Latest IT Computers Techonology 2012

Intel SSD 520 Cherryville Brings Reliability to SandForce

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:23:00 +0000

Intel was rumored to be working on a SandForce based drive for several months now, but even the rumors couldn't encapsulate just how long Intel and SF has worked on this drive. According to Intel, the relationship began 1.5 years ago. Still lacking a 6Gbps controller of their own and wanting to remain competitive with the rest of the market, Intel approached SandForce about building a drive based on the (at the time) unreleased SF-2281 controller. Roughly six months later, initial testing and validation began on the drive. That's right, around the time that OCZ was previewing the first Vertex 3 Pro, Intel was just beginning its extensive validation process.

Codenamed Cherryville, Intel's SSD 520 would go through a full year of validation before Intel would sign off on the drive for release. In fact, it was some unresolved issues that cropped up during Intel's validation that pushed Cherryville back from the late 2011 release to today.

Intel's strenuous validation will eventually make SandForce's drives better for everyone, but for now the Cherryville firmware remains exclusive. Intel wouldn't go on record with details of its arrangement with SandForce, but from what I've managed to piece together the Intel Cherryville firmware is exclusive for a limited period of time. That exclusivity agreement likely expires sometime after the SF-2281 is replaced by a 3rd generation controller. There are some loopholes that allow SandForce to port bug fixes to general partner firmware but the specific terms aren't public information. The important takeaway is anything fixed in Intel's firmware isn't necessarily going to be fixed in other SF-2281 based drives in the near term. This is an important distinction because although Cherryville performs very similarly to other SF-2281 drives, it should be more reliable.

As Intel has been working on this firmware for quite a while, it's likely that the 520 uses an older branch of the SF-2281 firmware that has been updated over the past twelve months.

The BSOD is Back, but Not on Intel

Back in October SandForce announced that it had discovered a firmware issue that resulted in unexpected BSODs on SF-2281 drives on certain platforms. Why it took SandForce several months to discover the bug that its customers had been reporting for a while is a separate issue entirely. SandForce quickly pushed out the firmware to OCZ and other partners. Our own internal testing revealed that the updated firmware seemed to have cured the infamous BSOD.
Just as background, our SSD testing is rarely over once the review goes live. Any drive we recommend gets tossed into a primary use machine somewhere within the company. We keep track of drive behavior, including any bugs or performance issues over time. This long term testing process takes place over months. The results of these long term tests are folded into future reviews and recommendations.

The BSOD is caused by a bug in SandForce's power state logic that ultimately results in the drive disconnecting from the system while it's running. It turns out that Windows isn't a fan of you hot un-plugging the drive it's running on, which results in the BSOD. We had two systems that exhibited the BSOD, both of which were fixed by the update last October.

As luck would have it, our own Brian Klug happened to come across an unexpected crash with his 240GB non-Intel SF-2281 based SSD two weeks ago when he migrated it to another machine. The crash was an F4 BSOD, similar in nature to the infamous BSOD issue from last year. While two of the systems we reproduced the BSOD bug on were cured by last year's firmware update, Brian's system (an X58/Core i7 build) was BSODing regularly playing Battlefield 3. Games end up being a great way to trigger the SF-2281 BSOD issue as they frequently switch between periods of idle and load, which does a good job of stressing the power state logic in SandForce's firmware. I immediately sent Brian an Intel SSD 520 to see if the BSOD remained on Intel's drive. Switching to Cherryville caused Brian's BSODs to go away. Indeed most end user reports of SF-2281 BSODs went away with the fixed firmware, but we've still heard of isolated issues that remain unresolved. Whatever Intel has done with the 520's firmware seems to have fixed problems that still remain in the general SF-2281 firmware.

This is actually a dangerous precedent as it means one of two things. The first possibility is that SandForce has been made aware of flaws in its current firmware and chooses against (or is legally prevented from) disclosing it to its partners. The second possibility, and arguably even worse for SandForce, is that Intel was able to identify and fix a bug in the SF-2281 firmware without SandForce knowing it existed or was addressed. I suspect it's the former but as no one is willing to go on the record about the Intel/SandForce agreement I can't be certain.

Intel did go on record saying that the 520 is expected to have far fewer F4/F7 BSODs than any other SF-2281 drive. I asked Intel if I should read into the phrase "far fewer", but the answer was no - the 520 is expected to have similar reliability to the Intel SSD 510 and 320.

At the end of the day that's what Intel really brings to the table with the 520. As you'll soon see, performance isn't very different compared to other SF-2281 based drives. Intel's biggest advantage comes from the unique firmware that ships with the drive. Intel is also quick to point out that while other SF-2281 manufacturers can purchase the same Intel 25nm MLC NAND used on the 520, only Intel's drives get the absolute highest quality bins and only Intel knows how best to manage/interact with the NAND on a firmware level. While it's nearly impossible to prove most of this, the fact that we're still able to reproduce a BSOD on the latest publicly available SF-2281 firmware but not on the SF-2281 based Intel SSD 520 does say a lot about what you're paying for with this drive.

And you are paying a premium for the 520 compared to other SF-2281 based SSDs on the market today:

Intel SSD 520 Price Comparison
	60GB	120GB	180GB	240GB	480GB
Intel SSD 520 (SF-2281)	$149	$229	$369	$509	$999
Kingston HyperX (SF-2281)	N/A	$205	N/A	$420	N/A
OCZ Vertex 3 (SF-2281)	$95	$190	$240	$375	$850
Samsung SSD 830	$110	$220	N/A	$360	$800

Last year Intel hinted at a move from the consumer market to enterprise server and client markets. The 520's higher price likely won't matter there, but for consumers the higher price is noticeable - particularly with good options from companies like Samsung now available on the market.

Introducing Dell Inspiron One 2320 Specifications

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:20:00 +0000

Our last Windows all-in-one review was for HP's TouchSmart 610, an interesting if slightly pricey piece of desktop kit. HP brought a lot of innovation to the table but they couldn't quite patch over the underlying problems with the hardware and software ecosystems that keep a touch-based all-in-one from really achieving all it can. Today we have on hand the Dell Inspiron One 2320, complete with Dell's own touch-based software interface and its own bells and whistles. Is Dell able to smooth over those issues better than HP could, or did they stumble on to some new ones?

What surprised me out of the gate was that Dell opted to go for a much less adjustable stand than any of HP's or even Toshiba's all-in-ones (one of which we have in house); the Inspiron One 2320 has two legs and then it just sort of reclines on its own. That makes it simultaneously more and less user-friendly than the competition; there's something about it that feels more approachable, but at the same time it's really less adjustable than the other ones, and with a TN panel that really spells trouble. Let's hit the specs before we go any further.

Dell Inspiron One 2320 Specifications
Processor	Intel Core i5-2400S (4x2.5GHz, 3.3GHz Turbo, 32nm, 6MB L3, 65W)
Chipset	Intel H61
Memory	2x4GB Hynix DDR3-1333 SODIMM (Max 2x4GB)
Graphics	NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M 1GB DDR3 (96 CUDA cores, 600/1.2GHz/1.8GHz core/shader/memory clocks, 128-bit memory bus)
Display	23" LED Glossy 16:9 1080p
Hard Drive(s)	Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB 7200-RPM SATA 6Gbps HDD
Optical Drive	Blu-ray reader/DVD+/-RW writer (HL-DT-ST CT30N)
Networking	Realtek PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6230 802.11a/b/g/n Bluetooth 3.0
Audio	Realtek ALC269 HD Audio Stereo speakers Headphone and mic jacks
Front Side	Webcam Speaker grilles
Right Side	Optical drive Input button Power button
Left Side	Brightness control Volume control Headphone and mic jacks 2x USB 2.0 SD/MMC/XD/MS Pro card reader
Back Side	Kensington lock HDMI input Composite input Optical out Antenna jack Antenna jack for NTSC/OTA ATSC input VGA output Ethernet jack Surround jack 4x USB 2.0 (one taken by wireless mouse and keyboard receiver)
Operating System	Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Dimensions	22.25" x 2.5" x 17" (WxDxH)
Weight	18.85 lbs
Extras	Webcam Wireless keyboard and mouse Flash reader (MMC, SD/Mini SD, MS/Duo/Pro/Pro Duo) Blu-ray writer Touchscreen JBL speakers
Warranty	1-year basic support (optional 3-year)
Pricing	Starting at $599 Price as configured: $1,249

As with HP's TouchSmart 610, Dell's Inspiron One opts for a mix of desktop and notebook hardware. The CPU is a low-power desktop model, the Intel Core i5-2400S clocked at 2.5GHz and capable of turbo-ing up to 3.3GHz on a single core or 2.6GHz on all four non-Hyper-Threaded cores. Instead of desktop DIMMs, though, Dell only offers two SO-DIMM slots, each with 4GB of DDR3, more than adequate for even demanding use cases.

The graphics hardware takes the hit, though. I ranted a bit about the lack of a proper ecosystem in my HP TouchSmart 610 review, but here it's particularly egregious. Dell opts for a lowly NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M as the fastest GPU you can get in the Inspiron One 2320 line. The desktop GeForce GT 430 it's descended from was already pretty dire to begin with, but just 96 CUDA cores running at 600MHz (1.2GHz on the shaders) and just 1.8GHz of DDR3 on a 128-bit memory bus isn't going to cut it for a 1080p display. We've tested this chip on Dell's XPS 15z as well, and really it's only good for medium detail 7680p gaming. This is the same issue I had with HP's all-in-one, only here it's amplified because there had to have been thermal headroom in the Inspiron One 2320 for at least the GeForce GT 540M. I'd complain about that, too, but not quite so vocally.

When I spoke to HP's representative about the meager graphics hardware in the TouchSmart, she suggested that it was really meant to be more of a family computer and thus didn't need particularly aggressive graphics hardware. That may be the case, but it undermines the necessity of a dedicated GPU to begin with. If the integrated HD 2000/3000 graphics are inadequate, you probably plan on doing at least some gaming, so you'll want more. The fact is that these mobile graphics chips were designed for notebooks with 768p screens, and at that resolution they're fine. On an all-in-one, though, they're much harder to justify and really speak to a fundamental problem with the all-in-one ecosystem: we need an in-between point for graphics hardware. What we really need for "upscale" 1080p AIO systems is at least GT 555M or (preferably) GTX 560M level hardware; we've seen such chips in 14" and 15" notebooks; would it really be that hard to stuff something faster into a significantly larger AIO system? The GT 525M upgrade from the base model Inspiron One 2320 ends up costing over $200, and for that price it just doesn't add enough performance.

The rest of the Inspiron One 2320 is capable enough, and Dell seems to be gunning for more of a true family machine with it by including VGA, composite, and HDMI inputs, suggesting that even when the computer inside it isn't particularly great anymore, you can still use it as a monitor. It also supports Intel's WiDi, and the hard drive inside is a full 3.5" drive.

Intel Manufactured Board Siler DX79SI Review as X79

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:13:00 +0000

Reviews of Intel manufactured boards are something of a rarity. They are not marketed in the same way other motherboards are – almost not at all in comparison. It could be argued that reviews are only seen coming at the start of a chipset release, coinciding with what we as reviewers get in our media kits from Intel itself. However, to an enthusiast, it is strange to say that they sell well – consumers or system builders wanting to pair a processor with a board without hassle can go straight in at an Intel motherboard/processor combo.

The question is with an enthusiast platform such as X79, would you really want to deal with an Intel board?
Internally, I have to question how big Intel’s consumer motherboard design team is. We know their processor and chipset design groups must be comparatively huge to pump out all the products we see on our shelves. But to produce only one or two consumer motherboards with each chipset, it comes into question whether an Intel board would contain all the features, updates (cf. BIOS later), performance and competitiveness when compared to products from third party vendors, for which motherboards are their main business. Our last reviews of P55 and H57 show that Intel usually plays it safe – having a working product on their end is more important than bells and whistles. However in a market where a ‘working product’ should be the de facto standard, Intel invariably has tough competition.

Overview

The DX79SI ‘Siler’ motherboard from Intel is a hard one to summarize. If I were being lazy, I could merely say ‘it works’, however there is more to that than meets the eye. In some areas, it gives more than standard – e.g. dual gigabit Ethernet. But with one hand it gives and the other it takes away, with no option for teaming.
Users of Intel boards of past will notice the continuing ‘skull’ theme in a blue/black miasma of components and connectors, which unlike previous iterations do not light up. The board sports the bare minimum from the SATA connectors, as well as a lack of thought to the PCIe layout for anyone using more than one GPU. The PCIe are only rated for Gen 2, which isn’t surprising – other vendors sporting Gen 3 compatibility are outside X79 specifications for now.

The BIOS itself is simple and functional; however do not expect anything spectacular. While ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI and the test have teams of designers for graphical interfaces, Intel does get left behind in its application of a basic system still. It is not always clear what is a menu and what is not, however one thing I do like is that the text turns yellow when you change it, making it easy to see what default is. This makes looking at the Auto OC options a lot easier. The ‘Back2BIOS’ switch on the IO panel is a feature I hope other vendors adopt as well.

Performance is nothing to shout about, and the Intel software is, while visually quite easy to navigate, ultimately limiting. There are no ‘easy’ menus, requiring the user to know the ins and outs of a motherboard in order to use it. No OS fan controls either – those are strictly in the BIOS. If the media sample I received for this review is indicative of a retail package, while the mouse mat addition is slightly amusing, there are no SATA cables, but an SLI connector and a Bluetooth/wifi module included.
The Intel DX79SI ‘Siler’ motherboard is expected to retail for approximately $290-$300 and comes with a 3-year limited warranty.

Visual Inspection

If we ignore the skull heatsink for a second, the Intel board actually looks fairly busy on the PCB, with almost every nook and cranny filled with a trace to some component or another. As with all X79 products, the area consumed by the socket and memory (in this case, 8 DIMMS, 2 per channel) is just under half the board in itself. The power delivery heatsink at the top is by itself and very simple, possibly leading to overclocking issues or throttling later on.

The main CPU fan header is at a slightly odd place, to the left of the DIMMs. This requires the fan cable to go over the memory (hopefully your fan cable will be long enough), which could be an issue if a user decides to actively cool their memory. The red fan headers on board actually almost follow four points of a compass, with a rear fan header by the IO, a front header by the SATA ports, and an auxiliary fan header next to the power/reset switches.

The PCH is covered by that low profile passive ‘skull’ design, which actually hides a relatively small heatsink underneath, hence the connection via heatpipe to a proper air cooled fin arrangement in the middle of the board. To the right of this skull design are the SATA ports, all from the PCH, so two SATA 6 Gbps (blue) and four SATA 3 Gbps (black). Users will note that there are no extra SATA controllers on board, so there are no extra SATA ports or eSATA.

Next to the power/reset buttons is a series of LEDs, indicating what part of the POST process is working. This works in conjunction with the 2-digit debug LED also on board. I can much use for this in case errors arrive, however there are no options in the BIOS to turn these lights off. Depending on the case used (varying from bland to windowed) to house the system, these lights could provide an unwelcome aesthetic effect.

One of my main criticisms with the motherboard is the PCIe layout. In order, we have a PCIe x16, x1, x16, PCI, x16 (limited to x8), x1. The issue lies in double-width dual GPU setups, whereby the GPUs have to be placed into the x16 slots by order. This leaves no gap between the GPUs for happy airflow – during my dual GTX580 tests on an open bench test bed, I was surprised and worried about the heat generation, which would only freak me out if it were in a case. A lot of motherboard manufacturers in X79 should be placing the first and second PCIe slots at least an extra PCIe width apart, allowing for sufficient airflow, however Intel have gone for the ‘it works’ route here.

At various levels, the IO panel is a little disappointing. It’s very basic, showcasing two USB 3.0, six USB 2.0, dual gigabit Ethernet (Intel NICs of course), Firewire, optical S/PDIF output and audio jacks. The plus point here is the Back2BIOS button on the left, which when in ‘on’ mode, glows red and always boots into the BIOS. Another click and the system will boot normally. This would be handy for certain boards that connect the USB late in the POST sequence, making it a hassle to use the keyboard to enter the BIOS.

There is a big gap in the I/O, suggesting that Intel have skimped on perhaps some more USB 3.0 or eSATA to plug the gap.

ASUS Zenbookan All-Aluminum CNC Chassis. (UX21) Review

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:49:00 +0000

Tablets have introduced a number of great features that are currently without equal in the notebook space. They are ultra light, extremely responsive, have tremendous battery life and are generally instant-on devices. Tablets however, aren't that great for being productive on, leaving good reason to still carry around a notebook. As both platforms continue to grow you'll see them learn from one another. Updates to the tablet experience in iOS 5 for example are clearly built around improving productivity. What about the notebook PC though? What is being done there to make it more tablet-like? This is where Intel's Ultrabook category of notebook PCs comes into play.

Ultrabooks today are simply ultra portable notebooks with a few requirements. They need to be thin, light, have a fast CPU (Sandy Bridge will do for now) and use some form of solid state storage. The SSD requirement helps OEMs guarantee that these Ultrabooks will have reasonable response time (application, boot and wake). Despite the tablet comparison, Ultrabooks aren't intended to go up against ARM based tablets. Intel will eventually have an Atom powered answer in that space, although we likely won't see it until Windows 8 ships.

Hardware specs alone aren't enough to bridge the tablet gap, which is why Intel views new features through software as a major part of the Ultrabook play. Intel expects Ultrabooks won't really go mainstream until sometime in late 2012-2013, so this first wave of notebooks are really nothing more than ultraportable PCs. If you look close enough, they may even look like MacBook Air clones. With the Ivy Bridge and Haswell updates, Intel is expecting to expand the impact of what Ultrabooks mean but today they are pretty much well designed notebooks with a fancy name.

That's not to say that Ultrabooks can't be impressive. In fact, impressive is probably the best way to describe ASUS' first Ultrabook: the Zenbook. Available in 11.6-inch and 13.3-inch varieties, the Zenbook focuses on user experience and aesthetics more than any previous ASUS notebook. ASUS sent us the 11-inch UX21E-DH71, but the full spec list is below:

ASUS Zenbook Lineup
	UX21E-DH52	UX21E-DH71	UX31E-DH52	UX31E-DH53	UX31E-DH72
CPU	i5-2467M	i7-2677M	i5-2557M	i5-2557M	i7-2677M
OS	Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Display	11.6-inch 1366 x 768		13.3-inch 1600 x 900
Memory	4GB DDR3
Storage	128GB 6Gbps SSD			256GB 6Gbps SSD
Wireless Connectivity	802.11 b/g/n, Bluetooth 4.0
Battery	35Whr (5+ Hours) up to 7 day standby		50Whr (7+ Hours) up to 10 day standby
Camera	0.3MP
Audio	Bang and Olufsen ICEpower & ASUS SonicMaster Tech
I/O	1 x USB 2, 1 x USB 3, 1x audio/mic, 1x microHDMI, 1x miniVGA		1 x USB 2, 1 x USB 3, 1 x audio/mic, 1 x microHDMI, 1 x miniVGA, 1 x SD Card reader
Dimensions	11.7 x 7.7 x 0.11-0.67"		12.8 x 8.8 x 0.11-0.71"
Weight	2.43 lbs		2.86 lbs
USA MSRP	$999	$1199	$1099	$1349	$1499

The Chassis

The Zenbook is built out of an all-aluminum chassis. ASUS starts with a block of aluminum and uses a CNC mill to carve out the chassis. The resulting chassis is extremely rigid and devoid of all perceivable flex. The only removable panel on the Zenbook is underneath the chassis, limiting the user's interaction with non-keyboard components that aren't built out of a single piece of metal.

The main chassis has a vertically brushed pattern on it while a circular brushing pattern is used on the display lid. the two parts of the Zenbook are also colored differently, with the main body featuring a platinum silver while the display uses a darker steel color.

In a nod to just how design focused ASUS was with the Zenbook, even the 10 screws on the bottom of the chassis feature the same brushed pattern as the rest of the chassis. ASUS elected to use torx bits instead of standard phillips heads to better match the industrial design of the system. While I appreciate the attention to detail I think I'd be happier if ASUS had stuck to standard screws.
Venting is obvious on the Zenbook, ASUS does nothing to hide it:

The effect is both elegant and functional. In using and benchmarking the system I definitely heard the fans spin up, but the chassis never got uncomfortably warm—even when looping Cinebench while typing this paragraph. Part of that is due to Intel's low voltage Sandy Bridge CPU, but part of it is because ASUS' design isn't embarassed to admit it needs air to cool the CPU.

The UX21's two speakers point downward and together produce a surprisingly decent sound. It's better than the 11-inch MacBook Air for sure.

ASUS includes a small lip on the display cover to aid in actually getting the machine open. Lifting the lid on any of these ultra slim machines isn't easy (as you're liable to lift the entire laptop instead of just the lid) but the lip does help a bit.

The display hinge is reasonably stiff. I'm able to hold the Zenbook up with the display perpendicular to the ground and not have the hinge give under the force of gravity. Picking up the Zenbook and shaking it a bit will allow the hinge to move as you'd expect, but overall it seems pretty resistent to unintended motion.

ASUS printed a pattern of very tiny hexagons on the surface of the hinge, giving the impression of perforation. On my sample one of those printed hexagons appeared slightly out of place, which in turn made it looked like my Zenbook had a clogged pore on its hinge. If you're the OCD type you better hope yours turns out perfectly.

With that minor exception I have to really commend ASUS on a job well done with the Zenbook's design. It's easily the most beautiful PC notebook I've ever laid hands (and eyes) on and even stands out more than a MacBook Air thanks to its brushed aluminum surface. Apple's design does look a bit more cohesive in my eyes, while the ASUS' Zenbook is more on the tastefully flashy side. Either way it's absolutely gorgeous and one of those things you just have to see to appreciate. I haven't been able to take a photo of the Zenbook that I believe adequately captures just how good this thing looks.

The design is quite functional as well. Thanks to the slim profile of the Zenbook and its diminutive weight, the UX21 is an absolute pleasure to carry. It's the pinnacle of portability without sacrificing the functionality of a keyboard. A tablet sure is nicer to carry, but the UX21 is much easier to type on.

The entire design is a bit more curvy than the current MacBook Air but it feels great in your hands. If you're used to Apple's aluminum the Zenbook may feel a bit tougher but the edge is something you get used to over time. After a few days of using it, the Zenbook UX21 felt just as comfortable to me as the MacBook Air.
I'm personally a fan of the 11-inch form factor as I believe, with Sandy Bridge, it delivers a great balance of portability and performance. If you do a lot of writing, it's a great companion.

USB 3.0: Supported

The Zenbook UX21 features two USB ports: one 2.0 port driven off of the QS67 chipset and one USB 3.0 port powered by a Fresco Logic FL1009 controller. Why not feature two USB 3.0 ports? The Fresco Logic controller supports two ports but the 11-inch chassis required that one port be allocated per side. The USB 2.0 port actually resides on a daughterboard on the other side of the system from the USB 3.0 controller. It looks like there wasn't a clean way to route the traces from the FL controller to that side of the system, which is why you get 1 x USB 2.0 and 1 x 3.0 port.

The performance advantage of USB 3.0 is beyond obvious. I measured large file transfer rate across both ports and saw the following results: 149MB/s on USB 3.0, 26MB/s on USB 2.0 port.
After being stuck in a number of situations where I was forced to copy files via USB stick, I definitely appreciate systems that come with USB 3.0 support.

No Backlit Keyboard

The Zenbook unfortunately doesn't ship with a backlit keyboard. I asked ASUS why it opted not to include one, worrying that the decision was somehow price-related. It turns out it was simply a time to market issue. Designing anything this slim is difficult and ASUS needed extra time to build a keyboard lighting system that would work in the Zenbook's chassis. In the interest of getting product out the door in early Q4, ASUS abandoned the idea of doing a backlit keyboard this generation. It's quite possible we'll see one next round with Ivy Bridge.

No SD Card Reader in the 11-inch Model

Just like Apple, ASUS only includes an SD card reader in the 13-inch UX31 and not the 11-inch UX21 models. Looking inside the chassis it's plainly obvious why:

The SD card reader would have to either occupy the area of one of the USB ports, or take out a chunk of area reserved for the integrated battery. Neither sacrifice seemed to make sense to ASUS and as a result the 11 doesn't include an SD card reader.

A Slick Looking Power Brick

While I can't quite pinpoint ASUS' source of inspiration for the Zenbook UX21's 45W power brick design, the end product looks great. Cable management is handled via a standard velcro strap and the power connector itself has an LED on it that glows orange when charging or green when fully charged. Unfortunately It also glows green when it's not connected, which can cause confusion if you plug it in but don't push the connector in all the way. Is it fully charged or just not fully connected? Guessing is half the fun!

The Relocated CoA: Microsoft Approved

In our earlier coverage I pointed out that ASUS had moved Microsoft's required Certificate of Authenticity to the power brick, something that's usually located on the system itself. Microsoft mandates the sticker's placement on the system, however there is a clean PC program an OEM can apply for in order to somewhat skirt the requirement. ASUS did apply for and was approved, allowing it the luxury of moving that CoA sticker to the power adapter. While it does improve the beauty of the machine, it also means that if you lose your power adapter you do lose your CoA.

Microsoft and Intel were also petitioned to allow greyscale versions of their respective product logos. ASUS' request was also approved, which is why you see less obnoxious Intel inside and Windows 7 stickers on the Zenbook.

Intel's Rapid Start & Smart Connect Technologies: Not Supported

At Computex earlier this year Intel announced two technologies that would be featured in some Ultrabooks starting this year: Rapid Start and Smart Connect.

Rapid Start sounds a lot like hibernate to NAND, promising 6 second start times from a very low power state. You can get even quicker start times from suspend to RAM, but you sacrifice standby battery life as you have to keep refreshing data stored in DRAM while your system is asleep. Rapid Start gets around this issue by apparently storing some, but not all, data in DRAM—reducing the burden on the battery while asleep, and reducing the amount of data that needs to be read off the SSD upon wakeup.

ASUS felt that even a 6 second start time was too long and instead went after reducing STR power consumption. The result is a sub 2 second wake time (from sleep, not full off) and a ~9 day standby time on a full charge. ASUS wouldn't detail exactly how it managed to increase STR battery life, just that it spent a lot of time studying what electrical components could be shut down to save power and implements a bunch of its own tricks that its competitors haven't seemed to figure out. The Apple comparison is inevitable as the MacBook Air is rated for much longer standby time; presumably the advantage there is largely OS X related.

Intel's Smart Connect Technology is another Ultrabook feature that isn't present on the Zenbook. The idea behind this one is to have a layer of software that would periodically wake your system up while asleep and fetch all new updates (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Emails). With Smart Connect enabled, when you actually do wake up your machine it should be far more up-to-date than it would've been normally. In order to enable Smart Connect you need Intel's WiFi solution. ASUS chose an Atheros WiFi card and as a result there's no Smart Connect here.

The ASUS Power Wizard Gadget

All Zenbooks ship with ASUS' PowerWiz Windows Gadget that gives you some battery life estimates. Based on internal ASUS test data and the current amount of battery remaining, the tool estimates how long your battery will last for various workloads. This data is all static in the sense that it is based on predetermined values and not your current workload.

The standby battery life estimate however is a bit more accurate. Every time you put your Zenbook to sleep, ASUS monitors power usage for a full minute. Based on that power usage it then determines standby time given remaining battery capacity. Since standby power depends in part on what you have in memory, this method of estimation can significantly improve accuracy. Granted you'll always get a trailing estimate (e.g. this is how long your battery would last in stand by if you're doing exactly what you did last time you put it to sleep) but it's better than nothing I suppose.

ASUS Eee Pad Slider Regardless of OS Review

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:11:00 +0000

I understand the appeal of tablets. Regardless of OS, they all provide a far more intimate experience when browsing the web and reading emails. I genuinely prefer doing both of those things on a tablet than on a notebook or desktop. Then there are the apps. Photos, maps, ebooks, videos and even IP cameras are comfortably accessible from tablets. Obviously you can do the same on a notebook or desktop, the tablet form factor combined with a responsive touch UI simply means you can do these things in a more relaxed position.

What has always frustrated me with tablets however is what happens when you have to give any of these apps a significant amount of input. While the virtual keyboards on tablets are pretty mature, the form factor doesn't allow for quick typing like on a smartphone. A smartphone is easily cradled in both of your hands while your thumbs peck away at the keyboard. A tablet however needs to be propped up against something while you treat it like a keyboard. Put it on your lap and you have to hunch over the thing because the screen and input surface are on the same plane (unlike a notebook where the two are perpendicular to one another). Try to type in a reclined position on a couch and you end up lying awkwardly with your thighs and thumbs supporting the tablet. Ever see the iPad billboards and note the really awkward leg placement in them?
The excuse for the tablet has always been that it's a consumption device, not one for productivity. But what if I want to browse the web and respond to long emails? Must I keep switching between a tablet and a notebook, between consumption and productivity device? That has always seemed silly to me. In striving for comfort and efficiency it seems that having to constantly switch between two large devices would be both uncomfortable and inefficient. After all, who browses all of the web then switches to only writing emails without intermixing the two. Perhaps these discrete usage models are somewhat encouraged by the lack of true multitasking (rather than task switching) of modern tablet OSes, but eventually things must change.

Windows 8 alone will bring change as it finally addresses the issue of having two things on your screen at once. On today's tablets, for the most part, once you're in an application that's all you get to interact with. One of the biggest issues I have is it's virtually impossible to carry on an IM conversation on a tablet while doing anything else. Without constantly (and frustratingly) switching between apps, it's impossible to have a conversation and browse the web for example.

What about on the hardware side of things? Bluetooth keyboards and keyboard docks have existed since they very first of this new generation of tablets hit the market. These accessories have all been very functional but they do tend to hinder the portability of tablets. With its Eee Pad Transformer, ASUS addressed the issue by offering a keyboard dock that would turn the tablet into an Android netbook while extending its battery life. The end result was an extremely flexible device, but it still required that you either carry around a significantly bulkier tablet or made a conscious decision to take one or both pieces of the setup (tablet + dock).

Continuing down this road of experimenting with transformable tablets, ASUS' next attempt to bring the best of both tablet and netbook worlds comes in the form of the Eee Pad Slider.

Eee Pad Transformer + Dock (left) vs. Eee Pad Slider (right)

The Slider takes the same basic Eee Pad tablet from the Transformer and integrates a slim, sliding keyboard. You only get a single battery (25 Wh) but you get a much thinner and lighter form factor than the Transformer with its dock.

2011 Tablet Comparison
	ASUS Eee Pad Transformer	ASUS Eee Pad Transformer + Dock	ASUS Eee Pad Slider	Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
SoC	NVIDIA Tegra 2 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)	NVIDIA Tegra 2 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)	NVIDIA Tegra 2 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)	NVIDIA Tegra 2 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)
GPU	NVIDIA GeForce	NVIDIA GeForce	NVIDIA GeForce	NVIDIA GeForce
RAM	1GB	1GB	1GB	1GB
Display	1280 x 800 IPS	1280 x 800 IPS	1280 x 800 IPS	1280 x 800 PLS
NAND	16GB	16GB	16GB	16GB
Dimensions	271 x 175 x 12.95mm	271 x 183 x 16 - 28mm	273 x 180.3 x 17.3 - 18.3mm	256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6mm
Weight	695g	1325g	960g	565g
Price	$399	$550	$479	$499

The price isn't as attractive as the base Eee Pad Transformer. At $479 for the 16GB WiFi version you're now well into Galaxy Tab/iPad 2 territory, but you do get a built-in keyboard. Samsung's keyboard for the Galaxy Tab is priced at $50 while Apple's Bluetooth keyboard for the iPad 2 (and Macs) will set you back $70. When viewed this way, the Slider is still a steal but if the recent TouchPad sale and Kindle Fire release taught us anything it's that there's a huge market for non-Apple tablets, just not at $500. ASUS was on the right track by pricing the Eee Pad Transformer at $399, but the Slider at $479 takes a step in the wrong direction.

The Display & Hardware

The Slider starts out very similarly to the Transformer. You get a 10.1-inch IPS panel with a Honeycomb-standard 1280 x 800 display (1920 x 1200 will be what the next-gen of Android tablets will sport). The display is near-identical to what ASUS used in the transformer. Max brightness ends up at an iPad 2-like 378 nits, while overall contrast ratio appears to have improved a bit thanks to deeper blacks in our review unit's panel.

ASUS does need to start calibrating these panels at the factory though. The Slider's white point is set to 7700K.

Viewing angles are all great, the only issue with the Slider's display is the large gap between the outermost glass and the LCD panel itself. We complained about this in our Eee Pad Transformer review as well, but by not tightly integrating the LCD and capacitive touch layers you end up with a gap in the display construction that can cause annoying reflections. The additional glare is a problem in any case where there's a direct light shining on the screen. Most of these tablets aren't good outdoors in direct sunlight to begin with, but this issue does make the Slider a bit more annoying to use compared to the iPad 2 or Galaxy Tab 10.1 for example.
All of the outward facing materials are either glass or soft touch plastic, a subtle but noticeable improvement over the Transformer. The smell of the soft touch plastic is distinct but not all that pleasant. Here's hoping it fades quickly. The durability of the soft touch coating is also a concern. My review unit developed a couple of scratches and I honestly didn't use it any differently than the other tablets I've reviewed, nor did I handle it particularly roughly.

ASUS was smart enough to include five rubber feet on the back of the Slider. With the keyboard deployed the Slider's back serves as its stand, so the feet are necessary to keep your Eee Pad pristine. The overall design is clearly ASUS' own creation, but I wouldn't call it particularly memorable. What matters the most is that it's functional and there can be no question of that.

The perimeter of the Slider is ports-a-plenty. On the right edge of the tablet is a full sized USB 2.0 port and headphone jack. On the left there's a microSD slot and along the top there's ASUS' dock connector and mini HDMI out (type C connector). Charging is handled via the same USB adapter that shipped with the Eee Pad Transformer.

Power, reset and volume up/down are also located on the left side of the tablet. Yes, that's right, there's an actual reset button on the Eee Pad Slider. The button is recessed as to avoid any accidental activation. A single click of it will reset the Slider, no questions asked.

I'm actually very happy there is a reset button the tablet. As these devices become even more PC-like expect them to encounter the same sort of stability issues any hardware running complex software has to deal with.
The Slider has two cameras: a 5MP rear facing module and 1MP front facing unit. There's a subtle, smartphone-sized bulge around the rear camera module. The bulge is noticeable but it doesn't clear the height of the rubber feet so you don't have to worry about resting your tablet on the rear camera.

Gallery: ASUS Eee Pad Slider

The Slider is significantly heavier than the stock Eee Pad (without dock) for obvious reasons. And compared to the Samsung Galaxy Tab, well, there's just no comparison there. That being said, the Slider is still much nicer to carry around that the Eee Pad + dock (it's far less bulky) and it's more convenient than most notebooks in this price range. You really do get the full tablet experience with much of the notebook experience thanks to the integrated keyboard.

Introducing the Alienware M18x and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:05:00 +0000

Historically, whenever NVIDIA or AMD launched a new mobile powerhouse GPU, AVADirect has been on hand with a high-end Clevo notebook ready to put its best foot forward. Yet lately NVIDIA and AMD have been playing such a rapid game of oneupsmanship at the top of the chain that it seemed silly to bring the Clevo X7200 back in again, and we wanted to see if we could find the high end hardware elsewhere.

Thankfully our needs happened to coincide with Alienware's, and our rep was able to pull some strings and get us two M18x units back-to-back. Today we present to you the first of a two-part series where we can first examine NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 580M (both as a single GPU and in SLI) as well as Alienware's M18x proper, with a second part focusing both on the AMD Radeon HD 6990M (again as a single GPU or in CrossFire) and a face-off between these two top-of-the-line mobile graphics solutions.

What we really have on the slab today are two different pieces of hardware (four, actually, if you count our special bonus contestant...more on those in a bit.) First, we're finally rounding out our coverage of Alienware's current lineup with the biggest one of them all, the monstrous M18x. Alienware's M17x R3 is a little bit more svelte than its predecessor, and that's due to Alienware deciding to shift the dual-GPU solutions into this new, bigger model. At first glance it looks basically identical to the other Alienware units we've reviewed recently, but there's a little more to it.

The second piece of hardware we're checking out is the recently refreshed NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M. The 580M is basically the GF114-based refresh of the GTX 485M, finally rounding out NVIDIA's mobile 500 series. With it comes two upgrades, one major and one minor: a clockspeed bump (minor) and support for Optimus (major.) Unfortunately with the SLI configuration, Optimus goes by the wayside and Alienware opts for using mux-based switchable graphics in the M18x to keep battery life up.

Yet NVIDIA's awfully proud of Optimus. So proud, in fact, that they gave us access to a GTX 580M-based Alienware M17x R3 for battery life testing. We'll be including those results on the battery life page, but suffice it to say, they're impressive. That's our third piece.

Finally, the last piece is a true rarity: both of our Alienware M18x systems come equipped with an Intel Core i7-2920XM. Alienware includes three different BIOS settings for the overclock (though you can also tune it yourself) and we went with the highest one for our testing, the one they dub "Level 3." After all, if you're going to buy a thousand dollar, overclockable mobile processor, what sense is there in just running it at stock, especially when the vendor makes it that easy to get more juice out of it? Here's the full rundown of the M18x review hardware.

Alienware M18x Notebook Specifications
Processor	Intel Core i7-2920XM (4x2.5GHz + HTT, 3.5GHz Turbo, 32nm, 8MB L3, 55W) (Overclocked to 3.5GHz, 4.2GHz Turbo)
Chipset	Intel HM67
Memory	4x4GB Hynix DDR3-1600 (Max 4x8GB)
Graphics	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M 2GB GDDR5 in SLI (2x384 CUDA cores, 620MHz/1240MHz/3GHz core/shader/memory clocks, 256-bit memory bus)
Display	18.4" LED Glossy 16:9 1080p SEC5448
Hard Drive(s)	2x Seagate Momentus 750GB 7200-RPM HDD
Optical Drive	Slot-loading Blu-ray/DVDRW Combo (HL-DT-ST CA30N)
Networking	Atheros AR8151 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 802.11a/b/g/n Bluetooth 3.0
Audio	IDT 92HD73C1 HD Audio Stereo speakers with subwoofer S/PDIF, mic, and two headphone jacks
Battery	12-Cell, 11.1V, 97Wh
Front Side	N/A (Speaker grilles)
Right Side	ExpressCard/54 Slot-loading optical drive MMC/SD/MS Flash reader 2x USB 2.0 eSATA/USB 2.0 combo port HDMI input
Left Side	Kensington lock Ethernet port VGA HDMI Mini-DisplayPort 2x USB 3.0 S/PDIF, mic, and two headphone jacks
Back Side	AC jack 4x exhaust vents
Operating System	Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Dimensions	17.17" x 12.68" x 2.13" (WxDxH)
Weight	~11.93 lbs
Extras	3MP Webcam Backlit keyboard with 10-key and configurable shortcut keys Flash reader (MMC, SD/Mini SD, MS/Duo/Pro/Pro Duo) Configurable lighting
Warranty	1-year standard warranty 2-year, 3-year, and 4-year extended warranties available
Pricing	Starting at $1,999 Price as configured: $4,924

Starting at the top we have one of the two parts of the review system that you can't get anymore: the Intel Core i7-2920XM. At stock, the i7-2920XM is a quad-core, Hyper-Threaded processor running at 2.5GHz nominal clocks with 8MB of L3 cache and capable of turbo'ing up to 3.5GHz on one core (3.2GHz on all four). Yet when you hit "Level 3" in the BIOS, suddenly it's screaming up to 3.5GHz on all four cores nominally and hitting 4.2GHz on a single, effectively making it faster than Intel's top of the line i7-2600K is at stock...on the desktop. Yeowch.

So why can't you get it anymore? Between the time when Alienware was seeding review units to the press and now, Intel gave the mobile i7 quad-cores a minor speed bump, and now you can only buy the upgraded chips...at the same prices as their predecessors. If you order an M18x with the i7-2960XM, you'll get a 200MHz bump in clocks at every step: it starts at 2.7GHz and turbos up to 3.7GHz on a single core (or runs at 3.4GHz on all four...like an i7-2600K.) There's a reason these top end chips are $900 upgrades, and it's a testament to Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture that you can get this kind of performance in a portable form factor.

Backing up the i7-2920XM in our review unit is 16GB of DDR3-1600, spread out across four 4GB SODIMMs, along with Intel's HM67 mobile chipset. Alienware also inexplicably includes two 750GB 7200-RPM Seagate Momentus hard drives, and in this review unit, they're not configured in RAID 0. Try and configure your own M18x and you'll run into the same nonsensical issue I had when I reviewed the M17x: Alienware offers these notebooks with two drive bays, but not a single SSD data + HDD storage configuration available. For the life of me I can't fathom why this is the case, and that's ignoring their usual fixation on RAID 0.

Of course the crown jewel of our review unit is the pair of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580Ms in SLI. Outside of the support for Optimus (which isn't available here due to the SLI configuration), the GTX 580M is an incremental upgrade on the 485M: it jumps from the GF104 to the GF114, and with the slightly tinkered chip design scores an extra 45MHz on the GPU (with a corresponding 90MHz jump to the CUDA cores) while retaining the same effective 3GHz clock on the 2GB of GDDR5. I've found in testing the 580M that performance is roughly on par with a desktop GeForce GTX 560, making it more than capable of doing 1080p gaming on its own. In fact, the only game I've seen really put the screws to it (besides the poorly optimized Metro 2033) is Crysis 2 with the DX11 pack.

Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4: MSM8960 & Krait Architecture Explored

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:01:00 +0000

Let's recap the current smartphone/tablet SoC landscape. Everything shipping today is built on a 4x-nm process, built either at Global Foundries, Samsung, TSMC or UMC. Next year we'll see a move to 28nm (bringing better performance and power characteristics) but between now and the end of 2012 there will be a myriad of designs available on the market.

The table below encapsulates much of what you can expect over the next 12 months:

2011/2012 SoC Comparison
SoC	Process Node	CPU	GPU	Memory Bus	Release
Apple A5	45nm	2 x ARM Cortex A9 w/ MPE @ 1GHz	PowerVR SGX 543MP2	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	Now
NVIDIA Tegra 2	40nm	2 x ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz	GeForce	1 x 32-bit LPDDR2	Now
NVIDIA Tegra 3/Kal-El	40nm	4 x ARM Cortex A9 w/ MPE @ ~1.3GHz	GeForce++	1 x 32-bit LPDDR2	Q4 2011
Samsung Exynos 4210	45nm	2 x ARM Cortex A9 w/ MPE @ 1.2GHz	ARM Mali-400 MP4	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	Now
Samsung Exynos 4212	32nm	2 x ARM Cortex A9 w/ MPE @ 1.5GHz	ARM Mali-400 MP4	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	2012
TI OMAP 4430	45nm	2 x ARM Cortex A9 w/ MPE @ 1.2GHz	PowerVR SGX 540	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	Now
TI OMAP 4460	45nm	2 x ARM Cortex A9 w/ MPE @ 1.5GHz	PowerVR SGX 540	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	Q4 11 - 1H 12
TI OMAP 4470	45nm	2 x ARM Cortex A9 w/ MPE @ 1.8GHz	PowerVR SGX 544	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	1H 2012
TI OMAP 5	28nm	2 x ARM Cortex A15 @ 2GHz	PowerVR SGX 544MPx	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	2H 2012
Qualcomm MSM8x60	45nm	2 x Scorpion @ 1.5GHz	Adreno 220	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2*	Now
Qualcomm MSM8960	28nm	2 x Krait @ 1.5GHz	Adreno 225	2 x 32-bit LPDDR2	1H 2012

The key is this: other than TI's OMAP 5 in the second half of 2012 and Qualcomm's Krait, no one else has announced plans to release a new microarchitecture in the near term. Furthermore, if we only look at the first half of next year, Qualcomm is the only company that's focused on significantly improving per-core performance through a new architecture. Everyone else is either scaling up in core count (NVIDIA) or clock speeds. As we've seen in the PC industry however, generational performance gaps are hard to overcome - even with more cores or frequency.

Qualcomm has an ARM architecture license enabling it to build its own custom micro architectures that implement the ARM instruction set. This is similar to how AMD has an x86 license but designs its own chips rather than just producing clones of Intel processors. Qualcomm remains the only active player in the smartphone/tablet space that uses its architecture license to put out custom designs. The benefit to a custom design is typically better power and performance characteristics compared to the more easily synthesizable designs you get directly from ARM. The downside is development time and costs go up tremendously.
Scorpion was Qualcomm's first Snapdragon CPU architecture. At a high level, it looked very much like an optimized ARM Cortex A8 design although the two had nothing in common outside of instruction set. Scorpion was a dual-issue, in-order architecture that eventually scaled to dual-core and 1.5GHz variants.
Scorpion was pretty much the CPU architecture of choice in the 2009 - 2010 timeframe. Throughout 2011 however, Qualcomm has been very quiet as dual Cortex A9 designs from NVIDIA, Samsung and TI have surpassed it in terms of performance.

Going into 2012, Qualcomm is set for a return to glory as it will be the first to deliver a brand new microprocessor architecture and the first to ship 28nm SoCs in volume. Qualcomm's next-generation SoCs will also be the first to integrate an LTE modem on-die, which should enable LTE on nearly all high-end devices at much better power levels than current multi-chip 4x-nm solutions. Today we're able to talk a bit about the architecture details and performance expectations of Qualcomm's next-generation SoC due out in the first half of 2012.

Krait Architecture

The Krait processor is the heart of Qualcomm's second generation Snapdragon and it's the core of all Snapdragon S4 SoCs. Krait takes the aging base of Scorpion and gives it a much needed dose of adrenaline.
Krait's front end is significantly wider. The architecture can fetch and decode three instructions per clock. The decoders are equally capable of decoding any ARMv7-A instructions. The wider front end is a significant improvement over the 2-wide Scorpion core. It alone will be responsible for a tangible increase in IPC.

Architecture Comparison
	ARM11	ARM Cortex A8	ARM Cortex A9	Qualcomm Scorpion	Qualcomm Krait
Decode	single-issue	2-wide	2-wide	2-wide	3-wide
Pipeline Depth	8 stages	13 stages	8 stages	10 stages	11 stages
Out of Order Execution	N	N	Y	Partial	Y
FPU	VFP11 (pipelined)	VFPv3 (not-pipelined)	Optional VFPv3-D16 (pipelined)	VFPv3 (pipelined)	VFPv3 (pipelined)
NEON	N/A	Y (64-bit wide)	Optional MPE (64-bit wide)	Y (128-bit wide)	Y (128-bit wide)
Process Technology	90nm	65nm/45nm	40nm	40nm	28nm
Typical Clock Speeds	412MHz	600MHz/1GHz	1.2GHz	1GHz	1.5GHz

The execution back-end receives a similar expansion. Whereas the original Scorpion core only had three ports to its execution units, Krait increases that to seven. Krait can issue up to four instructions in parallel. The additional execution ports simply help prevent any artificial constraints on ILP. This is another area where Krait will be able to see significant IPC gains.

Krait's fetch and decode stages are obviously in-order, but the back-end is entirely out-of-order. Qualcomm claims that any instruction can be executed out of order, assuming that doing so doesn't create any new hazards. Instructions are retired in order.

Qualcomm lengthened Krait's integer pipeline slightly from 10 stages in Scorpion to 11 stages in Krait. Load/store operations tack on another two cycles and instructions that go through the Neon/VFP path further lengthen the pipe. ARM's Cortex A15 design by comparison features a 15-stage integer pipeline.

Qualcomm's design does contain more custom logic than ARM's stock A15, which has typically given it a clock speed advantage. The A15's deeper pipeline should give it a clock speed advantage as well. Whether the two effectively cancel each other out remains to be seen.

Qualcomm Architecture Comparison
	Scorpion	Krait
Pipeline Depth	10 stages	11 stages
Decode	2-wide	3-wide
Issue Width	3-wide?	4-wide
Execution Ports	3	7
L2 Cache (dual-core)	512KB	1MB
Core Configurations	1, 2	1, 2, 4

Krait has been upgraded to support the new virtualization instructions added in Cortex A15. Also like the A15, Krait enables LPAE for 40-bit memory addressing.

At a high-level Qualcomm has built a 3-wide, out-of-order engine that feels very much like a modern version of Intel's old P6. Whereas designs from the A8 generation looked like modern Pentiums, Krait takes us into the era of the Pentium II.

Note that courtesy of the wider front-end and OoO execution engine, Krait should be a higher performance architecture than Intel's Atom. That's right, you'll be able to get better performance than some of the very first Centrino notebooks in your smartphones come 2012.

Performance Expectations

Performance of ARM cores has always been characterized by DMIPS (Dhrystone Millions of Instructions per Second). An extremely old integer benchmark, Dhrystone was popular in the PC market when I was growing up but was abandoned long ago in favor of more representative benchmarks. You can get a general idea of performance improvements across similar architectures assuming there are no funny compiler tricks at play. The comparison of single-core DMIPS/MHz is below:

ARM DMIPS/MHz
	ARM11	ARM Cortex A8	ARM Cortex A9	Qualcomm Scorpion	Qualcomm Krait
DMIPS/MHz	1.25	2.0	2.5	2.1	3.3

At 3.3, Krait should be around 30% faster than a Cortex A9 running at the same frequency. At launch Krait will run 25% faster than most A9s on the market today, a gap that will only grow as Qualcomm introduces subsequent versions of the core. It's not unreasonable to expect a 30 - 50% gain in performance over existing smartphone designs. ARM hasn't published DMIPS/MHz numbers for the Cortex A15, although rumors place its performance around 3.5 DMIPS/MHz.

Updated VeNum Unit

ARM's NEON instruction set is handled by a dedicated unit in all of its designs. Krait is no different. Qualcomm calls its NEON engine VeNum and has increased its issue capabilities by 50%. Whereas Scorpion could only issue two NEON instructions in parallel, Krait can do three.
Qualcomm's NEON data paths are still 128-bits wide.

Zotac Z68ITX-A-E Wifi Review - Mini-ITX meets Z68

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:03:00 +0000

With every chipset, there's a call to arms in providing the package that everyone needs. Unfortunately there's never one motherboard which can cater for every possibility, but there are some that come quite close. Our review today is on the Zotac Z68ITX-A-E Wifi - a mini-ITX take on the Z68 chipset, which promises to be a winner right from the start, with dual gigabit Ethernet, USB 3.0, onboard wifi, onboard power/reset buttons, a debug LED, a lot of extras with your motherboard, and all the extras that Z68 offers. For $170, we're looking at a good contender for an award here, as long as the performance and additions compare well to its rivals.

Overview

The most noticeable thing about using the Zotac board for this review is the out-of-spec features used by Zotac. With regards to the turbo of the CPU, the CPU should scale down the multiplier bins the more cores being used - however, the Zotac board likes to apply a 4x multiplier increase, even in full CPU usage. This gives it a distinct advantage in all our stock benchmark suite, and an unfair advantage against every other board in the market. It gives the consumer, however, extra performance without having to do anything. This may set an unhealthy trend, where other manufacturers will similarly produce products out-of-spec in order to jump ahead in performance.

Overall, for $170, Zotac have provided a board full of features that provide a great motherboard for various consumer levels. The addition of dual gigabit Ethernet, onboard wifi, dual HDMI, and that out-of-spec CPU speed are nice additions to such a small product. This situation benefits a non-K Sandy Bridge CPU (which unfortunately negates one of the Z68 features, overclocking, which as we find out isn't that great on the Zotac) where the iGPU is required as well as the PCIe x16 slot. There's not too many SATA ports (two SATA 6 Gbps, two SATA 3 Gbps), which perhaps is ideal for the non-enthusiast consumer (SSD, HDD, DVD/BluRay drive). Also, the lack of overclocking may be a sticking issue for some. I'm unsure if I should label it a gamers' board, a 24/7 machine with various enthusiast applications that require performance, or a multi-monitor setup that needs Sandy Bridge and Z68 and perhaps a GPU for GPU programming. Nevertheless, I've found the board an impressive product at a great price, despite the old fashioned BIOS and lack of software provided.

Visual Inspection

With Zotac's aim of piling as much as it can onto such a small PCB, it is obvious to see that the board is fairly cramped, in a livery with no defined color (yellow, orange, red, blue, black). As a result, the 8-pin 12V CPU power connector is on the far end of the board behind the audio headers of the I/O panel. The CPU socket is also quite small in comparison to full size P67/Z68 boards we've seen this year, negating large CPU coolers but still providing enough space for stock coolers and all-in-one CPU coolers such as the Corsair H50 and H100.

There are two fan headers on board - one by the SATA ports and the other beside the 24-pin ATX power connector. Beside this power connector are the power/reset buttons and a debug LED - it's great to have this on such a small board. The wifi module is in a mini-PCIe (with mSATA compatibility) between the memory slots and the SATA ports - with cables from the wifi card to the I/O panel. A full size mSATA holder is included in the bundle, if the user decides not to use the wifi and takes advantage of the Z68 Smart Caching Technology via this port.

On board are four SATA ports - two SATA 6 Gbps and two SATA 3 Gbps, all from the PCH. Technically the PCH should be able to support two more, but given the size of the board and all the other extras on it, it's understandable that these are not included. Beside the SATA ports are two USB 2.0 headers, and beside them, behind the wifi antenna, is a USB 3.0 header.

The back panel of the board is also similarly cramped, with a combination of wifi antenna, dual gigabit Ethernet, two USB 3.0, four USB 2.0, a clear CMOS button, a PS/2 Connector, dual HDMI and mini-DisplayPort, optical SPDIF output, and the standard audio jacks. The combination of having the heatsink there results in some space lost - perhaps if it wasn't there by design, the HDMI and mini-DP could be stacked and other features could be added.

The Apple Thunderbolt Display Review

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:01:00 +0000

Ever since I moved to a notebook as my main work computer I've become increasingly annoyed with the process of actually moving my notebook-as-a-desktop around. At my desk I've got DisplayPort, Ethernet, two USB, FireWire 800, speakers and power all plugged into a 15-inch MacBook Pro. What makes it frustrating isn't the first-world-problem of having to unplug seven cables, rather that it doesn't need to be seven cables - Apple could make the whole thing happen with just two.

Every Mac released in 2011 has at least one Thunderbolt port (the iMac has two), and Thunderbolt can deliver exactly what I'm looking for. Thunderbolt can carry two things: PCI Express and DisplayPort, the former for data and the latter obviously for video. Why would you want to carry PCIe and DP over a single cable? To address problems like the one above.

Pretty much all device expansion on modern day PCs happens via PCI Express. Several years ago it was hard to find PCIe sound cards or Ethernet controllers, but these days vanilla PCI slots are nearing extinction and PCIe is the de facto standard. Ethernet, USB and FireWire controllers all exist as single-lane PCIe devices. Put a bunch of them at the other end of a Thunderbolt cable and you no longer need to plug in a bunch of individual cables into your notebook when at your desk. Send DisplayPort over the same cable and you can actually move all of those ports onto your monitor, thereby using a single cable to carry everything but power to your display. And this is exactly what Apple has done with its new Thunderbolt Display. By mating its 27-inch LED Cinema Display with a bunch of integrated IO controllers, Apple is hoping to deliver a display that's more of a mobile docking station than just a passive way to display video.

Apple has tried this in the past. The old Cinema Displays used to feature an Apple Display Connector (ADC) that actually carried DVI, USB and power from a desktop Mac to the monitor. You only needed to plug in a single cable to your display, significantly reducing desktop clutter. Although Thunderbolt does carry power, it's limited to 10W - not enough to power any reasonably sized display. Where Thunderbolt does win out over ADC however is in its universal appeal. Intel created the standard. Although it's used almost exclusively on Apple systems today, come 2012 Intel is expecting PC OEMs to embrace the interface with its Cactus Ridge line of Thunderbolt controllers.

Apple's Thunderbolt Display

The Thunderbolt Display uses a near, if not perfectly, identical panel to what was in last year's 27-inch LED Cinema Display. You get a 27-inch, 16:9, 2560 x 1440 LED backlit display capable of at least 350 nits at full brightness. Apple seems to conservatively spec its desktop displays as we were able to measure 425 nits at max brightness. The uber brightness comes in handy because the display does have a glossy finish. Indoors it's not really a problem unless you're watching a dark movie scene with the display lit by a sun-facing window. Even then, cranking up the brightness all the way is usually enough to overcome any significant glare. As with all glossy displays, if you have light control (e.g. curtains or blinds) you'll be just fine.

The display sits on an aluminum swivel base that allows for -5 degrees to 25 degrees of tilt along the horizontal axis. There's no height adjustment for the display either, only tilt. Personally, I use a height adjustable desk as I find it helps me avoid any carpal tunnel pain. Combined with a height adjustable chair, the lack of height adjustment on the display doesn't bother me. If you have a fixed height desk however, this may be a problem.

Aesthetically the Thunderbolt Display continues Apple's aluminum meets glass design language. The front of the display is all glass, while the edges and back are all aluminum. Along the top surface of the display is a mic for the integrated FaceTime HD camera. The outgoing 27-inch LED Cinema Display (still available for purchase online) sported a 640 x 480 camera, while the Thunderbolt Display ups capture resolution to 1280 x 720.
There's an ambient light sensor hidden in the top bezel of the display, but as always you can disable its functionality from within OS X.

There are two integrated speakers in the display, again unchanged from the previous LED Cinema Display.
Two cables attach directly to the display: a removable power cable and an integrated IO cable. Cable management is done through a round cutout in the aluminum stand. The IO cable is where things really change with the Thunderbolt Display. Instead of a breakout of three cables as was the case with the Cinema Display, there are now only two: MagSafe and Thunderbolt.

The MagSafe connector remains unchanged. If you've got any Mac that can be charged by an 85W MagSafe adapter, the Thunderbolt Display will charge said Mac. This feature alone is particularly awesome for notebook-as-a-desktop users since it allows you to just keep your actual AC adapter tucked away in your travel bag. For me I keep my MagSafe adapter in my bag and never take it out so I never have to worry about forgetting to pack it. Given how expensive MagSafe adapters are ($79 for an 85W), this is a nice feature for MacBook Air/Pro owners.

The Thunderbolt cable is obviously what gives this new display its name. Inside the Thunderbolt Display is an Intel Eagle Ridge Thunderbolt controller. The type of controller is important as it bestows upon the display some clear limitations. The biggest of course is the lack of support for all non-Thunderbolt systems. That's right, the only way to get video to the Thunderbolt Display is by using a Thunderbolt enabled Mac (or theoretically a Thunderbolt enabled PC). For Mac users that means only 2011 MacBook Pro, Air, iMac or Mac mini models will work with the Thunderbolt Display. Everyone else has to either buy a new Mac or stick with older displays.

I believe the limitation here is actually on the cable side. A Thunderbolt cable can only transmit a Thunderbolt signal. Although DisplayPort is muxed in, if the display on the other end is expecting Thunderbolt and it receives DisplayPort it won't know what to do with it. It's possible Apple could have built in logic to autosense and switch between Thunderbolt and DisplayPort as inputs, but Apple traditionally employs clean breaks rather than long technology transitions. If Apple wants to ensure Thunderbolt gets adopted (at least by its users), this is the way to do it. As we learned from other legacy interfaces (e.g. PS/2, IDE), if you enable backwards compatibility you'll ensure the survival of systems that implement those interfaces. It's not so great for existing customers unfortunately.

HP's EliteBook 8740w Dream Color IPS Screen Glorious 1920x1200

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:45:00 +0000

Just over ten months ago, we had a chance to take a look at a very big, reasonably impressive mobile workstation: HP's EliteBook 8740w. It sported HP's DreamColor IPS screen at a glorious 1920x1200 resolution and had fairly beefy hardware under the hood, including the at-the-time fastest mobile workstation

GPU, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000M. But since HP unveiled the dramatic redesign of their enterprise notebooks earlier this year, we've been anxiously anticipating the 8740w's refresh. Today we have it, specced to kill with a shiny new DreamColor IPS screen, Sandy Bridge quad-core processor, and an even faster NVIDIA Quadro GPU.

I'll go ahead and get this out of the way right now before we even get into the nitty gritty: the chassis on the 8760w is a massive improvement on the 8740w's schizophrenic aesthetic, but there's a cost that some of you aren't going to be willing to pay, and I'm not talking a monetary one. You may have noticed that all of HP's new business-class notebooks feature 16:9-aspect panels instead of the old standby 16:10, and the 8760w hasn't been spared. I personally don't have a huge problem with it, but it's hard to deny something's been lost here. Where consumer notebooks have potentially benefitted from the move to 16:9 (1280x800 to 1366x768 is basically a wash, while 17" notebooks got a boost from 1440x900 to 1600x900), the change from a 1920x1200 panel to a 1920x1080 panel is a loss; end of conversation.
With all that said, hopefully the move to Sandy Bridge and access to the new GF110-based Quadro will make the transition a little less painful.

HP EliteBook 8760w Specifications
Processor	Intel Core i7-2820QM (4x2.3GHz, 32nm, 8MB L3, Turbo to 3.4GHz, 45W)
Chipset	Intel QM67
Memory	4x4GB Samsung DDR3-1333 (Max 4x8GB)
Graphics	NVIDIA Quadro 5010M 4GB GDDR5 (384 CUDA cores, 450MHz/900MHz/2.6GHz core/shader/memory clocks, 256-bit memory bus)
Display	17.3" LED Matte IPS 16:9 1920x1080 (LGD02FC Panel)
Hard Drive(s)	Micron C300 256GB SATA 3Gbps SSD
Optical Drive	HP BD-ROM/DVD+-RW Combo Drive
Networking	Intel 82579LM Gigabit Ethernet Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 802.11a/b/g/n Bluetooth v3.0
Audio	IDT 92HD81B1X HD Audio Stereo speakers Mic and headphone jacks
Battery	8-Cell, 14.3V, 83Wh battery
Front Side	SD/MMC Reader
Left Side	Kensington lock Exhaust vent Ethernet DisplayPort eSATA/USB Combo port 2x USB 3.0 4-pin FireWire ExpressCard/54
Right Side	Headphone and mic jacks USB 2.0 (charging) USB 2.0 Smart Card Reader Optical drive VGA
Back Side	Modem Exhaust vent AC adaptor
Operating System	Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1
Dimensions	16.4" x 10.7" x 1.47" (WxDxH)
Weight	7.8 lbs
Extras	Webcam DreamColor IPS display Flash reader (MMC, SD/Mini SD, MS/Duo/Pro/Pro Duo) USB charging Blu-ray HP Performance Advisor Backlit keyboard with 10-key
Warranty	3-year limited warranty
Pricing	Starting at $1,899 Priced as configured: $6,497

Thus far we've only really seen the i7-2820QM in the Sandy Bridge review notebook we received way back when Sandy Bridge was first launched, so the EliteBook 8760w is at least going to be our first experience with it "in the field" so to speak. It's a pretty beefy CPU, too, with a 2.3GHz nominal clock speed that turbos up to 3.1GHz on all four cores or a very healthy 3.4GHz on just one. That actually puts it within spitting distance of desktop Sandy Bridge quads, and it's a testament to the power efficiency of Intel's architecture. HP has also seen fit to grant it access to four memory slots and our review unit is specced with 16GB of non-ECC DDR3-1333.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5010M is a much more incremental update to its predecessor than the GeForce GTX 485M was to the 480M, though I suspect NVIDIA opted to continue using GF1x0 for their top shelf mobile workstation GPU due to its superior HPC capabilities. With the move to GF110, the 5010M now benefits from 384 CUDA cores instead of the 320 found on the previous generation Quadro 5000M, as well as bumps in clock speed to 450MHz on the core, 900MHz on the shaders, and 2.6GHz on the GDDR5. Gamers will undoubtedly be disappointed at the low clocks across the board, but the 5010M isn't really for them. While GF1x4 is more friendly for high-end mobile gaming hardware, GF1x0 likely remains the better choice for workstation tasks.

Our review unit is also bolstered by Intel's QM67 chipset, allowing for RAID 0/1/5 support as the EliteBook 8760w can support two 2.5" drives natively and a third if the user chooses to swap out the optical drive for another drive bay. As befitting a workstation notebook of this caliber, there's also virtually every type of connectivity the end user could ask for: eSATA, USB 2.0, USB 3.0, FireWire, Bluetooth, and even ExpressCard/54 are all present.

The Sandy Bridge Pentium Review: G850, G840, G620 & G620T Tested

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:40:00 +0000

In 2006 Intel introduced its tick-tock cadence for microprocessor releases. Every year would see the release of a new family of microprocessors as either a tick or a tock. Ticks would keep architectures relatively unchanged and focus on transitions to smaller manufacturing technologies, while tocks would keep fab process the same and revamp architecture. Sandy Bridge was the most recent tock, and arguably the biggest one since Intel started down this road.

At a high level the Sandy Bridge CPU architecture looked unchanged from prior iterations. Intel still put forth a 4-issue machine with a similar number of execution resources to prior designs. Looking a bit closer revealed that Intel completely redesigned the out-of-order execution engine in Sandy Bridge, while heavily modifying its front end. Sandy Bridge also introduced Intel's high performance ring bus, allowing access to L3 by all of the cores as well as Intel's new on-die GPU.

The Sandy Bridge GPU was particularly surprising. While it pales in comparison to the performance of the GPU in AMD's Llano, it does represent the first substantial effort by Intel in the GPU space. Alongside the integrated GPU was Intel's first hardware video transcoding engine: Quick Sync. In our initial review we found that Quick Sync was the best way to quickly transcode videos, beating out both AMD and NVIDIA GPU based implementations in our tests. Quick Sync adoption has been limited at best, which is unfortunate given how well the feature performed in our tests.

Sandy Bridge wasn't all rosy however. It was the first architecture that Intel shipped with overclocking disabled on certain parts. Any CPU without Turbo Boost enabled is effectively unoverclockable. Intel killed the low end overclocking market with Sandy Bridge.

The overclocking limits were a shame as Sandy Bridge spanned a wide range of price points. The low end Core i3-2100 was listed at $117 while the highest end Core i7-2600K came in at $317. While you can't claim that Sandy Bridge was overpriced at the high end, there's always room for improvement.

Despite abandoning Pentium as a high end brand with the 2006 release of Intel's Core 2 Duo, Intel has kept the label around for use on its value mainstream parts. Last year we saw only two Pentium branded Clarkdale parts: the G6950 and G6960. This year, powered by Sandy Bridge, the Pentium brand is a bit more active.

Processor	Core Clock	Cores / Threads	L3 Cache	Max Turbo	Max Overclock Multiplier	TDP	Price
Intel Core i7 2600K	3.4GHz	4 / 8	8MB	3.8GHz	57x	95W	$317
Intel Core i7 2600	3.4GHz	4 / 8	8MB	3.8GHz	42x	95W	$294
Intel Core i5 2500K	3.3GHz	4 / 4	6MB	3.7GHz	57x	95W	$216
Intel Core i5 2500	3.3GHz	4 / 4	6MB	3.7GHz	41x	95W	$205
Intel Core i5 2400	3.1GHz	4 / 4	6MB	3.4GHz	38x	95W	$184
Intel Core i5 2300	2.8GHz	4 / 4	6MB	3.1GHz	34x	95W	$177
Intel Core i3 2120	3.3GHz	2 / 4	3MB	N/A	N/A	65W	$138
Intel Core i3 2100	2.93GHz	2 / 4	3MB	N/A	N/A	65W	$117
Intel Pentium G850	2.9GHz	2 / 2	3MB	N/A	N/A	65W	$86
Intel Pentium G840	2.8GHz	2 / 2	3MB	N/A	N/A	65W	$75
Intel Pentium G620	2.6GHz	2 / 2	3MB	N/A	N/A	65W	$64
Intel Pentium G620T	2.2GHz	2 / 2	3MB	N/A	N/A	35W	$70

The new Sandy Bridge based Pentiums fall into two lines at present: the G800 and G600. All SNB Pentiums have two cores (HT disabled) with 256KB L2 per core and a 3MB L3 cache. CPU core turbo is disabled across the entire Pentium line. From a performance standpoint, other than missing hyper threading and lower clocks - the Sandy Bridge Pentiums are very similar to Intel's Core i3.

Gallery: Sandy Bridge Pentiums

Intel continues to separate the low end from the high end by limiting supported instructions. None of the Pentiums support AES-NI or VT-d. Other than higher clock speeds the 800 series only adds official DDR3-1333 support. The 600 series only officially supports up to DDR3-1066.

All standard Pentiums carry a 65W TDP. The Pentium G620T runs at a meager 2.2GHz and manages a 35W TDP. Regardless of thermal rating, the boxed SNB Pentiums come with an ultra low profile cooler:

These Pentium CPUs work in the same 6-series LGA-1155 motherboards as their Core i3/5/7 counterparts. The same rules apply here as well. If you want video out from the on-die GPU you need either an H-series or a Z-series chipset.

The Pentium GPU

When Intel moved its integrated graphics on-package with Clarkdale it dropped the GMA moniker and started calling it HD Graphics. When it introduced the Sandy Bridge Core i3/5/7, Intel added the 2000 and 3000 suffixes to the HD Graphics brand. With the Sandy Bridge Pentium, Intel has gone back to calling its on-die GPU "HD Graphics".
Despite the name, the Pentium's HD Graphics has nothing in common with Clarkdale's GPU. The GPU is still on-die and it features the same architecture as Intel's HD Graphics 2000 (6 EUs). Performance should be pretty similar as it even shares the same clock speeds as the HD 2000 (850MHz base, 1.1GHz turbo for most models). I ran a quick test to confirm that what Intel is selling as HD Graphics is really no different than the HD Graphics 2000 in 3D performance:

All is well in the world.

Where the vanilla HD Graphics loses is in video features: Quick Sync, InTru 3D (Blu-ray 3D), Intel Insider (DRM support for web streaming of high bitrate HD video) and Clear Video HD (GPU accelerated post processing) are all gone. Thankfully you do still get hardware H.264 video acceleration and fully audio bitstreaming support (including TrueHD/DTS-HD MA).

Missing Quick Sync is a major blow, although as I mentioned earlier I'm very disappointed in the poor support for the feature outside of the initial launch applications. The rest of the features vary in importance. To someone building a basic HTPC, a Sandy Bridge Pentium will do just fine. Personally I never play anything in 3D, never use the Clear Video HD features and never use Intel Insider so I wouldn't notice the difference between a Sandy Bridge Pentium and a Core i5 for video playback.

Sony Ericsson Xperia Play Where Do You Want To Take Gaming Today?

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:45:00 +0000

The debate over the potential (or not, depending on your perspective) for cellular handsets to supplant dedicated portable gaming consoles was already at the 'dull roar' stage when Steve Jobs unveiled the first-generation iPhone in January 2007. Successive iPhone iterations, along with iOS ecosystem expansion to the iPod touch and iPad, have upped the argument amplification a notch or few, as have competitive offerings based on the Android, RIM, WebOS and Windows Mobile (now Windows Phone) operating systems.
Sony's multi-phase approach to addressing the standalone-versus-cellphone debate is, if nothing else, intriguing. One key product in the company's plan, Sony Ericsson's Xperia Play gaming cellphone, is the subject of this particular writeup:

The mythical 'PlayStation Phone' had been rumored for several years, but when it finally appeared in late March in 11 countries (not then including the United States), it was curiously absent any explicit 'PlayStation' branding. Sony Ericsson's initial U.S. carrier partner was Verizon, who began selling the handset in late May subsequent to its first official U.S. unveiling, a commercial which ran during February's Super Bowl. More recently, AT&T picked up the handset in mid-July. One week later, Verizon dropped the Xperia Play's contract-subsidized price to $99.99, from $199.99 at introduction. Was Verizon's action a competitive response to AT&T's entry, a reaction to poor Xperia Play sales, or some combination of these and/or other factors? Verizon's not saying, but let's see how well (or not) the handset performs to get a sense of its degree of market appeal.

Novatel Wireless MiFi 4510L Review - The Best 4G LTE WiFi Hotspot

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:49:00 +0000

A while back we explored almost all of Verizon’s 4G LTE network launch hardware - two USB modems, the Samsung SCH-LC11 hotspot, and the HTC Thunderbolt, to be exact. Since then, one more WiFi hotspot product has launched which we’ve been playing with for a long time, the MiFi 4510L from Novatel Wireless. The SCH-LC11 was a decent hotspot but still didn’t quite nail everything.

It’s pretty amazing to me how Novatel Wireless’ MiFi brand quickly became so synonymous with portable cellular hotspots. The MiFi 2200 is an iconic product that pops up just about everywhere and has enjoyed well-deserved, almost unchallenged success on practically every single CDMA2000 carrier in the US. For many smartphone users, using things like WMWifiRouter and other similar software tools (long before Android added its own wireless AP) that made a smartphone into a portable WiFi access point were old hat, but Novatel’s MiFi was a nicely packaged solution that was much easier to swallow. Novatel has kept the MiFi updated, but has primarily focused on versions with exclusively 3GPP (GSM/UMTS) connectivity. The deployment of Verizon’s 4G LTE network thus necessitated another update, and Novatel’s answer is the MiFi 4510L, which includes support for the carrier’s 700 MHz LTE and 1900 / 800 1x/EvDO Rev.A networks.

The LTE-enabled MiFi 4510L next to its older sibling, the MiFi 2200

I was a bit surprised to see Novatel beaten at launch time by Samsung, whose SCH-LC11 hotspot we reviewed came before the MiFi variant by a fair margin. At the time, I was satisfied with the SCH-LC11 but still looking for a few additional important things. Chief among those were 5 GHz 802.11a/n support, ability to change between using the device as a modem or charge when connected over USB, GPS support, and more customization options inside the web control pages.

Samsung's SCH-LC11 hotspot

Unfortunately the MiFi 4510L doesn’t really bring anything different on those fronts, and as we’ll see in a moment actually is based around the exact same combination of MDM9600 baseband and WCN1312 WLAN with no discrete applications processor.

First things first, and that’s how the MiFi 4510L compares physically to its predecessor, and the SCH-LC11. Unfortunately, the SCH-LC11 had to go back to Verizon before the MiFi 4510L came, so I don’t have any side by side shots with that device, however the table below tells the story of how the two compare when it comes to size and weight.

Portable Hotspot Comparison
	Novatel Wireless MiFi 2200	Samsung SCH-LC11	Novatel Wireless MiFi4510L
Height	59 mm (2.32")	59 mm (2.32")	60 mm (2.36")
Width	89 mm (3.50")	90 mm (3.54")	95 mm (3.74")
Depth	8.8 mm (0.35")	11 mm (0.43")	13 mm (0.53")
Weight	59 g (2.08 oz)	81.5 g (2.87 oz)	88.6 g (3.13 oz)
Network Support	800 / 1900 (1x/EvDO Rev.A/0)	700 MHz (LTE), 800 / 1900 (1x/EvDO Rev.A/0)	700 MHz (LTE), 800 / 1900 (1x/EvDO Rev.A/0)
Battery Size	Removable 4.25 Whr	Removable 5.55 Whr	Removable 5.6 Whr

It’s clear to me that the original MiFi 2200 is still the form factor to beat, leading both in overall package volume, and weight. The move to LTE has necessitated both a PCB that spans the entire length of the board, and a larger battery, and that definitely shows.

Desktop Llano Overclocking ASRock A75 Extreme6 Review

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 06:09:00 +0000

Our initial tests with the ASRock A75 Extreme6 were based on a pre-release model, and shown in our preview. At that point, the board design was not finalized and the BIOS was still quite raw, but the performance was essentially complete. However, now in my grasp is the full release version of the Extreme6. Alongside this standard motherboard review, and testing to see whether it's worth the $150 asking price, we're also going to take a good look at the overclocking features of the Desktop Llano chipset.

I've essentially run our motherboard test suite on two versions of this board now, and having recently played with Cougar Point and AMD Fusion (review to come), it slots nicely in the middle in most aspects - especially CPU power. We're not seeing anything special here with Desktop Llano - as Anand pointed out, in the region of Phenom II X4 performance. For the integrated GPU, it's a different matter, with up to 2x the performance of the highest version of Intel's integrated graphic solutions of the Sandy Bridge second generation Core series. Both of these will come in the form of results I will look at later.

Overview

The ASRock A75 Extreme6 is aimed at the high end Desktop Llano workspace, and, from what ASRock are telling me, will ship in at $150. Unfortunately, I haven't other A75 boards to compare it to yet, but I get the same steady feeling I've got from ASRock boards of late - it's just something that works. There's one minor glitch for now that I've found, to do with memory compatibility, but what we're dealing with here on the board is a good number of features, and the only real downside is the Llano chip itself.
If we look at the prices of the 890 chipset, most motherboards are in the $100-$145 range, so in terms of CPU performance, we're paying a little extra. With the integrated APU at hand, however, you could see where the extra comes from - a different power integration arrangement, and the need for various video output connectors. Personally, I see Desktop Llano more of a niche area, so it will be interesting to see how aggressive the motherboard manufacturers are with pricing.

Visual Inspection

Desktop Llano features the same retention bracket spacing as AM2 and AM3, which, in all honesty, is quite big compared to Intel's chipsets. As a result, we see a bunched up power delivery to the west of the socket itself, covered in a large heatsink of ASRock's design (this is a main difference to the preview board I tested earlier). The chokes on this design are still of the old design - if you can recall, during my tour with ASRock at Computex, I noticed they were using a different choke design on their high end boards to improve power delivery, heat generation and efficiency (similar to MSI's SFC). It seems that the new design still hasn't filtered down into their non-gaming products; despite the fact that I was told that the two choke designs cost the same.

The socket area itself has five fan headers, of which I highly approve and would like to see on every other motherboard on the market - I'm using a Corsair H50, which in dual fan mode requires three (two for fans, one for the pump), so having another couple at hand for case fans is always a plus. Two of the fan headers are labelled for the CPU (one four pin, one three pin), the two under the power delivery are chassis headers (both three pin), and the one above the power delivery is a PWR fan (again, three pin). Elsewhere on the board is one more fan header, labelled as chassis (another three pin).

Beyond the 24-pin ATX connector is a USB 3.0 header, but unfortunately no USB 3.0 bracket comes with this ASRock board like their Sandy Bridge Extreme series. The eight (yes, eight) SATA 6 Gb/s ports come in a couple of flavors - six from the Fusion Controller Hub (FCH), and two more from an ASMedia controller. We also see the Power/Reset/Debug LED combo, which I approve of.

The FCH heatsink is ASRock's low profile, silent design, which actually gets quite warm when anything is overclocked. PCIe design is x1, x16, PCI, PCI, x16, PCI, x4 - with the x16 slots running at x8/x8 mode when two discrete GPUs are being used.

The I/O panel is actually fairly bare, as ASRock haven't decided to stack anything on top of the HDMI. With some extra effort, I'm sure a pair of USBs could be stacked on top of it. Actually, in my initial preview piece, I stated how the USB ports on the far left (physically at the top of the board) were quite tough to get anything in beyond a USB mouse or keyboard if the DVI video out was used. ASRock's response was to 'use a USB port extender - we had to cater for those using DVI + HDMI at the same time', which in my eyes is a stone's throw away from 'oops, we didn't spot that'. Other connectivity comes in the form of a PS/2 port, two native USB 3.0 ports, two USB 3.0 ports from an ASMedia ASM1042 controller, a VGA port, two USB 2.0 ports, an eSATA 3 Gbps port, Realtek controller enabled gigabit Ethernet, a Firewire port, an optical SPDIF out, and the standard audio outputs.

HTC Sensation 4G Review - A Sensational Smartphone

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 06:05:00 +0000

I like what HTC has been up to lately. Rather than fighting a race to the bottom with endless soulless variants of the same piece of hardware in a crowded (and fiercely competitive) Android handset market, it’s trying to grow beyond just being a handset manufacturer.

I hate starting reviews with history lessons, but in this case we really do need to step back to see where HTC is coming from. In the beginning, HTC was a nameless OEM for other more famous brands. Its clients were smartphone and Pocket PC names like Palm with its Treo, Compaq with its iPaq, Dell with a number of the Axim PDAs, and UTStarcomm. As Windows Mobile aged and showed little signs of improving, HTC took its first step outside the bounds of being just a hardware assembler by taking on an ambitious project to revitalize Windows Mobile with a software skin. The fruits of this effort were TouchFlo, and later TouchFlo 3D UIs - which eventually would become HTC Sense. Somewhere between the release of the HTC Mogul and HTC Touch Pro, HTC realized that its future wasn’t purely in manufacturing devices for other handset vendors, but in leveraging its own brand. The combination of continually improving industrial design, software, and its own direction have turned HTC into the device manufacturer it is today.
Things have come a long, long way since the HTC Dream, and today we’re looking at HTC’s latest and greatest with the HTC Sensation.

I get a bit excited every time I look at the HTC Sensation. It’s a device with perhaps the strongest and most bold design language of any HTC phone to date. You can pretty much chart HTC’s design language by looking at each generation of its international handsets.

Gallery: HTC Sensation - Hardware Gallery

The HTC Desire was essentially an international version of the Nexus One, with hardware buttons but the same 65nm single core Snapdragon QSD8250 SoC. The second generation was the HTC Desire HD, which brought a larger 4.3” screen and 45nm Snapdragon MSM8255 SoC. The third step is the HTC Sensation, which ups resolution from WVGA 800x480 to qHD 960x540 and brings a 45nm dual core Snapdragon MSM8260 SoC.

Physical Comparison

Apple iPhone 4

HTC Thunderbolt

LG Optimus 2X/G2x

HTC Sensation

Height

115.2 mm (4.5")

122 mm (4.8")

123.9 mm (4.87")

126.3 mm (4.97")

Width

58.6 mm (2.31")

67 mm (2.63")

63.2 mm (2.48")

65.5 mm (2.58")

Depth

9.3 mm ( 0.37")

13.2 mm (0.52")

10.9 mm (0.43")

11.6 mm (0.46")

Weight

137 g (4.8 oz)

183.3 g (6.46 oz)

139.0 g (4.90 oz)

148 g (5.22 oz)

CPU

Apple A4 @ ~800MHz

1 GHz MSM8655 45nm Snapdragon

1 GHz Dual Core Cortex-A9 Tegra 2 AP20H

1.2 GHz Dual Core Snapdragon MSM8260

GPU

PowerVR SGX 535

Adreno 205

ULP GeForce

Adreno 220

RAM

512MB LPDDR1 (?)

768 MB LPDDR2

512 MB LPDDR2

768 MB LPDDR2

NAND

16GB or 32GB integrated

4 GB NAND with 32 GB microSD Class 4 preinstalled

8 GB NAND with up to 32 GB microSD

4 GB NAND with 8 GB microSD Class 4 preinstalled

Camera

5MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera

8 MP with autofocus and dual LED flash, 720p30 video recording, 1.3 MP front facing

8 MP with AF/LED Flash, 1080p24 video recording, 1.3 MP front facing

8 MP AF/Dual LED flash, VGA front facing

Screen

3.5" 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD

4.3” 800 x 480 LCD-TFT

4.3" 800 x 480 LCD-TFT

4.3" 960 x 540 S-LCD

Battery

Integrated 5.254Whr

Removable 5.18 Whr

Removable 5.6 Whr

Removable 5.62 Whr

Physically it’s obvious that each successive device builds on the former. They’re all backed with HTC’s trademark purple-grey metal and have similar in-hand feel as a result. When I look at the Sensation, I see the Desire crossed with the Desire HD. When I actually hold the Sensation, I feel like I’m holding a grown-up Nexus One.

The two share that trademark combination of slightly rubbery plastic and metal, and as a result the device feels grippy, solid, and confident. What the Sensation also really continues from the other devices is the lack of a hard lip of any kind at the edge, instead every corner rolls off giving the phone a smooth feeling. The sensation of holding something rigid and expensive is communicated by that combination of materials, rather than the cheap plasticky feel conveyed by a number of other handsets.

The Sensation comes in the same style of packaging that we've seen other T-Mobile phones arrive in. It's a two-part box with a thin middle strip. The top lifts off revealing the phone, and underneath that is the usual paperwork, HTC AC adapter and microUSB cable, and earbuds.

I started off making one monolithic video for the Sensation, but that ended up being unwieldy, so I split it into multiple parts. The first one is simply a look at the hardware from all angles, torn down, and how it compares to both HTC's legacy devices and some of its modern contenders.

Apple 27-inch LED Cinema Display Review

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:36:00 +0000

Two years ago Apple introduced its first LED backlit Cinema Display. The 24-inch model updated the styling of Apple’s displays to match the unibody MacBook Pro’s ID. It also added features like a built-in MagSafe power supply and mini DisplayPort input, both targeted at owners of new Macs. Unlike most 24-inch displays however, the LED Cinema Display carried an $899 price tag at launch. Even today they are selling for over $600 used. By comparison, Dell will sell you a brand new 24-inch display for $259 or $539 if you want one with an IPS panel. Needless to say, Apple discontinuing the 24-inch LED Cinema Display makes sense. The company is generally uninterested in playing in value segments and I’m not sure there’s a huge market for $900 24-inch displays, regardless of what logo is on the back.

What is a lot more interesting however is the panel used in Apple’s 27-inch iMac. A 16:9 2560 x 1440 LED backlit LCD measuring 27” along the diagonal. Giving you 90% of the resolution of a 30” panel but in a more compact space. If you need more real estate than a standard 1920 x 1200 panel can give you and don’t want to resort to a multi-monitor setup, the 27-inch iMac was very appealing. There’s just one problem: it comes with a built in Mac.

What Apple has done in the 12 months since the release of the 27-inch iMac is separate the Mac from the display, leaving us with a 27-inch LED Cinema Display priced at $999.

Both the 24-inch LED and 30-inch panels are gone, the 27 takes their place in Apple’s display lineup. The new model is really an amalgamation of its predecessors. You get nearly the resolution of the 30-inch Cinema Display with the features of the 24-inch model.

Those features start with the styling. The 27 has a glass front, reminiscent of the unibody MacBook Pro, complete with its overly reflective glory. Unlike the Macbook Pro however, the 27-inch LED Cinema Display will almost exclusively used indoors. Most rooms/offices having some degree of light control (hooray for blinds) and the display is bright enough to make glare from other lights sources a non-issue. The glossy front does pose a problem while watching videos full screen however. If you ever had dreams of being an actor, expect them to be somewhat fulfilled as you find your face in any dark scenes or objects (e.g. black shirt).

The stand is a solid piece of brushed aluminum. You can adjust the tilt of the display but there’s no option to adjust its height. This can be a major problem if you don’t have a height adjustable desk. Apple has a tendency to build very targeted devices, if you don’t fit the target, prepare to be frustrated.

The 27 uses an IPS panel paired with an LED backlight. You lose some color gamut since Apple continues to use white LEDs vs. RGB LEDs, but you gain a more compact package and lower power consumption.
There’s an integrated VGA camera along the top of the screen, once again a feature missing from the old 30 but present in the 24. Along the bottom you have a mesh grill for the integrated 2.1 speakers that come with the display.

Apple 27-inch LED Cinema Display Specifications
Property	Quoted Specification
Video Inputs	mini DisplayPort
Panel Type	IPS, white LED backlight
Pixel Pitch	0.233 mm
Colors	16.7 Million (24 bit)
Brightness	375 nits typical
Contrast Ratio	1,000:1 (typical)
Response Time	12ms
Viewable Size	27" (68.58 cm) diagonal
Resolution	2560 x 1440
Viewing Angle	178 degrees horizontal, 178 degrees vertical
Power Consumption (operation)	up to 250W while charging MacBook Pro
Power Consumption (standby)	<1 watt
Screen Treatment	Glossy
Height-Adjustable	No
Tilt	Yes
Pivot	No
Swivel	No
VESA Wall Mounting	Yes
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD)	25.7" (650 mm) x 19.35" (491 mm) x 8.15" (207 mm)
Weight w/ Stand	23.5 lbs (10.7 kg)
Additional Features	85W MagSafe Power Adapter integrated, 2.1 Speaker System integrated, 3 x USB port hub
Limited Warranty	1 year limited warranty
Accessories	Breakout cable with miniDP, USB, MagSafe power, power cable
Price	$999

Integrated MagSafe Power Adapter

Around back there’s a plug for power and a single cable that carries mini DisplayPort, USB and MagSafe cables within it.

The MagSafe connector can be used to charge any MacBook, MacBook Pro or MacBook Air with a MagSafe connector. It’s a very convenient addition to the display and obviously works very well if you are using the Cinema Display with one of the aforementioned notebooks. If you aren’t however, the short length of the MagSafe power cable is annoying. I’ve got a desktop and a notebook and I wanted to use the power from the Cinema Display to keep my notebook charged while I’m using my dekstop. Unfortunately this meant that I have to keep my charging notebook very close to the display input on my desktop as there’s only 10” of slack on the MagSafe cable (cable to connector, add another 1.5” if you include the connector in the length).

Mini DisplayPort, Only

Mini DisplayPort is the only way to get video into this monitor, which pretty much rules out any Mac made before late 2008. Even EVGA’s GeForce GTX 285 Mac Edition lacks a mini-DP port. I was forced to go back to my old GeForce GT 120 in my Nehalem Mac Pro to use the display (which works despite Apple listing it as compatible with only the 24-inch LED Cinema Display). Like many Apple products, if you have the right hardware the combination works flawlessly, if you don’t it’s just frustrating. Atlona is the only company I’m aware of that makes a dual-link DVI to mini-DP adapter. It sells for $149.95 if you desperately want the new Cinema Display and don’t have a video card with mini-DP out. I have yet to try it but customer reviews on Amazon indicate it works with the 27-inch iMac at least.

Integrated Audio

With MagSafe and miniDP out of the way we’re left with the USB connector on the cable. The USB connector plays two roles. First and foremost it is to connect the three USB ports on the back of the display to your computer. The second role is to connect the internal USB audio device to your computer as well. Driving the integrated 2.1 speakers is a USB audio device integrated into the monitor (DisplayPort audio is also supported). You get basic driver support for the controller under both OS X and Windows 7.

The integrated speakers sound better than notebook speakers, but worse than a good set of desk speakers. There’s very little bass and the highs can be a bit harsh at loud volumes. Then there’s the issue of where the sound actually comes from. The speakers point downward, a couple of bounces later and it sounds like music comes from behind your display rather than straight at you as is the case with standalone speakers.
The speakers can get loud. At their lowest setting I measured 47dB(A) sitting 2 feet away in my office (40 dB(A) ambient noise), but cranked all the way up the sound meter registered 87dB(A). The issue at high volumes is you really begin to see the limits of the speakers. There’s only so much you can do with speakers integrated into a display after all.

Again the speakers are a definite upgrade from what you’ll find in your MacBook Pro, but if you’re a desktop user with a decent sound setup they will go largely unused. While I used them over the past few days, I definitely missed my Klipsch Promedia 2.1s.

Built in iSight, Not Half Bad

Webcams are ubiquitous in Apple's notebook and desktop lineups, the 27 supports the family tradition with its VGA still/video camera complete with green LED to indicate when it's active.

Image quality is surprisingly good even in my not-so-brightly-lit office:

Applications like Photo Booth under OS X can rely on the LED backlit screen as a flash to help. There’s a mic along the top of the display.

I iChatted with Brian Klug and he said the mic sounded good in practice.

Also at the top of of the screen is an ambient light sensor. With the option enabled in software as ambient light increases, the screen’s brightness will decrease and vise versa. For the most part I found the feature worked ok but in my office I often found that the increase/decrease wasn’t significant enough to make a difference as the day turned into night. The sensor was never over active unless I was taking pictures of myself in Photo Booth. The flash before every photo bounced back, hit the light sensor and caused the display to dim significantly. Presumably you won’t be doing that all of the time and if you are, there’s always the option to turn it off.

Like all Apple displays there’s no OSD, everything is done in software. Under OS X this means you need to download the latest update for the 27-inch LED Cinema Display. Under Windows you need to download an update to Boot Camp 3.1. The good news is that the display works under Windows 7, the bad news is you need Boot Camp installed to get brightness control. The downloadable Windows drivers won’t work on a system without Boot Camp installed, in other words, on a normal PC you lose the ability to control brightness. Apple should make the 27-inch Windows control panel a standalone package and not tie it to Boot Camp. It seems as if Apple expects the only users interested in this panel will be those who already own an Intel based Mac. Self fulfilling prophecy much?

Apple Mac Pro (Mid 2010) Review

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:32:00 +0000

It’s the fastest Mac you can buy and it's a desktop. These days, the Mac Pro is basically the un-Mac.
For years users have argued that Apple needs a standard Mac. A decent desktop that fills the $1000 - $2000 price range. Apple has refused to entertain the idea for what I can only assume are a number of reasons. At lower price points it’s difficult to justify the Apple tax, thus driving margins lower and ultimately impacting stock price. There’s also the issue of cannibalization. A standard Mac could potentially drive customers away from the iMac and into a Mac + cheap monitor configuration. From Apple’s perspective this probably harms the overall user experience (what if a customer buys an inferior display and uses it with a Mac?) and it only allows Apple to realize profit on a computer, not a computer + display.

This leaves us with the current product lineup. The Mac mini at the low end of the OS X scale, the iMac in the middle and the Mac Pro up top. If you want something high performance without an integrated display but more affordable than the Mac Pro then there’s always the Hackintosh route.

I spend all of this time talking about price because the Mac Pro isn’t cheap. Since its introduction in 2006 the Mac Pro lineup starts at $2499:

Historical Look at the Mac Pro
	Late 2006	Early 2008	Early 2009	Mid 2010
CPU	2 x Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz - 2C/2T)	2 x Xeon E5462 (2.8GHz - 4C/4T)	1 x Xeon W3520 (2.66GHz - 4C/8T)	1 x Xeon W3530 (2.8GHz - 4C/8T)
Memory	2 x 512MB DDR2-667 FB-DIMMs	2 x 1GB DDR2-800	3 x 1GB DDR3-1066	3 x 1GB DDR3-1066
Graphics	GeForce 7300 GT	Radeon HD 2600 XT	GeForce GT 120	Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Hard Drive	250GB	320GB	640GB	1TB
Optical	6X DL SuperDrive	8X DL SuperDrive	18X DL SuperDrive	18x DL SuperDrive
Prices	$2499	$2799	$2499	$2499

The specs have of course improved tremendously year over year. The Mac Pro was born after Apple decided to migrate to Intel based CPUs. It started with a dual-socket Conroe based Xeon, later saw an upgrade to Clovertown and then in 2009 moved to Nehalem. This summer Apple updated the hardware to Westmere, Intel’s current 32nm architecture.

While there were only two configurations for the Mac Pro (4 and 8 core), Westmere adds a third model: a 12-core Mac Pro priced at $4999. Of course there are build to order options in between all three of them.

Mid-2010 Mac Pro Lineup
	Quad-Core	8-Core	12-Core
CPU	1 x Xeon W3530 (2.8GHz - 4C/8T)	2 x Xeon E5620 (2.4GHz - 4C/8T)	2 x Xeon X5650 (2.66GHz - 6C/12T)
Memory	3 x 1GB DDR3-1066	6GB DDR3-1066	6GB DDR3-1333
Graphics	Radeon HD 5770 1GB	ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB	ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Hard Drive	1TB	1TB 7200RPM SATA	1TB 7200RPM SATA
Optical	18x DL SuperDrive	18x DL SuperDrive	18x DL SuperDrive
Prices	$2499	$3499	$4999

Estimating the “Apple Tax”

Despite the high cost of entry, historically the Apple tax has been nonexistent on the Mac Pro. I shopped around Dell and HP’s websites to see if I could find similarly configured systems to the new Mac Pro. For the most part Apple was priced identically if not cheaper than Dell and HP for both the single and dual-socket Mac Pros:

Estimating the Apple Tax on the 2010 Mac Pro
	Apple Mac Pro	Dell Precision T5500	Custom Built
CPU	2 x Xeon E5620 (2.4GHz quad-core 12MB L3)	2 x Xeon E5620 (2.4GHz quad-core 12MB L3)	2 x Xeon E5620 (2.4GHz quad-core 12MB L3)
Memory	6GB DDR3-1066	6GB DDR3-1333	Kingston 6GB DDR3-1333
Graphics	ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB	ATI FirePro V8700 1GB	Sapphire Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Hard Drive	1TB 7200RPM SATA	1TB 7200RPM SATA	WD Caviar Black 1TB 7200RPM SATA
Optical	18x DL SuperDrive	16X DVD +/- RW	LG 24X DVD +/- RW
Notes	$249 for 3-year warranty	3 year warranty standard	Includes Corsair Obsidian 700D case at $249.99, Antec 750W PSU, ASUS Z8NA-D6C Motherboard at $259.99
Prices	$3499 + $249 for 3 year warranty $3748	$3895	$1752.90 + OS

The Dell comes with a more expensive video card since there wasn’t an option for a Radeon HD 5770 class part. Other than that the two systems are similarly configured and there’s no real price premium for the Mac. You can obviously save a ton of money if you don’t need a dual-socket, eight-core beast but if you’re buying in this class of products Apple is price competitive. This isn’t anything new. I ran the same comparison in our first Mac Pro review and came out with similar results. ~~There’s effectively no “Apple tax” on the Mac Pro.~~

Update: Dell doesn't offer a Radeon HD 5770, instead you get a much more expensive FirePro V8700 graphics card. If deduct the street price for the graphics card from each machine, the Mac Pro ends up being $324 more expensive than the Dell. The Apple tax is there, but masked by the cheaper GPU.

Update 2: There's one more key difference in the specs. The Dell comes with a 3 year warranty vs. Apple's 1 year warranty. To get 3 years from Apple you need to purchase the $249 Apple Care add-on. Also, as many have pointed out, Dell can offer significant discounts over the phone. Apple can offer large discounts as well if you are an educational or business customer.

Where you can save a ton of money building your own however. A quick look through Newegg gave us a similar configuration to the Apple and Dell systems for $1612.91 plus the cost of the OS.

Apple's 11-inch Upgraded MacBook Air: Do 1.6GHz and 4GB Make a Difference?

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:29:00 +0000

Last month we looked at Apple’s new 11-inch and 13-inch MacBook Airs. I concluded the 11-inch was the pinnacle of portability, delivering the weight and form factor of a netbook but without the drive-you-crazy performance of an Atom. The 13-inch was more of a regular, get-your-work done notebook - just in a very thin and very light chassis. I liked carrying the 11-inch MBA, but I liked working on the 13-inch. My typical workflow was simply too slow on the 1.4GHz 11-inch system.

Apple offers two potentially important upgrades for the 11-inch MacBook Air that could alleviate some of my concerns. For $100 more than its $999 starting price, you can outfit the 11 with 4GB of memory instead of 2GB. Light web browsing and writing don’t need more than 2GB, but start editing videos, photos or open way too many apps at once and you’ll quickly want more memory. If you’re planning on keeping your system for a while, the 4GB upgrade makes a lot of sense. And many Apple stores actually stock the upgraded 4GB model.

The next upgrade is a bit harder to swallow. The base 11-inch MacBook Air can’t be upgraded aside from memory. The $1199 model however, can. You get a 128GB SSD (up from 64GB) as well as the option to pay $100 for a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo.

Normally 200MHz isn’t much to write home about, especially not for $300 more than the standard 11. However, 200MHz is a 14% increase in clock speed compared to the base model. In applications that are CPU bound, you may see close to that percentage in improved performance. The magic number for feeling a performance increase is 10%. Anything below that is tough to feel in real world use, but anything at or above that 10% mark usually feels quicker.

MacBook Air Spec Comparison
	11-inch	Upgraded 11-inch	13-inch
CPU	Intel Core 2 Duo 1.4GHz	Intel Core 2 Duo 1.6GHz	Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz (2.13GHz optional)
Memory	2GB DDR3-1066 soldered on-board	4GB DDR3-1066 soldered on-board	2GB DDR3-1066 soldered on-board (4GB optional)
GPU	NVIDIA GeForce 320M	NVIDIA GeForce 320M	NVIDIA GeForce 320M
Storage	64GB SSD	128GB SSD	128GB SSD (256GB optional)
Connectivity	802.11a/b/g/n Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR	802.11a/b/g/n Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR	802.11a/b/g/n Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR
Battery Capacity	35 Whr	35 Whr	50 Whr
Dimensions	11.8 " x 7.56 " x 0.11 - 0.68" (29.95 cm x 19.2 cm x 0.3 - 1.7 cm)	11.8 " x 7.56 " x 0.11 - 0.68" (29.95 cm x 19.2 cm x 0.3 - 1.7 cm)	12.8 " x 8.94 " x 0.11 - 0.68" (32.5 cm x 22.7 cm x 0.3 - 1.7 cm)
Weight	2.3 lbs (1.06 kg)	2.3 lbs (1.06 kg)	2.9 lbs (1.32 kg)
Price	$999	$1399	$1299

Combine the two upgrades and you’ve got a fairly expensive MacBook Air ($1399 if you’re keeping score). But if you want the portability of the 11 and are looking to get as much performance as possible, it’s your only option.

Luckily we happened to come across such a system. And we didn’t hesitate to test it.

Motorola Droid 3 Pops up in GLBenchmark-A VerizonXT883 with OMAP4

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:22:00 +0000

A tipster dropped a link our way early this morning to a GLBenchmark 2.0 results browser page that might be of interest to many. Hit that page and you'll find a complete run of the current GLBenchmark 2.0 suite, and a bit of a confirmation about what is and isn't the upcoming Motorola Droid 3. It isn't Tegra 2, it's OMAP 4430.

First off, the hardware specifications that we can glean from the information page seem to make it a virtually identical match with the specs of the Motorola Milestone 3, or XT883. That means a qHD 960x540 display likely 4" in size, hardware five-row QWERTY keyboard, Android 2.3.4, a possible 1 GB of LPDDR2 (512 MB is the other less-desirable, rumored number), 8 MP rear camera, front camera, and of course an accompanying CDMA2000 baseband for Verizon.

Given the number of recent flagship Motorola product launches with Tegra 2 SoCs, starting with the Motorola Atrix, the Droid X2, and the now-delayed Droid Bionic it seemed that a flagship (read: QWERTY keyboard-packing) summer Motorola Droid launch with Tegra 2 was inevitable. From the results page, it now seems that the Motorola Droid 3 will include a 1GHz OMAP 4430 SoC with PowerVR SGX 540 graphics, and not a Tegra 2.

The model in the results browser is codenamed "Solana" which matches the codename we've heard about for the Verizon-bound Motorola Droid 3. The photos below are of the XT883 which the Motorola Droid 3 will undoubtedly bear an uncanny resemblance to.

Motorola Milestone 3 - XT883 for China (courtesy: Motorola Mobility)

The benchmarks themselves paint an interesting picture, and while we're at it I've tossed in some other devices we have in-hand but haven't finished our full reviews of yet for comparison with these results from the Motorola Droid 3. Again GLBenchmark 2.0 runs we're reporting here are at native resolution for the respective devices, which we've now included in the description line for comparison. For a quick refresher, WVGA is 800x480, FWVGA is 854x480, and qHD is 960x540.

I've highlighted the previous Motorola Droid 2 results (which we reviewed last year) just for fun to illustrate how far we've come in one calendar year.

Nokia N9 &N950 Officially Announced -MeeGo Running on OMAP3630

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:19:00 +0000

Back when we reviewed the Nokia N900 we really only wanted a few major improvements. A faster SoC, slightly thinner and more compact hardware, and more of Maemo Linux. It's been a long wait since then, and Nokia has changed its lineup, canceled the original N900 successor, taken on a new CEO, and rebooted itself under the Windows Phone 7 umbrella.

Those of us that wanted a smartphone running real bona-fide linux seemed destined to be waiting forever. Today however, Nokia officially announced the Nokia N9 and N950 at its Nokia Connection event in Singapore.

The N9 runs MeeGo, which as you likely know by now is the combination of Nokia's Maemo and Intel Moblin. MeeGo in smartphone form has something we've been waiting patiently for. The N9's industrial design looks nothing short of stunning, though all of the photos of the device so far appear to be renders and not actually physical hardware.

What's unique about the N9 is that the front of the device is buttonless, virtually everything is accomplished by tapping on the capacitive touchscreen, including unlocking the device. There's still volume, power, and camera buttons however.

Nokia really seems to have spent a lot of time working on UI for MeeGo as evidenced by an interesting three home screen design, emphasis on using the swipe gesture to change applications, and pinch gestures for getting a multi-window view. The three home screens are purpose-designed for launching applications, viewing open applications and multitasking, and managing events such as news and messages.

The N9 is polycarbonate plastic and unibody construction, and is sans-keyboard. Its cousin is the similarly-specced N950, which is a non-retail developer device that looks like what remains of the original N9. There are anumber of small differences between the N9 and the N950, chief among which is inclusion of a hardware QWERTY keyboard and aluminum construction, thanks again to Simon for finding these differences and tipping me on them.

Nokia Device Specifications
	Nokia N9	Nokia N950
Height	116.45 mm (4.58")	(?)
Width	61.2 mm (2.41")	(?)
Depth	7.6 - 12.1 mm (0.3" - 0.48")	(?)
Weight	135 g (4.76 oz)	(?)
CPU	TI OMAP 3630 @ 1 GHz	TI OMAP 3630 @ 1 GHz
GPU	PowerVR SGX 530	PowerVR SGX 530
RAM	1 GB LPDDR	1 GB LPDDR
NAND	16GB or 64GB integrated	16GB or 64GB integrated
Camera	8MP Carl Zeiss 16:9 F/2.2 with Dual LED flash and 720P video capture, Front Facing (?MP)	8MP with Dual LED flash and 720P video capture, Front Facing (?MP)
Screen	3.9" FWVGA (854x480) AMOLED with Gorilla Glass	4.0" FWVGA (854x480) LCD-TFT
Battery	1450 mAh Integrated(?)	1320 mAh
Bluetooth	Bluetooth 4.0	Bluetooth 2.1+EDR
WiFi	802.11a/b/g/n	802.11a/b/g/n
NFC	Yes	No
Sensors	Accelerometer, Compass, Proximity, Ambient Light	"N9 has a slightly more sensitive magnetometer and ALS"
OS	MeeGo 1.2 Hartmattan	MeeGo 1.2 Hartmattan

The two devices also have pentaband WCDMA support and quad band GSM/EDGE support, though there's no word on what cellular baseband is at the core of everything. In addition, the N9 includes NFC support, though Nokia hasn't specifically stated whether all three NFC modes are supported. In all likelihood this is assumed now given NFC chipset maturity.

Though the SoC seems dated for a device that still isn't released yet, it's a definite improvement over the N900's 600 MHz OMAP 3430.

Nokia N9/N950- Network Support
GSM/EDGE Support	850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz
UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA Support	850 / 900 / 1700 / 1900 / 2100 MHz
HSDPA/HSUPA Speeds	HSDPA 14.4 / 5.7 Mbps
Baseband Hardware	(?)

The device looks solid, though there's no word on a specific release date or pricing, just "later this year." Nokia has provided a quick specifications PDF, and more information on their conversations blog and website.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Review: The Sleekest Honeycomb Tablet

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:14:00 +0000

I remember standing in the audience of Samsung's CTIA press conference as it announced, for the first time ever, pricing and availability of its unreleased Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 8.9 before shipping. The smartphone (and early tablet) industries have gone this long without having to really compete based on price, mostly because in North America the carriers subsidize much of the cost. If every device costs $199 under contract, why get carried away with details like how much it actually costs?

The Galaxy Tab however was playing in a different space. While Apple ultimately caved to the pressures of carrier subsidies with the iPhone, the iPad remains completely unsubsidized and its followers buy it by the millions. The magical price point is $499 and it was at Samsung's CTIA press conference that it announced it would be matching Apple's $499 price point, and even dropping slightly below it for the 8.9-inch version.
At the time it seemed like a bold move, enough to give Honeycomb the fighting chance it needed. The Galaxy Tab would be thinner and lighter than the iPad 2 but competitively priced as well. This wouldn't be another Xoom.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (top) vs. ASUS Eee Pad Transformer (bottom)

Then ASUS showed up. At $399, the Eee Pad Transformer not only offered a different usage model to the iPad and Galaxy Tab, it brought a lower price tag as well. Availability has been slim thanks to component shortages, but with the Eee Pad selling for $399 the Galaxy Tab at $499 all of the sudden seems overpriced.

2011 Tablet Comparison
	Apple iPad 2	ASUS Eee Pad Transformer	Motorola Xoom WiFi	Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
SoC	Apple A5 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)	NVIDIA Tegra 2 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)	NVIDIA Tegra 2 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)	NVIDIA Tegra 2 (Dual ARM Cortex A9 @ 1GHz)
GPU	PowerVR SGX 543MP2	NVIDIA GeForce	NVIDIA GeForce	NVIDIA GeForce
RAM	512MB	1GB	1GB	1GB
Display	1024 x 768 IPS	1280 x 800 IPS	1280 x 800	1280 x 800 PLS
NAND	16GB	16GB	32GB	16GB
Dimensions	241.2mm x 185.7mm x 8.8mm	271mm x 175mm x 12.95mm	249.1mm x 167.8mm x 12.9mm	256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6mm
Weight	601g	695g	730g	565g
Price	$499	$399	$599	$499

Based on specs alone you'd be right. Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 has the same NVIDIA Tegra 2 tablet SoC inside,

1GB of LPDDR2 and 16GB of NAND on-board. You get a 10.1-inch 1280 x 800 PLS display and 802.11n WiFi support. It's worth pointing out that we're now well into the month of June and NVIDIA continues to be the only SoC vendor shipping in Honeycomb tablets. Samsung originally had plans to ship its own Exynos SoC in the Galaxy Tab but Tegra 2 remains the port of choice for all Honeycomb vendors at this point. Whether or not NVIDIA can win twice in a row with Ice Cream Sandwich later this year remains to be seen.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (left) vs. ASUS Eee Pad Transformer (Right)

Where Samsung gives you something more for your money is in build quality and form factor. While Eee Pad Transformer feels surprisingly good for a cost reduced tablet, it doesn't feel nearly as slim or portable as the Galaxy Tab 10.1. It's no wonder Samsung went back to the drawing board on this one, the result is something that in many ways feels better than the iPad 2.

Apple still gets the nod in terms of quality of materials. The aluminum back of the iPad 2 is unbeatable. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 however feels lighter, a bit more rugged (I'm less concerned about scratching plastic than I am marring aluminum) and a little more comfortable to hold as a result. Against the Eee Pad there's no competition. I can live with the Eee Pad, but I much prefer the feel of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The new Tab just feels like a device from this year - a complement that, until now, I had only given to Apple.

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 measures just 8.6mm thick, 0.2mm thinner than the iPad 2. To be honest you really can't tell the difference, both devices feel thin. Ever after holding them back to back it's near impossible to tell that Samsung has built a thinner device. The most tangible difference in feel is the weight, not just in overall mass but in terms of weight distribution. The Galaxy Tab seems to carry the weight a bit better than the iPad, a bit more evenly.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (left) vs. Apple iPad 2 (right)

Now is as good a time as any to point out that although Samsung calls this the Galaxy Tab 10.1, it's really the new Galaxy Tab 10.1. Originally Samsung announced a much thicker version at Mobile World Congress, a month prior to the CTIA announcement. With the much thinner iPad 2 hitting the market after the original 10.1 announcement, Samsung scrapped plans for the original and unveiled the thinner 8.6mm version as the new Galaxy Tab. The original Galaxy Tab 10.1 is now known as the Galaxy Tab 10.1v.

The Llano Desktop Preview: AMD A8-3850 CPU & GPU Performance

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:11:00 +0000

If you haven't gotten the hint, today is all about Llano. The big story is of course Llano's notebook appearance; however, in the coming weeks you'll be hearing a lot more about Llano on the desktop as well. This is AMD's Socket-FM1, the brand new socket that'll be used for desktop Llano parts:

If you read our Computex coverage, the socket should look pretty familiar. Motherboard manufacturers all over Taiwan are busy readying their Socket-FM1 boards for retail release. In fact, there was so much interest in desktop Llano on behalf of the motherboard manufacturers that a number of Socket-FM1 boards and CPUs made their way off the island as Computex ended.

Existing Socket-AM3 coolers will work on FM1 motherboards

By now you may have already seen a lot of information leaked from AMD's Llano presentations, as well as its desktop strategy. In the past few days performance numbers have been revealed as well. While we're hard at work on our full review of AMD's desktop Llano APU, we wanted to chime in with some thoughts on Llano's desktop performance.

AMD isn't ready to disclose pricing or the entire product matrix for Llano on the desktop, but what we do have is the high-end desktop Llano SKU: AMD's A8-3850.

The 3850 has four cores running at 2.9GHz and doesn't support Turbo Core. On the GPU side it has the full Radeon HD 6550D configuration with 400 shader processors running at 600MHz.

Sandy Bridge's GPU performance is the target, but how much better will AMD do on the desktop? Let's find out.

NEC PA301w: The Baddest 30-inch Display Around

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:28:00 +0000

It's been a busy and short two weeks since Anand and I thoroughly covered smartphones, tablets, and SoCs at MWC. I got back to an ever-growing pile of monitors that need reviewing, he got back to the Xoom and new SSDs.

In the monitor space, it's been an interesting couple of months because everyone has been updating their 30-inch display. We reviewed the HP ZR30w back when that happened and came away impressed but wanting more in a couple of areas - more input options, an OSD, and a better scaler. Then came Dell U3011, which brought equally decent performance, a wealth of input options, and that OSD we wanted.

Today we're looking at NEC's latest and greatest, the MultiSync PA301w. I've been playing with a pre-production unit which is identical to what will be shipping, and have put it through the usual paces of our monitor testing suite. First up is the specification table:

NEC MultiSync PA301w
Video Inputs	2xDVI-D w/HDCP, 2xDisplayPort 1.1a
Panel Type	P-IPS 10-bit with CCFL Backlight - 0Z100223UW
Pixel Pitch	0.251 mm
Colors	1.07 billion (30 BPP color w/appropriate GPU)
Brightness	350 nits (typical)
Contrast Ratio	1,000:1 (typical)
Response Time	7 ms (GTG), 12 ms (max)
Viewable Size	29.8" (75.6 cm)
Resolution	2560 x 1600 at 60 Hz
Viewing Angle	178 degrees horizontal and vertical
Power Consumption (operation)	165 watts (typical), 90 watts (eco)
Power Consumption (standby)	1.7 watts (standby), 0.2 watts (off)
Screen Treatment	Matte/Anti-Glare
Height-Adjustable	Yes: 5.9 inches (landscape), 1.2 inches (portrait)
Tilt	Yes: +30 degrees, -10 degrees
Pivot	Yes: Landscape and Portrait
Swivel	Yes: +/- 30 degrees
VESA Wall Mounting	Yes: 100 mm x 100 mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD)	27.1" (688.0 mm) x 18.4-24.3" (466.4-646.4 mm) x 11.9" (301.6 mm)
Weight	41.5 lbs (18.8 kg) with stand
Additional Features	Integrated USB 2.0 Switch (2 upstream, 3 downstream, 500mA), self calibration support with i1D2, 10-bit color, quick warmup
Limited Warranty	4 years
Accessories	Power, DVI-D, DisplayPort, and USB cables, 4x VESA screws
Price	PA301w: $2299, PA301w-BK-SV: $2549

Right away you can tell the PA301w is in a different class of professional displays than the two other counterparts I've already mentioned. It's priced accordingly, and has the professional-oriented inputs and other features. There's no HDMI or component in, nor is there audio pass through. The PA301w is aimed at the professional that demands uncompromising performance and has the budget to satisfy that need. The PA301w is built around a 10-bit P-IPS (Professional-IPS) panel likely sourced from LG. Like the current crop of 30-inch monitors, that means you can drive 30 bit per color (10-bit per channel) content over DisplayPort if you have a capable GPU and the right software. I'm still searching for software that actually uses 30-bit color (if you know of any, I'd honestly love to hear about it), but when that time comes, it'll be supported.

The PA301w also has a few features that I haven't seen in a monitor before. Chief among them is onboard support for some basic calibration with an X-Rite i1D2 colorimeter. Plug it into a USB port on the side of the monitor, go into the OSD, and the display will automatically calibrate white point, brightness, and the color tristimulus values. It doesn't displace software calibration, but gets the monitor to a very workable initial starting position you can tweak from, which (if you've ever calibrated a display before) can be a huge timesaver. The other interesting hardware feature is something of a built-in KVM USB switch. There are two USB downstream ports, which can be associated with particular display inputs and switch peripherals accordingly. Lastly, there are a number of green/power-saving features to both show power use and offer power savings by doing some auto brightness adjustment when applicable.

On to the hardware itself - the PA301w is seriously a beast. It's the biggest, baddest monitor around in terms of just sheer size. I don't usually start off talking about boxes, but there's just no other way to really demonstrate the magnitude of the PA301w's size without doing so.

The box is easily two times the size of the HP ZR30w box, and almost three times how big I remember the Dell U3011 box being. It doesn't fit underneath any table or surface in my living room. It fills a good chunk of that room just sitting around, empty, even right now. I've never seen something like it on a monitor box (maybe a refrigerator?), but there's even a wince-inducing typo-ridden warning message encouraging that the monitor be remobed[sic] by two people.

Luckily, I have superhuman strength (yeah right...) and managed to get the thing out intact just by myself. It's a heavy monitor, at just over 41 lbs (18.8 kg) including stand. The PA301w comes fully assembled and in the upright position. There was more than adequate packing to keep the whole thing safe during transit.
That's a nice segue into the hardware features of the PA301w. At the bottom of the display arm is a locking switch for holding the monitor at its lowest position.

The display ships with it locked in position so you can lift the thing without the height adjustment arm fully extending. It's seriously surprising how many displays lately lack locking height adjustment arms, which makes transportation a pain, so it's nice to see it here.

Also on the back of the display is a cable routing guide, which NEC calls a "cable cover." You route the cables underneath on each side, then slide the plastic cover down and hide everything. In practice, it's really only useful if you don't rotate the monitor 90 degrees, since doing so will always create cable flex and demand more slack than you've got back there. It works if you keep things strictly landscape, however.

The backside of the PA301w is on the whole very spartan. There's an NEC logo up top, the two hand grips for transport if you're lucky enough to have a friend handy, and as we'll get to in a second the standard fare kensington lock and ports on the underside. There's a total of 5.9 inches of travel in the vertical direction when the monitor is in landscape mode, which is a huge amount, but necessary for portrait mode.

The PA301w has a generous amount of tilt in the upward direction (30 degrees), and only a slight 5-10 degree tilt in the downward direction. There's a lot of monitor to move around, but in spite of that, the springs on the PA301w are nicely preloaded. Tilt can still be somewhat challenging to manipulate though, and definitely requires use of both arms to manipulate the display.

There's also +/- 30 degrees of swivel support on the base. You can see the circular section at the back which the display arm rotates around. The base is weighted and there's no chatter as the huge thing rotates around, which is awesome. Thankfully, swivel is easily accomplished with one arm.

You'll notice so far that there's really no superficial aesthetic extras tacked onto the PA301w; this is a serious professional display. There's no metallic bezel running around the whole thing, no fancy shiny chrome parts, no gigantic self-aggrandizing logos on the back, no stickers plastered everywhere selling you what you've already ostensibly purchased and taken out of the box. It's just one huge monolithic slab of serious business.

The front of the PA301w is also understated. The OSD control buttons are at the bottom right, and they're actual real clicky buttons, nothing capacitive. At the far left is the ambient light sensor, followed by power, followed by the power/status LED which glows blue when on, amber when in standby. The rest of the buttons are self explanatory and as we'll show in the OSD section get their own LCD driven labels when you actually jump into the OSD.

I've already shown it, but on the right side of the PA301w is one of the three downstream USB 2.0 ports. This port is rather special, however, since it's the one you can plug the X-Rite i1D2 in for onboard calibration.

Of course, the port also works like normal when you're not in that special OSD section. The opposing side is spartan. I should also mention that the PA301w actual display panel is super thick, around 5" (12.7 cm). It's not a big deal, but it's just absolutely huge in comparison with other displays, so be prepared. The remainder of the ports are along the bottom of the lip underside. From left to right, the two remaining downstream USB 2.0 ports, two USB 2.0 upstream ports, 2x DisplayPort 1.1a, 2x DVI-D, and power.

What really sets the PA301w apart in my mind, however, is pivot support. That's right, you can use it in portrait orientation without using your own VESA mount. I should mention that although I didn't do it, you can get to the VESA mounting holes by pushing on the metal quick release lever right at the bottom of the mount.
Getting to portrait orientation is a bit of a challenge, however, as you can't simply just rotate the display 90 degrees - doing so crashes one side down into the base. The display also only rotates in the clockwise direction a significant amount. Counterclockwise rotation is limited to just a few degrees when facing the display from the front.

First, the display has to be tilted all the way out, then it can be rotated 90 degrees, and tilted back into perpendicular position. Rotate orientation in the display driver, and you're good to go. Vertical travel is limited to 1.2 inches in portrait, but hey, it's something, and it totally works.

Build quality of the PA301w isn't wanting for improvement at all. Though the exterior is entirely plastic, the entire display feels beefy and doesn't vibrate or chatter around when being adjusted. If you vibrate your desk while typing, the whole thing doesn't shudder either. Again, the spring preloads are just perfect for buttery smooth adjustment and damping on essentially every degree of freedom.

HP Veer 4G Review - Getting Us Excited for Pre 3

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:23:00 +0000

We touched on the Veer when it first hit our doorstep with a this just in post, and since then I’ve been using the device daily and trying to get an understanding for where it fits in both HP’s vision for WebOS and the greater scheme of things among all smartphones. The Veer’s launch is quite honestly a puzzling one. Usually launches are top down - launch the big flagship first, then reduced size and price ‘lite’ editions afterward that build off the flagship’s success and appeal to niches that aren’t served by the primary device either due to cost or size. For that reason, the Veer launch initially seemed a bit backwards, but factor in HP’s desire to get excitement for WebOS 2.0 started and ignite interest for the Pre 3, and things begin to make sense.

Size Comparison: (Left to Right) HTC EVO 4G (Sprint), Palm Pre Plus (AT&T), HP Veer 4G (AT&T)

The HP Veer 4G (henceforth just Veer) is the Palm Pixi’s obvious spiritual successor. It’s refreshed with a faster SoC, better camera (but without an LED flash), WiFi, WebOS 2.0, and repackaged in a different, smaller form factor. The two bear the same exact same screen size and resolution (2.6 inch, 320x400), and both include a keyboard in a diminutive package. One of the Palm Pre’s original differentiators was the inclusion of a keyboard, and thus far every WebOS device has likewise included one. For extremely small devices, hiding a keyboard somewhere isn’t exactly an easy task.

Left: Palm Pixi, Right: HP Veer 4G

The Pixi included one by sticking it beneath the display, resulting in a long and skinny phone that ended up having a funny aspect ratio. The Veer, however, keeps a much more Palm Pre - like form factor with sliding keyboard.

If the Palm Pre full size devices could be described as feeling like smooth river rocks in the hand, the Veer is more of a pebble. It truly feels like a scaled down Palm Pre. It’s small - no, that doesn’t even do it justice. It’s downright tiny.

The Veer has an outline just smaller than that of a credit card, and hides a four-row QWERTY keyboard away in the slider and only tacks on 4.25 mm of thickness and 10.5 grams in the process compared to the Pixi.

Gallery: HP Veer 4G Gallery

While the overwhelming trend right now is ever increasing display size, it’s obvious that HP recognizes an unfilled niche on the other side of the spectrum for something incredibly small. There’s definitely a market for devices with pocketable size that don’t “print” with tight fitting clothing. I’m told by my female friends that having a small device that fits those criteria is a big part of smartphone shopping. That said, the Veer is still thicker than a bunch of other phones, which is perhaps an even more important criteria for female shoppers.

Computex 2011 Some Time with Promise's Thunderbolt Devices

noreply@blogger.com (itworld2) — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:33:00 +0000

Yesterday Intel told us that Ivy Bridge would feature both USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt on its Ivy Bridge platform (USB 3.0 will be integrated into the chipset, Thunderbolt will simply be an optional component), that should help make both standards see more widespread adoption in 2012.

Two lines of systems currently support Thunderbolt: the new MacBook Pro and the new iMac, unfortunately there are no Thunderbolt peripherals available. Apparently both Apple and Intel want to approve devices before they go on sale, at least initially to ensure there are no embarrassing problems at launch. Although Promise showed off Thunderbolt enabled external storage devices at the Thunderbolt launch in February, we won't see availability until the end of June at the earliest.

Promise will release two external storage devices that use Thunderbolt as their sole interface: the Pegasus R4 and Pegasus R6. The difference between the two is strictly the number of drive bays; the R4 has 4 bays and the R6 has 6 bays. Both platforms support RAID 0/1/5/6 and 10.

The Pegasus enclosure has two Thunderbolt ports, one for input and one for output. Pegasus can pass through video, however the final connection to your display has to be via a DisplayPort cable since there are no Thunderbolt displays today other than what's integrated into the iMac/MBP. The Thunderbolt spec as implemented in the Macs supports up to 6 devices per root connection.

The Pegasus' bays support both 3.5" and 2.5" drives. Promise had a setup using Intel X25-Es although I'd expect SSD 510s to be used in any shipping products with SSDs. Pegasus does support 6Gbps drives, although the highest transfer rates I ever saw on the machine maxed out at 850MB/s despite the use of a 6-drive RAID-0. It looks like there may be some internal bottlenecks at work here.

Here's a shot of what a connected TB device looks like in System Profiler:

Activity Monitor accurately reports disk activity that happens over the Thunderbolt interface:

And of course performance results:

Promise also had its SANlink on display at the show:

The prototype takes a single Thunderbolt connection and allows you to bridge it to up to two 4Gbit Fibre Channel ports for connected a system to a beefier SAN.