Microsoft promised a 75 percent increase in battery life for Surface Pro 2 over the original, and the company delivered. In our review we noted that the Surface Pro 2 lasted 7 hours, 33 minutes on the Verge Battery Test, which cycles through a series of websites and high-res images with screen brightness set to 65 percent. Anandtech has discovered that a recently released Surface Pro 2 firmware update has pushed the battery life even further.
In our own Verge Battery Test we can confirm that the battery life on the Surface Pro 2 has increased to 8 hours, 51 minutes following the firmware update, an almost 20 percent increase. Anandtech notes that the improvements appear to be related to a change that lets the Marvell Wi-Fi chipset use less power. The improvements are impressive and help improve the viability of using the device all day as a tablet or a laptop. Microsoft’s Surface 2 tablet, running on Windows RT 8.1, has not received similar battery improvements in its firmware update, meaning the Pro 2 outpaces the ARM-based model on battery life.
Comments
8 hrs is plenty coming from the poor battery life in Surface Pro 1.
By Vasp on 11.04.13 5:19am
8 hours is better than many ARM based android tablets as well.
Good to see Verge verifying the battery life as Anandtech did.
I hope Verge follows standard procedure like nits based brightness rather than 50% brightness without taking the display brightness capacity.
By harshpwd on 11.04.13 5:25am
Still not buying it because it irks me that they would upgrade the camera on the Surface 2 from 720p to 1080p but keep the camera as 720p in the Surface Pro 2. So the cheaper model actually has a better camera! Imagine if Apple put a 5 inch 1920×1080 resolution screen in the 5c and left the 5s with a 4 inch 1136×640 screen and sold at the current prices – wtf right? If you pay more, you should automatically be getting the best features. Even in a business environment, video conferencing would be important – so why not a better camera? I didn’t pick up the original Pro because I wanted to wait and see the improvements they would make to the Pro 2 and across the board it is definitely improved, but when you improve a piece of hardware in your lower cost model and not give that same upgrade to your more expensive model – then that puts me off. Third times a charm? I can’t wait to find out!
By OMGitsShan on 11.04.13 5:50am
Your comparison is not valid. You use the screen every time you use the device so it is much more important. If you use the camera on the surface pro to take picture or even with an iPad your gonna looks like a freaking idiot! I never used the camera on my iPad and I have yet to use the camera on the surface pro 2. A better camera would just have added cost that I would have had to pay for.
By danielhenke1690 on 11.04.13 6:10am
No one is suggesting that you walk around taking pictures with your Surface Pro (or iPad). I don’t know why every time an issue with a camera appears – this illogical statement comes up. So what you’re saying is that the Surface 2 is justified in having a 1080p camera because people will walk around using that and Pro 2 people would not? Any use case scenario for the Surface 2 is as justified for the Pro 2. Which is why they should have included the better camera. Please tell me what situation a Surface 2 user will find themselves in that REQUIRES the use of a 1080p camera that a Pro 2 user would not, if they found themselves in that same exact situation?
What added cost would you have to pay for? Do you think 1080p cameras are prohibitively expensive? They are not. They are pretty much the norm in every phone and tablet these days. The cost to Microsoft with its volume and business would have been negligible. In fact by not having to put a 1080p camera, the cost probably went down so their profit is actually higher, since the price of the product didn’t go down. Also if you claim that the higher spec’d camera would cost you more, how is it that they replaced it going from Surface RT → Surface 2 yet still sold both devices at $450?
Sure the screen vs camera wasn’t the best comparison, but it was just to make a point. At the end of the day – no company makes 2 identical products, one more consumer aimed and one more professionally aimed and gives the consumer model which is cheaper priced, a higher spec’d part than the pro model – nobody does that. So why Microsoft decided to do so is silly.
By OMGitsShan on 11.04.13 9:21am
Engadget claims 14 hours for the Surface 2 and TheVerge claims 9 hours for the Surface Pro 2. Seems like Microsoft is pretty damn good at optimizing it’s own hardware.
So like what were all those articles I saw a few weeks ago about how Windows was this massive battery hog and that not even Microsoft with it’s own hardware could get good battery life with it?
By Roku on 11.04.13 11:03am
If they didn’t have all the extra sensors, Wacom digitizer, and 1080p touchscreen, I’m sure it would match the battery performance of the MacBook Air.
By ymcpa1 on 11.04.13 12:44pm
Maybe Surface RT user complained about the front camera because they typically used it in lighting conditions that weren’t so great, they took quite a bit of effort to show that off at the announcement.
Perhaps Pro users didn’t really complain because they typically used it in better lighting conditions, like in offices. Price is a valid factor here, regardless of how negligible.
By wixostrix on 11.04.13 11:40am
A lot of seniors and some parents do walk around taking photos with their iPads…
By XConan on 11.05.13 2:38am
You mean like if the put a higher rez screen in the iPad compared to the Mac Book Air?
Yea, that would piss some people off.
By Mafoo on 11.04.13 6:44am
Ahah.
By GrzegorzWidla on 11.04.13 6:46am
Video conference is done with the front camera – both the iPad and Surface Pro 2 have a 720p front camera.
By UgleTuna on 11.04.13 7:26am
But the surface 2 has a better low light front facing camera. They really should have included that in the pro2. It only adds a few bucks to the cost.
By ymcpa1 on 11.04.13 12:46pm
The second model is a massive improvement-why on earth do you need 1080p conferencing on a surface pro?
By Dissy on 11.04.13 11:32am
You don’t, but the larger sensor and better light sensitivity would be nice, regardless of resolution.
I’ve been in a few conference rooms that have been pretty dim (in order to see the projector) where it would be nice to have a better camera for videoconferencing.
By jhoff80 on 11.04.13 12:08pm
I don’t agree on the back camera. This is a heavier tablet and it would be foolish to use it to take pictures and videos. I’m pretty sure everyone who would buy a surface pro has a smartphone in their pocket. Use that. However, they should have put the new front facing camera that has better low light performance on the pro2. This is important for video conferencing and should have been included.
By ymcpa1 on 11.04.13 12:41pm
That percentage on Verge reviews never made sense to me. I would always find myself asking, “What exactly does 65% mean?” Considering that screens can often range anywhere from 200 to 400 nits in maximum brightness, I was puzzled that it was rarely questioned in the review comments.
Going for nearly 9 hours is no joke for a device that is lighter than an MacBook Air and running a faster processor with a higher resolution screen to boot.
By earthzero on 11.04.13 6:24am
And touch screen, and active digitizer, and almost twice as bright screen.
By GrzegorzWidla on 11.04.13 6:46am
Or 4 hours less than MacBook Air.
By jalexoid on 11.04.13 10:22am
Actually 1 hr if you consider 11’’ model.
By Juniorex on 11.04.13 10:54am
Apples to Oranges.
Higher resolution, brighter and touch screen. And also has a digitizer.
P.S: I’ve a 2013 13" MBA and I don’t get 13 hrs. It’s more like 10hrs. Average should be around somewhere between these numbers.
By yieldway17 on 11.04.13 11:07am
This one is as optimistic as the MBA test
By jalexoid on 11.04.13 2:56pm
IT is NOT 8 hours…IT IS 8 HOURS AND 51 Minutes…Almost 9 HOURS
By Eton on 11.04.13 5:48am
no. Plenty would be 24 hours. This is good and a nice improvement. But not plenty and not at all “all-day”. No device has “all-day” battery.
By TerionLanister on 11.04.13 6:56am
When people say “all-day”, they mean the work day, which typically lasts 8 hours for the average office worker. Not 24 hours.
By Entegy on 11.04.13 7:06am