hardwarezone

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:59:00 -0700

ternyata yang tidak bisa di cek ya mas

MSI Announces the CX420 and CR420 Notebooks

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:03:00 -0800

The latest 14" models in the MSI Classic series, the CX420 and CR420, boast the latest Intel Core i Series processors. The CX420 is also equipped with a built-in ATi Radeon HD5470 discrete graphics card with 1GB DDR3 memory and an external casing coated with MSI's exclusive Cross-Hatch Color Film Print patterning. With a lightweight as well as fashionable appearance, they are the best companions for next-generation audiovisual enjoyment.

MSI Notebook Marketing Director Sam Chern points out that the CX420 and CR420 represent the latest notebook models in the MSI Classic Series. They are configured with New 2010 Intel Core processor. Not only are the lid and palm rest area coated with bright, scratch-resistant Cross-Hatch Color Film Print (CFP) patterning, the models also come equipped with the Chiclet keyboard and seamless touch-pad, with the exterior utilizing MSI's exclusive "wedge" technique. These ultra-thin, 14" models weigh less than 2.2 kg, enabling users to enjoy high mobility in addition to powerful audiovisual and processing performance.

Great Entertainment with Fashionable Technology

Cross-Hatch Color Film Print Pattern: The lid and palm rest area of the CX420 and CR420 are coated with MSI's exclusive Cross-Hatch CFP patterning, which not only provides scratch-resistant protection but also reveals an exquisite texture that exhibits a radiant gloss. With a perfect 45-degree angle, the case is constructed with MSI's "wedge" design techniques, making the notebook slimmer, lighter (less than 2.2 kg) more portable and the perfect mobile entertainment companion.

MSI's unique Chiclet keyboard: The CX420 and the CR420 feature the latest in Chiclet keyboards, to give you an optimum typing experience whatever task you happen to be performing: word processing, instant messaging, etc. You also don't have to worry about touching other keys by accident. Together with the smooth cross-hatch CFP patterning on the lid and palm rest area, the models exhibit a distinctive minimalist style.

Classic Seamless Touch-pad: The CX420 and CR420 are equipped with MSI's distinctive seamless touch-pad. This touch-pad also utilizes the full-textured cross-hatch CFP patterning for the maximum in user enjoyment.

Wonderful Audiovisual Performance

New 2010 Intel core processor: The CX420 and CR420 feature the latest Intel Arrandale platform, which is equipped with the brand-new Intel Core i Series processor and HM55 chipset. Power consumption is even lower than that of the previous generation, with 15% extended battery life. They are also configured with Hyper-Threading technology. The performance of its integrated graphics core has also significantly improved, offering users excellent processing and display efficiency.

Built-in ATi Radeon HD 5470 Discrete Graphics Adaptor (1 GB DDR3 VRAM): CX420 has a built-in high-end ATi Radeon HD 5470 discrete graphics card equipped with 1GB DDR3 video memory. Its outstanding graphics performance and ultra-fine display offer users a color-rich and superior visual experience.

16:9 Theater-Class LED-Backlit Screen: CX420 and CR420 are powered by a 14" LED-backlit display with 16:9 cinematic aspect ratio and high resolution. The screen's viewable area is extended by 14% so that no horizontal black bars will ever get in the way again when you are watching high-quality DVD movies.

Exclusive Innovative Energy-Efficient Technology

Exclusive GPU Boost Technology: CX420 is equipped with MSI's exclusive GPU Boost technology to help you achieve a perfect balance between audiovisual performance and battery life! When running an application that requires high-performance power in image processing, just press the button and the CX420 will automatically switch to high-performance external display mode. When you need to work in an environment that requires long battery life, just press the Battery button and the machine will switch to the integrated display mode and shut down the external graphics card to preserve battery power.

Exclusive ECO Engine Energy-Efficient Technology: The CX420 and the CR420 come with MSI's exclusive ECO Engine energy-saving technology that allows you to choose from five power management modes: Gaming, Movie, Presentation, Office, and Turbo Battery. These modes automatically adjust screen brightness, power switch, hibernation settings, processor performance etc., so that battery power can be used in a more flexible manner and therefore effectively extended.

Skylab

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:07:00 -0800

In 1968, the Apollo Applications Program was created to look into science missions that could be performed with the surplus Apollo hardware. Much of the planning centered on the idea of a space station, which eventually spawned theSkylab program. Skylab was launched using a two-stage Saturn V, sometimes called a Saturn INT-21.[2] It was the only launch not directly related to the Apollo lunar landing program.

Originally it was planned to use a 'wet workshop' concept, with a rocket stage being launched into orbit by a Saturn 1B and its spent S-IVB outfitted in space, but this was abandoned for the 'dry workshop' concept: An S-IVB stage from a Saturn IB was converted into a space station on the ground and launched on a Saturn V. A backup, constructed from a Saturn V third stage, is now on display at the National Air and Space Museum.

Three crews lived aboard Skylab from May 25, 1973 to February 8, 1974, with Skylab remaining in orbit until July 11, 1979.

Proposed post-Apollo developments

The (canceled) second production run of Saturn Vs would very likely have used the F-1A engine in its first stage, providing a substantial performance boost.[16] Other likely changes would have been the removal of the fins (which turned out to provide little benefit when compared to their weight); a stretched S-IC first stage to support the more powerful F-1As; and uprated J-2s for the upper stages.

A number of alternate Saturn vehicles were proposed based on the Saturn V, ranging from the Saturn INT-20 with an S-IVB stage and interstage mounted directly onto an S-ICstage, through to the Saturn V-23(L)[17] which would not only have five F-1 engines in the first stage, but also four strap-on boosters with two F-1 engines each: giving a total of thirteen F-1 engines firing at launch.

The Space Shuttle was initially conceived of as a cargo transport to be used in concert with the Saturn V, even to the point that a "Saturn-Shuttle," using the current orbiter and external tank, but with the tank mounted on a modified, fly-back version of the S-IC, would be used to power the Shuttle during the first two minutes of flight, after which the S-IC would be jettisoned (which would then fly back to KSC for refurbishment) and the Space Shuttle Main Engines would then fire and place the orbiter into orbit. The Shuttle would handle space station logistics, while Saturn V would launch components. Lack of a second Saturn V production run killed this plan and has left the United States without a heavy-lift booster. Some in the U.S. space community have come to lament this situation, as continued production would have allowed theInternational Space Station, using a Skylab or Mir configuration with both U.S. and Russian docking ports, to have been lifted with just a handful of launches, with the "Saturn Shuttle" concept possibly eliminating the conditions that caused the Challenger Disaster in 1986.

The Saturn V would have been the prime launch vehicle for the canceled Voyager Mars probes, and was to have been the launch vehicle for the nuclear rocket stage RIFT test program and the later NERVA.

Successors

U.S. proposals for a rocket larger than the Saturn V from the late 1950s through the early 1980s were generally called Nova. Over thirty different large rocket proposals carried the Nova name, but none were developed.

Wernher von Braun and others also had plans for a rocket that would have featured eight F-1 engines in its first stage allowing it to launch a manned spacecraft on a direct ascent flight to the Moon. Other plans for the Saturn V called for using a Centaur as an upper stage or adding strap-on boosters. These enhancements would have increased its ability to send large unmanned spacecraft to the outer planets or manned spacecraft to Mars.

In 2006, NASA, as part of the upcoming Constellation Program that would replace the Space Shuttle after 2010, unveiled plans to construct the heavy-lift Ares V rocket, a Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle using some existing Space Shuttle and Saturn V infrastructure. Named in homage of the Saturn V, the original design, based on the Space Shuttle External Tank, was 360 ft (110 m). tall, and powered by five Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) and two uprated five-segment Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, which a modified variation would be used for the crew-launched Ares I rocket. As the designed evolved, the Ares V was slightly modified, with the same 33 ft (10 m) diameter as that of the Saturn V's S-IC and S-II stages, and in place of the five SSMEs, five RS-68 rocket engines, the same engines used on the Delta IV EELV, would be used. The switch from the SSME to the RS-68 was due to the steep price of the cost of the SSME, as that it would be thrown away along with the Ares V core stage after each use, while the RS-68 engine, which is expendable, is cheaper, simpler to manufacture, and more powerful than the SSME. In 2008, NASA again redesigned the Ares V, lengthening and widening the core stage and added an extra RS-68 engine, giving the launch vehicle a total of six engines. The six RS-68B engines, during launch, will be augmented by two "5.5-segment" SRBs instead of the original five-segment designs, although no decision has yet been made on the number of segments NASA would be using on the final design.[1] If the six RS-68B/5.5-segment SRB variant is used, the vehicle would have a total of approximately 8,900,000 lbf (39.6 MN) of thrust at liftoff, making it more powerful than the Saturn V or the Soviet/Russian Energia boosters, but less than 50–43 MN for the Soviet N-1. An upper stage, known as the Earth Departure Stage and based on the S-IVB, will utilize a more advanced version of the J-2 engine known as the "J-2X," and will place the Altair lunar landing vehicle into a low earth orbit. At 381 ft (116 m) tall and with the capability of placing 180 tons[vague] into low Earth orbit, the Ares V will surpass the Saturn V and the two Soviet/Russian superboosters in both height, lift, and launch capability.

The RS-68B engines, based on the current RS-68 and RS-68A engines built by the Rocketdyne Division of Pratt and Whitney (formerly under the ownerships of Boeing and Rockwell International), produce less than half the thrust per engine as the Saturn V's F-1 engines, but are more efficient and can be throttled up or down, much like the SSMEs on the Shuttle. The J-2 engine used on the S-II and S-IVB will be modified into the improved J-2X engine for use both on the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) as well as on the second stage of the proposed Ares I. Both the EDS and the Ares I second stage would use a single J-2X motor, although the EDS was originally designed to use two motors until the redesign employing the five (later six) RS-68Bs in place of the five SSMEs.

Lunar mission launch sequence

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:57:00 -0800

The Saturn V carried all Apollo lunar missions. All Saturn V missions launched from Launch Complex 39 at the John F. Kennedy Space Center. After

the rocket cleared the launch tower, mission control transferred to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

An average mission used the rocket for a total of just 20 minutes. Although Apollo 6 and Apollo 13 experienced engine failures, the onboard com

puters were able to compensate by burning the remaining engines longer, and none of the Apollo launches resulted in a payload loss.

The first stage burned for 2.5 minutes, lifting the rocket to an altitude of 42 miles (68 km) and a speed of 6,164 miles per hour (9,920 km/h) and burning 2,000,000 kilograms (4,400,000 lb) of propellant.

At 8.9 seconds before launch, the first stage ignition sequence started. The center engine ignited first, followed by opposing outboard pairs at 300-millisecond intervals to reduce the structural loads on the rocket. When thrust had been confirmed by the onboard computers, the rocket was "soft-released" in two stages: first, the hold-down arms released the rocket, and second, as the rocket began to accelerate upwards, it was slowed by tapered metal pins pulled through dies for half a second. Once the rocket had lifted off, it could not safely settle back down onto the pad if the engines failed.

It took about 12 seconds for the rocket to clear the tower. During this time, it yawed 1.25 degrees away from the tower to ensure adequate clearance despite adverse winds. (This yaw, although small, can be seen in launch photos taken from the east or west.) At an altitude of 430 feet (130 m) the rocket rolled to the correct flight azimuth and then gradually pitched down until 38 seconds after second stage ignition. This pitch program was set according to the prevailing winds during the launch month. The four outboard engines also tilted toward the outside so that in the event of a premature outboard engine shutdown the r

emaining engines would thrust through the rocket's center of gravity. The Saturn V quickly accelerated, reaching 1,600 feet per second (490 m/s) at over 1 mile (1,600 m) in altitude. Much of the early portion of the flight was spent gaining altitude, with the required velocity coming later.

Apollo 11 S-IC separation

At about 80 seconds, the rocket experienced maximum dynamic p

ressure (Max Q). The dynamic pressure on a rocket varies with air density and the square of relative velocity. Although velocity continues to increase, air density decreases so quickly with altitude that dynamic pressure falls below Max Q.

Acceleration increased during S-IC flight for two reasons: decreasing propellant mass; and increasing thrust as F-1 engine efficiency improved in the thinner air at altitude. At 135 seconds, the inboard (center) engine shut down to limit acceleration to 4 g (40 m/s2). The other engines continued to burn until either oxidizer or fuel depletion as detected by sensors in the suction assemblies. First stage separation was a little less than one second after cutoff to allow for F-1 thrust tail-off. Eight small solid fuel separation motors backed the S-IC from the interstage at an altitude of about 67 kilometers (42 mi).

The first stage continued ballistically to an altitude of about 109 kilomet

ers (68 mi) and then fell in the Atlantic Ocean about 560 kilometers (350 mi) downrange.

S-II sequence

After S-IC separation, the S-II second stage burned for 6 minutes and propelled the craft to 109 miles (176 km) and 15,647 mph (25,182 km/h– 7.00 km/s), close to orbital velocity.

For the first two unmanned launches, eight solid-fuel ullage motors ignited for four seconds to give positive acceleration to the S-II stage, followed by start of the five J-2 engines. For the first seven manned Apollo missions only four ullage motors were used on the S-II, and they were eliminated completely f

or the final four launches. About 30 seconds after first stage separation, the interstage ring dropped from the second stage. This was done with an inertially fixed attitude so that the interstage, only 1 meter from the outboard J-2 engines, would fall cleanly without contacting them. Shortly after interstage separation the Launch Escape System was also jettisoned. SeeApollo abort modes for

more information about the various abort modes that could have been used during a launch.

About 38 seconds after the second stage ignition the Saturn V switched from a preprogrammed trajectory to a "closed loop" or Iterative Guidance Mode. The Instrument Unit now computed in real time the most fuel-efficient trajectory toward its target orbit. If the Instrument Unit failed, the crew could switch control of the Saturn to the Command Module

's computer, take manual control, or abort the flight.

About 90 seconds before the second stage cutoff, the center engine shut down to reduce longitudinal pogo oscillations. A pogo suppressor, first flown on Apollo 14, stopped this motion but the center engine was still shut down early to limit acceleration G forces. At around this time, the LOX flow rate decreased, changing the mix ratio of the two propellants, ensuring that there would be as little propellant as possible left in the tanks at the end of second stage flight. This was done at a predetermined delta-v.

Five level sensors in the bottom of each S-II propellant tank were armed during S-II flight, allowing any two to trigger S-II cutoff and staging when they were uncovered. One second after the second stage cut off it separated and several seconds later the third stage ignited. Solid fuel retro-rockets mounted on the interstage at the top of the S-II fired to back it away from the S-IVB. The S-II impacted about 4200 km (2,300 miles) from the lau

nch site.

S-IVB sequence

Unlike the two-plane separation of the S-IC and S-II, the S-II and S-IVB stages separated with a single step. Although it was constructed as part of the third stage, the interstage remained attache

d to the second stage.

During Apollo 11, a typical lunar mission, the third stage burned

for about 2.5 minutes until first cutoff at 11 minutes 40 seconds. At this point

it was 2640 km downrange and in a parking orbit at an altitude of 188 km and velocity of 7790 m/sec. The third stage remained attached to the spacecraft while it

orbited the Earth two and a half times while astronauts and mission controllers prepared for tra

nslunar injection (TLI).

This parking orbit is quite low by Earth orbit standards, and it would have been short-lived due to aerodynamic drag. This was not a problem on a lunar mission because of the short stay in the parking orbit. The S-IVB also continued to thrust at a low level with hydrogen vents to settle the propellants in their tanks, and this thrust easily exceeded aerodynamic drag.

For the final three Apollo flights, the temporary parking orbit was even lower (approximately 150 kilometers (93 mi)), to increase payload for these missions. For the two Earth orbit missions of the Saturn V, Apollo 9 and Skylab, the orbits were much higher and more typical of manned orbital missions.

On Apollo 11, TLI came at 2 hours and 44 minutes

after launch. The S-IVB burned for almost six minutes giving the spacecraft a velocity close to the Earth's escape velocity of 11.2 km/s (40,320 km/h; 25,053 mph). This gave an energy-efficient transfer to lunar orbit with the moon helping to capture the spacecraft with a minimum of CSM fuel consumption.

About 40 minutes after TLI the Apollo Command Service Module (CSM) separated from the third stage, turned 180 degrees and docked with the Lunar Module(LM) that rode below the CSM during launch. The CSM and LM separated from the spent third stage 50 minutes later.

If it were to remain on the same trajectory as the spacecraft, the S-IVB could have presented a collision hazard so its remaining propellants were vented and the auxiliary propulsion system fired to move it away. For lunar missions before Apollo 13, the S-IVB was directed toward the moon's trailing edge in its orbit so that the moon would slingshot it beyond earth escape velocity and into solar orbit. From Apollo 13 onwards, controllers directed the S-IVB to hit the Moon.[15]Seismometers left behind by previous missions detected the impacts, and the information helped map the inside of the Moon.

Apollo 9 was a special case; although it was an earth orbital mission, after spacecraft separation its S-IVB was fired out of earth orbit into a solar orbit.

On September 3, 2002, Bill Yeung discovered a suspected asteroid, which was given the discovery designation J002E3. It appeared to be in orbit around the Earth, and was soon discovered from spectral analysis to be covered in white titanium dioxide paint, the same paint used for the Saturn V. Calculation of orbital parameters identified the apparent asteroid as being the Apollo 12 S-IVB stage. Mission controllers had planned to send Apollo 12's S-IVB into solar orbit, but the burn after separating from the Apollo spacecraft lasted too long, and hence it did not pass close enough to the Moon, remaining in a barely-stable orbit around the Earth and Moon. In 1971, through a series of gravitational perturbations, it is believed to have entered in a solar orbit and then returned into weakly-captured Earth orbit 31 years later. It left Earth orbit again in June 2003. Another near-earth object, discovered in 2006 and designated 6Q0B44E, may also be part of an Apollo spacecraft.

Saturn V

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:48:00 -0800

The Saturn V (pronounced "Saturn Five") was a multistage liquid-fuel expendable rocket used by NASA's Apollo and Skylab programs from 1967 until 1973. In total NASA launched thirteen Saturn V rockets with no loss of payload. It remains the largest and most powerful launch vehicle ever brought to operational status from a height, weight and payload standpoint. The Soviet rockets Energia and the unsuccessful N1 had slightly more takeoff thrust.

The largest production model of the Saturn family of rockets, the Saturn V was designed under the direction of Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph at theMarshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, with Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM as the lead contractors. Von Braun's design was based in part on his work on the "Aggregate" series of rockets, especially the A-10, A-11, and A12 in Germany during World War II. The three stages of the Saturn V were developed by various NASA contractors, but following a sequence of mergers and takeovers all of them are now owned by Boeing.

Saturn V

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:48:00 -0800

Value DDR3 For Intel's P55: Six 4GB Kits Rounded Up

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:44:00 -0800

Most of our readers are familiar with performance memory, yet many still don’t understand that the vast majority of it is rated at overclocked settings. Standard DDR3 runs at 1.50V, and components rated at higher voltages are likely to have slower, standard memory under those heat spreaders. When you pay extra for performance RAM, what you’re really paying for is a guarantee that the modules will operate at a speed beyond the ratings of its components.

Performance guarantees are nice, but paying someone else to validate an overclock can put a big dent in the value a mid-priced system represents. After all, most builders don't pay extra for a CPU that has been validated by a third party to run at higher speeds, yet very few overclocking enthusiasts seek better value by risking the chance of a “poor yield” in exchange for a lower price. We willingly take that small risk with processors, so why not apply the same principle to RAM?

Unfortunately, finding the right overclocking RAM isn’t as easy as finding the right processor, simply because there are so many more choices. While many hardcore folks maintain a list of the best memory ICs, manufacturers don’t normally tell you which parts they use (they often change from one week to the next, depending on supply). Further complicating matters is the fact that many manufacturers routinely swap-out components without changing the model number on the package. Thus, the best way to find the best-value overclocking memory is to test everything.

We don’t expect our readers to go out and buy every available low-cost kit, while relying on manufacturers to provide samples could result in specially-prepared or hand-picked parts that inaccurately represent the retail product. But putting the words “budget” and “overclocking” in the same sentence makes it hard to arrange a truly-representative comparison, so we instead logged on to Newegg.com and bought the six module sets that were available for less than $80 as of October 1.

As memory prices continue to trend upward, some of the parts we bought now cost over $80. Yet surprisingly, some have gone down in price. All of these are still inexpensive, so let’s take a closer look at what our limited funds bought.

Small Water Versus Big Air

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:38:00 -0800

Our quest to find an advantage—any advantage—in today’s maintenance-free compact liquid coolers began with CoolIT’s Domino A.L.C. sealed liquid system and the low-cost Cogage True Spirit 120mm tower. Unfortunately, the liquid cooler only performed as well as the air cooler when its custom-wired fan was forced to operate at its maximum speed of 2,800 RPM, versus the air cooler’s maximum fan speed of 1,600 RPM. The enormous increase in cost and noise for sub-par cooling performance put the Domino A.L.C. at an equally big disadvantage compared to the simpler sink and fan.

Our quest continued with Corsair’s H50 sealed-liquid system and Rosewill’s FORT120 air-cooling tower, where the air cooler’s fast 2,400 RPM fan gave it a cooling advantage comparable to its resulting acoustic disadvantage. Readers complained that the tradeoff between cooling and noise could only be addressed by using the same fan on both coolers, while Corsair pointed out that we weren't using the configuration the way it was designed, blowing cooler air through the radiator. In contrast, air coolers must typically use warm case air to cool the processor, which is a disadvantage not properly reflected on an open bench. End users typically don’t run open systems, and the H50 was designed to use the case advantageously.
This leaves us with a few additional configurations to test. How much better will the Corsair H50 and the Cogage True Spirit function with Rosewill’s FORT120 more powerful fan? How much worse will the Cogage True Spirit and Rosewill FORT120 perform in a closed system? Today we test each configuration inside a traditional oversized mid-tower case, using two different fan configurations for each unit.

Get ready. All of your questions are about to be answered.

Conclusion: ASRock Succeeds, MSI Survives

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:36:00 -0800

It has been our contention that no motherboard used for overclocking should be able to push enough energy through the CPU voltage regulator to damage it, because any motherboard that includes overclock settings should also include over-current protection. We understand that cheaper boards use lower-capacity voltage regulators, but lower capacity simply adds to the need for such protection. Any motherboard too cheaply made to include over-current protection shouldn’t even have manual voltage control, but should instead be marketed towards the non-overclocking whitebox market.
ASRock proved itself by using nothing more than a BIOS update to enable the over-current protection already included in P55 Pro. While leaving the feature disabled in previous BIOS revisions was a big mistake, redemption in the form of BIOS revision 1.80 is enough for us to have some faith in a board that can be pushed to 1.35V and 4.0 GHz with our Core i7-870 processor. Anyone who wants to use higher voltage to reach even greater clock speeds shouldn’t have a big problem choosing a higher-priced product. On this board, upper-range features such as dual eSATA ports, onboard Port 80 diagnostics display, onboard power and reset buttons, a rear-panel CLR_CMOS button, and IEEE-1394 FireWire now make the board a perfect fit for enthusiasts who prefer not to push their luck at high overclock settings.

MSI’s P55-CD53, though far less featured or overclock-capable, can now be viewed as a reliable choice for non-overclockers. But though it boasts modest power savings at stock or very mildly overclocked speeds, we can’t find a reason why any level of enthusiast would choose it over the less-expensive, better-featured, and better-overclocking ASRock P55 Pro.

By now, we’re sure many readers are asking “weren’t there three failing boards in the original comparison?” Unfortunately, ECS was unable to provide a solution to our overclocking and power woes. As the only sub-$150 motherboard to offer x8 mode for the second x16-length PCI Express graphics card slot, the P55H-A could have easily won our previous article’s value comparison, if only the board had survived.

The big remaining question is whether we’d buy any of these platforms, and the answer is yes. Improvements in BIOS 1.80 make ASRock’s P55 Pro an excellent value in spite of its initial overclocking hurdles, and we really love well-featured, high-value parts. It’s unfortunate for ASRock that we don’t hand out value awards retroactively, but we're sure the company will continue to have many chances to impress us in the future.

Core i7-870 Overclocking And Fixing Blown P55-Based Boards

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:28:00 -0800

Our motherboard roundups have shown that Intel’s LGA 1156 interface brought with it a greatly needed modicum of efficiency compared to the enthusiast-oriented LGA 1366 platform. But only part of that power savings comes directly from the Lynnfield-generation CPU core, with remaining reductions found by eliminating all remaining northbridge functionality from the chipset and reducing it to a single component. Furthermore, much of the power savings that the new CPU core provides comes from slight refinements that have allowed the new processors to operate at a slightly lower voltage, a characteristic that’s typically disregarded when overclocking.
Using the same 8MB L3 cache and 45nm die process, the 37% difference in thermal design power (TDP) between Bloomfield- and Lynnfield-based processors is only realistic when both are left at their respective stock settings. Forcing both processors to identical core voltage levels for the purpose of overclocking causes the newer part to take on much of the previous part's inefficiency, a fact revealed only through extensive testing.

Thus, when some manufacturers economized the voltage regulators of “overclocking-friendly” LGA 1156 motherboards by what their engineers thought should be an acceptable level, they were shocked to learn that these parts couldn’t stand up even to our moderate overclocking tests. The results are documented in our subsequent test of $100-$150 P55-based motherboards.

A 150W board limit certainly sounds generous enough, but our testing has proven that it’s very easy to exceed that limit even at the moderate voltage levels supported by CPU air cooling. We begin today’s investigation with a power analysis, using a board known for its solid overclocking capability, before moving on to examine how the manufacturers of two previously-failed motherboards have addressed their problems.

AMD Prepping Triple, Quad Core Mobile CPUs

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:21:00 -0800

Make way for a ménage à trois of AMD mobile CPU cores.

Laptops, with their strict power and heat restrictions, typically feature dual-core processors. But AMD is looking to crank things up beyond Intel's Arrandale chips that have just two cores.

AMD's Bob Grim, director of client product marketing, said that triple core mobile chips will be shipping by the end of the first half of this year, reported PC World. Grim poses that triple core chips sit in a unique spot of performing better than dual-core processors while not incurring the power penalty of having four cores. It's simple logic, but true nonetheless.

The new chips from AMD will be a part of the 45-nm Danube platform, which will support DDR3 memory. AMD expects Danube to extend battery life by more than an hour.

Both dual and quad core AMD chips can also be integrated into Danube, leading some enthusiasts to ponder whether or not some chips will simply be crippled quad core parts. If so, then may the core unlocking take place on laptops too!

Source : Tom's Hardware US

Gigabyte Adds SATA 6 Gb/s, USB 3 For AMD

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:07:00 -0800

Gigabyte brings USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s goodness to AMD users.

USB 3.0 is one the most talked about technologies as of late, despite the fact that accessories and drives have yet to really emerge. Gigabyte is beginning to include USB 3.0 on some of its latest P55 and X58 boards as well as its AMD boards. Gigabyte told us that it will implement USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s across its entire lineup going forward. The following are charts from Gigabyte that indicate which boards the company is currently shipping with support for USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s:

Out of Gigabyte's current crop of eight boards, the beefiest Intel board is Gigabyte's GA-EX58A-UD7, while the GA-790FXTA-UD5 takes the front for AMD. The "A" at the end of the chipset moniker denotes a board with USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s. Gigabyte's fast adoption of USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s hopefully means we won't have to wait too long before device manufacturers come out with supporting devices.

We briefly tested with an external Buffalo USB 3.0 1 TB drive. Knowing that the 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint HD103SJ HDD wouldn't do justice, we removed it and swapped in an Intel X25-M G2 80 GB drive and that gave us a fast 238 MB/s rate. Clearly, USB 3.0 has a lot of headroom and is plenty fast enough to handle any current generation SATA 3.0 Gb/s device.

Unfortunately, the back-end of the Buffalo drive is also a SATA 3.0 Gb/s. so it won't support any upcoming SATA 6.0 Gb/s drives. Despite this, even today's fastest SSDs aren't fast enough to saturate SATA 3.0 Gb/s.

The highlight of the bunch is Gigabyte's GA-790FXTA-UD5, which sits at the top of Gigabyte's AMD offering.

In our recent review of Gigabyte's P55A-UD4P, we indicated that Gigabyte's entire P55 lineup had PCIe lanes dedicated to supporting the onboard USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s controllers, effectively limiting bandwidth to the graphics cards. Here's a quote from that review:

Two of the primary graphics card’s 16 PCIe lanes supply its USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s controllers, and Gigabyte disables six more lanes to make the upper slot an effective x8 interface. The USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s controllers revert to the chipset’s 2.5 GT/s lanes whenever two graphics cards are installed, to preserve the x8 transfers each graphics card needs for optimal CrossFire or SLI performance.

Thus, users with a single graphics card must sacrifice half of its peak bandwidth to enable 5.0 Gb transfers to the USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s controllers, while those with two cards must live with 2.5 Gb/s bandwidth limits on USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s controllers. Neither of these sacrifices is huge or even noticeable on most of today’s hardware, yet anyone trying to future-proof their system could be left cold.

Fortunately for AMD users, the GA-790FXTA-UD5 doesn't suffer from the same limitations because AMD's 790FX has a total of 48 PCIe lanes while the P55 chipset only has 16.

The GA-EX58A-UD7

Gigabyte says that it's X58A-UD7 is its top of the line board, and rightly so. Not only is the board USB 3.0/SATA 6.0 Gb/s ready, it even comes with support for liquid cooling. If you don't have a liquid cooling setup, the board ships with a separate heatsink module that attaches to the chipset module. Simply fill in the gap with something like Arctic Silver and screw down the heat sink board. In fact, you can use both the supplied heatsink board and liquid cooling if you so choose.

On the rear of the GA-EX58A-UD7, Gigabyte has implemented a combo eSATA/USB solution, in that both of the eSATA connectors also support USB connections. The two blue USB connections at the end are USB 3.0 ports but will also take USB 1 and USB 2 devices.

Gigabyte indicated that its X58 based boards, like its 790FX boards, do not have the PCIe lane limitation of the P55 boards. Gigabyte will add to its P55 lineup with a GA-P55A-UD7, which will integrate PLX and nForce 200 PCIe bridges by the end of December. In our recent review, we found that the PCIe lane sharing with the high-speed USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s controllers doesn't really impact performance in today's appsbut those who choose to use CrossFire or SLI on P55 will have to sacrifice USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 Gb/s--at least until Gigabyte ships its GA-P55A-UD7.

Asus P7P55D Deluxe

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:00:00 -0800

Previously representing Asus’ top parts, its Deluxe product line now falls second only behind its Premium offerings in features. The P7P55D Deluxe follows this trend with a 19-phase CPU voltage regulator, dual-gigabit network controllers, automatic lane switching from PCI Express (PCIe) x16 to dual x8 pathways for enhanced CrossFire and SLI performance, a third x16-style slot with x4 pathways for tertiary graphics cards or other high-bandwidth peripherals, and an I/O panel CLR_CMOS button to ease recovery from failed overclocks.

Zoom

Asus also adds its TurboV remote, a hardware overclocking tool that works without the assistance of an operating system. This type of device could be especially useful to competitive overclockers, although connecting it through the I/O panel to the top side of the motherboard makes its cable somewhat vulnerable to accidental damage.

A button next to the power connector labeled “MemOK” can make problematic modules bootable by setting lower-than-SPD speeds and/or timings. This is a feature that’s most likely to be needed on “factory overclocked” memory that hasn’t been programmed properly to boot at default voltage. In such circumstances, forcing the memory to lower speeds or timings to make it bootable gives builders the chance to enter the BIOS and manually set the required voltage increase.

Zoom

Three added SATA connections (for a total of nine) and an Ultra ATA interface use JMicron’s JMB363 controller located under the P55 Express chipset sink, with a JMB322 SATA port multiplier dividing one of the controller’s ports into two. Called Drive Xpert by Asus, the JMB322 port multiplier appears as a single drive to the JMB363 controller, adding hardware RAID 1 and Level 0 modes that are transparent to the operating system and require no additional drivers. Asus calls the JMB322’s Level 0 mode SuperSpeed and has named its RAID 1 mode EZ Backup, yet the term SuperSpeed sounds ironic since all drives supported by the JMB363 controller must share a single 250 MB/s PCIe link to the chipset (easily saturated by the best SSDs). However, the mirroring function really is easy, so its branding receives no such criticism.

P7P55D Deluxe...
- TigerDirect
- $229.99

The P7P55D Deluxe has a nearly perfect slot layout, with three spaces from the top to second PCIe slot allowing extra airflow to the top card in CrossFire, SLI, or other dual-card configurations. The third slot is only two spaces beneath the second, but this narrower spacing was required to allow a card with a double-slot cooler to fit into a standard seven-slot case.

Having the graphics card in the uppermost slot position normally crowds DIMM latches, but Asus solves the problem with slots that are latched on only one side. The top is the edge from which gravity tends to pull modules out, so the method should keep memory secure even in rough transit, so long as the system is carried upright. However, the lack of clips on one does prevent many clip-on memory cooling fans from fitting securely.

Asus uses the upper-range VIA VT2020 10-channel audio codec, a part that some listeners claim has a mellower tone than competing Realtek parts. Features include DTS Surround Sensation and BD audio-layer protection. The codec can also multi-stream different sources to front- and rear-panel jacks. Our only complaint is the location of its front-panel audio connector, which in the traditional bottom-rear corner, causes cabling nightmares in most modern ATX tower cases.

Other case-related issues include an IEEE-1394 connector near the bottom-rear corner and six forward-facing SATA ports from the P55 Express controller. Many modern cases are designed with added clearance for forward-facing SATA ports, but the hard drive cages of some are too close to the forward edge of the motherboard to allow cable insertion. Forward-facing ports are used by most high-end motherboards to allow cable ends to fit under long graphics cards, so builders must choose their cases carefully.

BIOS

The Ai Tweaker menu allows overclockers to adjust P7P55D Deluxe frequencies and ratios from an easy scroll-down menu. Asus adds amplitude, skew, and DRAM reference voltage to the list of standard settings. It refers to CPU Uncore as IMC (integrated memory controller) voltage, and includes a load-line calibration setting to minimize core voltage fluctuation under load.

Zoom

The DRAM Timing Control submenu is detailed enough for most elaborate tuners, yet has automatic settings for individual timings to make less-elaborate adjustments easier.

Zoom

Asus O.C. Profile allows up to eight custom BIOS configurations to be stored as user profiles, and also has a utility for exporting configuration files to a flash drive.

Zoom

Accessories

Zoom

Noticeably lacking from the P7P55D Deluxe were any eSATA ports on the I/O Panel, likely because Asus believes most users prefer the front-panel jacks available on many cases. The P7P55D does include an eSATA breakout plate for users who still want rear-access, although only a single port is supported.

Asus P7P55D Deluxe

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:00:00 -0800

Zoom

P7P55D Deluxe...
- TigerDirect
- $229.99

BIOS

Zoom

The DRAM Timing Control submenu is detailed enough for most elaborate tuners, yet has automatic settings for individual timings to make less-elaborate adjustments easier.

Asus O.C. Profile allows up to eight custom BIOS configurations to be stored as user profiles, and also has a utility for exporting configuration files to a flash drive.

Accessories

P55 On Boost: Five LGA 1156 Boards Between $200 And $250

noreply@blogger.com (tenebaum) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:40:00 -0800

We’ve heard that Intel’s LGA 1156 platform was intended to bring its Nehalem architecture to the mainstream market. But the first processors to support that platform are hardly what most of us would consider inexpensive. Starting with a $200 Core i5-750, the range currently tops out with a surprisingly-expensive $550 Core i7-870. At those prices, the cheapest processor barely fits into the top of what most folks consider mainstream.

On the other hand, a simplified platform architecture based on Intel's single-component platform controller hub, which looks amazingly similar to the previous-generation’s southbridge, has allowed comparable motherboards to cost around $100 less than their LGA 1366 predecessors. The tradeoff for this cost savings is the loss of 20 PCI Express (PCIe) lanes and a scale back from triple- to dual-channel memory support.

The combination of fairly expensive processors and a scaled-back chipset puts us in a difficult position when considering the market for full-feature motherboards. Can any LGA 1156 system truly be considered high-end? After all, there’s no practical way to supply two graphics cards with a full 16 lanes of bandwidth. However, only the most expensive graphics cards need more than eight PCIe 2.0 lanes, and not every high-end buyer wants a gaming system.

Current LGA 1156 hardware thus cuts a broad swath across both sides of the line that normally separates high-end from mainstream systems, appealing to mid-budget gamers, non-gaming power users, and technophiles who think of themselves as both gamers and power users. They are among the users who are the most likely to want more performance than they are willing to pay for, to be tempted by the easy gains of overclocking, and to find themselves surrounded by Tom’s Hardware forum members. Some of these users are on our staff.

Now that we’ve figured out why someone might want to build a moderately expensive system using parts that are mainstream in name only, let’s take a closer look at how well some of those parts, specifically the motherboards, fit in this market.