Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Nvidia, key words associated with: none Tweaktown has published the first test of the new geforce 8800 GTS with 512 MB of memory. This new version brings about 10 FPS more than 8800 GT 512.Pour callback has map of 128 pipeline instead of 96 for the old 8800 GTS 640/320.
The test of the Geforce 8800 GTS 512.
It is not only independent graphics cards in the world of personal computers, and that the future of integrated cards
Already nVidia will replace its MCP73 (GeForce 7150) by a MCP78.It will be compatible DirectX10 and support hybrid Sli (it allows to use its graphics integrated office automation and switch on the pci-express when needs are felt).
The rest will be classic, namely: two ports PCI-Express x 16, Serial - ATA 3 Gb/s...
Side at Amd, is RS790 will integrate interfaces DVI, VGA, HDMI and Compatible PCI-Express 2.0, it will manage a 16 port x, or two 8 x (as the MCP78) and it is intended for the AM3.
All of these integrated chips arrive early 2008 for nVidia and mid-2008 for Amd, we already know that this is will be not the wrath of war (view the hybrid sli for nVidia option), at the same time this is not what asked.
The t?l?chargement of these new drivers are d?roule from the servers of NVIDIA by following this link.
Code-named Llano, AMD’s first desktop-class APU arrives today. This single-chip combination of the Stars CPU architecture and Radeon graphics brings unique strengths (and weaknesses) to the table, and we’re here to compare them to Intel's Sandy Bridge.
Just after the turn of the century, AMD took a big gamble on K8—better known as Athlon 64—and gave up the pursuit of clock speed in the interest of successfully executing more instructions per clock, in addition to introducing native 64-bit extensions. Meanwhile, Intel leveraged its manufacturing superiority to push the NetBurst architecture as fast as possible. It expected to see the Pentium 4 hit 10 GHz, in fact.
Of course, the Pentium 4’s high clocks quickly ran into the immovable walls of physics and power usage, and the realistic limit turned out to be closer to 4 GHz. If you wanted the highest-performing CPU money could buy at that time, you probably bought an Athlon 64; back then, Pentium 4 processors cost more and achieved less. It took a while for the market to accept it, but AMD’s David was beating Intel’s Goliath.
But Goliath didn’t give up; rather, it woke up. Intel moved on from the Pentium 4’s doomed NetBurst design and started over with the Core architecture—though it wasn’t really starting over at all. The tenets of Core were born from earlier efforts in the mobile space. Naturally, it came out better, faster, and less power-hungry. If you do a lot of fast-forwarding, the Nehalem-based Core i7 came next, followed most recently by the Sandy Bridge-based 32 nm desktop Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs.
Somewhere along the line, AMD allowed its unexpected advantage in computing to shrink and then disappear. Now, to be brutally honest, AMD’s fastest Phenom II processors fare better against Core 2 Quads than modern Core i7s. In fact, the $125 dual-core Core i3-2100, manufactured at 32 nm, stands right up to AMD’s $150 quad-core Phenom II X4 955 (a 45 nm part) in many benchmarks. AMD is more than a generation behind when it comes to desktop CPU performance, and continues to leverage the same Stars architecture that it first introduced more than two years ago. Squeezing out an extra hundred MHz every couple months kept the company’s momentum moving forward. However, when your main competitor is launching new architectures, it’s almost impossible to compete through incremental speed-ups. Frankly, it’s hard to recommend the AM3 platform for a new build today.
Perhaps realizing that it didn’t have the R&D resources of its primary competitor, AMD made another gamble back in 2006: it acquired ATI, the graphics card company responsible for the Radeon products many of you know and love. Shortly after the merger, AMD’s Fusion initiative was announced. The plan was to combine central processing and graphics processing resources on the same die. It took five years, but the first commercial Fusion processors were released earlier this year on the Brazos platform, and the E- and C-series APUs have already proven very viable in the notebook and netbook space. AMD even claims that it sold out of these APUs in Q1 2011. From the graphics angle, no Intel Atom-based platform can compete. Brazos even outclasses Atom when it’s complemented by Nvidia’s Ion 2 platform.
While low-power netbooks are an ideal market for Fusion, the laptop and desktop segments are far more competitive. All Sandy Bridge-based Core i3/i5/i7 processors are equipped with Intel HD Graphics, which is fairly capable when it comes to basic productivity tasks in Windows, video playback, and even light gaming. If Fusion is to prove itself on its own terms, it has to deliver something special: true discrete-class graphics performance, along with competitive CPU performance.
Today we get our first taste of the Llano APU, which is intended to address mobile and desktop customers. Here’s where we see if the gamble pays off. And it needs to. The current Phenom II and Athlon II have little to offer beyond the $100 price point compared to the competition. Sure, a case can be made for the $160-and-over Phenom II X6 processors if you’re into heavily-threaded applications. But in general, Sandy Bridge-based chips are kicking butt in comparisons based on performance, power, and value.
AMD needs a way to differentiate itself from Intel in order to woo customers. The Fusion initiative might be the key to that goal in the notebook space. After all, the company claims Llano offers better battery life and graphics performance compared to a similarly-priced Sandy Bridge-based platform, with the added promise of OpenCL compute potential from the Radeon core’s shaders. AMD is serious about Fusion's future; over half of its notebook processors are APUs right now, and it anticipates that these will represent more than 90% within a year (Ed.: This isn’t surprising, of course, given AMD’s lack of a commanding presence in the notebook space up until now).
We expect the Fusion initiative to struggle for a foothold a little more in the desktop space, where it’s relatively easy to add discrete graphics. But AMD has a benefit to offer here, too: Llano’s graphics engine can work in conjunction with an add-in card in Dual Graphics mode. In layman’s terms, Dual Graphics is a flexible asymmetrical version of CrossFire that allows the APU’s resources to render in cooperation with a Radeon HD 5000- or 6000-series board for a frame rate boost.
Of course we’d be remiss to ignore AMD’s next-generation micro-architecture, code-named Bulldozer. The Stars replacement should arrive in the third quarter of this year—within the next three months, basically. This represents the first fundamental retooling of AMD’s CPU design since the Athlon 64. So, right out of the gate, Llano’s days are numbered, and its replacement (code-named Trinity) is already slated to swap the CPU block with Bulldozer-derived silicon.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It’ll be 2012 before we see Trinity, and that’s if it’s on time. Let’s just focus on the here and now.
What are Llano’s sexiest attributes? Roughly half of its die is a Phenom II X4 CPU stripped of the 6 MB L3 cache, but with L2 cache doubled to 4 MB. The other half is composed of something very similar to a Radeon HD 5570, with up to 400 Radeon cores (what AMD used to call Stream cores; apparently that name went out of vogue already) and an updated UVD3 video block. All of this is plumbed together on a single 32 nm chip.
That’s the short explanation. Of course, there’s a lot more going on here and we’re about to dig in to the details. Having said that, if you know what a Phenom II X4 and a Radeon HD 5570 can do together then you already have a pretty good idea of where we’ll end up in this piece.
Three major released have landed since our last impromptu Web Browser Grand Prix (WBGP4): Chrome 12, Firefox 5, and Opera 11.50. Can Chrome or Opera regain the WBGP championship? Will Mozilla Firefox ever overtake Microsoft's IE9 in the rankings?
If it seems like it was only weeks ago when we were compelled to test the then-new Mozilla Firefox 4 against the reigning Web Browser Grand Prix champion Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 in Web Browser Grand Prix 4: Firefox 4 Goes Final, that's because it was only a few weeks ago.
In an attempt to curb the siphoning of its user base to Google, Mozilla decided to keep pace with the frenetic development cycle of Chrome. Firefox 5 is now a reality. But will Mozilla also keep up with innovation like Google? Furthermore, will a higher integer finally allow Mozilla to overtake arch-rival Microsoft in our performance metrics? Can former speed-kings Chrome and Opera reclaim the dual domination of our WBGP crown, as they did in 2010?
We've tightened up our suite of benchmarks for this article, cutting the fat that was Google's V8 JavaScript Benchmark and the redundant two-pixel variant of the GUIMark2 HTML5 Vector Charting test. We also fleshed it out by adding Facebook's JSGameBench, as well as battery life and reliability testing. But before we get to the benchmarks, let's get caught up on the latest developments in the continuing browser wars.
News
3/28/2011 Microsoft claims that IE9 is the most power efficient Web browser.4/14/2011 Safari is updated to version 5.055/18/2011 Opera is updated to version 11.116/14/2011 Google upgrades Chrome to version 126/21/2011 Mozilla releases Firefox 56/28/2011 Opera is updated to version 11.50
Opinions
The release of Firefox 5 was met with harsh criticism for its apparent lack of anything new. It has been said that Firefox 5 should have been called Firefox 4.1 or 4.2. Or even 4.02.
There is also a growing concern over whether the new rapid release schedule jives with IT departments. Firefox became a viable choice for many companies during the version 2 and 3 days. Mozilla also offers the preferred development platform for most Web designers. Basically, Firefox gained the reputation of being the most stable choice. By mimicking Chrome's development cycle, Mozilla may have shot itself in the foot.
Smack Talk
Microsoft took a shot right across the bow of Google and Mozilla by announcing that WebGL is “harmful,” and that IE10 would not be utilizing the specification. Several experts came out in support of Microsoft's assertion, though it should be noted that Redmond may have a dog in this fight with DirectX.
Attacking Mozilla even further, the Internet Explorer development team sent the Firefox development team a cupcake to celebrate the release of Firefox 5. Mozilla also received cakes from Microsoft for the release of Firefox 3 and 4. Full cakes. Obviously, this is in response to the criticism that Firefox 5 is nothing more than a minor update to Firefox 4. The included note read: "Congratulations on shipping! Love, The IE Team". "Congratulations on shipping" might have been in reference to the frequent delays that plagued Firefox 4, which was eventually made available more than six months late. Now that's a classy way to rag on somebody.
Not missing a single opportunity to slam its competition, Microsoft also capitalized on the other major criticism of Firefox 5 when an IE developer boasted Microsoft's commitment to IT.
Mozilla shot back with a blog post addressing the IT issue, although in a very non-concrete way:
"We are exploring solutions that balance these needs..."
Not to be outdone, an Opera employee also had this to say in regard to rapid release schedule:
“Despite the version number (11.50), we've packed a lot of new features into it. While other browsers rush to release whole new version numbers with small tweaks, I think we've kept traditional versioning, while simply releasing a little faster.”
Obviously, this comes at an unfortunate time for Mozilla, but one cannot help but wonder if this comment was meant for Google. Opera and Google have gotten into it pretty heavily in the past, and, for a time (before IE9), Chrome and Opera swapped places on a semi-monthly basis in the performance charts.
Now that we're all caught up, let's take a look at the WBGP5 contenders.
Today's we're venturing into the world of mechanical-switch keyboards, which are oh-so-satisfying to use. We'll present five different models and offer an educational exploration of the technology. At the end of the day, these are all a pleasure to use.
Keyboards, along with mice, are the most important input devices on a PC, and should therefore be chosen carefully. Like a good pair of shoes, the ideal keyboard is well-made, comfortable, and suited to its purpose. But what if the technology doesn't conform to our needs?
Before we put the samples in this story through their paces, we want to get rid of some of the myths and uncertainties surrounding these devices:
• We'll explore differences between the two main key switch designs. All buttons are not created equal!
• USB or PS/2: hype, legend, or nonsense? We perform a more detailed analysis.
• We demystify the myth of anti-ghosting. It's a tale of marketing versus reality.
What will readers find in this article? First, we'll present the different kinds of switches and the accompanying application scenarios. Then we'll explain some of the most important keyboard concepts. And finally, of course, we'll give you the results of our practical tests, including:
Five models with different types of keysFive hours gaming use per keyboard by various usersTyping test by a professional secretaryEvaluation of materials, workmanship, and durability
Each of the keyboards we're testing underwent many hours of taxing gaming use, was mercilessly pounded by a professional composing long documents, and was subjected to hands of varying strength and size. Not every keyboard is right for every user, but once you find a keyboard that works for you, it may define whether work is enjoyable or not.
Let's first take a look at the switches, the heart of any keyboard.
Ubuntu 11.04 (Natty Narwhal) has arrived, and we have the scoop on everything you need to know about Canonical's latest Linux, along with the usual review and benchmarks. Is this the change we've been waiting for, or is the Natty Narwhal a fail whale?
A couple of weeks ago, Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, launched Ubuntu 11.04 'Natty Narwhal', one of the most highly anticipated and controversial desktop Linux distributions ever introduced. What makes Natty a landmark release is the inclusion of the brand new Canonical-developed Unity user interface. Unity replaces the GNOME 2 shell that served as Ubuntu's default UI since the distribution's inception.
The timing of Canonical's decision polarized both the Ubuntu and GNOME communities, as the GNOME project also recently finalized GNOME 3. Ubuntu 11.04 was originally slated to use GNOME 3, along with the new GNOME 3 shell, as its default GUI. The GNOME 3 shell is no less a drastic departure from GNOME 2 than Unity, and popular opinion is split in all directions.
As the most widely-used desktop Linux distribution, Ubuntu was a major driving force behind GNOME's adoption. Linux Mint is the second most popular desktop distribution, and an Ubuntu derivative. Mint will use GNOME 3 in upcoming releases, but without the GNOME 3 shell. Whether you're a fan of Unity or GNOME 3, one thing was always certain: Ubuntu was destined to change in a big way this spring.
But enough with GNOME and the political back-story; we have a whole lot of Ubuntu 11.04 to cover. This is such an atypical release that the question “What is Natty Narwhal?” cannot be answered simply.
Let's start with the meaning of Natty. Here in the States, Natty is short for Anheuser-Busch's bottom-shelf line of “Natural” beers. If you were ever a struggling student, there's a good chance you subsisted at one point on ramen and Natty Ice. Consequently, it has also come to mean cheap, trashy, or sub-par. How's that for a rough start?
And for that matter, what is a narwhal? I mean, look at that thing.
Apparently, Canonical's name for this release gets worse. The word narwhal dates back to Norse seafarers who explored the Arctic waters where this horned beast lives. Narwhal quite literally means “corpse whale” because its skin resembles a water-logged corpse. Oof. Ubuntu 11.04: Cheap, Drunk, Dead, and Bloated.
Let's hope not!
We typically bring you an Ubuntu: Benchmarked and Reviewed article every April and October, but since Unity introduces such tremendous change to Ubuntu, there's a ton of new stuff to go over. Thus, we decided to include a full-on guide to the new OS. We have an installation walkthrough, a roundup of changes to the software, a spotlight on the graphical redesigns, a Unity tour, uTouch testing, keyboard/mouse shortcuts, and even a few essential tips to get you up and running in Ubuntu 11.04.
And of course we still benchmarked the new version of Ubuntu. However, this time there is a twist. Instead of testing Natty Narwhal against its predecessor (Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat) and the latest LTS (Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx), we replaced Maverick with Natty. That's right; since Unity is the big deal in this release, we benchmarked Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal with Unity versus Natty Narwhal with the GNOME 2 shell, now referred to as the 'Classic' interface. We took this route to see if the new GUI has any performance implications. Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is still a part of our data to provide a comparison to the latest Long Term Support release.
Before we get into the numbers, let's kick this off with an installation walkthrough of Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal.
