Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

IE8 = Longer Battery Life on Laptops?

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 33 comments

A recent test shows that Internet Explorer 8 provides more laptop battery time than Firefox, Chrome, and other browsers.

There's nothing worse than trolling through your favorite video-related website and the laptop suddenly gives up the ghost, or a twenty-page document is ultimately lost because the last drop of battery juice wasn't long enough to save the file. Savvy laptop owners look for ways to reduce the load on the battery by turning off junk applications and services, however AnandTech recently discovered that battery life can be extended by using certain web browsers.

Our friends at AnandTech tested the latest version of the most popular Windows browsers on three different laptops: Internet Explorer 8, Chrome 2, Firefox 3.5.2, Opera 10.0b3, and Safari 4. Believe it or not, Microsoft's latest browser offering won in the taste test, providing a whopping 5 to 10 minutes of additional battery life in comparison to the other power leeches; a super-long thirty minutes more than Apple's graphic-intensive Safari browser.

To perform the browser benchmark, ArandTech used Gateway's NV5807u (Intel-based) and NV5214u (AMD-based) laptops as well as the ASUS Eee PC 1005HA (Intel Atom). The Gateway laptops were running Windows Vista, and the Eee PC running Windows XP. Although Internet Explorer 8 provided more battery time on both laptops, Firefox with AdBlock trailed behind by mere minutes, followed by Chrome 2; Firefox 3.5.2 sat in fourth position on the AMD laptop while Opera 9.64 was fourth on the Intel-based laptop.

As for the ASUS Eee PC, Chrome 2 actually provided longer battery time, followed by Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 and Opera 9.64. As AnandTech pointed out, Safari 4 was the worst choice for battery life under Windows, however the site speculates that Apple's browser performs better in OS X.

Display 33 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 19 Hide
    cryogenic , September 16, 2009 10:04 PM
    Maybe because it's slower and you get to watch less pages ...
Other Comments
  • 19 Hide
    cryogenic , September 16, 2009 10:04 PM
    Maybe because it's slower and you get to watch less pages ...
  • -6 Hide
    dingumf , September 16, 2009 10:11 PM

    CryogenicMaybe because it's slower and you get to watch less pages ...

    Probably so.

    Also, this test which is bull, does not proove IE 8 uses less system resources.

  • 0 Hide
    njkid3 , September 16, 2009 10:53 PM
    what about the newest beta of chrome version 4 i would like to see a more indepth test or review of the browsers which includes the latest betas to give a more through conclusion.
  • -5 Hide
    Anonymous , September 16, 2009 11:00 PM
    hey google nut-huggers. Google made chrome so they can data-mine everything you do. freaking idiots, read the ula. They are the freaking UMBRELLA company and soon they will run the world from a smoke filled room. "Mr. President, we know that you googled midget porn in 1999. We also know that you had 2 facebook accounts and uploaded pictures in womens panties."
  • 0 Hide
    matt87_50 , September 16, 2009 11:20 PM
    ugh, when Google start creating biological weapons in huge underground labs and selling them to the highest bidder, then I might take notice. till then, I don't put sensitive information on the net anyway, and if all it means is that the annoying ads I get bombarded with are more relevant to me, well, so much the better. futhermore, we should stop just assuming that the browser made by the biggest software company in the world, by the same company that rote the damn operating system, will just be shitter than the rest. now that they have competition, maybe they've upped their game.

    still, how did they do the test? did they just leave it on one page for the whole test? or did they load lots of pages? meaning load times could have effected the test results? (the slower browser may not have had time to load the more intensive pages at the end of the test for instance?)
  • 4 Hide
    ravewulf , September 16, 2009 11:25 PM
    Basically, don't use Safari
  • 5 Hide
    maigo , September 16, 2009 11:38 PM
    it works great until you get all the viruses that target IE
  • 4 Hide
    koblec , September 16, 2009 11:57 PM
    So... 7 extra minutes of battery life, or a safer, faster browser?
  • 6 Hide
    frozenlead , September 16, 2009 11:58 PM
    In other words, I'll turn my screen brightness down a notch and still use Firefox. Great.
  • 4 Hide
    lejay , September 17, 2009 12:24 AM
    dingumfLOLWUT? Probably so.Also, this test which is bull, does not proove IE 8 uses less system resources.THIS CHART IS BULL

    Always repeat your message, preferably with capital letters. It proves you're right.

  • 3 Hide
    tipoo , September 17, 2009 1:35 AM
    I'll stick to FF+Adblock. IE probably just renders less stuff in that amount of time, thereby using less power.
  • 3 Hide
    koga73 , September 17, 2009 2:12 AM
    lol. The only reason IE uses less battery power is because it uses less processing power because it is the SLOWEST of all the browsers. Simple.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , September 17, 2009 2:58 AM
    Toms, I read the article, and can not believe it!
    I'd really appreciate it if you could verify this test!
    (I just don't own a software that can time pageloads).
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , September 17, 2009 3:01 AM
    What is this stupid rampent fanboy-ism going on here. You can't let IE8 give you like 4% more battery life.

    Also about rendering they could easily load 1 page wait 10 secs and load another and run it in a macro.

    "Obviously, that's a huge difference in battery life. You get roughly 50% more battery life in simple Internet surfing compared to surfing sites that use of lots of Flash content (along with frames, numerous tables, etc.) Last we checked, your average website is nowhere near what would qualify as "simple", and Flash content is ubiquitous. For better or for worse, we're going to focus on battery life when viewing three websites. One of the websites is, and the other two shall remain nameless. Suffice it to say, all three sites have approaches to web design that we see replicated all over the Internet." You are telling me the pages they choose was so intensive they could not load in IE8 in 60 secs man you must be stupid.

    Want to know what it could easily be the Flash engine for IE vs the flash engine for the other browsers.

    True browser speed difference is less then a second to load a whole page limited factor? Latency and bandwidth =p
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , September 17, 2009 3:02 AM
    "For testing, we load the three sites into tabs on our test web browser, wait 60 seconds, and then reload all three tabs."
  • -1 Hide
    doomtomb , September 17, 2009 3:03 AM
    I use Firefox + AdBlock so I do not see the need to switch to that horrid IE8 for few mins of battery life.
  • -5 Hide
    tmlclone , September 17, 2009 3:06 AM
  • -3 Hide
    Burodsx , September 17, 2009 3:16 AM
    I don't care if IE8 saved 10x the power. I'm not giving up my Firefox...
  • 2 Hide
    lejay , September 17, 2009 4:01 AM
    BurodsxI don't care if IE8 saved 10x the power. I'm not giving up my Firefox...

    If IE8 gave me 50+ hours of surfing, I would actually give up firefox.
Display more comments