A growing discussion in the laptop community highlights a stark contrast in power management between Framework laptops and Apple Silicon devices. While Framework's modular design philosophy has won praise for repairability, users are reporting significant battery drain issues that make the devices frustrating for daily use.
The conversation was sparked by a user's experience comparing their MacBook M1 Pro with a Framework 13 AMD laptop. After three weeks of being closed but not turned off, the MacBook retained 90% battery charge. In contrast, the Framework 13 with AMD Ryzen 7840HS frequently goes dead after just 2-3 days of inactivity, losing an estimated 3-4% battery per hour during suspend mode.
 |
|---|
| The blog post "Why I'm Spoiled By Apple Silicon (But Still Love Framework)" contrasts the battery performance of Apple and Framework laptops, reflecting on user experiences |
The Linux Sleep Problem
The battery drain issue appears to stem from fundamental problems with sleep states on Linux systems. Modern laptops use modern standby (S0) instead of traditional deep sleep (S3), which should allow devices to stay connected while consuming minimal power. However, this implementation works poorly on most x86 laptops running Linux.
Community members point to a critical limitation: secure boot and kernel lockdown mode prevent proper hibernation on Linux systems. Without the ability to hibernate to disk, laptops cannot achieve the ultra-low power consumption that users expect. This creates a frustrating situation where security features directly conflict with power efficiency.
The complaint about power usage in suspend is especially sad because it's pretty much a common problem for Linux on laptops.
Hardware Integration Makes the Difference
The superior battery life of Apple Silicon devices isn't solely due to ARM architecture. Instead, it results from Apple's tight control over both hardware and software. Apple designs every component to work together efficiently, from the processor's power states to how the operating system schedules tasks.
This vertical integration allows Apple to optimize power management at every level. The M-series chips can scale down to extremely low power states, the screen can drop to 1Hz refresh rates when displaying static content, and the system intelligently coalesces tasks to minimize wake-ups. Framework laptops, using standard PC components and generic Linux distributions, cannot achieve this level of optimization.
The Modular Design Trade-off
Framework's commitment to modularity and repairability may inherently limit power efficiency. Swappable NVMe drives include their own controllers that manage power independently, potentially consuming 0.8W even at idle. User-replaceable DDR5 memory modules lack the voltage optimizations of soldered LPDDR5 chips found in MacBooks.
Different combinations of RAM and storage can dramatically affect battery life. Community testing shows suspend times varying from 2.25 days with high-capacity memory kits to nearly 8 days with more efficient modules. This variability makes it nearly impossible for Framework to optimize power management for every possible configuration.
Workarounds and Future Solutions
Many Framework users have adapted by keeping their laptops plugged in or shutting down completely rather than using sleep mode. Some have found success with specific Linux configurations, reporting battery drain of just 1% per hour during suspend, though this still falls far short of Apple's performance.
The community remains hopeful for ARM-based Framework mainboards, which could potentially address some power efficiency issues. However, the fundamental challenge of optimizing a modular system across countless hardware combinations would likely persist. Until then, Framework users must choose between the benefits of repairability and the convenience of all-day battery life.
Reference: Why I'm Spoiled By Apple Silicon (But Still Love Framework)