Corsair Dominator GT 2000MHz DDR3 6GB

Summary

The Corsair Dominator GT 6GB DDR3 RAM kit is very clear about who it targets – those desirous of out and out performance, prices no bar. The target audience is self-evident – the big deal is the overall package offered by the Dominator GT, get it if you can afford it.

Pros:

• Sheer speed
• Flexibility in overclocking due to lower voltage used
• Cooling is part of the package

Cons:

• The fan can get disturbing in an HTPC

Full Review

The Corsair Dominator GT CMG6GX3M3A2000C8 was one heck of a set of memory modules. Our test bench in the PCW Test Center clung to it but in the end we coaxed it into letting us unplug it after all test runs were performed. That is how good this 6GB kit of DDR3 RAM was.

Let us get the specifications out of the way first, shall we? The Corsair Dominator GT CMG6GX3M3A2000C8 is targeted at desktop PC enthusiasts, some who can buy it and the rest who can drool over the idea of its high performance. It consists of three modules of 2GB each, adding up to a total of 6 Gigabytes. Those who want 12GB will have to buy two packages of this product, thus making for 6 DIMM modules of 2GB each. So it is clear that it targeted for triple-channel (192-bit wide operation) users, something that you can currently get only with a motherboard based on the Intel X58 chipset.

Since the target niche is expected to want to over clock, a cooler is part of the package.

It is rated to be able to run at a clock frequency of 2000 MHz, with timings of 8-8-8-24. If you do not already recognize the significance of those numbers, it simply means this kit can help you overclock like a dream, and is capable of running very fast to complement even processors that are running way beyond their rated spec. Due to the above frequency, Corsair has labelled this package as “PC3-16000”. This indicates it is a DDR3 RAM package, capable of transferring data at 16,000 MB/second. However, it will reach 2000 MHz, 8-8-8-24 only after pushing the memory voltage to 1.65V from the BIOS. When you have not enabled such a high memory profile (XMP or Extreme Memory Profile), the Dominator GT will operate at a normal DDR3 module’s stock speed of 1333 MHz and consume 1.5V of power. This is lesser than older DDR2 modules that were expected to run at 1.8V and DDR1 modules at 2.5V. Note that the Intel Core i7 (the platform targeted by this package) has its memory controller built into the processor itself and could be damaged if you try overclocking by passing any higher Voltage to the memory modules.

The company does cater to a niche with this product, so it comes quite well packaged as you can see from the image below. The RAM modules themselves are given some extra style, with their black and red color scheme where the module is colored black and the heatsink/fin atop the module is red to make for a classy look. Since the target niche is expected to want to over clock, a cooler is part of the package. Innovatively named... “Corsair Airflow”, it is made of aluminium for heat dissipation, consists of two fans, and clamps on to the top of the RAM modules. Corsair claims that the Dominator GT line of products is “built using DHX+ (Dual-path Heat eXchange) heatsink” to better cool it. Also, the red heatsink fins on top are removable and can be used interchangeably with their thermo-electric and water-cooling solutions. That is how much attention the RAM component now gets folks – fans are not restricted to just the CPU cooler, graphics card and PC cabinet anymore. It is reassuring that the modern PC still sits on the desk and does not attempt to take-off and fly away with all those fans whirring inside!


We tested the Corsair Dominator GT RAM modules on the same test bench we use for other hardware, to obtain comparable results and to eliminate other bottlenecks as much as possible. Thus it consisted of an Intel DX58SO motherboard, Intel Core i7 965 processor, Intel X25-M 80GB SSD and Tagan BZ1300W PSU, besides these memory modules themselves. First up was actually getting this RAM to run at the rated specifications. It always takes a little trial and error since the XMP memory profile poses its own issues, but we did find out that getting these Corsair modules to run stable at 2 GHz was easier than fighting with the Kingston HyperX 2 GHz modules to reach the same speed. Once similar speeds were achieved, these Corsair modules scored better in latency benchmarks than the Kingston, even if only by a couple of nanoseconds (memory latency is measured in ns, hard drive latency is measured in ms or milliseconds).

Running memory benchmarks returned a speed of 16,134 MB/s on average as expected. There was the occasional burst when it hit a maximum of 19,841 MB/s but overall, latency still remained at 51ns. In the Windows Experience Index, the memory score improved from 7.7 for normal triple channel 1333 MHz memory to 7.9 for the Corsair memory – this is good, keeping in mind that 7.9 is the maximum number that Windows 7 will assign. We ran a host of other real world and synthetic benchmarks but these tests came back to underline what we had expected. Not much really “feels” different in day to day normal usage. Yes you will see the performance benefit in games and professional applications, but not in browsers or OS file operations. The RAM modules became warm to the touch when being stressed, but did not reach the “heat” territory, which is a good thing.


Possibilities abound with this kind of overclocker-friendly RAM kit, so you could take alternative routes too, such as cutting back on the frequency but tightening the timings, increasing the voltage to go further beyond 2 GHz by loosening the timings, and so on. There isn’t much to go by the name of negatives. The “Corsair Airflow” solution bundled in this kit’s package does get audible slightly but thankfully it may not be required at all. That noise is easily masked if you are playing something over the speakers. In any case, those who are putting together their own HomeTheatre PC and value silent components are hardly going to splurge this much money on the RAM alone. So the price does not need harping upon, as it addresses a very exclusive segment of the market. Corsair offers a limited lifetime warranty.

Bottom Line

The Corsair Dominator GT 6GB DDR3 RAM kit is very clear about who it targets – those desirous of out and out performance, prices no bar. The target audience is self-evident – the big deal is the overall package offered by the Dominator GT, get it if you can afford it.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Sony Optiarc BD-5300S Blu-ray Writer

• 
• 
• 
• 

Summary

A Bluray Writer is the sort of hardware that desktop PC users who want to keep up with the times must have. From high-end movie-watching to being able to backup PS3 game discs, it allows for everything in the middle. If you have a large HDD, being able to push data out to 25GB BD-R discs is an appealing and convenient proposition.

Pros:

• Write speed upto 12x
• 3D Bluray discs supported
• CD and DVD formats read/write just fine

Cons:

• Blank BD-R media is costly
• DL-DVD write speed capped at 8x

Full Review

If backing up data to an external hard drive does not quite feel enough, but optical media such as a DVD-R don't offer enough data capacity, then you want a Bluray writer. There's simply far too much content being created and/or shared over the Internet today for even Dual-Layer DVDs to be sufficient. Writing data out to Blu-ray discs though, demands less data-organizing across multiple discs and less time from you.

There also is the benefit of popping in a single disc and accessing 25GB of photos/home-movies/backups at once (BD-R) compared to just 4.7 GB for DVD-R media. Desktop PC hard drives are bearing the brunt of P2P downloads and when the data to be cleared out numbers in the Terabytes, the old faithful CD/DVD discs feel honestly tiny in comparison.

Design
The Sony Optiarc BD-5300S drive reviewed here is a Bluray Writer for desktop PCs. Accordingly it follows the same form-factor as desktop optical (CD/DVD) drives before it. Its form-factor is thus 5.25-inch, half-height. SATA connectors are present for data and power cables. The ubiquitous standard tray-loading design is used, perhaps because desktop users do not actively seek out slot-loading drives.

The front is matte textured and black colored, a good choice for correspondingly colored PC cabinets. Notably, the front facia has no Sony logo/branding, although logos for CD, DVD and BD are prominently displayed.



The package I received was an OEM unit packed neatly in anti-static wrapping, so there were none of the extras present in retail box units. The drive cables, manual, software CD, mounting screws and the box packaging were not really missed though. I expect the audience of this product will be conversant with how to hook the drive up, and have the necessary cables/screws/software already, so this OEM unit at its lower price would be welcome.

Specifications
The Nero InfoTool screenshot below shows the supported disc types for read and write. To view rated read/write speed supported by this drive for each type of disc, visit the manufacturer's product page.



A newer firmware (version 1.04) was available, so I updated that first before any tests. No drivers were required to install the drive or read Bluray discs on Windows 7, as the drive uses a standard native driver, and BD-R discs use the standard UDF filesystem. Windows 7 was able to even write to blank CDs and DVDs, but a blank BD will need specialized software to write, such as Nero Burning ROM.

The BD-5300S obviously supports reading Blu-ray discs (BD-ROM). Besides that, it can read and write to 25GB (Single Layer) and 50GB (Dual Layer) variants of BD-R (single write) and BD-RE (rewritable discs). While it does claim support for 3D Blu-ray discs, I am not sure if it supports BD-XL which is a newer type of disc with 100GB capacity.

This drive can also read/write to CD and DVD at 48x and 16x respectively. These two optical discs are on the "red" side of the spectrum. The speeds could have been better - a plain CD Writer can do 52x (versus 48x) and a plain DVD Writer can do 22x (versus 16x). The consolation is that optical discs are not read/written at maximum speed until the outer tracks in any case, so we're glad this drive belongs to the newer Blu-ray writer generation that includes CD/DVD support.

When looking at the multiplicity of "x" numbers bandied about between different types of optical media, it is worth keeping in mind that 1x speed for a Blu-Ray disc is 4.5 MBytes/sec, much more than DVD (1.35 MB/s) and CD (0.15 MB/s). While a write-once single-layer blank Bluray disc known as a BD-R is marked as offering a capacity of 25GB, in practice you'll see a capacity of only 22.5 GB, or 23098 MB to be precise. This is normal, just as a DVD-R of 4.7 GB gives an actual capacity of 4.38 GB; and a DL-DVD (dual-layer) of 8.5 GB offers 7.96 GB of actual space. An interesting thing is that a data Bluray disc is not composed using a new format, it just uses the standard UDF file-system already in use on DVDs.

Performance
We tested this drive on a high-end PC to prevent bottlenecks to the extent possible. Still, quirks creep in. For instance, the drive's theoretical Bluray read speed of 8x is actually slower than write speed of 12x. Also, blank Bluray media supporting write speeds higher than 4x, and BD-DL (dual layer) 50GB discs are not available at Indian retailers even if you're willing to pay extra.

Blu-ray movie playback was just fine on this drive, even when skipping multiple minutes forward or backward. Located on the drive tray, the green LED that denotes drive activity stayed persistently on - unlike most DVD Writer drives that blink to denote activity. The 8MB buffer size is sufficient while reading, although if your HDD is bogged down while writing a Bluray, you may see the buffer running low frequently.

Mentioned here is only the performance seen while using Nero Burning ROM software with Memorex BD-R discs rated for 4x speed. Writing 22.5 GB of data to disc took 48.5 minutes to burn and 15.5 minutes for disc-write verification. This means a resulting average write speed of 7.92 MB/s (1.76x speed) and read speed of 24.8 MB/s (5.5x speed).


Writing 22.5 GB to a BD-R at 4x speed.

When using a BD-R rated for 6x speed, write speed improved to 9.8 MB/s (2.18x speed). Other disc formats such as CD/DVD/DL-DVD read and wrote as expected in all forms (-ROM/-R/-RW). The speeds recorded above were as expected, and don't differ much from the Lite-On iHBS212 Bluray Writer we tested previously.

Bottom Line

The Sony Optiarc BD-5300S Internal Bluray Writer for desktops is a good option if you want to keep up with the times. From high-end movie-watching to being able to backup PS3 game discs, you cannot go wrong with getting a Bluray Writer. If you are one of those who have humongous hard drives, being able to push data out to BD-R is an appealing proposition as more Gigabytes can be stored per disc, and time spent nannying disc writes can be used more productively.

Price is not much of a sticking point, considering that it's much lower now than earlier and is expected to keep falling as more people wake up to Blu-ray and volumes rise. However, it is a fair bet that you'd want at least one other form of external storage, such as today's fast USB 3.0 portable hard drives.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge)

• 
• 

Summary

The Intel Core i7-2600K processor is a worthy successor to the i7-860 and i7-920 at default clock speeds. On balance, paying about the same amount for a higher-midrange processor and getting a 25 per cent increase in performance (besides overclockability) is a deal that is very hard to pass up. Despite the rapid socket changes Intel is going through, we can safely say that those looking to build a performance PC won't regret a Sandy Bridge purchase.

Pros:

• 3.4 GHz frequency
• Unlocked multiplier for further overclockability
• 2nd Generation 32nm processor
• Improved performance/power efficiency
• CPU onboard graphics

Cons:

• Requires new motherboard, Intel's 3rd socket change in as many years
• Base Clock is locked

Full Review

With the Sandy Bridge line of processors, Intel is not looking to so much introduce a new speed monster, as it is to provide near top-level performance at mainstream prices. As Intel's "tock" to the earlier "tick" by their Lynnfield, the SandyBridge processors remain at 32nm fabrication. But they do bring in quite a performance improvement, with large jumps over the previous generation of mainstream Intel processors.
Specifications
One of the big changes in the Intel Core i7-2600K is the requirement of an entirely new processor socket - LGA1155, which requires a new set of motherboards, based on the Intel P67 or H67 chipset. The model numbers have undergone a change too, with four digits being used now instead of three. The "K" suffix at the end denotes that it is a multiplier-unlocked variant, which you'd have to pay a premium for, as overclocking has been rendered more difficult now. Intel still uses DDR3 memory of course.

The quad-core 2600K offers a 95W TDP, an 8MB L3 cache, 256KB L2 cache per core (making it 1MB in all) and 64KB L1 cache per core (256KB in total). It supports HyperThreading (thus allowing for 8 threads simultaneously), operates at 3.4 GHz by default, and offers TurboBoost upto 3.8 GHz.

For the curious, a CPUID screenshot of the Intel Core i7-2600K.


Performance
We tested the Intel Core i7-2600K processor on a test rig comprising of the following components - an Intel DP67BG motherboard, stock Intel heatsink and cooler, 8 GB of Silicon Power DDR3 RAM in dual-channel mode, Radeon 5970 graphics card, Intel X25-M 80GB SSD, Tagan BZ-1300W PSU, 1080p monitor, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Edition and Radeon Catalyst 10.12 graphics drivers.

All test scores on record were run at default clock speeds. For comparison, we have here the Intel Core i7-965 with a DX58SO motherboard and 12GB of DDR3 RAM in triple-channel mode. Storage input/output, USB, RAM and processor cache speeds measured up to the level expected. We then ran synthetic benchmark tests. First off, was PC World's own WorldBench 6 benchmark suite, with points scored as seen in the graph below:


Okay, so it manages to pull far ahead. The clock speed may not be the only factor, as the 1100T is also clocked at the same base speed (we disabled all power management and TurboBoost for the purposes of this test).


The synthetic system tests did not quite have such a runaway difference, but the Core i7-2600K did perform well.



Real-world gaming tests turned in the scores seen above.


In brief, this mainstream processor manages to class itself among the top performing processors, even overtaking AMD's six-core on occasion. You can view the numbers for the 2600K alone, in table form on the "Performance" tab of this review.

Overclocking
Most people who pass over the standard i7-2600 and buy the i7-2600K, will do so for overclockability. The variant with a "K" has an unlocked multiplier, and we decided to see how high it could go, retaining stability as verified by an AIDA-64 stress test. With a tiny voltage increase, It managed 4.33 GHz and ended up being "throttled" for thermal reasons by the BIOS, so that was all we could attain from a simple manual overclock "on air", but this number is still a full Gigahertz higher than its normal speed. At the increased speed, there was a further performance jump in real-world game benches, varying from 15% to almost zero depending on the game in question.

The entire SandyBridge line-up now has graphics onboard the processor (not DirectX 11 though). The Intel HD Graphics 3000 has enhanced performance by upto 3 times, with its "Execution Units" model, which will mean a lot for lower-end PC gaming and be a potent threat to low-end graphics cards. As with the previous generation the "P" performance oriented boards cannot make use of the IGP, while those marked in the "H" series can. Check back in a while to see how it performed in video encoding and gaming tests. Even more interesting for desktop users in India, would be the price of their 2300/2400 processors.

Bottom Line

The Intel Core i7-2600K is a worthy successor to the i7-860 and i7-920 at default clock speeds. If Sandy Bridge permeates the entire market, the (relatively) lower-end LGA1156 motherboards and processors can securely walk into the sunset. In fact, even the X58 line (including the hexacores) can now be scratched off the wish-list of most aspiring gaming/performance PC buyers, replacing the same with a Sandy Bridge board and processor instead.

On balance, paying about the same amount for a higher-midrange processor and getting a 25 per cent increase in performance (besides overclockability) is a deal that is very hard to pass up. Despite the rapid socket changes Intel is going through, we can safely say that those looking to build a performance PC won't regret a Sandy Bridge purchase.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Asus M4A88T-M

• 
• 

< >

Summary

This motherboard for AMD-based computers is quite a hit among higher mid-range consumers. With its onboard 880G graphics, support for USB 3.0 and (hopefully) further dips in pricing, this board will be the new mainstream for AM3 desktop PCs. It does give SATA 6 Gb/s ports a miss, but that is not a particular concern for now in this price bracket.

Pros:

• Decent integrated graphics
• USB 3.0 support
• BIOS tweaks for overclockers

Cons:

• No DirectX 11 support
• No SATA 6Gb/s support

Full Review

The AMD 880G chipset is meant to be the choice of mainstream motherboards for users of AMD processors on the desktop. With good graphics for an integrated solution, and support for six-core AMD processors, the Asus M4A88T-M is a good option for those who want a better motherboard than the basic ones.

There is plenty of good stuff about this board even though it is priced at a fairly economical price-point. It may not be the choice of the most high-end users, but users building fairly high-end PCs with this as the foundation are not likely to be disappointed. Note that playing the latest games may require toning down all the settings, however HTPC users (Home Theater PC) will be quite glad with what the Asus M4A88T-M gives.

Design
For HTPC purposes, and to be able to fit into smaller cabinets, this motherboard has a micro-ATX form factor. Asus has used its usual color scheme for this board - black base with blue colored slots. For increased reliability, solid capacitors have been used all over, which hypothetically translates to an increased working lifespan. There is a blue-colored heat sink to passively cool the integrated graphics.



The layout, though feature packed, is still thoughtful and allows for uncluttered connections and cabling. SATA ports are thankfully located at sufficient distance, such that they are accessible even when using a discreet high-end graphics card with a dual-slot cooler. That it has four memory slots mark it out as a relatively higher end product among motherboards of the micro-ATX type.

Specifications
As the Asus M4A88T-M motherboard is based on the AMD 880G chipset, meaning pretty good integrated graphics with the Radeon 4250, although AMD's own 890GX chipset and Intel's SandyBridge processors offer better performance. Up to 1GB of memory can be assigned for graphics, and those who run with plenty of RAM and a 64-bit OS will be glad to know that the BIOS allows for setting the graphics frame buffer location below or above 4GB. If you add a discreet AMD graphics card, you have the option of running the onboard graphics together with CrossFireX, to add performance and reduce power consumption in scenarios where the onboard graphics is sufficient. Video output ports provided, are VGA, DVI and HDMI.


The number of storage devices that can be connected, the audio options and the good IGP of the 880G make it a pretty good choice for HTPCs.

The motherboard offers an AMD AM3 processor socket. Four dual-channel DDR3 RAM slots are present, supporting up to 16GB memory at speeds up to 1866 MHz. It uses the SB710 chipset for the SouthBridge, presumably to reduce costs. Therefore you get one PATA port and six SATA 3Gb/s ports, with support to run four of them in RAID modes. At the back panel, are six analog (8 channel) audio, one S/PDIF, one Gigabit Ethernet, four USB 2.0 and two USB 3.0, and one PS/2 port.


The input/output ports at the back, proves it is not a low-end product. Note the two blue USB ports (USB 3.0).

Expansion slots on the board include one PCI-E 2.0 x16 for a graphics card, two PCI-E x1, and one PCI slot. Three USB 2.0 headers are present, to allow for an additional 6 USB ports, which you can use through your cabinet's front panel, memory card reader or a mounted USB bracket.

The contents of the boxed package were standard - quick start guide, user guide, driver/software CD, back-panel for the rear I/O ports, one PATA and two SATA cables. For a full list of the specs, see the “Specifications” tab of this review. Asus offers a three-year warranty on this motherboard.

BIOS
The BIOS offered all the features one would expect, including over-clocking. Asus provides Turbo-V software, for live overclocking from within Windows. An interesting mode that Asus calls "Unleashing", will allow for uneven clock speeds among the cores, to gain all the performance possible. Turbo Core is an AMD feature supported by the M4A88T-M, whereby the processor disables some cores to operate at a frequency of almost 500 MHz extra beyond the default clock speed. Advanced Clock Calibration (ACC) is supported, as is Core Unlocker. An "Active CPU Cores" setting allows for enabling/disabling specific cores. Like with a lot of Asus motherboards, this one also offers support for Express Gate, a quick-boot version of Linux.



Performance
To prevent bottlenecks and preserve comparability, we tested the performance of this motherboard using the following components - AMD Phenom II X4 965 Processor (3.4 GHz), AMD Radeon 5970 graphics card, 8GB of Silicon Power DDR3 RAM, Intel X25-M 80GB SSD, Asus Blu-Ray drive, Tagan BZ-1300W PSU and Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit edition.

The first half of the tests consisted of real-world and subjective performance. As expected, the OS worked smoothly with everyday productivity applications and Internet browsing barely stressing any component. High-Definition and high-bitrate 1080p movie rips played just fine with no jerks or screen artefacts, which can be attributed to the raw speed of the Processor used. Blu-Ray discs played without a hitch, whether while using the processor alone, or while using the IGP acceleration to take load away from the processor. Hard-disk speed was on par with the best motherboards we have tested (for example, 249 MB/s random read speed on the Intel SSD). So we infer that the storage controller on the chipset is good. Memory performance remained consistent in benchmarks that stress memory, while using discrete graphics as well as while using the IGP. All of these are good signs.

The second half consisted of synthetic benchmarks. These are objective and give firm numbers that can be reproduced on demand and be used to compare performance. We take into account diverse tests, ranging from the simple (Windows Experience Index), to the standard system tests (World Bench 6, PC Mark) which carry out many tests including video encoding. Seeing as this motherboard includes an IGP, we included gaming as well (Crysis, Far Cry 2, Unreal Tournament 3). For a longer list of benchmark results, see the "Performance" tab of this review.

You can view some of the performance results right away, in the graphs below. For comparison, we have included numbers obtained with and without the IGP, and also those of the 890GX IGP. Except where noted, all the below tests were run at default settings.


Evidently, there isn't a lot of performance drop compared to the 890GX, which will be the top IGP atleast until Intel's SandyBridge processors are released. The 880G's single PCI-E graphics card slot does not inhibit the Radeon 5970 from flexing its muscles either.

Below are a couple more performance results, with two numbers for each benchmark. The first number was obtained using a Radeon 4870 discrete graphics card to test an older motherboard, the second number was obtained using the Radeon 4250 (onboard integrated graphics) to test the IGP.

Windows 7 Experience Index rating (graphics component alone, on a scale of 1 to 7.9): 6.9 , 4.3
Crysis (1024x768 0xAA Ultra High) frames/second: 56.6 , 4.03

Overclocking and Temperatures
We could overclock the processor from its default 3415 MHz to 3720 MHz (15x248) despite limitations of the HT bus, CPU cooler used and frequency of the RAM modules used. With slightly above-average use, we saw the processor temperature hover at 51 degrees Celsius and motherboard sensor measured about 45 degrees. These numbers aren't bad at all.

Bottom Line

This motherboard is a successor of the ones based on an AMD 785G chipset. If anything, our only grouse will be that Asus did not use the newer SB850 for this board, thus leaving SATA 6 Gb/s support in the cold. Also, this board is not for a gamer at all, unless by that term you mean turning off almost all visual eye-candy to make the game look very drab. Yet the integrated graphics (IGP - Radeon 4250) on this motherboard is the best in the mainstream price range. The Intel graphics integrated into the recent Core i5/i3 manages to give it tough competition, but even that is not ahead by much of a margin. In such a case, the price is quite the clincher for the Asus M4A88T-M, if you're looking for an AMD motherboard.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Dell Inspiron 15R (N5050)

• 

Full Review

We shall be reviewing the Dell Inspiron 15R (N5050) laptop today - this is not to be confused with another model which also bears the same classification of 'Dell Inspiron 15R', but comes under the subcategory of N5100, and which features a switchable back-lid.

Design
The review model we received came in an Obsidian Black colouring which covers the backlid and the palmrest - the rest of the laptop has a regular black plastic finish. The overall design of this laptop is nothing much to write home about -  it has an overall regular look except for the bulge at its rear, which provides space for the removable battery.

The backlid is glossy and features the Dell logo that is positioned at its centre - by virtue of its glossy nature, the backlid attracts more than its fair share of fingerprints, smudges and scratches. The plamrest, on the other hand, has a matte finish - so you don’t have to worry about fingerprints and the sort leaving their mark on it. The screen bezel also has a matte finish. In a design choice that we saw previously on the Dell Vostro 3450 as well, the keyboard's background area has a glossy finish - the same goes for its border. While the glossy background surface does provide a contrast to an extent to the matte finish of the rest of the laptop, given that the entire laptop has a darkish colouring, talking of this contrast is a rather moot point - the black glossy background area should contrast better with the Apple Red colour option.



The screen is held in place by a two hinges - the wide centrally located connector also hold the monitor - there is a Dell logo positioned centrally at the lower section of the screen bezel - in place. Both the hinges extend outward to cause a bulge, which is the most distinctive feature of this laptop. The power socket is located on the right side of this bulge.


FeaturesThe overall build quality of this laptop is good. The edges are curved and the entire laptop, when closed, resembles a rectangular slab - there are no angular sides, save for the slight curvature that extends from the base to the front side of the laptop. There is a 0.3 MP camera placed at the top central section of the screen's bezel.

The power button is located at the top left corner. There are two very slim speaker outlets located at either end of the top part of the chassis - placed below the screen. There are four LED indicators positioned along the front of the laptop, for indicating whether the laptop is powered on, for hard drive access, whether the battery is charging or not and for wireless connectivity respectively.




Monitor
The 15.6-inch glossy screen does a good job of displaying text and video. The viewing angles are decent - two people, sitting within comfortable distance of each other, should be able to watch the screen without having to see the darkish hue appear over the particular picture/video.  The screen can be titled backwards to an angle of approx 120 degrees.


Keyboard UsabilityThe keyboard features chiclet keys, but comes without a dedicated numpad. Given that this is a 15.6 screen laptop, Dell could have easily incorporated a numpad, given how there is a lot of free space around the keyboard border area. Typing on this keyboard was not too pleasant an experience given the springy tactile feedback from the keys. Interestingly Dell has added a function button for disabling the touchpad - which is a very handy feature to have, especially when typing a document, and when you don’t want your cursor to keep moving just because your palms came in to contact with the touchpad. Acer was the only manufacturer I had seen who implemented this feature, and its a welcome addition by Dell. I hope they continue having this feature in their other laptops as well.

The smooth textured touchpad is very responsive, and features two mouse buttons. I did find that the mouse buttons tended to depress too much when pressed - the buttons would depress to the extent that your fingers would be touching the border of the touchpad. This was quite an irritant - Dell could have really done with steadier mouse buttons.


HardwareThe Dell Inspiron 15R features a Second Generation Intel Core i3 2310 processor (2.1GHz), 4GB DDR3 RAM, a 500 GB (5400 RPM) HDD, and Intel HD graphics.



The left side of the laptop chassis features, one Ethernet port, one VGA port, an HDMI port, one USB 2.0 port and headphone and microphone jacks. On the right hand side you would find an optical drive and 2 USB 2.0 ports. At the front of the chassis, you would find a multi-card reader - positioned to its left, you would find the four LED indicators. It also features Wi-Fi 802.11b/g/ n and Bluetooth 3.0 wireless connectivity.



More details can be seen on this review's "Specifications" page.


SoftwareThe laptop comes pre-installed with Windows 7 Home Premium service pack 1. Among the Dell software included on this unit are the Dell DataSafe local backup, Dell DataSafe online, Dell Stage - includes MusicStage, PhotoStage and VideoStage, Dell Support Centre and PC Checkup and Dell webcam Central which allows you to add some interesting effects to your photos.

Among the other pre-installed software are McAfee Security Centre trial edition, Roxio Creator Starter Edition, and Skype.


PerformanceThe Inspiron15R  laptop received a score of 99 on the Worldbench 6 benchmark - for comparisons sake, that would be 2 points more than what the Lenovo IdeaPad Z570 scored. This Dell laptop should be able to cope with carrying out your daily tasks and performing most multiple processor and memory intensive tasks without any issues - save for gaming. During synthetic testing, the laptop's hard disk recorded an average read speed of 72.5 MB/s and recorded a PC Mark Vantage score of 5547.

Given that the laptop has the integrated Intel HD graphics, playing contemporary games shouldn’t really be considered as a viable option on this laptop. This is not a downside in any way as the laptop was never intended for such a purpose, and if you were indeed looking for a more moderately priced machine to play games on, you would be better off looking at other options - such as the Lenovo IdeaPad Z570. Having said that, you just might be able to get away with playing some of the retro games, run at appropriate settings, on this Inspiron 15R laptop,

Watching both 720p and 1080p HD videos was a comfortable experience. The sound output from the built in speakers, is appropriately loud for a small to medium sized room, although higher frequency sounds do tend to sound quite screechy. Listening through headphones would be the best option.

Throughout our testing, the Inspiron laptop did a good job of keeping itself cool, which is a positive aspect for any laptop. However when used for an extended period of time or when running some intensive tasks, you do notice that the mid-to-top left section of the laptop's base, that is next to the exhaust, heats up slightly and becomes quite warm to the touch. Moreover, the laptop was barely audible during operation, which is another positive to take from this laptop.

The laptop's six-cell battery lasted for 1 hour 32 minutes through one of our battery tests, at high performance mode, and having the wireless internet mode enabled - this result is pretty much the norm we have come to expect of mainstream laptops. Having said that, you should be able to extract around 4 plus hours out of the laptop's battery for doing lighter every-day work such as browsing the web and listening to music.


Upgradability
The entire base is a single cover slot, and the entire base will have to taken off - we tried to remove it, but to no avail - to look at the Inspiron laptop's innards. Consequently, in case you are thinking of upgrading this unit, that task is better left to Dell, and is not an activity that I would encourage regular users to engage in.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Seagate and Western Digital to release 3TB internal hard drives soon

It looks like some of the higher capacity hard drives we’ve been hearing about are going to make their way into the market soon, and Seagate and Western Digital seem to the first to get out internal 3TB hard drives.

Pictures of the 3.5-inch drives were posted on various European e-retailers’ sites, who show them as available for pre-order, as well as some of their features:
Seagate Barracuda XT – 3TB

* 7,200RPM
* 64MB memory buffer
* 6Gbps SATA interface
* 8.5ms AAT
* 32dB(A) Specified Noise

Western Digital Caviar Green

# 5,400RPM
# 3Gbps SATA interface
# 64MB memory buffer
# 8.9ms AAT
# 29dB(A) Specified Noise

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

What Is Shareware?

Experiences and comments about shareware, the problems, the benefits.

I use shareware more than I use conventional software. But like regular software shareware has its problems, and can even have problems that don’t exist in conventional software.

What is shareware?

Shareware is software that you ‘Try before you buy it’. Some shareware has no price, instead the author may give it away free (freeware) or ask for a “donation” of money.

But most shareware has a price, and the free trial ends after (1) so many uses or (2) or so many days or

(3) has some features crippled or (4) some combination of 1, 2 and 3.

In addition there may be demo shareware which demonstrates some of the features of the software but demo software is not shareware unless you can add a “key” (you pay for the key) and activate the demo to a full version.

I use shareware more than I use conventional software. But like regular software shareware has its problems, and can even have problems that don’t exist in conventional software.

Who writes this stuff?

Instead of being written by some large company, most (but not all) shareware is written by folks just like you and me.

In a way thats better because they have a personal interest in pleasing you and making sure you say good things about their product.

Howoever, there are more and more large companies offering “trail” versions of their software, including such giants as Microsoft and Symantec.

How do I get shareware?

You can search on shareware using Google or other or just visit some of the online shareware sites like SoftSavers.Com , MySharewareStore, download.com and others.

Most shareware can be downloaded free but some larger programs may need to be shipped (or are more practical if shipped especially if you have a lower speed internet connection).

The version you download free normally has some restriction as noted above. When you buy it the author will send you a “key” or code to “unlock” the trial version and make it a “full version”. In some cases the author will send you or let you download the full version.

Problems with shareware:

Some shareware titles contain ads, adware, spyware and other noxious software. If you are going to use shareware you need to have on your computer working and updated: (1) antivirus (paid versions such as one of the following: Norton Antivirus, PC-Cillin, McCafee, Computer Associates, Panda work best, (2) anti adware/anti spyware/ anti worm software such as Microsoft’s free antispyware.

Other problems include the software not being fully windows compliant and causing bugs on your computers performance, the author retiring (giving up and failing to support the product), plus all the ordinary problems you can have with any software such as difficulty removing the software when you want to remove it.

Visit the shareware author’s website and see if the author states there is no adware, etc. in the software. See if the software contains proper removal tecnology (see below).

Is shareware as good as commercial software?

Some of it is, some of it is not. Thats why you have to try it before you buy it!

I could ramble on forever but I would like to have readers fill in their experiences…

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Ice Cream Sandwich will not save Android tablets

Share This article

There was a glaring omission at the Samsung/Google event last night: Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich (ICS) was not shown on a tablet device. This omission was purposeful, because ICS will not thrust Android-powered tablets into a head-to-head competition with the iPad, and because we have seen ICS on tablets already. One could name this latest release Honeycomb 2.0 for tablet devices. Apple is not afraid of the what was announced last night, nor is it even paying attention when it comes to the iPad 2 losing market share.
The simple fact of the matter is that the iPad completely dominates the tablet market. Android is not even a blip on the radar when it comes to this market segment. The iPad 2 is predicted to outsell Android based tablets by a ratio of almost 10 to 1. Andy Rubin, head of Google’s mobile division, made a statement this morning that there are roughly 6 million Android tablets in the wild. While that number sounds large, projections are putting Cupertino’s second version of it’s iPad at 65 million sold in 2011 alone. Android may be dominating the smartphone market in sales (and that is due to sheer numbers of devices, not due to market demand), but it is certainly not controlling any theater in the tablet wars.
There are many reasons why tablets running the Android OS have flopped: Pricing, lack of applications made for Honeycomb, and market saturation. Verizon and Motorola ruined the best chance at competing with Apple when they launched the horrendously- priced Xoom. At $899, it was ridiculous to think that consumers were going to flock to Verizon stores to pick one up. Pay that much for a tablet then tack on a pricey data plan on top of that? Complete insanity. Sure, fanboys and Android geeks went and bought it because it was the first viable Android tablet hardware that could actually do something. Everyday consumers were putting a Xoom next to an iPad and shaking their heads at the fact that the iPad was a known product, whereas the Xoom was this archaic piece of tech that cost more than a souped up desktop computer! Who can blame them? A huge opportunity was lost to come out of the gate with the iPad clearly in the sights as far as competition was concerned. Every Android manufacturer would benefit! Come out with a strong initial showing that really gives the normal consumer an alternative to the iPad, and you have a ballgame. So disappointing.
On the other end of the spectrum, because Android is open, companies are free to create no-name devices with the OS slapped onto them, then shipped for rock-bottom prices. When a consumer sees a tablet at Walgreens for $99, it is going to create doubt in their mind of the veracity of the product. This erodes consumer confidence since they assume these low-priced tablets are an iPad knock-offs, and in the long run these poor excuses for hardware hurt the Android brand recognition as people place relate it to junk toys rather than serious hardware.

Michael Dell, really?

The failure of Android tablet sales is being noticed by major players in the electronics industry as well. Michael Dell, of Dell computers, recently reversed his controversial statement saying that Apple should close up shop due to the fact that Android was going to blow it out of the water in the tablet market. At Dell World 2011 he stated that his company is now looking to Windows to help grow profit share, since sales of Android devices have not been up to expectations. He now likens Android to “another opportunity,” and has obviously lost confidence in Android’s ability to move specialty products produced by Dell. This is a strong indicator of the state of affairs and perception for Android-based tablets.
The lack of a presentation of ICS running on a tablet device during last night’s announcement was troubling in the fact that Google has hyped this release as a major step in unifying the platform. If this is the case, why not show it off alongside the Galaxy Nexus? Why not come come out all guns blazing, showing potential developers that Google means business when it comes to resolving the problems that plague its mobile platform? The reason is not known of course, but it sends a negative signal to consumers and developers alike that there was no tablet to be seen last night.

Honeycomb 2.0

The reason why there was no announcement, and ultimately why ICS will not boost Android tablet sales, is that on a tablet device it is simply Honeycomb 2.0. It brings the feature set that Google placed on tablet devices six months ago, and adds some new hotness with Face Unlock, panoramic pictures, and an updated font. There are more additions of course, but the fact remains that tablet users have already seen much of ICS before: it is already in their hands. Why rush out to buy another tablet that will ship with 4.0? Especially when the Android developer community will most likely create custom ROMs that can be installed on the tablet they already own.
No, Apple has a firm grip on the tablet market that will not be relinquished anytime soon. There simply are simply no strong competitors out there at the moment — except perhaps for the Kindle Fire, which could do very well indeed, but can the two be compared? The iPad 2 exudes pure sexiness, it is the device to have and be seen with. Holiday sales are almost guaranteed for retailers that stock the iPad. The hype surrounding anything that Cupertino releases is huge. One does not hear that kind of energy in the general public around Android; it is sadly relegated to people who are intimately involved with the platform, and that is a relatively small circle when comparing it to the Apple customer base.
Google should be celebrating the fact that 4.0 is going to sell more handsets — there are some great features that consumers are going to want, for sure — but on the other hand, it should be mourning the fact that it is losing the tablet wars, and badly. Android consumers and fans alike should be shouting at Mountain View to get on the ball and get serious about tablet devices, because until that happens, it is going to be a black turtleneck-driven world in the land of tablet electronics.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Magnetic RAM could soon absorb and use waste heat

Share This article

Here’s an interesting one that we’re still trying to get our heads around: Researchers at the Physical and Technical Institute (PTB) in Braunschweig, Germany have discovered that heat — waste heat — can be used to control computer circuits. This technique could be used to make digital components that switch faster or store data more efficiently, but more importantly it provides an electronic way of controlling thermal currents in a computer system.
This effect doesn’t apply to silicon transistors, but rather to magnetic tunnel structures — the magnetic switches that are already commercially found in MRAM (magnetic RAM) and on hard drive heads. In these tunnel structures, two pieces of magnetic material are sandwiched together, separated by a 1nm-thick insulator (below right). If the two poles have the same magnetization, current flows readily across the switch, and if they are opposed, resistance is much higher. In other words, by switching the magnetization of one of the poles, you can store a single bit of non-volatile data.
Now, the researchers at PTB have discovered that not only does the magnetization affect the flow of electricity, but also the flow of heat. When the two poles of the switch have the same magnetization, heat flows more readily across, and vice versa. This is significant because of the thermoelectric effect. Basically, waste heat can be used to heat one side of the magnetic switch, thus creating an electrical potential between the hot and cold ends. Then, by flipping the switch (making sure the magnetic moment from both ends match), a thermoelectric voltage would flow across — and at the same time, thanks to the conservation of energy, you would also be controlling the thermal current and consuming waste heat.
As for actual applications of the technology, which is technically called “tunnel magneto thermoelectric voltage” and is part of the spintronics school of research, in case you were wondering, we’re most likely a few years out from MRAM that can suck up your computer’s waste heat. Imagine the possibilities in mobile computing, though, or in data centers where one of the largest running costs is air conditioning.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Ice Cream Sandwich will be a video games console… So what?

Android Ice Cream Sandwich, the update that will marry smartphones and tablets in blissful union come mid-November, will natively support USB gamepads and HDMI output. That’s gamepads plural, and HDMI, as in the connector that your 50-inch 1080p HDTV uses. In other words, if you have an Xbox 360 or PS3 and a few controllers, you’ll be able to turn your ICS-powered Galaxy Nexus into a video games console.
Now, we say “video games console,” but in reality the only similarity this PS Galaxy Nexus 360 has to its big, boxy forebears is the tangle of wires connected to it. The Galaxy Nexus’s processor, the OMAP4460, despite being brand new, is still a lot weaker than the processors found inside the six-year-old current crop of consoles. The smartphone’s CPU and GPU might be capable of rendering games at a level acceptable to mobile gamers, but on a widescreen TV it would shock you. Take a look at the Infinity Blade II trailer, which (presumably) is being demonstrated on the fastest mobile GPU out there (the Apple A5) — set the quality to 720p, expand it to full screen, and then imagine what it would look like at 50-inches.
Then there are the games themselves. For a start, smartphone and tablet games are almost exclusively designed for smaller, limited-resolution displays — and perhaps more importantly, almost all of the current crop of games have been tailor made for touchscreen controls. This isn’t to say that games couldn’t be reprogrammed to accept gamepads, but the problem is a little trickier than that: when was the last time you played a mobile game that had six degrees of freedom and more than a few actual actions? You could certainly make a console-type game for the iPhone or Galaxy Nexus, but it probably wouldn’t be very playable unless you had a gamepad — and at that point you’ve removed most of the benefits of using a smartphone as your games console.
Your next smartphone isn’t going to replace the Xbox 720, Wii U, or PS4, then, but there is one positive takeaway from Ice Cream Sandwich’s console-like features: Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, unless they want to be cut out of their incredibly lucrative market in the next few years, really have to watch their collective asses. It has already been remarked that smartphones have obviated most reasons for owning a PS Vita or Nintendo 3DS, and really there’s no reason why the iPhone 7 or Galaxy Neutrino Supernova won’t eventually gobble up much of the console market as well.
At times like these, I like to remind myself that all computers are fundamentally and functionally identical — it’s just the form that separates your desktop PC from your smartphone, or your smartphone from your video console. For now, a console requires a DVD or Blu-ray drive, and enough space for a juicy CPU and GPU. Games are already being distributed on SD-like, non-volatile flash memory cards, and it’s only a matter of months or years until smartphones and tablets are powerful enough to drive the gaming experiences that we desire. In other words, it’s inevitable that today’s giant consoles will replaced by something smaller and more portable – it’s just a matter of whether Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft get there first.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo

Analyzing Bulldozer: Why AMD’s chip is so disappointing

Share This article

AMD’s Bulldozer is finally here, after years of development — and its performance is significantly worse than anyone expected. The situation is ugly enough that it may explain why so many executives left AMD over the past twelve months, and why the company was so tight-lipped about their departure. Bulldozer’s general performance has been widely covered; our goal here is to drill into why the CPU performs the way it does rather than covering it in a wide range of real world scenarios.
Note: AMD’s Turbo Core and Intel’s Turbo Mode were disabled on all chips, in order to prevent them from adjusting the CPU’s clock speed and throwing off results. As a consequence, the results here will be lower than in a standard review, particularly for single-thread performance. 
The first thing to understand about Bulldozer is that it leverages aspects of simultaneous multi-threading to combine the functions of what would normally be two discrete cores into a single package (AMD refers to this combination as a “module“). Each module contains what Windows identifies as two cores, but combining instruction scheduling and CPU resources has an impact on CPU scaling in multi-threaded tests when compared to the same programs running on “traditional” multi-core processors.

When AMD designed Bulldozer, it was aiming for a CPU that would be easier to ramp to higher frequencies while maintaining the same IPC (instructions per clock cycle) as its six-core predecessor. In order to hit higher clockspeeds, AMD lengthened the CPU’s pipeline and increased latencies throughout the architecture. The concept of building chips for higher frequency has had a bad rap since the disastrous Prescott Pentium 4; after seeing Bulldozer’s overall performance, AMD’s decision to take this route may not have been a very good one. As things stand, the FX-8150 struggles to surpass Thuban in a number of tests while its IPC definitely took a hit.

Before we dig into the CPU’s architecture, however, there’s an OS factor to discuss. According to AMD, Windows 7 doesn’t understand Bulldozer’s resource allocation very well. Windows 7 “sees” eight independent CPU cores, despite the fact that each module shares scheduling and execution resources. Sometimes it makes the most sense to spin threads off to idle cores before scheduling them on cores already busy with something else. Other times, it’s best to spin two related threads off to the same core. Windows 8 will apparently be much more proficient at scheduling work loads where it makes the most sense to execute them.
This issue has a practical impact on the CPU’s performance because of the way AMD’s Turbo Core is implemented. The new flavor of Turbo Core is meant to increase maximum clock speed by up to two speed grades if only four cores are enabled. Since Windows 7 doesn’t understand which cores to turn off, however, the CPU is less likely to increase its clock speed as high as it otherwise would. “Turbo” speeds were originally introduced by Intel as a way to squeeze more performance out of lightly-threaded or single-threaded workloads, but Bulldozer’s architecture makes those extra megahertz particularly important.


We checked the impact of Windows 7′s scheduler by measuring CPU performance in Maxwell Render 1.7 and Cinebench 11.5. Both programs allow the user to define a specific number of threads (four, in our case). The 4M/8C label means that all eight cores are active, 4M/4C means that all four modules are active, with one core operating per module, and 2M/4C denotes a dual-module/quad-core configuration. Both of these tests show a 4M/4C arrangement outperforming a 4M/8C system by roughly eight percent when four threads are used. This suggests that scheduler inefficiencies could indeed be hurting Bulldozer’s general performance in workloads that can’t take advantage of all eight cores.
Share This articleThis performance discrepancy isn’t unique to AMD. Over on the Intel side of things, it can be faster to turn Hyper-Threading off if you’ve got an application that doesn’t scale above four cores. This issue hurts AMD more than Intel for two reasons. First, Bulldozer’s single-threaded performance lags Sandy Bridge by a substantial margin; the chip needs every bit of additional leverage it can get. Second, and more importantly, there’s the fact that Bulldozer’s performance almost always takes a heavy hit when running in 2M/4C mode. Let’s take a closer look, starting with what should be a near best-case scenario: DIEP.
DIEP is a chess simulator that calculates the potential position of every piece on the board through a sequence of moves. A ply depth of one means the program has calculated every potential move a single turn into the game; a ply depth of 15 means every potential move 15 turns deep. The program spins off a pre-defined number of independent threads and uses no floating point code, which makes it useful for examining Bulldozer’s integer performance in different configurations.

There’s a 22% gap between running DIEP on four separate modules and running it on two modules. Refer up to our Cinebench and Maxwell Render tests, and you’ll see similar gaps; it takes the 2M/4C configuration 20% longer to render our benchmark scene in Maxwell, and it’s 16% slower than the 4M/4C configuration in Cinebench. This is precisely where AMD’s more aggressive Turbo Core is meant to kick in–but given Windows 7′s imperfect scheduling, performance still takes a hit in a 2M/4C configuration, even if Turbo Mode is on (we checked).
One of the major questions surrounding Bulldozer has been how much of a penalty the chip’s SMT-style arrangement creates compared to a typical multi-core processor. Our results suggest that Bulldozer takes a 15-20 percent hit compared to a standard multi-core configuration. That’s actually pretty decent trade-off, particularly considering that this is the first Bulldozer-style CPU AMD has built. Unfortunately, the performance hit is significant enough to undermine AMD’s strategy of outflanking Intel by offering more CPU cores. Eight Bulldozer cores end up looking a lot like six Thuban cores, which is part of why AMD’s new chip struggles to pull away from its older cousin.
Cache latencies are likely another reason.

Cache size (and latency)

Bulldozer’s cache latencies are significantly higher than Thuban or Sandy Bridge’s, and the caches themselves are proportioned differently. Previous AMD processors had 64K instruction and 64K data caches for a total of 128K of L1 per core. Bulldozer, in contrast, has just 16K of L1 data cache per core and shares a 64K instruction cache per module. In theory, 16K of L1 is enough — Sandy Bridge has a 16K L1 data cache — but then, Sandy Bridge’s L2 and L3 caches are much faster than their AMD counterparts.

Note: All latencies measured by SiSoft Sandra 2011 SP5 using a random access pattern.
Bulldozer’s caches are significantly larger than Thuban’s, and a great deal slower as well. In theory, higher-latency caches allow the CPU to reach higher frequencies, but that doesn’t explain the entirety of the situation. Even at 4.6GHz — 40% faster than Thuban — Bulldozer’s L2 cache takes 40% longer to access. It’s impossible to estimate how much Bulldozer’s cache latencies are hurting the chip’s performance, but it’s likely significant. Slapping so much cache on the chip — 16MB of it — have also made it much more expensive to manufacture. Bulldozer is smaller than Thuban (315mm² vs. 346mm²), but practically colossal compared to Sandy Bridge’s svelte 216mm². Bulldozer’s caches may prove to be an advantage in some server workloads, but we suspect the desktop version of the chip could afford to go on a diet.
Comparative performance between the 2600K, the AMD X6 1100T, and Bulldozer (at stock and overclocked speeds) is below:

Disabling Turbo mode lets us accurately measure the IPC hit Bulldozer takes compared to Thuban. An 11% decrease is downright ugly considering how much Thuban already lagged Sandy Bridge. Statistically, we’d need to push the FX-8150 to around 5.5GHz to match Sandy Bridge’s 3.4GHz performance in this test.

A 20% performance penalty for an SMT design is good—but Bulldozer’s IPC reduction leaves the eight-core chip unable to match Thuban in certain workloads.

Maxwell Render is one of the only tests where Bulldozer demonstrates a native performance advantage over Thuban. There are applications where Bulldozer shines — just not many of them.

Overclocking presents a dubious solution

AMD has gone out of its way to mention how well Bulldozer can overclock. While it’s true that BD hits much higher frequencies than Thuban (we had no trouble with 4.6GHz), the performance benefit from doing so isn’t large enough to unilaterally hammer through the chip’s shortcomings. This is particularly true considering the paucity of octal-threaded programs on the desktop. Single-threaded performance (and multi-threaded performance at the 2-4 core level) are more important than the total number of cores, and BD doesn’t do well here.
Push Bulldozer up to 4.6GHz and it definitively outstrips the Phenom II X6 1100T and gains ground against the Core i7-2600K. The problem with factoring overclocking into any conversation on CPU value, however, is that the other chips under consideration can be overclocked as well. Our Maxwell Render results suggest that there’s a range of software where an overclocked Bulldozer can deliver better performance than either Thuban or Intel’s quad-core Sandy Bridge — but it isn’t a very large space.

Sandra’s multimedia tests can be configured to showcase Bulldozer’s improvements. FPU performance is remarkably similar to Thuban’s, despite the fact that BD has just four FPUs compared to Thuban’s six, while x16 integer performance is higher, even, than Sandy Bridge’s.
Bulldozer’s improved SSE performance (above) and AVX support (below) may help the chip in some corner cases, but at least some AVX-enabled benchmarks, like the Kribi 3D tests available at inartis.com are actually slower on Bulldozer when AVX is used than they are otherwise. It’s not clear if this is because Bulldozer’s AVX implementation is narrower than Intel’s, or because the chip’s SSE capabilities make that instruction set a better fit. Similarly, Bulldozer includes support for multiple new CPU instructions, but AMD’s ability to convince developers to adopt them and recompile code for optimum performance is limited.

Bulldozer may technically feature AVX, but its comparative performance isn’t very good, even in integer code. The i7-2600K has four FPUs — just like AMD’s chip — but it can handle 256-bit AVX instructions without splitting them into 2×128-bit chunks.

Unpleasant reality

Bulldozer, and AMD with it, is stuck in an unenviable position. It doesn’t decisively outperform its predecessor, and AMD’s decision to trade IPC for clock cycles didn’t pay off. As a result, Bulldozer’s single-threaded performance is worse than the processor it replaces. Higher clock speeds would help Bulldozer pull past Thuban’s single-thread performance, but the gap between BD and Sandy Bridge is much too large to be bridged by operating frequencies.
Bulldozer has been compared to the Pentium 4 on multiple occasions — including by us — but their similarities only go so far. When the P4 debuted, it struggled to surpass its predecessor despite a 50 percent frequency advantage over the 1GHz Pentium III. Bulldozer is nowhere near as drastic. A lower latency L2 cache, possibly combined with a larger L1 data cache, would likely result in a significant speed increase, while cutting down on the total amount of L2 would save die space and reduce cost.

It may seem counter-intuitive to stress the importance of improving single-threaded performance after all the emphasis AMD has put on multi-threading, but it’s probably the company’s best bet. There’s no point to stuffing more cores into desktops, no changing Windows 7′s sub-optimal scheduling, and Bulldozer is unlikely to push above 4.2GHz before its successor, Piledriver, is available (if it even gets that high).
If AMD wants to compete effectively with Intel, it has to push Bulldozer’s IPC in a positive direction. This is doubly important for mobile parts, where TDP limits won’t allow for the same degree of overclocking and Llano already operates at a significant performance disadvantage compared to Sandy Bridge. It may not be possible to improve much on the 20 percent scaling hit Bulldozer takes compared to Thuban, which makes single-thread IPC all the more vital.
Overall, the current generation of Bulldozer parts aren’t going to do much for AMD’s desktop position. They’re slightly smaller and a bit faster in some workloads. Enthusiasts who love AMD and overclocking will benefit the most while everyone else waits to see what the first mobile Bulldozer parts are like. AMD’s next-generation mobile CPU, codenamed Trinity, is effectively a second-generation Bulldozer product and incorporates the advances that’ll eventually debut on the desktop as the Piledriver core. AMD frankly has its work cut out for it — Trinity will need to deliver at least a 10-15% performance improvement over Bulldozer if its to serve as an effective replacement for Llano.

Read more »

Posted in: hwo