I run all the heavy stuff on a remote dev node. My laptop is just vscode+ssh, tmux in iTerm, a browser, Spotify and slack.

I have the chromebook, it's great. So easy to do linux stuff. I do wish the cpu scheduler or something related to chromeos could be improved for heavy cpu use. If I run firefox in the linux env, and I open a bunch of tabs, the fan spins up a good amount. It would be soooo much better if there was a way to tell chromeos to use a max amount of resources temporarily, like opening a web browser with lots of tabs. That's my only real complaint, when I overload the system with work.

Sorry, didn't notice the reply; if you let it running for a few while eventually it'll collect enough samples to show you the power consumption of the processes you have running in the terminal UI. Then you just look at the top ones in the list and see if there's a way to reduce power consumption, or quit using them altogether. I haven't used it enough to figure out how the reports work.

index -> intel

It's also a Linux issue that was ignored for years by users and done developers who instead pushed where possible reenabling clunkier older operating modes.

My understanding is that one of the reasons Linux on M-series macs doesn't have the problem is that Asahi team doesn't take similarly crappy attitude.

Also, the issue appears to show up on other 7040 Ryzen laptops, so I hope this finally gets us proper "modern sleep" support instead of instructions to disable it in firmware setup.

Apple's 22 hr rating for the 16" MBP is a maximum for a niche task, it's only (up to) 15 hrs of "wireless web", which is a more typical usage and would only be about 12 hrs worse.

All that configurability of the Framework takes up space, so its battery is 15% less (85 W/h compare to 100 W/h for the MBP).

The MBP has a CPU and instruction set that was optimized for low power from the beginning, compared to x86 which has 40 years of ad-hoc cruft and assumed wall power in the beginning, so it may not even be possible to implement the whole instruction set in low-power. (Intel tried, and did not succeed. Could be BigCO ineffeciencies, but could also be that it just isn't realistic.) But Intel/AMD can't switch architectures like Apple can, because they don't control the software. There's no guarantee that the buyer of a hypothetical improved instruction set Intel CPU has access to a Rosetta program (even if Intel had the imagination to do that). On top of that, Apple has been optimizing that CPU for 15 years, and is has access to the leading node.

Additionally, (presumably because of the lack of legacy cruft) Apple has space on their die for huge caches and the GPU. On-die GPU eliminates power consumption due to an additional discrete component. Large caches also help things go faster, which means the CPU can drop down to low-power mode quicker.

Since Apple owns the CPU, it can customize the CPU for its needs, and it has relentless optimized for low power consumption, even to the extent of putting in a few new instructions for the OS.

Apple owns the OS, so it can have all kinds of power-saving features that a mass-market OS like Windows cannot feasibly implement. It is not in Microsoft's interest to take advantage of every little power savings a motherboard manufacturer might add: extra complexity (= bugs and maintenance costs) with no extra revenue potential. Linux has a similar problem, and additionally there are enough problems needing attention that I expect power optimizations beyond the big ones just do not have the interest / resources. For instance, if a 5% improvement would require a large kernel / driver refactor, I suspect it's a hard sell. Plus, macOS doesn't need to support anywhere near the number of configurations that Linux does, so it probably is less effort to do. So all those 5% increases that Apple can do add up.

Then there is the aspect that Apple can tune its OS for power saving. Update Cocoa to save energy and everyone's app uses less power. I expect GTK and Qt have other more pressing problems. On top of that, I expect Wayland and especially Xorg are not designed with minimal power consumption in mind. Etc, all the way down.

That said, 2.5 hrs does seem like it could definitely be improved.

It's not Linux-branded to be fair (they label it as a "DIY" device that ships with no OS), but yeah.. I'm not really one to deviate too far from the defaults on a device I use for work.