Remember when AMD launched its first quad-core processor in 2007? We can, because back then it seemed like AMD was months from keeling over stone dead. Today, the company is in much finer fettle. For proof, look no further than the new AMD Phenom II X6 1055T.

Somehow, AMD has managed to produce a six-core PC processor and sell it for just over £10 more than its best quad-core chip, the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition. It’s actually cheaper than several Intel quads. Inspect the detail specifications and the Phenom II X6 1055T only gets more impressive.

The transistor count has grown from 758 million transistors to 904 million. And yet the smaller quad-core 965 is rated at 140 Watts while this new six-core 1055T is a 125 Watt chip. Of course, at 2.8GHz, the 1055T is clocked quite a bit lower than the 3.4GHz 965 BE. But AMD has clearly done something right.

It’s been a long time coming. But AMD finally has something really interesting to offer in the performance PC processor market. The new Phenom II X6 1055T gives you six cores for the price of four. Hell, if you compare it to some of the latest Intel latest dual-core chips such as the Core i5 661, you’re getting six for less than the price of two.

For the record, the 1055T also looks like great value next to AMD’s flagship six-core processor, the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition. The 1090T is clocked a little higher at 3.2GHz. But it’s also around £70 more expensive.

There’s a reason why AMD is punting a six-core CPU at such a bargain-basement price, of course. Core for core, Intel’s processors are much more powerful. That’s why the quad-core Intel Core i7 870is marginally faster for video encoding. But then it’s much more expensive. The Intel Core i5 750 and Core i5 760 are much closer on price and neither can live with the Phenom II X6 1055T’s multi-threaded throughput.

That said, it’s a different story in games and file decompression. Those applications tend to benefit more from a smaller number of really powerful cores. Predictably, the 1055T can’t keep up with Intel’s cheaper quads, much less its pricier models that sell for £200 or more.

That’s not a situation that changes when you factor in overclocking. Our 1055T sample will hit 3.65GHz with an air cooler, a respectable result given the stock 2.8GHz frequency. But Intel quads routinely breach the 4GHz barrier.

We liked:

The Phenom II X6 1055T is one hell of a lot of chip for the money. Frankly, we’ve no idea how AMD can sell this near-one billion-transistor chip so cheaply. But no matter. What really counts is the huge amount of parallel processing power the 1055T’s six cores deliver. It’s got to be the most cost effective video encoding chip in the world.

We disliked:

The six-core 1055T is an awesome CPU. But it’s not without its flaws. The main problem is the sheer age of AMD’s underlying CPU architecture. AMD’s cores are really getting on and it shows in the gaming and file decompression benchmarks.

Verdict:

Not the best gaming chip for the money, but still our favourite all rounder.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Welcome back AMD, we’ve missed you. With the launch of the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition a few months ago, AMD signalled a revival of its CPU business. The 1090T is based on Thuban, a new six-core chip and easily the best processor design from AMD in years.

Admittedly, it’s not an all-new CPU. It’s mostly a six-core rehash of AMD’s existing 45nm quad-core architecture, known as Deneb. Of course, Deneb was essentially a 45nm respin of AMD’s 65nm Barcelona chip. Rinse and repeat right back to the original Hammer core from 2003.

Still, you only have to look at the Phenom II X6 1090T BE’s power rating to appreciate what AMD has achieved. This six-core, 45nm, 3.2GHz chip is rated at 125 Watts. The quad-core, 45nm, 3.4GHz Phenom II X4 965 Black Editionweighs in at 140 Watts. Clearly, AMD has at last got to grips with the 45nm production node.

With six cores humming a 3.2GHz tune, you’d expect the Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition to sport decent multi-threading chops. You’d be right. If there’s a cheaper chip that offers better performance in video encoding and other highly parallelised applications, we haven’t seen it.

Less impressive, of course, is the 1090T’s per-core performance. That explains why it’s not so competitive in games and file decompression. OK, by those metrics it’s no slouch. But even Intel’s lowliest Core i5 quad-core model, the 750, has it well beaten.

One area where we had expected the 1090T to stumble is overclocking. It’ only fairly recently that AMD has been able to hit decent clocks with its quad-core processors. Odds are a six-core chip based on the same production process isn’t going to be a screamer.

Well, never mind the odds, because this chip will crack 4GHz with air cooling. What’s more, it will do it at sane voltage settings. It’s extremely impressive and lifts the 1090T from being a very useful tool for video encoding buffs to an all-round winner.

That’s especially true when you consider how much cheaper the overall platform cost is when you go with AMD. This high end six-core chip drops into the same AM3 socket as any current AMD processor. Compatible motherboards are therefore cheap and plentiful.

The only slight snag is the existence of the Phenom II X6 1055T. It’s quite a bit cheaper but only slightly slower. But either way, with six-core AMD you are well on the way to arguably the most cost effective computing solution currently available.

We liked:

Compared to Intel’s silly-money six-core processors, the Phenom II X6 1090T BE looks preposterously cheap. But the chip itself is only part of the reason why AMD-based PCs are such great value. Thanks to AMD’s single-socket strategy on the desktop, you can drop the 1090T into a £50 board and do some serious coding on the cheap.

We disliked:

As fantastic as the 1090T Black edition is, there’s one chip that’s even better value: the Phenom II X6 1055T. It’s essentially the same chip running slightly slower for a lot less money. What both models share is a slight weediness in games.

Verdict:

At last, an AMD Black Edition chip worthy of the name. But slightly overpriced.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

The Squeezebox Touch is nothing less than an absolute bargain. There is truly little else to say about this incredibly easy to set-up and enjoy network player.

It crams a shed-load of technology into a 150mm by 110mm enclosure, which is just 10mm deep – albeit increasing to 40mm at its base to accommodate its connection sockets.

The player delivers internet radio along with music streamed from any computer(s) on your local network. It is wireless-capable, but we used it predominantly with a CAT5E Ethernet connection to enable it to access music reliably on a computer and NAS, running the free Squeexebox Server software, which runs on Windows, Mac and Linux operating systems.

We supplied it with rips from a £370 VortexBox Appliance 1TB NAS, which conveniently comes with Squeezebox Server already installed and configured – although putting it on a Windows PC is only a five-minute job.

Fully featured

You can connect the Touch to a regular hi-fi system through a pair of RCA analogue sockets, or through a DAC using the coaxial or optical output. Equally, you can connect it straight to a set of active loudspeakers in an appropriately compact office or study system.

While inspecting the back panel you will also notice a USB port, into which you can plug a memory stick or drive containing music you would like to play. There is also an SD-slot on the side of the player, in case you wish to play music stored on an SD card.

To use either of the sources one simply selects them in the on-screen (touch-screen) display. There is also a 3.5mm headphone jack outlet for late-night listening.

We prefer using the display to control the player rather than the remote handset, but this is mainly down to personal preference and familiarity. Either way, the interface is logical and responsive.

Touching the remote control increases the size of the display font, a feature our eyes particularly appreciated on the recently reviewed and considerably more expensive Arcam Solo Neo. There is no doubt that the Touch delivers a rewarding ‘user experience’, one that certainly belies the budget price of the unit.

Connecting to network audio is perhaps the feature that will be most attractive to the majority of buyers, but internet radio might prove more so to those of a not especially energetic disposition. We certainly enjoyed having Radio Paradise select music for us while we sat and relaxed.

A slick package

The question of build quality does not really arise with the Touch: it is little more than a circuit board and a touch-screen, with a handful of connections pinned to the rear of the plastic case. There are no mechanical components to fail or slip out of adjustment. Everything works as it should and the whole shebang looks sleek and shiny.

Its packaging is exemplary and Logitech even thoughtfully supplies a cloth for cleaning the screen. The favourable impression created by the slick packaging is reinforced when you flick through the user manual and discover just how easy it is to get the unit connected to your network and playing.

No elevator music

It truly seems churlish to criticise the Touch overall, when one looks at what one is getting for the price: streamed audio, internet radio, alarm clock functions and all for £260 or less.

The sound is not a million miles away from that of the Slim Devices Transporter I and that was comfortably over £1,000. It will now set you back around £1,799.

Sound quality obviously varies with the source material. High-resolution FLAC files naturally sound the best. They are understandably not as detailed as they are with the high-end Linn Klimax DS or the Naim HDX, but they sound vital and alive and do not sink to background or elevator music quality as one might expect.

At the other end of the performance spectrum, decent bit-rate internet radio still sounds plausible and entertaining, even if it is not a completely audiophile experience.

The sound offers an appreciable degree of subtlety: for example, it clearly reveals deft brush work on a hi-hat by a drummer behind a female vocal. This really is not the sort of polished performance one expects from a £250 streamer. It is extraordinarily assured, enjoyable, and highly authentic in musical terms.

Dynamically, the presentation seems slightly muted, but not to the degree that any listener is moved to complain. The unit has an embedded version of the server software, so that it can replay music from a USB hard disk with no external assistance.

The software enumerates a 160GB disk very quickly and replays tracks with the same ease that it reveals when playing from the Vortexbox appliance.

A stellar performer

The Squeezebox Touch thoroughly deserves to be a phenomenal success. It is a stellar performer and can hold its own against far more expensive competition. It strikes us as being the ideal office system: it sounds good; it looks good, it is a breeze to operate and it takes up negligible desk space.

Store your music on a convenient hard disk, install Squeezebox Server, add a pair of active loudspeakers and that is it: your music is totally sorted.

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more media streaming device reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Speedier performance for more or less the same money is always welcome. That’s exactly what you get from the new Intel Core i5 760. In almost every regard, it’s identical to the existing Core i5 750 processor.

It’s therefore a quad-core chip based on Intel’s 45nm Nehalem processor architecture. What it does offer, however, is a speed bump from 2.66GHz to 2.8GHz. Not exactly a spectacular explosion in performance, we admit. But then Intel is only asking for an extra fiver.

In any case, even after a year on sale, the Core i5 750 is still an excellent all round performer. The slightly quicker Core i5 760 is only going to be better. The only snag is the arrival of AMD’s new Phenom II X6 1055T beast. Six cores for a similar £150 or so price tag is awfully hard to resist.

Fire up any of Intel’s Core i5 processors and you’ll be greeted by four little green graphs in Windows Task Manager. That indicates the presence of four logical processors and therefore support for crunching a quartet of software threads in parallel.

But not all logical processors are equal. Intel’s Core i5 600 series chips are actually dual-core models that support two threads per core thanks to HyperThreading. Core i5 700 series CPUs lack HyperThreading. Instead, you get four bona fide execution cores and one helluva lot more performance. Effective as HyperThreading is, it’s no substitute for a real processor core.

Despite a relatively modest 2.8GHz stock clockspeed, it’s therefore no surprise to find the Intel Core i5 760 flattens the Core i5 661 and Core i5 655K in literally every performance benchmark. You have to wonder why anyone would want to pay more for one of those Core i5 600 series chips. Intel would no doubt justify the price premium by pointing to the Core i5 600′s integrated graphics.

Anyway, a much tougher nut for the Core i5 760 to crack is AMD’s new six-core processor. The Phenom II X6 1055T is actually slightly cheaper despite giving the Core i5 760 a pretty solid schooling in our multi-threading tests. As ever, however, the 760 hits back with awesome gaming performance. It also shows the Phenom chip who’s boss in our file decompression test.

It’s also disappointing to find the new 760 does not appear to offer any additional overclocking headroom. In our testing, the older Core i5 750 actually hits higher frequencies.

We liked:

If you fancy four cores for the price of two, it’s hard to argue against the Core i5 760. It’s cheaper than many of Intel’s latest dual-core processors and hammers them for all round performance. At this price point, it’s also the finest gaming CPU on the market.

We disliked:

Intel has a nasty habit of artificially hobbling some of its mainstream processors. So it is for the Core i5 760. By switching off HyperThreading, Intel has compromised the 760′s performance in highly threaded applications such as video encoding and handed the advantage to AMD’s similarly priced six-core Phenom II X6 1055T. Shame.

Verdict:

Replaces the Core i5 750 as our favourite gaming chip. No HyperThreading is a bit of a bummer.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• Read more processor reviews
• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Product: Equus

Manufacturer: Hyundai

Wired Rating: 0

Hyundai is going upscale. No, really.

The Korean automaker is building on the success of the Sonata and the (excellent) Genesis with the Equus, a 385-horsepower luxury barge injected with leather accents and enough gadgets to make Best Buy jealous. Having proven that it can match the best from Japan, Hyundai is challenging the best from Germany.

The Germans have cause to worry.

This car is supremely comfortable, it can cover vast distances quickly, and it’s entertaining on a winding road provided the curves aren’t too tight. But this is touted as a luxury car. It’s all about the tchotchkes when you’re in this segment, and Hyundai delivers with a list of standard features longer than a Russian novel. Name it, and the odds are this car’s got it.

We spent the day in an Equus with the top-shelf Ultimate package and didn’t want to get out of the heated and cooled massaging back seat to take our turn at the wheel. We could have happily spent all day back there listening to the excellent 17-speaker Lexicon audio system or watching movies on the 7.1 DTS surround-sound system while pulling cold ones from the shoebox-sized thermoelectric fridge between the seats.

Did we mention the Equus is supremely comfortable?

Our only complaint was we couldn’t try out the reclining rear seat because the Hyundai exec sitting up front was in the way. Oh, and the 8-inch LCD video screen is too small for a car of this caliber. And it would have been nice to have a headphone jack, so we could crank up the 608-watt stereo without distracting the driver.

Beyond those quibbles, we loved the passenger experience, enjoying the smooth ride, completely insulated from road noise by thick acoustic glass, plush carpet and what must be a few hundred pounds of sound-deadening material. The Equus is almost meditatively quiet inside; there’s only a subtle hint of tire noise.

But, alas, the Hyundai folks were pretty adamant that we should actually drive the Equus, so we reluctantly traded the back seat for the 12-way adjustable driver’s seat. We were surprised. For a big, heavy car, the Equus proved surprisingly fun to pilot.

To show what the car can do, Hyundai mapped a route more suited to a motorcycle than 4,600-pound sedan almost 17 feet (!) long. All that mass rides on an electronically controlled air suspension and 19-inch wheels..

It’s plush, but push the sport-mode button and the suspension tightens, the steering response improves and the six-speed automatic gearbox (with a manual mode) shifts more aggressively. It’s no Audi or BMW, and even in sport mode the ride is a bit soft. But the Equus remains flat through turns, and we surprised ourselves with the speeds we could carry through the winding roads of California’s Santa Cruz Mountains.

Of course, there are all kinds of electronic nannies to keep you out of trouble, including electronic stability control, cornering brake control, traction control and a host of others in Hyundai’s Vehicle Stability Management system. The car also has adaptive cruise control, lane-departure warning, a backup camera and self-leveling headlights. If you somehow manage to overwhelm the nannies, electronic seat-belt pre-tensioning and nine airbags will minimize the damage to your body, if not the car.

Under the hood is an aluminum 4.6-liter V-8 good for 385 horsepower and 333 pound feet of torque. Of course it drives the rear wheels. Hyundai wouldn’t mention acceleration specs but is confident the Equus will do zero to 60 “in the low sixes.” We didn’t measure it, but the car accelerated briskly and confidently when we stomped on it. Still, a car this big could use more power, and Hyundai reportedly has a 5.0-liter V-8 with 429 horsepower coming this spring.

The Equus gets 16 mpg in the city, 24 on the highway and 19 combined.

The roomy interior is slathered with butter-soft leather, with an Alcantara suede headliner, walnut (or birch) veneer and polished-aluminum accents. The infotainment and navi systems are intuitive and easy to navigate using the large knob on the center console. (Navi system is 2-D only, though.) And the steering wheel — heated, of course — feels absolutely fantastic. The front seats are heated and cooled, and the driver’s seat offers a subtle massage that, frankly, feels great.

Hyundai doesn’t offer any options on the Equus: Everything is included as standard equipment. The Ultimate package is meant for those important (and/or wealthy) enough to have a driver. Most of the 2,000 or so Equuses (Equui?) that Hyundai expects to sell in the United States will have the Signature package. It doesn’t get the massaging and reclining rear seat, the fridge and a few other minor features.

Regardless of which package you choose, Hyundai includes an iPad, because that’s where the owner’s manual is. There’s also a dead-tree manual in the glovebox if you want it, but flipping through pages is so 2008.

If the car has a shortcoming, it’s the styling. The car closely resembles a Lexus but often feels bland. There’s also way, way too much chrome. Still, the Equus is sleek and aerodynamic, with a drag coefficient almost as slick as the Toyota Prius.

Hyundai’s keeping mum on the pricing for now, but figure on spending something in the $50,000 ballpark for the Signature package, and about 10 grand above that for the Ultimate when the car goes on sale in November.

View full post on Wired Product Reviews

Feeling lucky today, punk? We reckon that’s the question you need to ask yourself before taking a punt on the AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition.

Based on AMD’s flagship Deneb processor die, the 720 has the full 6MB compliment of L3 cache. It also runs at a reasonable 2.8GHz frequency. As a Black Edition chip, it even has an unlocked CPU multiplier for easy overclocking. Not bad for a chip priced well under £100.

There is, however, something missing. AMD has disabled one of Deneb’s four cores. The Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition is a tripler, as indicated by the ‘X3′ moniker. It’s here that your luck will be tested because it’s possible to unlock the hidden core in the BIOS of most AM3-socket motherboards.

When it comes to core unlocking, there are no guarantees. But with just one hidden core, your odds are at least better than the AMD Phenom II X3 550 BE, which has two hidden cores and double the chance of one being broken.

We were hoping to make this review a tale of two halves. The first was to be a story of the Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition in standard triple-core trim, the second was to include revelations of a fourth core freed from its digital shackles.

But like the other two AMD chips with hidden cores (that’s the Athlon II X3 435 and Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition), the triple-core 720 disappointed. The fourth and final core in our review sample is a dud. At least it proves AMD doesn’t try to influence the press by handing out carefully vetted samples.

Anyway, the result is thatthePhenom II X3 720 BE must make a case for itself purely as a triple-core chip. Unfortunately, that’s a tough ask. As an all-rounder, the 720 is reasonable. It’s notably faster than the dual-core Phenom II X2 550 BE in multi-threaded software such as video encoding. Similarly, it has the edge over AMD’s bargain-priced quad, the Athlon II X4 620, in games.

The 720 also overclocks fairly well, hitting 3.8GHz on air cooling and a tweak of the CPU voltage settings. Problem is, while the 720 isn’t awful at anything, it also falls well short of excellence across the board. In a word, it’s mediocre. If you are a hardcore gamer, the high-clocking Phenom II X2 550 BE is probably a better bet. For everyone else, the quad-core Athlon II X4 620 makes more sense and costs less.

We liked:

With Intel sticking to even core counts, it was almost inevitable that AMD would step in with some triple-core chips. The Phenom II X3 720 BE certainly makes for an interesting triple-core option and is worth a look if you’re looking for a true all rounder with a very low price tag.

We disliked:

If you know what you want from your PC, odds are you won’t like the triple-core 720. Adequate at all things, it’s not great at anything. Whether it’s gaming or encoding, there are better chips for the money. And remember, there are no guarantees when it comes to unlocking that hidden fourth core.

Verdict:

AMD’s triples look good on paper, but somehow don’t add up to the sum of their parts.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

It’s about time AMD released a properly new processor architecture. Until that happens, it’s stuck with execution cores that largely date back to 2003. With that in mind, can the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition really be a plausible performance processor?

AMD has certainly made life easier for its top quad-core chip by pricing it competitively. The Phenom II X4 965 BE is cheaper than Intel’s entry level quads, the Core i5 750 and Core i5 760. However, at 3.4GHz the 965 is clocked much higher than the Intel opposition.

However, the 965′s biggest challenge might just be the cheaper of AMD’s new six-core processors. The Phenom II X6 1055T is yours for an extra £10 or so. That’s awfully tempting. Of course, what the 1055T doesn’t have is an unlocked CPU multiplier. That’s an enthusiast-friendly feature that usually makes for easier and more effective overclocking and could tip the balance in favour of the quad-core 965.

Survival for AMD’s Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition is all about careful positioning in the price lists. Going by our multi-threaded benchmarks, you’d think AMD has nailed it. Compared to the more expensive Intel Core i5 750, the 965 returns almost identical figures in our HD video encoding and professional 3D rendering tests. Result.

That, however, is where the good news largely ends. Intel’s more modern processor architecture makes for smoother gaming performance, despite the Phenom’s clockspeed advantage. Likewise, the Core i5 750 completes our file decompression benchmark nearly 25 seconds faster.

Thing is, the Intel chip is not only more expensive itself, it also tends to come with higher overall platform costs. Put simply, Intel motherboards cost more. But that’s not a charge you can level at the six-core AMD Phenom II X6 1055T. It drops into precisely the same AM3 CPU socket and motherboards as the 965, levelling the playing field for the two AMD chips.

More to the point, the 1055T cranks out quite a bit more performance in our HD video encoding and pro rendering benchmarks. The six-core chip definitely makes more sense for a video editing rig. The 1055T is also a little snappier in our file decompression test.

Admittedly, the higher clocked 965 does turn the table in the World of Conflict timedemo, proving that more cores often doesn’t equate to better gaming performance. It’s also a better overclocking chip, with this latest C3 stepping of the Deneb core hitting 4.1GHz to the 1055T’s mere 3.65GHz. But as an all-round computing solution, this quad-core 965 Black Edition has been usurped by AMD’s new six-core processor.

We liked:

The 965 Black Edition is AMD’s most expensive quad-core processor. But it’s so aggressively priced, it’s yours for under £150. At 3.4GHz, the 965 is clocked pretty aggressively, too. All of which makes it very competitive with Intel’s cheaper quad-core chips. Add AMD’s cheaper platform pricing into the equation and the deal only looks sweeter.

We disliked:

The biggest problem for the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition comes from within. It’s AMD’s new six-core Phenom II X6. £10 or so seems like a good deal for a pair of extra cores. More generally, the Phenom architecture is nearing end of life. And it shows.

Verdict:

A solid quad-core processor, but the end is nigh. AMD’s newer six-core is better value.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Six cores, 12 threads, one billion transistors and a whole lotta processing power. That’s the Intel Core i7 970. It’s a fabulous technological achievement. But can it really be worth nearly £700?

Admittedly, the Core i7 970 is a bit cheaper than Intel’s top six-core chip, the Core i7 980X. But it’s still a tough ask given that AMD will sell you its own six-core Phenom II X6 1055T CPU for around one third the price. What the AMD chip doesn’t give you, however, is the very latest technology. The Core i7 970 sports literally the most advanced PC processor die on the planet.

Part of the 970′s advantage comes down to microprocessor architecture. Known as Nehalem, it’s as good as it currently gets thanks to features such as HyperThreading, a triple-channel memory controller and the super-fast QPI interconnect.

The Core i7 970 is also hewn from Intel’s latest 32nm silicon. That means the chip itself is physically smaller than most current quad-core processors including Intel’s own Core i7 870 and AMD’s Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition. In theory that means it should be cheaper to manufacture. For now, Intel isn’t passing on those cost savings to customers.

There’s no doubting the sheer power of the Intel Core i7 970. Try this for starters. In our HD video encoding benchmark it bangs out nearly 42 frames per second. That absolutely blows away both the quad-core Intel Core i7 875K (27 frames per second) and the six-core AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE (26 frames per second).

It’s a similar story in the professional 3D rendering test. The 970 is miles ahead. Arguably even more impressive are the game and file decompression results – benchmarks that do not normally favour CPU parallelism. The Core i7 970 is usefully ahead of the Core i7 870 and more than 50 per cent faster than the Phenom II X6 1090T.

In performance terms, therefore, no compromises are required. That’s because the 970 backs up its hefty parallelism (six cores and 12 threads) with a 3.2GHz clockspeed. Whatever the workload, it’s damn quick. In fact, the only CPU that operates in the same ballpark is the Intel Core i7 980X, which is of course a slightly higher clocked version of the same six-core processor die.

The one area where you might expect all those cores and threads to cause a problem is overclocking. But even here the Core i7 970 puts on a decent show, ramping up to 4GHz courtesy of nothing more than an air cooler and some voltage tweaks. It’s all very impressive until you remember the price. It’s possible to buy a very nice desktop PC, complete with processor, graphics and screen, for the cost of this CPU.

We liked:

In a word, performance. Whether it’s games, media encoding or just multi-tasking, the Core i7 970 has delivers rude amounts of it. But what else did you expect from six of the most advanced processor cores money can buy. The damn thing even overclocks well.

We disliked:

In a word, price. Awesome as the Intel Core i7 970 is, it’s also awesomely expensive and simply poor value compared to quad-core processors costing one third the price. In fact, if you’re willing to spend this much, you may as well go all the way with the Core i7 980X.

Verdict:

A six-core masterpiece in 32nm silicon. Shame about the grand-master pricing, though.

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Want the finest CPU money can buy? Look no further than the Intel Core i7 980X. It’s the undisputed world heavyweight champ among chips. Just remember you’ll need a lot of it. The money, that is.

But what a processor you get in return. The Core I7 980X is, of course, a six-core beast. But this is six-cores Intel style, so that’s two threads per core and a dozen of those little green graphs when you fire up task manager. That’s unparalleled, er, parallelism in a PC processor.

In that context, even AMD’s Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition looks rather ordinary. It may have six cores. But each is single-threaded only. Moreover, AMD’s underlying CPU architecture is pretty ancient while the Intel Core i7 980X is literally the latest thing, right down to is impossibly tiny 32nm underpinnings. What it isn’t however, is unique. The recently released Core i7 970 is largely the same six-core, 12-thread processor at a slightly less offensive price point.

Among the super rich of this world, there’s a level of wealth colloquially known as screw-you money. Put simply, if you’ve got enough dosh, you can say “screw you” without consequences to anyone, any time. For people like that, it’s results that matter, not cost. For people like that, Intel has a very special PC processor. It’s the Core i7 980X.

As our benchmark results show, it’s without exception the fastest PC processor on the planet. So, it’s much quicker in our multi-threaded tests than AMD’s best six-core effort, the Phenom II X6 1090T BE.

It’s also an absolute monster in benchmarks that traditionally favour chips with fewer cores but higher clocks, such as gaming and file decompression. For that you can thank the 980X’s 3.33GHz operating frequency. In performance terms, there really are no downsides with this six-core beast.

Indeed, you might expect a chip with over a billion transistors to run hot and not take kindly to overclocking. If so, you’d be forgetting that the Core i7 980X is based on Intel’s fancy new 32n production process. It’s actually smaller than Intel’s quad-core processors. What’s more, it hits an astonishing 4.3GHz when overclocked.

So, that’s the most cores, the highest thread count, the most advanced microarchitecture and the highest clockspeed. No wonder the Core i7 980X is a prince among processors. It’s just a shame it has a princely price tag to match. We also worry about the 980X’s LGA1,366 CPU socket. Intel plans to drop it next year, putting a definite limit on any upgrade path.

We liked:

Can a CPU be considered aspirational? If so, the Intel Core i7 980X is it. It’s a smorgasbord of cutting edge technology and clearly the fastest and finest CPU you can buy. It’s all of Intel’s know how in a multi-threaded masterpiece. We want one. And we want it badly.

We disliked:

Placing a premium on performance is all very well. But charging nigh on £800 for a PC processor is plain bonkers. It’s sad, because it renders the Core i7 980X effectively irrelevant. Virtually nobody can afford it. Given Intel’s track record in regards ongoing socket support, the LGA1,366 form factor is a worry, too.

Verdict:

The fastest PC processor we’ve ever tested. But so expensive, nobody can afford it.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Is £50 enough to buy adequate PC processor performance? One way to find out is to take a punt on the AMD Athlon II X2 250. On paper, it looks promising enough thanks to specifications that would have qualified as high end just a few years ago.

For starters, you get two processor cores benefiting from AMD’s latest architectural refinements. OK, the main details date back to 2003 and the original Athlon 64 processor. But with features like an integrated memory controller and the high speed HyperTransport interconnect, it’s still thoroughly up to date. Even the clockspeed is healthy enough at 3GHz on the nose.

Of course, at this price point something has to give. Compared to AMD’s more expensive dual-core chips, such as the Phenom II X2 550,that something is cache memory. The Athlon II X2 250 only has 1MB of L2 cache per core. There’s no shared L3 memory at all.

Whether you can live with the AMD Athlon II X250 all comes down to context. In isolation, it’s a reasonable performer. With two cores humming a 3GHz tune, day-to-day duties such as document editing and multi-tasking are no problem.

Likewise, high definition media playback runs smoothly enough so long as you have nothing else processor-intensive on the go. Of course, it says something about the Athlon II X2 250 that we even feel the need to confirm it’s up to the job of running an HD video file. For most modern CPUs, that’s a given.

Still, when you stack the 250 up against slightly more expensive AMD processors, it doesn’t look half bad. The dual-core Phenom II X2 550, for instance, is barely faster in any of our benchmarks. The triple-core Athlon II X3 435 doesn’t exactly blow it away, either.

There is, however, one exception: the quad-core Athlon II X4 620. At 2.6GHz it runs significantly slower Athlon II X2 250. But the extra cores more than make up for the clockspeed deficit. In fact, it’s not far off twice as fast in out HD video encoding benchmark.

Admittedly, the higher clocked Athlon II X2 250 has the edge in our World in Conflict benchmark. But neither chip is a great choice if smooth gaming performance is a high priority. Finally, it’s worth noting that unlike many dual-core AMD processors, the Athlon II X2 250 does not have any hidden cores to unlock. It’s a pure dual-core chip, not a quad-core model with two cores disabled at the factory.

We liked:

If you need a basic PC processor for casual computing, you could do a lot worse than the AMD Athlon II X2 250. In fact, if all you want to do is browse the web, edit a few documents and watch some video, there’s little reason to pay more.

We disliked:

The more demands you make of this chip, the less convincing it is. But the biggest problem is the fact that, for around £15 more, you can grab a cheap quad-core chip that’s much more adept at media encoding and other CPU-intensive applications.

Verdict:

Adequate in isolation, this dual-core chip looks poor value next to cheaper quad-core models.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

When AMD first rolled out a triple-core chip, it smelt like a desperate move by a company struggling to stay relevant in the face of Intel running rampant. What, therefore, should you make of the latest cut-price tripler, the AMD Athlon II X3 435?

In practice, it doesn’t really matter what AMD’s motivations are. All that counts is whether the Athlon II X3 435 delivers competitive performance at this price point. It’s certainly up against some pretty stiff in-house competition from the likes of the quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 620. OK, the triple-core 435 runs 300MHz faster at 2.9GHz. But can that really make up for a missing core?

The Athlon II X3 435 must also do battle with the dual-core AMD Phenom II X2 550 and triple-core AMD Phenom II X3 720. Both are based on AMD’s ritzier Deneb processor die but only cost a little more. As for Intel chips, it will be interesting to see if the Athlon II X3 makes for a realistic cut price alternative to some of Intel’s latest dual-core, quad-thread processors such as the Core i5 661.

On paper, the Athlon II X3 435 seems to be stuck in specification limbo. With three cores and a frequency of 2.9GHz it’s neither high-clocking screamer nor a massively multi-core monster. Its only hope is to be an effective Jack of all computing trades.

On the multi-threaded front, the quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 620 gives it a pretty good schooling despite costing less. Put simply, you’ll get your video encoding and content creation sessions finished faster with the cheaper quad-core chip. That said, the triple-core 435 looks like conspicuously good value next to Intel’s overpriced duals, such as the Intel Core i5 661. The 661 is over twice the price but only a few frames per second faster in our video encoding benchmark.

As for gaming, the Athlon II X3 435 is marginally quicker than its quad-core AMD sibling. But the difference is small enough to be academic: 37 frames per second compared to 35 in World of Conflict. It’s a similar story in our overclocking tests. By hitting 3.7GHz, the 435 does have an edge over the 620. But it’s vanishingly small.

However, the 720 has a potentially game-changing trump card. Because it’s based on the quad-core Propus processor, it’s possible to unlock the fourth and final core. Shazam! You’ve got a higher clocking quad-core chip, gratis.

That’s the theory, anyway. In practice, the hidden cores are often disabled because they don’t actually work. So it is with our test Athlon II X3 720. With the hidden core enabled, it falls over each and every during the Windows boot cycle. Bummer.

We liked:

At this price point, you can’t afford to be picky. But with the Athlon II X3 720, you don’t have to be. You get both an extra core compared to similarly priced dualies and a reasonable stock clockspeed. If you’re lucky, you might just be able to unlock the hidden fourth core, too.

We disliked:

In terms of absolute bang for buck, the 720′s triple-core configuration is slightly off target. AMD’s cheaper Athlon II X4 620 does multi-threading better and the dual-core Phenom II X2 550 is a better gaming chip. The fact that the fourth core in our sample is a dud also serves as a useful warning. Core unlocking doesn’t always work.

Verdict:

AMD’s budget tripler looks good on paper but fails to deliver in the real world.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Remember when a quad-core PC processor seemed exotic, if not downright decadent? We can. It was only a couple of years ago. Today, the AMD Athlon II X4 620 is yours for under £70. By Grapthar’s Hammer, what a savings.

The startlingly low price is possible because AMD has cooked up a special new quad-core die for all Athlon II X4s. Instead of taking the existing Deneb die from its Phenom II X4 chips, such as the 965 Black Edition, and disabling a few features, the new Propus die is purpose built to deliver four cores for less cash.

The good news is that the only significant change has been the loss of Deneb’s 6MB L3 shared cache memory pool. Instead, Propus-based chips like the Athlon II X4 620 must make do with just 512k of L2 cache per core.

The 620′s super-low price also reflects its modest 2.6GHz clockspeed. Put it all together and you have an intriguing quad-core chip that’s actually cheaper than the triple-core AMD Athlon II X3 435. As for Intel’s processors, the dual-core Core i5 661is over twice as expensive.

If it’s maximum multi-threaded throughput for minimum cash, take it from us, the Athlon II X4 620 is definitely your bag. For starters, in highly threaded software such as video encoding and professional 3D rendering, it’s nearly twice as quick as AMD’s dual-core Athlon II X2 250. And remember, the X2 250 is only £15 cheaper.

Even more impressive is how close the Athlon II X4 620 gets to some of Intel’s much more expensive quads. Both the Intel Core i5 750 and Core i5 760 are well over twice as pricey but only deliver around 25% more performance. Put it this way. Are you really willing to pay close to £100 extra to encode video at 19 frames per second rather than 14 frames per second?

Less stellar is the 620′s performance in applications that thrive on cache memory or demand serious muscle from individual cores. It’s no surprise, therefore, to find it struggling in our game and file decompression benchmarks. The former means this chip isn’t suitable at standard clockspeeds for hard core gamers looking for an affordable processor. The latter is more of an issue for content creators dealing with large file sizes.

As for overclocking, in terms of maximum frequency compared to most other chips the Athlon II X4 620 isn’t spectacular. However, relative to its standard 2.6GHz clockspeed, 3.65GHz is far from shabby. Also, like any other chip designed for AMD’s AM3 socket, the 620 benefits from a very flexible platform and AMD’s proven track record for maximising socket compatibility.

We liked:

It’s remarkable how much multi-threaded zing you can buy for £60-odd. As a tool for encoding video on the cheap, for example, the Athlon II X4 620 is a winner. Crank up the clocks at it will even do a passable job as a gaming chip.

We disliked:

At this price point, frankly, not a lot. But strictly speaking, the limited cache memory and modest stock clockspeed do hammer the 620′s performance in games. In fact, any software that demands a lot of pulling power from a single core is going to chug a little on this cut-price quad.

Verdict:

One of if not the best budget chip you can buy. Fantastic multi-threading performance.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

You can now buy PC processors with as many as six cores and support for up to 12 software threads in parallel. With that in mind, why would anyone want the dual-core AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition?

Actually, the theory behind this chip makes reasonable sense. Certain types of software benefit more from high clockspeeds and a big dollop of cache memory than lots of processor cores. Games are one good example. The 550 runs at a healthy 3.1GHz lick and packs 6MB of L3 cache memory. It’s also a Black Edition processor and that usually means easy access to even higher clocks. Why pay more for multi-core?

At under £80 the AMD Phenom II X4 550 is certainly affordable. All it needs to do is deliver the goods according to its narrow remit compared to the likes of AMD’s Athlon II X4 620, Athlon II X3 435 and perhaps the Phenom II X3 720.

First the good news. The AMD Phenom II X2 550 beats the opposition where it matters most. In our World of Conflict game benchmark it keeps its eyes on the prize and edges the Athlon II X4 620, Athlon II X3 435 and the Phenom II X3 720.

In fact, it’s usefully faster than the two Athlon chips clocking up 33 frames per second compared to 35 and 37 frames per second, respectively. The triple-core Phenom II X3 720 gets a little closer at 42 frame per second. But part one of the Phenom II X2 550 BE’s job is done. Its advantage in gaming gets even bigger when you take overclocking into account. 4GHz on air cooling is clearly quicker than its closest competition and allows the 550 pulls further ahead.

That said, if you’re willing to spend a more on an Intel chip, you’ll get way more gaming performance. The Intel Core i5 750, for instance, delivers 59 frames per second despite its modest 2.66GHz clockspeed. Make no mistake, running at its maximum 4.2GHz overclock, the Intel chip absolutely annihilates the Phenom II X2 550 BE in games.

As for all round system performance, the dual-core 550 is inevitably rather weak. It simply cannot keep up with processors with double the number of cores, such as the Athlon II X4 620. We’re also disappointed to find that our 550 sample fails to function when you enable the two hidden cores. So much for the idea of getting a quad-core chip on the cheap.

We liked:

If building a gaming rig on a very tight budget is your bag, the dual-core AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition just about adds up. It’s definitely a more effective gaming chip than other low-cost AMD processors. It also overclocks pretty well.

We disliked:

The 550 might be faster than other cheapo chips. But it’s still a lot slower in games than a decent Intel processor. Likewise, it struggles with any software that thrives on multi-core processor architectures. It would also be unwise to assume that the 550′s two hidden cores are likely to work when unlocked.

Verdict:

Just about makes sense for gamers on a tight budget. Not a great all rounder.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Giving a dual-core processor performance to rival many quad-core chips is quite an achievement. Intel has managed just that with the Core i5 661. Problem is, it also costs as much as many quad-core processors.

The challenges for the dual-core Core i5 661 begin with Intel’s own Core i5 750 and 760 chips. Both are cheaper than the 661 but pack a pair of extra cores. That’s a fundamental advantage that even the Core i5 661′s clever HyperThreading technology will struggle to overcome.

However, things get really silly when you consider the opposition from AMD. Not only does AMD offer a slew of quad-core chips for less money, including the range topping Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition. Even the six-core Phenom II X6 1055T is cheaper. Crazy.

Of course, what none of the chip above can offer is the Core i5 661′s integrated graphics core. Exactly how much that is worth, however, is another matter.

Technically, the Intel Core i5 661 is a thoroughly intriguing chip. Exceptionally quick for a dual-core processor, it also packs a graphics core integrated into the processor package itself. If industry analysts are to be believed, this kind of CPU-GPU “fusion” processor is the way of things to come.

Back in 2010, the reality is more mundane. The Core i5 661′s 3D rendering abilities are feeble. Admittedly, motherboard-based integrated cores from the likes of AMD or NVIDIA are not much better. But the fact remains this latest integrated graphics core from Intel is effectively worthless for gaming. Fortunately, its 2D video decoding prowess is pretty solid.

Anyway, of more significance is the Core i5 661′s performance as a traditional CPU. For a dual-core processor, it’s awesome. Thanks to HyperThreading technology, a healthy standard clockspeed of 3.33GHz and the Turbo feature which boost clocks by a further few hundred MHz or so in certain conditions, the 661 beats other dual-core chips with an extremely large stick in highly-threaded software such as video encoding. It even gives quad-core chips such as AMD Athlon II X4 620 a scare.

That sounds impressive until you realise the Core i5 661 is more expensive than any quad-core processor from AMD and even some Intel quad-core chips. The Core i5 750 and 760 are both cheaper and faster. Then there’s the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T. Despite being cheaper, it packs six cores and absolutely annihilates the i5 661 in heavily threaded apps.

In other words, the addition of an integrated GPU isn’t nearly enough to justify the Core i5 661′s premium pricing. That’s especially true when you note that supporting motherboards are no cheaper. In fact, if you really wanted to pair a six-core AMD processor with an integrated motherboard, you could. And it would still work out cheaper than the 661 and its fancy fusion graphics.

We like:

Intel’s Nehalem CPU architecture makes for an uncommonly quick dual-core CPU. For most PC users, most of the time, it’s all the CPU they’ll ever need. It’s also power efficient, cool running and offers a glimpse of the future courtesy of its CPU-GPU fusion architecture.

We dislike:

In a word, price. The Core i5 661 is at least £50 over priced. Yes, it has a graphics core integrated into the CPU package. But it’s a decidedly feeble graphics core of little value to gamers. Moreover, AMD offers a six-core processor for the same price. ‘Nuff said.

Verdict:

Fusion may be the future. But for now, this CPU-GPU chip costs too much and delivers too little.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Late last summer, Intel rolled out the Core i5 750 based on Lynnfield, its mainstream Nehalem-class CPU. It became an instant favourite. Sure, it was short of a feature or three compared to Intel’s finest, including HyperThreading. But for the money, there was nothing to touch it.

Fast forward 12 months and the Intel Core i5 750 is hanging in there. That’s despite the arrival of the new Core i5 760 [link to review], a similar but slightly faster quad-core model, and several new dual-core, quad-thread Clarkdale chips such as the Intel Core i5 661.

The Core i5 750 has also soaked up an onslaught from AMD in the form of both quad-core chips such as the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition and the latest six-core AMD Phenom X6 1055T. Somehow, however, this plucky little quad remains relevant, especially if gaming grunt is high on your list of priorities.

At its stock 2.66GHz clockspeed, the Intel Core i5 750 puts on a decent show. Thanks to four cores, 8MB of cache and a dual-channel memory controller, there’s plenty of multi-threaded muscle for media encoding or image rendering.

In fact, compared to Intel’s new dual-core processors, such as the Core i5 661 and Core i5 665K, the Core i5 750 is an absolute bargain. We’d also take it over any of AMD’s Phenom II X4 chips. That includes the excellent Phenom II X4 965 BE in its most recent C3 stepping.

However, inject the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T into the equation and things get a little more complicated. For just one pound more than the 750, the 1055T gives you six cores and a lot more grunt than the Core i5 750 in highly threaded applications such as video encoding.

The arrival of the new Intel Core i5 760 hardly makes life any easier, either. After all, the 760 is essentially the same chip clocked 133MHz higher. But it only costs an extra fiver. Surely that makes it a no brainer?

Not necessarily. In our overclocking tests, the Core i5 750 actually has the edge over the new 760 model. Of course, mileages vary when it comes to overclocking results. Pick another pair of chips off Intel’s production line and the results could very well be reversed. But the main point to absorb is that the newer, slightly pricier chip isn’t necessarily faster in extremis.

What’s more, both at stock clocks and overclocked, the Core i5 750 beats seven shades out of the six-core AMD Phenom II X6 1055T in software that benefits more from the strength of individual cores rather than the sheer number of them – think games or file decompression.

We liked:

In an age where core counts and fancy features grab all the headlines, the Core i5 750 proves that four cores and a solid underlying CPU architecture still gets the job done. As a gaming chip, it remains one of our favourites. It’s hardly a slouch when it comes to media encoding, either.

We disliked:

If content creation and other highly threaded applications are your bag, there’s no doubting AMD’s Phenom II X6 1055T is the weapon of choice at this price point. Likewise, the arrival of the new Intel Core i5 760 has left the 750 looking a little redundant.

Verdict:

A great gaming chip that’s just beginning to show its age.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more processor reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

While iMovie gains significant features in every new release, there’s still a big leap from it to Final Cut Express, with regard to both accessibility and capability. Norrkross Movie is aiming to fill that space with some high-end options packed into an intuitive layout.

The important steps up from iMovie are the addition of persistent tracks in the timeline for layered editing and compositing, a much wider range of file import options, a larger choice of effects, and several options for keyframing and nodal compositing of video.

Options aplenty

The tracks all have an icon that shows how they interact with the others around them. It’s set to overlay by default, but you can add colour-adjusted transparency effects in a matter of seconds. The difference between most of them is subtle, but the sheer choice is impeccable.

A proper timeline means keyframing of effects can be introduced, and it works well here. It can either be added using just the canvas and timeline, or precisely controlled using the Filters Node View on the left.

Our issue with the tracks is that there’s no separation of the audio from the video. iMovie enables you to overlap the audio from one clip to another in the precision editor, but in Norrkross you’d be forced to use an overlay edit to hide the first clip from view, and reduce the volume of the second clip to 0. It’s clumsy in practice, and we’d prefer the chance to address editing the audio directly.

The inclusion of nodal compositing is very interesting indeed. Its only appearance in an Apple product is in Shake, part of Final Cut Studio, so we’re talking about a fairly professional feature. It effectively enables you to add multiple filters to a clip and then see and control the order they’re applied.

For example, if you wanted to remove a green screen background on a clip but also apply motion blur, you can use the nodes to ensure the Make Color Transparent clip is applied before Motion Blur. If it were the other way around, you’d be trying to remove green that blurs into your subject. It’s a subtle tool, but one that offers a lot of headroom once you gain confidence with it.

A huge advantage of Norrkross is its ability to handle just about any video format your Mac can play – we even managed to import WebM video without any problems. However, it can’t capture footage, only import files. Neither can it export to many formats, but it can do various video sizes in H.264.

The real problem with Norrkross is a lack of polish. There are typos in menus, and the Hide Toolbar option doesn’t change to Show Toolbar once you’ve hidden it. You can’t position the playhead and then drag to it a clip to trim, because the action moves the playhead.

There are also far too few keyboard shortcuts, and what is there is often convoluted.

Flies in the ointment

CPU usage can occasionally spike for no discernible reason, and the Media browser can only be viewed as a windowed overlay, but it would be best as a tab in the main program.

If you’re looking at upgrading from iLife ’09, Norrkross offers strong features at an appealing price. If you’ve already got the latest iMovie, it’s a tougher choice.

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more software reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Entourage is the email app that comes with Microsoft Office for Mac. Some people prefer it to Apple’s Mail. Others (like us) use it because IT departments insist on it, typically to work with a Microsoft Exchange server, although Mail also now supports Exchange.

Entourage’s problem is that it stores mailboxes in a single file called ‘Database’. Most people hang on to emails as a record, and it’s not ideal to have all your eggs in one large basket.

Any file that’s constantly read and written is liable to corruption. And if you include it in your backups using Mac OS X’s Time Machine, that’s a big chunk of data to update.

Entourage Time Machine from Softhing aims to help. With one click, it copies all your messages to a set of XML files. You can then browse and search these in a viewer.

It’s simple and it works, but not perfectly. Currently only POP accounts are handled. Archiving around 50,000 messages, we found the initial backup glitchy.

Incremental backups are quick, but they can’t be automated. The viewer only shows plain text, so HTML emails are garbled. The developers claim searching emails is faster than with Entourage.

But entering search terms often gave us an error, and when it worked it was slow – as was folder switching. The app’s not quite there yet, but it has some interesting potential.

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more software reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Product: Daily Arsenal Kit

Manufacturer: Doane

Wired Rating: 8

You are not Ernest Hemingway.

Unfortunately, your undying devotion to Moleskine notebooks will not change that fact. Our advice? Ditch the aspirational pieces of writing bling and cozy up to something more practical.

If you truly want to indulge in a bit of paper-and-pen Luddism, nothing beats the elegant simplicity of Doane Paper’s Daily Arsenal Kit.

Instead of harping about his product’s (questionable) creative lineage, Chad Doane simply makes high-quality notebooks. And it shows.

The line-up comes in a variety of shapes and sizes, but it’s the stationary that’s the real star. To wit: the clever grid + lined paper layout, which combines bold blue horizontal lines embedded with smaller (.125-inch) grid formations. Think of it as a mashup of your standard college-ruled vellum with some graphing paper.

The resulting parchment is suitable for everyone from the math ninjas to artists and designers to the average college freshman. Not only is the grid system fantastic for impromptu doodles, but it also works for intricate outlines and even simple lists. Doane even lets you print out sample pages before you buy.

Included in the company’s 21-piece uber kit are three large, legal-sized writing pads, three smaller pads, plus a trio of small “flap jotters” for random quick notes or weekly scheduling. Our favorite piece of scribble candy, however, is the 8 x 11-inch idea journal, which comes sandwiched between durable, 80-point chipboard stock and is bound with a double 0-ring wire binding. Throw in three of the best writing utensils in existence — the water-resistant, smudge-proof Sharpie Fine Point pens — and you have yourself a deal that even Hemingway and Chatwin couldn’t turn down.

WIRED Grid + lines = awesome. A semester’s worth of notebooks in one shot. Buying the Arsenal saves you 20 percent over selecting each item individually.

TIRED Writing pads are lined on one side only. Could use more variety both in writing tools and line spacing. Paper thickness varies across notebooks. Bleed through becomes a problem on some of the smaller notebooks.

View full post on Wired Product Reviews

Product: Novara Fusion Bicycle

Manufacturer: REI

Wired Rating: 7

Unless you’re majoring in spandex and minoring in too-cool-for-school at Steephill State, you may not need a road, fixed-gear or a mountain bike.

Consider REI’s Novara Fusion commuter. Sure this hybrid 8-speed won’t get you anywhere in a mega-hurry, but you’ll likely enjoy getting there. The aluminum frame, mustache-style handlebar and soft Velo saddle provide the mellow stability of a cruiser. But we found the thinner Vittoria tires and Shimano shifters and internal hub to give the ride a decidedly peppier vibe. The whole package weighs in at 34 pounds and we found ourselves huffing and puffing carrying the thing upstairs. But with that heft comes luxury and convenience: The front and rear alloy fenders minimized puddle splashback. And that kickstand? It actually works really well. Plus, we were able to load up that rear rack with tons of “books” (OK, beer). The biggest advantages of the Fusion versus, say, the sportier, infinitely more customizable Swobo Crosby are the drop-top tube and pedal-powered LED headlight.

You can literally hop on this sucker in a hurry and take it for night rides without worrying about changing or charging the batteries. We recommend using the extra brain cycles to figure out what to do with all the PhD candidates who throw themselves at you for having such a smart ride.

WIRED Below-the-bar and tigger shifters are right at your fingertips, and both on the right side (frees up the left hand for coffee or BEER). Headlight’s pretty darn bright. Kalloy Cozy Comfort handlebar is as it sounds: comfy. Anti-smear campaign: Chain guard protects pants. This is the Ziggy Stardust of 8-speeds: Drop-tube frame isn’t explicitly masculine or feminine. Bell integrated into the handlebar isn’t obtrusive or visually-arresting.

TIRED Roller disc brakes are finicky, difficult to adjust. $950?! Taillight isn’t pedal-powered. Surprisingly, the alloy fenders scratch and dent somewhat easily — out of the box, the front fender arrived more smashed than Peter O’Toole. At a wake, at a bar, with free drinks!

View full post on Wired Product Reviews

Any MIDI keyboard can make your copy of GarageBand or Logic come to life. But in a crowded market of bargain-priced ‘boards you need something with that little bit extra. M-Audio’s Axioms have been around for years and last year the new Pro line added the ability to control your software directly from buttons on the keyboard.

This feature has now filtered down to the more affordable Axiom 61 (£305), 49 (this model) and 25 (£195). So, rather than have your mouse in one hand while your other belts out Bach, you can pretty much forget your computer and get on with making music.

It’s amazing how simple additions such as dedicated buttons for stop, play and record speed up your workflow, and ‘tweaking’ synthesizers and effects with dedicated knobs finally feels like grappling with an antique Moog. (Antique Moog plug-in not supplied.)

DirectLink

It’s M-Audio’s DirectLink that’s the star. A quick install and the Axiom found our Logic setup (we had similar success with GarageBand and Ableton Live too), and all the obvious features such as track levels and pan appeared on the keyboard’s controls.

And if you use complex third-party plugs, you can get locked into the world of control changes and make any dial do anything in your DAW. It works too, and after grappling with controllers that promised the earth only to glitch and grump, that’s the biggest praise we can give.

The Axiom’s keyboard is ‘ultra-expressive semi-weighted’, but this amounts to it being very firmly sprung in the initial stages and rather ‘clacky’ and weak when depressed. However, the large angular profile does help fool the senses into thinking you’re pressing something more piano-like.

The drum pads are well-sized but spongy. Likewise, the rest of the rubberised controls require a good push to operate.

That said, compared to the frail plastic on other keyboards, this is much more gig-resistant. You’re paying for something just that little bit more ‘pro’ here, but it’s worth the extra.

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more peripheral reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Product: Epic 4G

Manufacturer: Samsung

Wired Rating: 8

Got big pockets? And we mean that in both the physical size and money-carrying capacity sense of the word.

At $250, it ain’t cheap — and you’ll pay extra each month for anything beyond basic service. But more to the point, Samsung’s new Epic 4G is a big phone: nearly 5 inches tall and over 2½ inches wide and ½ an inch thick. Its 5.4 ounce heft is light considering the overall size of the handset, but there’s no getting around its girth: The Epic 4G makes itself known in your pocket, assuming you can wedge it in there at all.

And maybe that’s because this Android phone (version 2.1) has so much to cram into it. Giant, gorgeous 4-inch WVGA-resolution Super AMOLED screen (800 x 480 pixels), 5-megapixel camera with flash. Big-ass slide-out QWERTY keyboard. Sprint Hotspot, which lets you use the Epic as a Wi-Fi access point for up to five other devices ($30 extra per month, by the by). Front-facing camera with video chat support (Qik is required on both ends). And, of course, 4G WiMax data networking (where it’s supported), courtesy of carrier Sprint.

Once you swallow its size, there’s very little to complain about with the Epic. The screen looks great with games, media, or even just browsing the menus. Audio, both with calls and media playback, is loud and crisp. Photos look good. Webpages load quickly and cleanly. And managing extra services like the porta-hotspot system couldn’t be easier (though the speeds we got on our connected PC were sub-megabit downloads).

On the downside: The Epic turned in just 4½ hours talk time, which is pretty sad for a phone with such vast amounts of room for a battery. And we weren’t big fans of the slide-out keyboard, which features keys that don’t stick up enough and are hard to hit with anything except a fingernail. At the same time, on-screen typing was jarring thanks to the overly-active rumbler beneath the display.

Those are relatively minor complaints, though. If big’s your bag, this is one of the best Sprint smartphones you can get.

WIRED Glorious display — extremely bright and crisp. Feature-laden; literally lacking nothing that a state-of-the-art handset ought to have.

TIRED Battery life is substandard. Keyboard is too flat for easy typing.

View full post on Wired Product Reviews

Elgato has released Turbo.264 HD Software Edition which is a software-only version of its hardware accelerated video encoder in response to customer demand.

Designed to convert video for use on an iPod, iPhone, Apple TV or other device, this Software Edition is identical to the app bundled with the hardware dongle. It’s easy to use. Just browse to or drag-and-drop a video file and select an output format.

It can handle most popular video formats, converts VIDEO_TS, the format used by DVD video discs, but won’t rip an encrypted DVD. It’s not as configurable as Handbrake (a free app), but settings can be customised.

Testing results

In our tests, on a 3.2GHz Core-i3 iMac, Handbrake converted our five minute test video to iPod format in 86 seconds. Turbo.264 HD Software Edition took 57 seconds, with the hardware version a second quicker.

On a 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac, Handbrake took 173 seconds with Software Edition converting in 115 seconds, and the hardware-assisted version in 81 seconds – the less powerful your Mac, the greater benefits of Turbo.264 HD.

With no upgrade path for Software Edition users, you might prefer to dive straight in and buy the hardware version, which is available for £90 on Amazon. As well as being quicker, it takes the load off your processor if you’re using your Mac.

For the lighter user, the Software Edition offers advantages over free alternatives.

Related Links

• TechRadar Reviews Guarantee
• Read more software reviews

View full post on TechRadar: All PC & Mac feeds

Product: Echo Smartpen

Manufacturer: Livescribe

Wired Rating: 8

Looking for a way to give your note taking routine a 21st-century kick in the ass? Have a gander at the Echo.

Livescribe’s latest smartpen comes with all the insanely cool tricks of its predecessor — the Pulse —albeit in a slightly redesigned package. Packed with the same ARM 9 processor, an infrared camera, a built-in speaker and mic, the Echo lets you write, record and then seamlessly transfer all your notes (with the help of the company’s free desktop software) to your Mac or PC. Of course, you’ll still need that dot-speckled smart paper to perform this magic trick. But with a huge variety of notebook sizes and bundled options, the average student shouldn’t have to part with much beer money to get a semester’s worth of high-tech scratch pads.

While the overall system remains the same, there have been a few design tweaks to the pen itself. The Echo now comes with a smooth rubber grip plus flattened surface. This, presumably, is for added comfort and to keep your $200 super pen from rolling off your desk. Livescribe has also packed the Echo with either 4- ($170) or 8-GBs of flash memory, a much-needed boost as there’s now a host of apps to choose from in the company’s app store (many of which eat up a significant amount of space).

In lieu of the Pulse’s charging dock, the Echo now has a micro-USB connector at the top of the pen. This lets you both charge and sync your notes and recordings with your computer using the included cord. There’s also the ability to name and password protect your pen.

But the real allure of the Echo remains the way the software and hardware work together to make your life easier. Yes, there’s something immensely satisfying in seeing your deranged scrawlings rasterize onscreen. And for college students and journalists in particular, the Pencast option is quite simply a Godsend. Simply hit the record icon on the included paper and start taking notes as you usually would. Once you’ve finished the lecture/meeting/interview, you can not only replay the entire recording, but also instantly move from one section to another by simply tapping on a specific note. The pen will automatically play back the audio from that precise moment. This has the obvious benefit of helping you navigate long, meandering lectures, but it also frees you up to write random or tangential thoughts without the fear of missing important information.

Once your notes have been transferred to the Livescribe desktop software, you can choose to export them as PDFs, audio, or as a .pencast file, a hybrid format that combines both audio and video. Livescribe says that iPad, iPod Touch and iPhone apps are in the works that will allow for Pencast playback, too.

As with the Pulse, plan on recharging your Echo daily. For us, battery life varied significantly depending on the quality (low, medium and high) of the audio recordings we chose. On average, we coaxed about 7 hours of low-quality MP3 audio on a full charge. Not spectacular, but not horrible either.

Our other quibble had to do with the pen itself. While there’s undoubtedly a lot of tech stuffed into it, the pen remains bigger than your English professor’s ego. Spending an afternoon scribbling notes is not a cramp-free experience, at least for us. Furthermore, listening to the recordings you’ve made on the Echo can be, well, echoy. While there are three pre-settings (room, hall and automatic), open spaces with a lot of ambient noise can make recordings particularly hard to decipher regardless of the setting you choose.

Also unfortunate is the fact that budding artists or graphic designers won’t find the Echo of much use. While the smartpen works fine for rudimentary drawings, illustrations and note taking, anything more detailed fails to translate when transferring to the PC.

Still, as a go between for the analog and digital world of note taking, there’s simply no beating the convenience and ease of the Echo. Just don’t lose it.

WIRED Ideal for students and journalists who want the best of both note-taking worlds. New 3.5mm headphone jack is now compatible with most headphones. Tons of dot paper options that are relatively cheap. Echo comes with a 50-page notebook. Learn foreign languages, perform rudimentary math, play hangman with a growing portfolio of Livescribe apps.

TIRED Pen is still bulky and awkward. Plan on sitting in the front class if you want clear audio records. Wireless uploading would be nice. Still no built-in handwriting-to-text conversion.

View full post on Wired Product Reviews

Product: Gravity Balans Chair

Manufacturer: Variér Furniture

Wired Rating: 6

Okay. We know what you’re thinking. This chair looks like a melon-busting death trap.

In reality, the Gravity Balans from Variér Furniture is far less nefarious and cranium cracking. Though it’s not the newest piece of furniture to hit the block, we’d heard a great deal about its ergonomic benefits and decided to give it a spin in our quest to find the perfect marathon gaming/lounging chair. The verdict? Gravity lounging > Gravity gaming.

Cracking open the box revealed one of our worst fears: two allen wrenches, a bunch of boards and screws, and a page of crudely drawn instructions. The two-man assembly (one to interpret the images, the other to clumsily execute) was complete in a little over 20 minutes, having us parked in front of the TV in no time.

To be fair, the Gravity isn’t really a rocking chair; instead of remaining in one position and rocking back and forth, it’s designed to rest in one of three positions. The upright position resembled that of a stiff office chair, forcing us into school-marmishly proper posture. This position proved useful for activities like movie watching and gaming, though we felt the need for a little slouchy leeway after about an hour. The next position was a very basic 3/4 position reminiscent of a traditional recliner. As a whole this middle position ended up being the sweet spot for comfort and utility. The final position (which is what lends the chair it’s namesake) rests all the way back on the rear of the slats, creating an oddly floaty, fully-reclined sitting position. Once we got over the initial fear of death (roughly 10 minutes), we fell … in love with this chair. It essentially provides the spongy weightless feeling of a hammock with the back and leg support of a proper chair. Even subtle movements like sneezing or even a heavy sigh makes the entire thing gently bounce in response. It’s a completely alien, yet surprisingly comfortable experience (as far as sitting goes).

Still, we have to be realistic. Even with all this zero-G sweetness, we had to wince at the price. We love sitting around and sleeping on the job as much as the next slacker, but the low-four-digit price makes our beds, which we crash on nightly for eight hours, seem like a much better investment. If you’ve got the funds lying around and fancy yourself a napmaster, it’s worth a look. Otherwise, we’d suggest avoiding the Gravity and choosing a chair that’s much more down to earth.

WIRED It’s like regular sitting … BUT IN SPACE. Relatively light and easy to move. Absolute nap magnet when fully reclined. Adjustable headrest is great for the no-necked. Leg rests allow even the giraffe-legged to truly stretch out.

TIRED One Gravity Balans = A full semester’s tuition ( … at a state school). Fully reclined position elevates your feet above your head, making TV watching problematic. Upholstery reminds us of a baseline Honda Civic. Moving between positions takes practice, coordination, fearlessness. Allen wrench to assemble furniture is totally Freshman Year.

View full post on Wired Product Reviews