[General Topics] Menneisyys:
UPDATE (05/05/2008):

1.	There’re some additional speed comparisons HERE stating the 210 is faster than the hx4700 in everyday situations.

2.	I also need to emphasize the 210 has 128Mbytes of RAM, unlike the hx4700. If you’re a power user, this may be advantageous – you can keep many apps open at the same time without having to close any of them (or let the system shut down some arbitrarily).

3.	To see how usable a connection to an external cellular phone is, I’ve made some long-time HSDPA tests with the v21 Nokia N95. It worked just great; after downloading 300 Mbytes (and uploading about 40), the charge meter still showed about 4 bars on the Nokia, meaning it still retained about 20-40% of its charge. This means you can download about 500 Mbytes with one charge over HSDPA if you use the 210 with the Nokia N95 with its latest firmware. (Note that the figures may wildly vary with UMTS or, even worse, GPRS / EDGE only. With them, you will most probably encounter far worse battery life – after all, UMTS and HSDPA streaming / download consumes approximately the same power but the net throughput of HSDPA is, of course, much higher – even over a non-EDR Bluetooth modem connection, where it’s restricted to 72 kbytes/s, while the N95, at least in Vodafone’s network, is currently capable of downloading at about 250 kbytes/s over HSDPA.) The network conditions through this were excellent, with strong signal and, at most, walking speeds (some of the tests have been conducted while taking a walk).

4.	I’ve continued making some serious power usage tests to find out both the power consumption of the wireless units and the PXA310 CPU. (After all, the major selling point of the new PXA310 architecture is the allegedly much lower power consumption.)

The results are acceptable but in no way stellar. All the tests have been measured under exactly the same circumstances: no CF / SD cards; minimal backlight WITHOUT enabling auto-brightness (which would have further decreased the backlight) etc. and are, consequently, usable for at least relative ratio computation. I’ve tried to make at least two tests of all tests, each lasting at least one hour long (with some tests, I’ve waited for three hours). All percentages are given in the voltage level decrease in an hour.

~0% CPU usage, no wireless activity: 8% / hour

100% CPU usage (Orions), no speaker, just idling (but still consuming 100% CPU time): 18% / hour

100% CPU usage (Orions), A2DP sound & actively playing: 24% / hour

YouTube & CorePlayer, HSDPA via non-EDR BT: 18 (with A2DP)…22% (with headphones at 50% volume) / hour

YouTube, Wi-Fi (with built-in speaker at max volume): 28 % / hour

The latter figure, incidentally, is pretty much in correspondence with the 3:28 total runtime with the Wi-Fi multimedia streaming test in Adama D. Brown’s review (see section “High Drain Test” HERE)

The Wi-Fi-less (Bluetooth only) YouTube figures are somewhat lower than the Orions figures. The reason for this is simple: when playing back YouTube, the CPU usage generally isn’t at 100%, unlike with Orions, but at 80%. This is even lower when YouTube is buffering (but NOT during every single buffering!); see the low valleys in the following acbTaskMan shot (look for the red line!):

All in all, efficiency- and power saving-wise, I’ve expected far-far more of the new PXA310 platform. (This is in no way HP’s fault!) Remember my previous power usage tests: there, I’ve measured (see section 1.3.2 Stream formats HERE) about 70% more net power usage with high CPU usage. These tests clearly show the PXA310 still consumes way more power with high CPU loads than running under light load. In this respect, even the old and otherwise heavily outdated Samsung SC32442 architecture is far better (again, see my power measurement results HERE, in the second part of UPDATE (01/03/2008) at the bottom).

5.	Finally, I’ve made some serious recharging measurements too (making several tests with radically different starting charge level to be absolutely sure the results aren’t dependent on the initial charge level). The main reason for this was my wanting to see how different USB rechargers compare to the 2A wall charger coming with the 210. I’ve tested two USB rechargers: a 0.5A (coming with the BlackBerry 8800) and a 1A one (coming with the HTC Wizard).

USB recharging:

Fast:

1A Wizard charger: 24% / hour

0.5A BB: 24% / hour

As can be seen, there’s absolutely no difference between the 0.5A BB and the 1A Wizard charger. Given that recharging a 2200 mAh battery takes definitely more than 0.5A (but in no way close to 1A) to be finished in 4.16 hours, this shows the BB charger is able to provide more than 0.5 Ampers. The results, on the other hand, also show that there isn’t much point in using USB chargers capable of providing more than 1A because it simply won’t be made advantage of.

Slow:

0.5A BB: 4% / hour

Yes, the slow recharging rate is indeed very slow: one-sixth of the fast charging. Assuming the latter uses (up to) 600 mA, this means slow recharging restricts the current to around 100 mA. This will, on the other hand, surely be compatible with every USB port out there – even those of other PDA’s like the Pocket Loox 720 :)

Wall charger test

Finally, the 2A wall charger test, ~38% / hour, clearly shows the factory iPAQ charger will always be 60% faster than any USB wall charger. This is really-really useful to know. Now, I only hope HP does release a cinch -> 24-pin synch slot power converter to greatly speed up the recharging with traditional 2A iPAQ chargers. These came as a factory accessory with all past models (or, at least, the iPAQ h2210 and the hx4700) – it’s probably because of the lack of the cradle that HP has left it out from the factory pack.