off, it goes

• hackerboos 12y ago
  Battery life on the G3 is better than most other smartphones. I'll be purchasing a G3 as battery life is becoming a nuisance on my Samsung Galaxy 4.
• higherpurpose 12y ago
  From a rough estimate, a 2x increase in resolution reduces the battery life by 30 percent overall, if everything else is equal. But they usually increase battery size and get a more powerful (therefore more efficient with high resolutions) GPU, to mask that. That's how a 1440p phone can get the same, or almost the same battery life as a phone with 720p screen and a significantly smaller battery. Now the question that most OEMs don't seem to ask themselves is - how much better would the battery life be, if they kept the old "standard" resolution, and increase the battery life and used a new GPU, too? It could be up to 50 percent longer. Not to mention that focusing on resolution, and making the screen more expensive that way, takes away from them focusing on other aspects of the screen, such as viewing angles (there was a comparison around between LG G3 and Galaxy S5 viewing angles, which I can't find now, but LG G3 viewing angles were pretty bad). Focusing on needlessly expensive higher resolution screens also takes component money away from investing in even better cameras, more storage, and so on. For example, instead of paying $70 for a 1440p display, they could be paying $50 for a 1080p one (which are pretty abundant now), and get a $40 camera sensor instead of a $20 one. I, for one, would appreciate such a component choice much more.
  • msh 12y ago
    The answer to your question is here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8031/huawei-ascend-mate-2-review/2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/8031/huawei-ascend-mate-2-revi...
  • hyp0 12y ago
    iPhone does some of that: resolution constant, GPU up, process shrink: battery life constant.
• Dylan16807 12y ago
  It's pretty scary what that amount of power can do when released quickly. On the other hand realize that a watt hour is slightly less than a single food calorie. That battery has 10 calories. A bar of chocolate has 150-250.
  • jacquesm 12y ago
    For that reason alone it's a small wonder that we haven't seen miniature fuel cell technology take off in recent years. If only those membranes wouldn't foul up. It keeps getting close to being accepted and then vanishes again, for instance: http://www.iec.ch/etech/2013/etech_0113/tech-1.htm http://www.iec.ch/etech/2013/etech_0113/tech-1.htm
    • AshleysBrain 12y ago
      Hopefully the fuel cells won't run on chocolate bars, I prefer to use them as my own fuel :)
  • logicallee 12y ago
    Interesting comparison with food calories, though I don't know how much intuitive help we can get from that - how do I imagine a bar of chocolate "going off" (exploding)? If we put the bar into a person (to use as food calories), a person can punch someone violently and repeatedly for a while or do other extremely damaging things with very few calories, so again, not much help intuitively. You have to do a lot of work to burn 200 calories.
    • logicallee 12y ago
      that's some trigger happy downvoting. So how do we imagine how much power is in 250 food calories?
      • regularfry 12y ago
        250 calories'-worth of wheat flour dispersed in a cubic metre of air is enough to explode quite nicely. So there's that.