Subject: General Tech | November 25, 2014 - 12:19 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: osx, ubuntu 14.10, linux, apple, OS
Over at Phoronix you can see a comparison between the new Apple OS X 10.10 and the newest release of Ubuntu 14.10. This offers an interesting comparison in performance as both OSes were tested on the same system, a 2013 Macbook Air with a Haswell i5-4250U with onboard HD 5000, 4GB of DDR3-1600MHz and the Apple branded SSD. For content creators and those with no interest in running Windows it highlights the contrasts you can expect between the two operating systems in data transfer and graphics applications. Right from the start you can see that the contest is somewhat one sided, the first benchmark, PostMark, showed the disk with Ubuntu installed performing three times as fast as with OSX. The results get a little closer in some benchmarks but overall Linux outpaces OSX significantly.
"While I delivered some OS X 10.10 Yosemite preview benchmarks back in August, here's my first tests of the official release of Apple OS X 10.10.1 compared to Ubuntu 14.10 Linux. Tests were done of OS X 10.9.5 and OS X 10.10.1 against Ubuntu 14.10 Utopic Unicorn when running the benchmarks under both GCC and LLVM Clang compilers."
Here is some more Tech News from around the web:
- ARM seeing troubles penetrating into PC, server industries; IoT becomes new battlefield for Intel, ARM @ DigiTimes
- BitTorrent users are 170 percent more likely to download legally than non-torrenters @ The Inquirer
- Researchers Say the Tech Worker Shortage Doesn't Really Exist @ Slashdot
- Regin Malware In EU Attack Linked To US and British Intelligence Agencies @ Slashdot
- You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes @ The Register
- Bond villains lament as Wicked Lasers withdraw death ray @ The Register
Subject: Cases and Cooling | November 25, 2014 - 12:57 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: corsair, h60, AIO, water cooler
It is somewhat surprising to realize that the Corsair H60 has not been updated since 2013 and even more surprising that it remains relevant even after what equates to a huge slice of time in the component industry. It retails for $60 and is compatible with every modern AMD and Intel socket and thanks to its compact design it can fit in smaller systems that the competitions larger coolers cannot. The H60 now falls towards the middle of [H]ard|OCP's performance charts with larger coolers providing a better result but only in systems which they can fit into and also commanding a much higher price than the H60. It may no longer be at the top of the cooler rankings but when you look at the price to performance and flexibility the H60 remains a viable choice for those shopping for an aftermarket cooler.
"Today we are re-reviewing an older All-in-One CPU from Corsair that is surely a stalwart in the CPU cooling industry. The H60 AIO CPU cooler is a cost effective choice for those enthusiasts looking for a good solution at a good price. The redesigned H60 has been in the market place for 2 years now, which is saying something if it is still competitive."
Here are some more Cases & Cooling reviews from around the web:
- SilverStone Tundra TD02 AIO Liquid CPU Cooler Review @ NikKTech
- Comparison of Arctic Silver 5 vs. Arctic MX4 Thermal Paste @ Tech ARP
- IN WIN D-FRAME MINI Computer Case @ Benchmark Reviews
- Fractal Design Core 3300 Mid Tower Case Review @HiTech Legion
- Thermaltake Core V51 Mid-Tower @ Benchmark Reviews
- Phanteks Enthoo EVOLV Review @ OCC
- Fractal Design Define R5 Mid-Tower @ Benchmark Reviews
- Fractal Design Define R5 Mid-Tower @ eTeknix
- be quiet! Silent Base 800 Mid-Tower @ eTeknix
- Corsair Obsidian 250D @ techPowerUp
It has become increasingly apparent that flash memory die shrinks have hit a bit of a brick wall in recent years. The issues faced by the standard 2D Planar NAND process were apparent very early on. This was no real secret - here's a slide seen at the 2009 Flash Memory Summit:
Despite this, most flash manufacturers pushed the envelope as far as they could within the limits of 2D process technology, balancing shrinks with reliability and performance. One of the largest flash manufacturers was Intel, having joined forces with Micron in a joint venture dubbed IMFT (Intel Micron Flash Technologies). Intel remained in lock-step with Micron all the way up to 20nm, but chose to hold back at the 16nm step, presumably in order to shift full focus towards alternative flash technologies. This was essentially confirmed late last week, with Intel's announcement of a shift to 3D NAND production.
Intel's press briefing seemed to focus more on cost efficiency than performance, and after reviewing the very few specs they released about this new flash, I believe we can do some theorizing as to the potential performance of this new flash memory. From the above illustration, you can see that Intel has chosen to go with the same sort of 3D technology used by Samsung - a 32 layer vertical stack of flash cells. This requires the use of an older / larger process technology, as it is too difficult to etch these holes at a 2x nm size. What keeps the die size reasonable is the fact that you get a 32x increase in bit density. Going off of a rough approximation from the above photo, imagine that 50nm die (8 Gbit), but with 32 vertical NAND layers. That would yield a 256 Gbit (32 GB) die within roughly the same footprint.
Representation of Samsung's 3D VNAND in 128Gbit and 86 Gbit variants.
20nm planar (2D) = yellow square, 16nm planar (2D) = blue square.
Image republished with permission from Schiltron Corporation.
It's likely a safe bet that IMFT flash will be going for a cost/GB far cheaper than the competing Samsung VNAND, and going with a relatively large 256 Gbit (vs. VNAND's 86 Gbit) per-die capacity is a smart move there, but let's not forget that there is a catch - write speed. Most NAND is very fast on reads, but limited on writes. Shifting from 2D to 3D NAND netted Samsung a 2x speed boost per die, and another effective 1.5x speed boost due to their choice to reduce per-die capacity from 128 Gbit to 86 Gbit. This effective speed boost came from the fact that a given VNAND SSD has 50% more dies to reach the same capacity as an SSD using 128 Gbit dies.
Now let's examine how Intel's choice of a 256 Gbit die impacts performance:
- Intel SSD 730 240GB = 16x128 Gbit 20nm dies
- 270 MB/sec writes and ~17 MB/sec/die
- Crucial MX100 128GB = 8x128Gbit 16nm dies
- 150 MB/sec writes and ~19 MB/sec/die
- Samsung 850 Pro 128GB = 12x86Gbit VNAND dies
- 470MB/sec writes and ~40 MB/sec/die
If we do some extrapolation based on the assumption that IMFT's move to 3D will net the same ~2x write speed improvement seen by Samsung, combined with their die capacity choice of 256Gbit, we get this:
- Future IMFT 128GB SSD = 4x256Gbit 3D dies
- 40 MB/sec/die x 4 dies = 160MB/sec
Even rounding up to 40 MB/sec/die, we can see that also doubling the die capacity effectively negates the performance improvement. While the IMFT flash equipped SSD will very likely be a lower cost product, it will (theoretically) see the same write speed limits seen in today's SSDs equipped with IMFT planar NAND. Now let's go one layer deeper on theoretical products and assume that Intel took the 18-channel NVMe controller from their P3700 Series and adopted it to a consumer PCIe SSD using this new 3D NAND. The larger die size limits the minimum capacity you can attain and still fully utilize their 18 channel controller, so with one die per channel, you end up with this product:
- Theoretical 18 channel IMFT PCIE 3D NAND SSD = 18x256Gbit 3D dies
- 40 MB/sec/die x 18 dies = 720 MB/sec
- 18x32GB (die capacity) = 576GB total capacity
Overprovisioning decisions aside, the above would be the lowest capacity product that could fully utilize the Intel PCIe controller. While the write performance is on the low side by PCIe SSD standards, the cost of such a product could easily be in the $0.50/GB range, or even less.
In summary, while we don't have any solid performance data, it appears that Intel's new 3D NAND is not likely to lead to a performance breakthrough in SSD speeds, but their choice on a more cost-effective per-die capacity for their new 3D NAND is likely to give them significant margins and the wiggle room to offer SSDs at a far lower cost/GB than we've seen in recent years. This may be the step that was needed to push SSD costs into a range that can truly compete with HDD technology.
Subject: Displays | November 24, 2014 - 01:53 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: 2560x1440, mva, benq, BL3200PT, 32, professional monitor
Displays using Multi-domain Vertical Alignment, aka MVA, offer better response times than standard IPS panels and better viewing angle and colour than ones using TN, sitting somewhat in the middle of these two standards in quality and price. BenQ has released an 32", LED backlit 2560x1440 A-MVA display called the BL3200PT with a 100% colour gamut and 1.07 billion colours, aimed at the professional designer on a bit of a budget. The MSRP of $800 makes it far more affordable than many of the 4K monitors on the market and the use of MVA instead of IPS also helps lower the price without sacrificing too much quality. The connectivity options are impressive, HDMI, DisplayPort, dual-link DVI, and D-Sub, along with audio, two USB plugs and a card reader should ensure that you can connect this display to the necessary resources and it can be adjusted vertically as well as tilt and swivel and is capable of portrait mode. Check out Hardware Canucks full review here.
"BenQ's BL3200PT combines a massive screen size with an Advanced-MVA panel to create a monitor that's a perfect fit for optimizing workflow while delivering good color reproduction."
Here are some more Display articles from around the web:
- AOC U2868PQU 4K UHD 28 inch LCD Monitor Review @ NikKTech
- AOC U3477PQU 34 inch 3440x1440 IPS @ Kitguru
- ASUS RoG SWIFT PG278Q 27-inch G-SYNC Monitor Review @ Techgage
Subject: General Tech | November 21, 2014 - 12:43 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
The Tech Report have put together a collection of what they have found to be the most interesting mobile devices you can get your hands on for yourself or to give to others. With the new Broadwell based Core-M available they've recommended a few convertible laptops for your gifting needs in addition to more traditional style laptops including a very inexpensive Bay Trail powered model. If you would rather a device which is neither fish nor fowl then their four tablet recommendations which includes NVIDIA's Shield or the recommended phablets would intrigue you more than a convertible laptop. In keeping with their tradition, no one is recommended to injure themselves or others with the purchase of a Chromebook thanks to the continued draconian limitations on application support on these ChromeOS powered devices.
"Quite a lot has changed since we spun off the mobile section of the TR System Guide into our first mobile staff picks. In just five months, we've seen the arrival of the Core M, Android 5.0, iOS 8.0, and a fresh batch of Nexus hardware and iDevices. All of this calls for a new edition."
Here is some more Tech News from around the web:
- Nexus 7 fandroids tell of salty taste after sucking on Google's Lollipop @ The Register
- DerpTrolling hacker group leaks thousands of PSN, Windows Live log-ins @ The Inquirer
- Azure TITSUP caused by INFINITE LOOP @ The Register
- Asus RT-AC87U 4×4 (Bridge Mode) @ Kitguru
- As Insomnia i53 kicks off explore its origins with Craig Fletcher: KitGuru TV
Subject: General Tech | November 27, 2014 - 04:17 AM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: microsoft, windows, windows 10, windows 6.4
Windows Vista broke away from the NT 5.x version number that was shared between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Since then, each major OS release from Microsoft has incremented the minor version by one: Windows 7 was 6.1, Windows 8 was 6.2, and Windows 8.1 was 6.3. The current Windows 10 previews register as Windows 6.4, but screenshots suggest that Microsoft is considering a bump to 10.0 before release.
Seriously, this time?
This leads to two discussions: “compatibility” and “why”.
First, because some applications query the Windows version number and adjust their behavior, there is some concern that 10.0 could lead to problems. For instance, if an installer checks that Windows' major version is 6, rather than at least 6, it could simply refuse to load (at least without compatibility mode). In fact, I remember Microsoft speaking about this issue back when Vista launched, saying that spoofing incorrect versions fixed (I believe) most problems. Peter Bright at Ars Technica notes that changes to application architecture, instituted with Windows 7, 8, and 8.1, makes this change more safe than when Vista bumped it to 6.x, for instance. Applications will be given an earlier version number unless they claim higher-level support in its manifest.
And then we get to the “Why”. There really isn't any reason to keep the version number in lockstep with the branding. It could be a sign that Microsoft is pushing for branding with this release, which makes sense. Windows 10, from a technical standpoint, is shaping up nicely (although I am still concerned about WinRT-based app sideloading). It would not surprise me if they would go this petty to further cement a good brand image.
Subject: General Tech | November 27, 2014 - 04:34 AM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: ARC, torchlight
Okay so, before we begin, I have read a few comments regarding the Arc Client. I am not sure how much of it is gamers not wanting to install extra clients on their machines (see: Origin, Uplay, and so forth) or whether there is an actual, legitimate complaint against this one. Privacy concerns were mentioned a couple of times, but spoken in a vague and general tone. The service normally deals with free-to-play titles, like Star Trek: Online, Blacklight: Retribution, and APB: Reloaded.
Now on to the announcement: if claimed before November 30th, you can receive Torchlight for free; you may also purchase the sequel for $5. Both of these prices are a $15 reduction (the original is regularly $15 and Torchlight II is normally $20). By now, it is a little old, being released in late 2009, but it has a dedicated following. It was also available for free last year from GoG, which is obviously a better option. I mean, no offense to Arc, but it is really hard to beat free software that is also completely DRM-free.
- 2 of 2