IT Technology

New Commodore GX

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:49:11 -0500

The Commodore gaming extreme takes your frag count to a whole new level with this high performance beast. Driven by Intel's Core�2 quad processor Q6600 and an ASUS� P5N32-E NVIDIA� nForce� 680i SLI� motherboard, there's not much that can match up to its sheer processing power.

Commodore

Features

This is the starting point of what's inside the Commodore gx. Most parts are customisable.
*Intel� Core�2 Quad processor Q6600: 2.4 GHz 8MB Cache
*ASUS� P5N32-E NVIDIA� nForce� 680i SLI� motherboard
*2x 500GB 7200 RPM SATA Raid 0 hard drive
*2GB Corsair� XMS2 Twin2x2048-6400C4 memory: 800MHz
*DVDRW optical drive
*750W ICE Cube power supply
*On Board Integrated Hi Definition 7.1 Channel sound
*2x NVIDIA� GeForce� 8800 GTS 640MB graphics card
*Microsoft� Windows Vista� Ultimate operating system
Taking your frag count to a whole new level

CPU
CPU/
At the core of the Commodore gx sits an Intel� Core� quad Q6600 processor. Carrying out several multimedia based tasks while taking headshots or issuing commands to your guild won't give your system as much as a hiccup, with Intel�s advanced CPU behind the steering wheel.

* Intel� Core�2 Extreme Q6600
* 8MB Level 2 Cache
* Clock Speed: 2.4 GHz
* FSB Speed: 1066 MHz

Chipset/

* NVIDIA� nForce� 680i SLI�

Memory/
Corsair�s XPERT Series will make it appear that there is no end to your memory. This 1024 MByte matched pair of DDRs is built using Corsair�s latest high performance heat sink technology.

* 2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800 MHz
* Up to 4GB of system memory

Storage/

* RAID 1 and 0 available
* RPM Starting at 7,200 up to 10,000
* Capacity Starting at 500 GB up to 1.3 TB maximum
* Interface Serial ATA 3GB/s

Optical Drive/

* Standard 20x Dual Layer DVD�R/W Drive
* Optional 2x Blu-ray Disc (BD-ROM) Reader / Writer

Digital Media/

* Standard 7in1 media reader / writer

Networking/

* Integrated Dual High Performance Gigabit Ethernet Ports

Cooling/
In order to actually maintain its cool with all the heavy machinery put to work 24/7, the Commodore xx comes equipped Commodore's exclusive ICE CUBE technology. This thermal exchange system converts heat from the power supply into freezing cold air, generating a dramatic temperature decrease throughout the whole machine.

gr
Graphics/
Redefine your gaming reality with NVIDIA� SLI�-Ready GeForce� 8800 graphics processors. The world�s first DirectX� 10 GPUs feature a powerful unified architecture that delivers an incredibly true-to-life gaming experience. Power through games at record speeds. Charge through game maps with vividly realistic, sun-up to sun-down HDR lighting effects. And crank up 16x full-screen anti-aliasing without missing a beat.

* 2 x 640MB GDDR3 dedicated video memory
* Clock speed: 500 MHz
* Memory speed: 800 MHz
* Up to 4 display support * with SLI� disabled
* Full DirectX� 10 and OpenGL� 2.0 compatibility
* Shader Model 4.0 enabled
* NVIDIA� SLI� enabled
* 4 DVI Connectors
* 2 S-Video Out Connectors

Sound/

* 8-channel (7.1) 24 Bit audio
* Eight-channel analog jacks
* One Optical digital output

Connectivity/

* Two Hi-Speed USB ports (front)
* One FireWire 1394 port (front)
* One 1/8" analogue headphones jack (front)
* One 1/8" analogue microphone jack (front)
* Six Hi-Speed USB ports (back)
* 1 PS/2 keyboard port (back)
* 1 PS/2 mouse port (back)

Case Chassis/

* Exclusive Commodore Gaming Metal Chassis
* Exclusive C-kin process for high definition graphics
* Two lighted fans
* Easily accessible front connectivity port in Commodore Connect! Bay
* Unique 270 degree opening door
* Standard 850W power supply with Ice-Cube cooling system
* Easily changeable panels (front, sides and top)
* Height: 45 cm
* Width: 20 cm
* Depth: 50 cm

Operating System/

* Microsoft Windows� Vista� Ultimate

NEW COMMODORE GX
JUST FOR �1,659.00

Microsoft Surface

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:02:19 -0500

After years of covert development, Microsoft says it will release a computer that uses the tabletop as its high-resolution display, recognizes objects placed on the surface and skips the traditional keyboard and mouse in favor of fingers on the screen.

surf
The company envisions a variety of uses. In one example, people place a card on the table to call up a virtual stack of digital photos from a computer server and then rotate, resize and spread them across the table using their hands. In another, diners split a tab by dragging icons of their meals to their credit cards.

Whether the technology catches on remains to be seen. Microsoft isn't the only company eyeing the market. But in the meantime, it isn't science fiction: Microsoft has been showing functioning models for months in closed-door sessions.

The company is slated to publicly unveil the machine -- dubbed "Microsoft Surface" -- at a Wall Street Journal conference Wednesday.

Microsoft says businesses will start deploying the machines in retail and entertainment settings in November. Starwood Hotels and Resorts, Harrah's Entertainment and T-Mobile are among those planning to use Microsoft Surface.

Longer term, the Redmond company says, it is aiming for the broader consumer market.

"We think this is a multibillion-dollar industry," said Pete Thompson, general manager of Microsoft Surface Computing. "We think this is something that is going to be pervasive. ... We don't want it to be a novelty."

The product is coming out of the same area of Microsoft that develops the company's profitable line of keyboards and mice.

However, Microsoft's whiz-bang technologies haven't always caught on with consumers. Past flops include the smart watch and the Portable Media Center. Its Zune music player was a belated response to Apple's dominant iPod. And the Tablet PC, a conceptual forerunner to the new machine, hasn't caught on in the way Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates predicted.

In that way, the Surface machine will test anew Microsoft's ability to strike a chord with consumers, and to expand beyond its traditional Windows and Office software businesses.

Price will be a major obstacle for the new machine to overcome if it is to catch on with mainstream consumers. Thompson declined to disclose terms of the enterprise agreements under which Microsoft is selling the machines, which include related software and services.

However, he said, "If we made this a product sale, think of it in the range of $5,000 to $10,000 per unit."

It could be three or more years before it hits the broader consumer market, he said.

"The potential is there," said Doug Bell, industry analyst with the IDC market research firm. "Once you get this into hotel rooms or consumers' homes and you bring the price point down, the market could be there. It just needs to be created at this point."

Microsoft will start with several "showcase" commercial deployments numbering in the dozens of units, Thompson said. Microsoft hopes consumers will want the machines after using them in commercial settings.

In one example, the Surface computer could recognize a phone pulled off the wall and placed on the tabletop by a customer at a T-Mobile store. It would display features of the phone, show a pricing list and let the customer drag icons representing elements of a service plan onto the phone, before sending the virtual package to the register for purchase.

Harrah's plans to start by using the Surface tables as a "virtual concierge" desk in conjunction with its Total Rewards loyalty program at its eight Las Vegas properties, which include Caesars Palace and Bally's. People will be able to use the tables to access maps of the different properties, get details about events and venues and create itineraries for themselves.

Further down the road, Harrah's is exploring options including food and beverage ordering, and possibly gaming or game-related activities, said Tim Stanley, Harrah's chief information officer.

Another business that plans to use the Microsoft Surface computers is IGT, the gaming technology company.

Starwood plans to make the machines available in public areas of select Sheraton properties, including in Seattle, starting later this year. It's exploring possible uses including music playlist browsing, photo sharing, games, food ordering and the virtual concierge idea.

"We were just wowed," Hoyt Harper II, a Sheraton senior vice president, said of the first time hotel executives saw the machine. "From the get-go, you could tell it was something unique and different and special."

Microsoft isn't the first to show such a machine. Jeff Han of New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences has demonstrated similar prototypes at past Technology Entertainment Design conferences, and he has formed a company to market the technology.

Han's examples include a tabletop photo-sharing scenario similar to one that Microsoft has been showing recently.

Microsoft Surface, created under the code name "Milan," is the first product from the Surface Computing team, a hitherto unknown group that has grown, under the radar, to 120 people. The machine uses a specialized interface on top of Windows Vista. But with the product, Microsoft is breaking from its traditional PC model by offering hardware, not just software.

The table is about 22 inches high and 42 inches wide, with a 30-inch screen. It can be used simultaneously by multiple people sitting on different sides of the table. The components of the machine are inside the table, including a hard drive and a standard 1 GHz computer processor.

It's not a touch-sensitive screen. Instead, it relies on multiple cameras beneath the table that can see when someone touches it. It recognizes objects based on shape or by using domino-style identification labels on the bottom of the objects.

A projection system and optical technology sit beneath the hard acrylic tabletop screen, which itself doesn't contain electronics. Microsoft says it should be durable enough to serve as a restaurant table, spills and all.

Microsoft says it eventually plans to expand into other shapes and sizes of surface computers, including versions that could hang vertically on a wall.

The company says the product's genesis came in 2001, arising from brainstorming sessions between Andy Wilson of Microsoft Research and Stevie Bathiche of Microsoft Hardware.

Wilson has shown certain elements of the surface-computing technology publicly, as has Gates. But the company has kept its product plans under wraps until now.

"Bill wanted to announce this years ago. ... The reason we haven't done that is because we wanted it to be real," Thompson said. "I don't want it to just be nifty technology."

surf2

MICROSOFT SURFACE

What it is: A computer in the form of a table, using the hard acrylic tabletop as a high-resolution screen. First product from Microsoft's previously secret Surface Computing team, which has 120 employees.

How it works: The surface itself isn't touch-sensitive, but a series of cameras inside the table can see when someone places or drags a finger, hand or any other object on or across the tabletop screen. Internal projector lights screen from beneath.

Interface: People can use their hands to touch and move virtual objects on the screen, just as they would with a mouse on a traditional PC. The system also can recognize objects placed on the surface, based on their shape or on special codes affixed to them.

Size: 22 inches high, 21 inches deep, 42 inches wide, with 30-inch screen.

Technology: Uses a custom software interface on top of Microsoft's Windows Vista. Comes with wired Ethernet, integrated Wi-Fi and Bluetooth wireless, hard drive and 1 GHz processor.

Initial customers: Harrah's Entertainment, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, T-Mobile and IGT, the gaming technology company. Microsoft says consumer availability is still a few years away.

Extreme exhilaration. Extreme enjoyment.

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:42:24 -0500

Q2E

Whether it's gaming, digital photography, or video editing, today's high-impact entertainment demands breakthrough technology. Get the unrivaled multi-core performance of the new Intel� Core�2 Extreme processors.

Intel� Core�2 Extreme quad-core processor
When more is better�with four processing cores the Intel� Core�2 Extreme quad-core processor QX6850 is a multitasking monster delivering significantly more performance for highly-threaded apps.

* 8 MB of L2 cache
* 1333 MHz front-side bus

.............................................................................

Processor Number Δ Cache Clock Speed Front Side Bus Form Factor Dual-Core Quad-Core
65 nm
QX6850 8 MB L2 3 GHz 1333 MHz Desktop x
QX6800 8 MB L2 2.93 GHz 1066 MHz Desktop x
QX6700 8 MB L2 2.66 GHz 1066 MHz Desktop x
X7900 4 MB L2 2.80 GHz 800 MHz Mobile x
X7800 4 MB L2 2.60 GHz 800 MHz Mobile x
X6800 4 MB L2 2.93 GHz 1066 MHz Desktop x

.............................................................................

The Intel Core�2 Extreme quad-core processor QX6800Δ delivers Intel's advanced, powerful processors for desktop PCs. The processor is designed to deliver performance across applications and usages where end-users can truly appreciate and experience the performance. These applications include Internet audio and streaming video, image processing, video content creation, speech, 3D, CAD, games, multimedia, and multitasking user environments.

Intel� 64Φ enables the processor to execute operating systems and applications written to take advantage of the Intel 64 architecture. The processor, supporting Enhanced Intel Speedstep� technology, allows tradeoffs to be made between performance and power consumption. The Core�2 Extreme quad-core processor QX6800 also includes the Execute Disable Bit capability. This feature, combined with a supported operating system, allows memory to be marked as executable or non-executable.

The Core�2 Extreme quad-core processor QX6800 supports Intel� Virtualization Technology. Virtualization Technology provides silicon-based functionality that works together with compatible Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM) software to improve on software-only solutions.

With four cores and high scores, the Intel� Core�2 Extreme processor QX6850 is flat out the most extreme desktop processor. It's Intel's top of the line quad-core processor specifically built for hardcore enthusiasts who don�t take kindly to compromise. Based on the Intel� Core� microarchitecture, the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX6850 is the ultimate multimedia engine. And the performance? It eats benchmarks for breakfast.
Intel� Core�2 Extreme

It's time to buy your next extreme processor

The Best PCI-E Graphics Cards For The Money

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:10:40 -0500

Detailed graphics card specifications and reviews are great - that is, if you have the time to do the research. But at the end of the day, what a gamer needs is the best graphics card within a certain budget.

So if you don't have the time to research the benchmarks, or if you don't feel confident enough in your ability to make the right decision, fear not. We at Tom's Hardware Guide have come to your aid with a simple list of the best gaming cards offered for the money.First of all, the Radeon 2900 PRO has been quietly released. Nvidia finally has some tough competition in the ~$280 price segment, and the real surprise is that this card is much more powerful than we expected. While the 2900 PRO was rumored to be a cut-down version of the 2900 XT with a 256-bit memory interface, the actual product has a full 512-bit memory interface and 512-MB of RAM. The only difference between the 2900 XT and PRO are clock speeds: 740 MHz core / 825 MHz memory for the XT and 600 MHz core / 800 MHz memory for the PRO. The only downside to this product is that it is rumored to be available in very limited quantities. But while its supply lasts, the card is a shoe in for the ~$280 price segment.

Secondly, a new derivative of the Radeon X1650 XT is now available, called the Radeon X1650 GT. There are two things that make this card really interesting: first, it's based on the 24-shader X1650 XT core, instead of the 12-shader X1650 PRO core. This might be the first time a Radeon GT is faster than a Radeon PRO with the same numerical designation. The second and more important reason this card is interesting is because of its price: the X1650 PRO can be bought for as low as $75! While its clockspeeds are lower than those of its XT cousin, it looks like they're still putting the GDDR3 on these budget cards, which probably means they're very overclockable. These are probably speed-binned X1650 XT cores that they're trying to dump on the market to make room for the 2600 XT. But while they're around, I'm going to recommend these X1650 GTs as the best sub-$100 card.

Thirdly, for the first time, owners of AGP systems can buy a DirectX 10 graphics card! The Radeon 2400 PRO and 2600 PRO have been released for the AGP bus. Now, as far as gaming performance goes, these cards don't have a lot to offer as the existing Radeon X1950 PRO and X1950 XT will beat them pretty easily. However, if the high-definition video drivers work for these cards, old AGP systems can be used for HD-DVD and Blu-ray video playback by taking the load off the CPU. For some of you with old AGP boxes lying around, this might be welcome news.

Other than these cards, the news is in the pricing. Prices have shifted a lot last month, so have a careful look at the list if you plan to buy within your budget.

............................................................................................
Best PCI-E Card For Under $100
............................................................................................

Radeon X1650 GT
Codename: RV560
Process: 80nm
Pixel Shaders: 24
Vertex Shaders: 6
Texture Units: 8
ROPs: 8
Memory Bus: 128-bit
Core Speed MHz: 400
Memory Speed MHz: 400 (800 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 9.0c / SM 3.0

1650

Found for as little as $76 online, the X1650 GT is a low-cost gaming darling, with 24 pixel shaders and fast-for-the-price GDDR3 memory. At stock speeds, it should be a little faster than the 7800 GS and X1650 PRO, and overclocked it should be on par with the 7600 GT and X1650 XT. This overclockable card is a great base for a budget-gaming machine.

The worst thing about this card is that it's priced closely to competing cards. The 7600 GT can be had for as low as $90 now. Then again, if you're going to spend the extra $10 for a 7600 GT, you should consider spending another $10 for the 2600 XT. We have to make a recommendation, so the X1650 GT gets the props for this month for its low price and gaming potential.

............................................................................................
Best PCI-E Card For ~$100
............................................................................................

Radeon HD 2600 XT
Codename: RV630
Process: 65nm
Universal Shaders: 128
Texture Units: 8
ROPs: 4
Memory Bus: 128-bit
Core Speed MHz: 800
Memory Speed MHz: 700 (1400 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 10 / SM 4.0

2600

The performance of the 2600 XT is very close to that of the GeForce 8600 GT, but the 2600 XT has a performance edge when antialiasing is disabled. Although the GeForce seems to have the edge when antialiasing is turned on, it's not much of a real-world advantage since neither card can effectively use 4x AA beyond 1024x768.

Since the 2600 XT is a bit cheaper than most 8600 GTs on average with prices starting at $100, we consider it the best buy in this price segment.

............................................................................................
Best PCI-E Card For ~$120
............................................................................................

Radeon X1950 PRO
Codename: RV570
Process: 90nm
Pixel Shaders: 36
Vertex Shaders: 8
Texture Units: 12
ROPs: 12
Memory Bus: 256-bit
Core Speed MHz: 575
Memory Speed MHz: 690 (1380 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 9.0c / SM 3.0

1950

With no high-performance DirectX 10 cards under $200 to compete against it, the relatively powerful X1950 PRO is having a heyday. Yes, the 8600 GTS is a DirectX 10 card, but it's more expensive than the X1950 PRO and isn't in the same performance league when higher resolutions are used.

The card's other competition is the 7900 GS, which is currently much more expensive when we looked at pricing for this month's recommendations. The X1950 PRO will usually beat the 7900 GS in most benchmarks at stock speeds. The card's only other competition is its X1950 GT brother, which has an identical GPU, but with slightly lower clockspeeds. It's difficult to recommend the GT when it's only about $5 cheaper.

............................................................................................
Best PCI-E Card For ~$280
............................................................................................

Radeon HD X2900 PRO
Codename: R600
Process: 80nm
Universal Shaders: 320
Texture Units: 16
ROPs: 16
Memory Bus: 512-bit
Core Speed MHz: 600
Memory Speed MHz: 800 (1600 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 10 / SM 4.0

2900

The GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB finally has some strong competition - so strong, in fact, that it beats it in the price segment. The Radeon 2900 PRO is a barely disguised 2900 XT with slightly lowered clock speeds and very similar performance to its faster brother. With a relatively mild overclock, you'll get 2900 XT performance from this card. The only downside is that the 2900 PRO is probably not going to be around for a long time, so get them while they're hot!

............................................................................................
Best PCI-E Card For ~$375
............................................................................................

Radeon HD X2900 XT
Codename: R600
Process: 80 nm
Universal Shaders: 320
Texture Units: 16
ROPs: 16
Memory Bus: 512 bit
Core Speed MHz: 740
Memory Speed MHz: 825 (1650 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 10 / SM 4.0

x2900

The Radeon HD 2900 XT debuted with mediocre performance compared to the GeForce 8800 GTS 640, especially when price was factored in. But ATI has stepped up to bat and introduced fresh drivers that really bring out the 2900's potential, even allowing it to challenge the 8800 GTX in some arenas.

Even so, the 8800 GTS 640 MB is still a great card and can challenge the 2900 XT in some titles, and on average you will find the 8800 GTS for less money. With this in mind, both cards are recommended in this price segment.

............................................................................................
Best PCI-E Card For ~$500
............................................................................................

GeForce 8800 GTX
Codename: G80
Process: 90 nm
Universal Shaders: 128
Texture Units: 64
ROPs: 24
Memory Bus: 384 bit
Core Speed MHz: 575
Memory Speed MHz: 900 (1800 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 10 / SM 4.0

GTX

The introduction of the 8800 Ultra - which is essentially an overclocked 8800 GTX - relegated the GTX to second-fastest-graphics-card-in-the-world status. But with the lowest priced 8800 Ultras starting at $610, it's hard to justify the $100 price premium over the GTX for an overclock.

In all honesty, even the $220 cheaper 2900 PRO would probably serve anyone well at high resolutions. But if you've got money to burn, play at extreme resolutions and will only settle for a top-tier card, then this is the card for you.

GeForce 8800

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:50:07 -0500

The pace at which new technologies come to market is at an all time high; if you plan on keeping up with the progress, then you cannot stay with the same gear.

8800The same applies to us as at TG well: we have to update our hardware to the fastest components to remain objective in our reviews. Running graphics cards on the fastest platform available - in terms of CPU, motherboard, memory, hard drive and power supply - allows us to get test results that reflect the performance of the graphics cards without slowdowns from any one subsystem or component.

However, it is not always as easy as some might believe to select a platform upon which to test these cards. When Nvidia unveiled the GeForce 8000 series, we felt obligated to show what the newest graphics cards could do. While on one hand we could have reviewed the GeForce 8800GTX and GTS on an Intel Conroe based platform, we also have to keep the data we generate relevant to other reviews and data previously published. In an effort to make sure the comparisons in graphics cards were as "apples to apples" as possible, we decided to publish the initial data using the AMD Athlon FX-60 system we have been using for the majority of 2006.

To bridge the way for future reviews, we chose to run the same set of tests on a new Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 based system. We knew that the results would be night and day different, and so decided that a separate review of the advantages of moving the platform from AMD to Intel would be worthwhile. You should conclude from the results the same thing we did: you need an Extreme CPU to run next generation graphics.

Athlon X2 BE-2350

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:40:36 -0500

It is almost incredible to watch the recent price drops in the processor segment. You can get an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ for as little as $80, and only the 6000+ top model exceeds $200.

AthlonIntel's Core 2 Duo family struts past the Athlon line with the faster products, but you should carefully consider the price premium before purchasing. Since AMD cannot attack Intel in the high-end or the upper mainstream, it dropped prices, so you might get more bang for the buck with AMD. On June 5th it introduced new mainstream CPUs to strike Intel where it is really vulnerable: the low power desktop segment.

The new processors are called simply "Athlon X2", as AMD has decided to drop the "64" suffix. This is a good choice, I believe, because no one really cares much about 64-bit; the new Phenom processors won't carry the "64" label either. It will take many months until 4 GB RAM enters at the upper mainstream, which finally requires a 64-bit operating system to fully utilize the memory. So, 64-bits is a must-have, but by no means a real selling point.

The Athlon X2 BE-2350 runs at 2.1 GHz, while its smaller brother, the BE-2300, operates at 1.9 GHz; they're priced at $90 and $85 respectively. How do these differ from the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and 3600+, though? All of them are based on the 65 nm DSL SOI process (dual stress liner, silicon on insulator) with 1 MB L2 cache, but the new BE processors are rated for a maximum thermal design power (TDP) of only 45 W.

While Intel had been quick to increase its thermal envelopes to as much as 130 W to support its Pentium 4 and Pentium D hot rods, it reduced the TDP to 65 W in the mainstream with the introduction of the Core 2 Duo. Intel currently does not have a desktop processor to get by with just 45 W, though it does offer two processors under the Pentium brand that might be able to get close to it. The Pentium Dual Core E2140 (1.6 GHz) and E2160 (1.8 GHz) are based on the Core microarchitecture, but they only utilize 1 MB L2 cache and they lack some features.

WD Brings 250 GB HDDs to Notebooks

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:30:57 -0500

Disparities in the capacities of notebooks hard drives are widening. Samsung and Western Digital have both begun to offer 250 GB notebook hard drives, for example. However, although Samsung told us that its SpinPoint M5S has been shipping for a couple of weeks, it is Western Digital's 250 GB Scorpio drive that arrived at our storage test lab first. And it's one hell of a hard drive.

hdmalo

Hard Disk

With the exception of Fujitsu's MHV2200BT and the Toshiba MK2035GSS (both store 200 GB), the maximum storage capacity of 2.5" hard drive has been 160 GB. Fujitsu launched devices with a 200 GB capacity by creating a three-platter drive instead of single-platter or two-platter configurations. The height of the drive measured 12.5 mm, which prevented it from being used in almost all notebooks, because most notebook designs require 9.5 mm drives. Toshiba's 200 GB drive fits into standard 2.5" drive bays, but it rotates at the slow speed of 4,200 RPM. While this may be quick enough for applications such as external hard drives, mainstream demands now calls for notebook hard drives with speeds of 5,400 RPM. According to our tests and measurements, this speed currently represents the best compromise between performance, capacity and power consumption.

Compared to the maximum capacity for 5,400 RPM 2.5" drives, which has been 160 GB, 250 GB represents a 55% increase in storage capacity. This is much larger than usual capacity increases that typically are in the range of 10-30%. The increase in data density clearly can be attributed to perpendicular recording technology, which aligns the magnetizable elements on the platters in a vertical fashion (perpendicular) rather than magnetizing horizontally (longitudinal). PMR technology does not only allow much higher data densities by moving bits closer together, but it also improves data integrity by working against the superparamagnetic effect, which causes magnetic particles to influence each other.

Is Zettabits Next Generation Storage?

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:39:48 -0500

More and more users and small businesses store their data on external storage devices or NAS boxes, because it's more flexible when there isn't a dedicated fileserver. However, storing digital assets, project files, accounting information, user data or other important files doesn't end with copying contents onto a hard drive based storage product.

ZettaA single hard drive may fail, and thus does not provide protection for your files. If you want to deal with storage right, you will have to go for a product that stores data redundantly (usually based on RAID and two or more hard drives), or find an online storage provider that takes care of data safety. One interesting idea that crosses traditional storage with online storage is the zBox by Zettabyte, which is offered as an online-enabled product called Zettabits. It stores data on a storage box on site, but allows you to synchronize selected folders with an online service.

Zettabits

There are numerous online storage, backup and file sharing services on the Internet, which differ widely in terms of features and cost. There is Box.net, Freepository, IBackup, iStorage by Iomega, Mediamax, Mozy, Omnidrive, Streamload, XDrive and many others we might not be aware of. All of them offer various storage services and features, and most offer up to several gigabytes storage for free (though with limitations.) We haven't looked at all of them in detail, as we're dealing with Zettabyte's product this time, but the main questions in general certainly are:

1. Is my data safe and secure at an online storage provider?
2. Is it possible to integrate the service with the way I like to handle data?

Overly suspicious users will probably never store their most important data on an online storage account; it remains your decision whether or not you feel confident to go in that direction. (Serious storage providers will, of course, do all they can to ensure both data safety and security.) The second question can be answered by only a few storage providers, which allow you to map the Internet storage location to your desktop just like you can map an FTP location into your computer. The value of this, however, largely depends on the speed of your Internet connection.

The future clearly lies in ubiquitous storage solutions, where you simply store your data, not necessarily knowing where and how it is done, and access it from anywhere using all sorts of wired and wireless networks and devices. This concept still trips over security issues and the matter of available bandwidth. Only a locally installed storage device can give you enough performance to deal with many gigabytes of data within a reasonably short time. This is not going to change very soon unless you're lucky enough to have access to some brutal Internet line with high upstream and downstream pipes.

A company called Zettabyte realized that it makes a lot of sense to combine a traditional storage product with online storage services. The storage box serves the way you are accustomed to, and it is available 24/7, while the online storage holds a backup of your latest data, which also allows you to access your data on the road without having to set up any remote access to your office or network.

back

More at
Zettabits

Which is the Best Mainstream CPU?

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:17:12 -0500

If you're looking to buy a new system or a new processor, then you've come to the right place. A lot has been going on in the market, though Core 2 Duo is still the best choice, and AMD still has no technology to fight back. Its quad-core processor called Phenom is positioned to be a show-stopper - we will see. Then again, we've seen substantial price cuts that put even high-end processors at prices below $200. It's time to have another look around.

CPUsIntel's Core 2 Duo processor has been dominating benchmark results ever since its launch in the summer of 2006. Thanks to a large, shared L2 cache for both processor cores, modern 65 nm manufacturing, and the more advanced processor architecture, not even the top model 3.0 GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 has a chance of winning many benchmarks. However, this applies purely to raw performance.

From the standpoint of performance per watt of power consumed, the Core 2 Duo may look better too, as all processors are rated at a maximum of 65 W, while AMD still has 89 W models. The Core 2 Duo, though, doesn't carry an integrated DDR2 memory controller, which is an integral part of every AMD64 processor and thus increases their power consumption. Even so, AMD doesn't look bad - if you compare entire platforms, Intel doesn't necessarily win the power race as well. Finally, there have been substantial price cuts both in the AMD and in the Intel camp, which has actively reshuffled the balance of power - and created confusion at the same time.

AMD's first quarter results were not very amusing for the firm, as it lost considerable market share and had to post losses. While the acquisition of ATI wasn't quite a bargain, the important issue is processor prices, which were almost cut in half in the firm's attempt to stay competitive. The result is obvious now: AMD may be able to sustain its weakened market share with its Athlon 64 processors, but it isn't making a lot of money.

CPU back

You will find the latest processor prices at www.amd.com/pricing. A link to Intel's pricelist didn't work, so we recommend using the prices of a recent TG Daily article for the sake of comparison. Even after the latest price cuts, the Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66 GHz) is tagged at $316. This is 30% more expensive than what AMD asks for the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ top model (3.0 GHz), which is priced at $241. The Core 2 Duo E6600 is indeed faster, but the percentage difference is in the single-digit range.

Taking into account the recent price cuts and looking back at how much processor performance has increased since the introduction of dual core CPUs, we clearly recommend against spending a lot of money on a CPU. You will spend at least double the money on a quad core processor versus a dual core, and many applications still don't benefit from the additional cores. At the same time, having a dual core versus a single core CPU is more important than fighting over a few hundred megahertz. The existing quad core products (Core 2 Quad) will be replaced by next-generation products in the third quarter of 2007.

Parallel Processing

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:02:03 -0500

The race for more performance in the processor segment can only be won by manufacturers who focus on a reasonable balance of clock speed and processing units, based on the existing manufacturing technology.The race for more performance in the processor segment can only be won by manufacturers who focus on a reasonable balance of clock speed and processing units, based on the existing manufacturing technology. With availability of 90 nm and 65 nm manufacturing processes, processors with more than one unit became possible thanks to manageable heat dissipation and die sizes, and we're looking at more and more quad core processors today. But how does current software really scale from single to dual and quad cores?

Parallel Processing

In an ideal world, thread-optimized software allows the operating system to distribute multiple threads across the available processing units, whether these are found on a single processor or multiple processors with a single or multiple cores. Adding more cores can unleash much more performance than any clock speed increase. This makes sense: obviously, more workers are almost always faster than fewer faster workers.

But what about four and more workers per processor? In this case, there might not always be enough work to saturate four or more units. It can also be tricky to distribute the workloads to the workers, meaning that the physical interfaces - such as HyperTransport (AMD) or the Front Side Bus (Intel) - might become a bottleneck in certain scenarios. As a third option, the mechanism that distributes the workloads, which is the operating system's dispatcher, may also become a bottleneck.

AMD's transition from single core to dual core processors was almost seamless, as the company had not maxed out thermal limits like Intel's Pentium 4 processors. Hence, the Athlon 64 X2 was expensive but reasonable, while the Pentium D 800 series became extremely hot. Intel's 65 nm processors, and the Core 2 processor family in particular, turned the tables. Intel has also been able to combine two Core 2 Duo processors in a single processor package where AMD still hasn't, which is better known as the Core 2 Quad today. AMD has promised to deliver its Phenom X4 processor before the end of this year.

More about that at
Parallel Processing/a>