[Any device] Battery usage for streaming media vs. downloading and playing locally

[virtuality]

Just interested in this question from a general, technological standpoint.

The device can be a tablet or a smartphone, Apple, Android or Windows.

The media can be music or video.

For the wireless network let's consider the one which makes the most usage time possible; I guess that will be either a strong Wi-Fi or LTE, depending on the device.

Considering the battery, and the hardware in general are optimized, as well as the apps for streaming and local playing.

The question: as a general rule, downloading and playing the media locally will give you more battery life than streaming same media from the cloud?

 

[rh71]

An active stream utilizing wifi/LTE the entire time? Of course.

But what kills battery life the most is still the screen.

 

[Zodiark1593]

On my G2, I've played about 20 minutes of video locally through MX Player with about 3% battery used. The video in question is a blu ray rip of Cardcaptor Sakura encoded in h.264 high profile and 1440x1080 resolution. Youtube over Wifi, I'm looking at about 6% for 20 minutes. Display was at 35% due to being night.

Honestly boggles my mind that our handheld devices can play hd video no problems with vastly less power use than even current cable boxes.

 

[paperwastage]

Honestly boggles my mind that our handheld devices can play hd video no problems with vastly less power use than even current cable boxes.

that's because we demand more from the devices we purchase, and battery life is important

power consumption isn't important in a cable box. cable box manufacturers listen to the cable companies, not to the downstream consumer. if the cable companies can get a cheaper cable box (in the expense of processing power/consumption power), they'll do it.

 

[core2slow]

Assuming that resolution/quality is the same for both format with the same screen brightness on the same device, watching anything locally will use up less battery.

Just think about it, your wifi/cell modem isn't running at full power, you're not using extra application processes in streaming the content from the cloud, and CPU throttling is generally more aggressive as less resources are being consumed.

 

[virtuality]

Sorry, I might not have been crystal clear

Clarification

A) First you download via wireless, then play locally same media (2 parts)

B) You stream via the wireless network

So, in A) I am asking for the battery consumption for both activities combined, compared to B).

Similar or different?

 

[paperwastage]

Sorry, I might not have been crystal clear

Clarification

A) First you download via wireless, then play locally same media (2 parts)

B) You stream via the wireless network

So, in A) I am asking for the battery consumption for both activities combined, compared to B).

Similar or different?

A) would be better.... download everything, and then you can shut off the wireless radio after.

for (B), the wireless radio will be awake for the whole 100% of the time to get the data on-demand
(unless your app does a preload-everything-to-local versus load ondemand... youtube loads on demand via DASH)

 

[gorcorps]

Sorry, I might not have been crystal clear

Clarification

A) First you download via wireless, then play locally same media (2 parts)

B) You stream via the wireless network

So, in A) I am asking for the battery consumption for both activities combined, compared to B).

Similar or different?

Your question doesn't make much sense... in both cases you're downloading the file from the network, storing it to memory (in case B it's temporary cache for buffering) and watching it on the display.

The difference is, case A would download it faster than you can play it I imagine vs. case B which is constantly "streaming" at the rate you can watch it. Case A should take less battery because the antenna is only active as long as the download lasts (which is less time than it takes to watch the file). Once you start playing locally it's no longer using the network, and only reading from memory.

Or you can break it down this way based on what uses the battery:

Screen on time: Case A = Case B (draw)
Antenna on time: Case A < Case B (case A wins)

 

[Zodiark1593]

that's because we demand more from the devices we purchase, and battery life is important

power consumption isn't important in a cable box. cable box manufacturers listen to the cable companies, not to the downstream consumer. if the cable companies can get a cheaper cable box (in the expense of processing power/consumption power), they'll do it.

As a kid, I used to covet any sort of ability to play my favorite shows on the go, going back to an old Aiptek camcorder watching a poor encode of Avatar: The Last Airbender at a glorious 340x240, and soon after, my 3rd gen Ipod Nano. Now, I've a bloody hd media center in my pocket. From my perspective, that is mind boggling.

 

[lopri]

Honestly boggles my mind that our handheld devices can play hd video no problems with vastly less power use than even current cable boxes.

AT did a testing many years ago and a minimum CPU on desktop for a flawless 1080p playback without GPU acceleration was Q6600.

 

[virtuality]

Screen on time: Case A = Case B (draw)
Antenna on time: Case A < Case B (case A wins)

Add that, in Case B the antenna uses less bandwidth /sec.

As you answered, the question might still make sense, I don't know.

 

[paperwastage]

Add that, in Case B the antenna uses less bandwidth /sec.

As you answered, the question might still make sense, I don't know.

but the total data transmitted is the same (you have to transfer 500MB of data... and it should take the same energy to move the same level of data, convert 0s&1s to electromagnetic waves, over 1 minute or over 10 minutes)

what you lose (in case B), is the overhead... you have to keep the antenna powered up for a longer time, and the overhead costs more