10334482
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
Less than two years after introducing its quad-core Core i7 processors, Intel will soon unveil a six-core CPU for the desktop that works as a drop-in replacement for older Core i7-900-series parts. The first previews of the six-core "Gulftown" reveal a chip with 50% more cores and cache that fits into the silicon area and power/thermal envelope as the quad-core it replaces. Performance in multi-threaded applications scales up nicely, but clock speeds—and thus single-threaded performance--remain the same. Do we really need six cores on the desktop? That depends, it would seem, on what you do with your computer.
10077878
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
AMD has a new $239 graphics card out, the Radeon HD 5830, that might be a good upgrade for some folks. What if you're upgrading from a graphics card in that same price range that's two, three, or four years old? How much of an improvement can you expect? And is the new Radeon a good value for the money? This review compares it, and a host of today's other graphics cards, to products dating back up to four years ago, including a couple of GeForce 7900s.
9654556
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
How do current $74 CPUs compare to the $133 ones? To exclusive $1K Extreme Editions? Interesting questions, but what if you took a five-year-old Pentium 4 3.8GHz and pitted it against today's CPUs in a slew of games and other applications? The results are eye-opening.
5437787
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
Netbooks have grown from tiny curiosities with 7" screens into surprisingly well-rounded little computers. The latest step? 11.6" displays with 1366x768 resolution and near-full-sized keyboards, believe it or not. Two such systems are available now for under $400 at U.S. retailers: an Aspire One at Walmart and the Gateway LT3103 at Best Buy. The Gateway packs an Athlon 64 processor and Radeon graphics, amazingly enough. The Tech Report bought them both and has compared them head to head in some depth, choosing a clear winner between the two.
770065
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
AMD has quite a hit in the Radeon HD 4000 series. Coming up next is a product code-named R700, a high-end graphics card based on two 4870s paired together. Here's a preliminary look at how the card — to be called the Radeon HD 4870 X2 — performs. Hint: Nvidia's got one heck of a fight on its hands.
637856
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
AMD's Phenom X3 processors are essentially quad-core chips with one core disabled, sacrificed for the cause of product segmentation. The X3 extends the Phenom lineup to under 150 bucks. Can AMD gain ground on Intel's very potent dual-core CPUs by offering a third core? Does a non-power-of-two core count make sense? The Tech Report finds out.
619144
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
What happens when you put together a $1200 graphics subsystem involving four of the fastest GPUs available today? How does it compare to, well, nearly every other current one, two, three, and four-way GPU config of note? Which one draws the most power (over 600W) and makes the most noise? The Tech Report compared 20 different configs and lays it all out.
490082
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
No single Radeon GPU can beat Nvidia's best. So on the X2, two Radeon HD 3870 GPUs gang up together to take on any GeForce 8800 available. This dually video card finally retakes the performance lead for AMD, according to The Tech Report. But is it a fair fight?
468708
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
Creative has ruled PC sound almost since the beginning, but Vista's new audio layer changes the game by essentially killing off 3D positional audio acceleration. The Tech Report has reviewed a pair of post-Vista sound cards, with surprising results. Motherboard maker Asus saw the opening and created perhaps the best consumer-level sound card yet, the Xonar D2X, with quality components, an EMI shield, color-illuminated ports, the best objective measurements and subjective listening test scores we've ever seen, and (finally!) a PCI Express x1 connector. Could the Sound Blaster era finally be over?
127561
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
Intel has released its most powerful CPU ever, the Core 2 Extreme QX6800, and The Tech Report compares it to 16 other processors, from AMD's Quad FX down to the cheapest dual-core. The CPUs are tested in 32- and 64-bit applications in Windows Vista x64, including Oblivion, Supreme Commander, Folding@Home in Linux, computational fluid dynamics, and power efficiency. Unsurprisingly, the QX6800 creams the competition.
103200
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
Intel and AMD have both showcased their high-end desktop quad-core solutions, but those are pricey and sometimes power-hungry. Both CPU makers offer arguably more attractive solutions that cost less and yet are more energy efficient. The Tech Report has tested that concept by pitting five quad-core desktop configs against one another, including the less expensive Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Athlon 64 FX-70. The tests include benchmarks in 64-bit Vista, Folding@Home in Linux, and a novel way of measuring the energy used to render a scene.
30609
submission
Bender writes:
Just months after releasing its Core 2 Duo processors and taking back the performance crown, Intel has managed to squeeze two of them into a single socket to make the world's first quad-core CPU. The Tech Report has done a full work-up comparing the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 against the fastest dual-core CPUs from AMD and Intel. The tests include power consumption and Folding@Home performance. The quad-core CPU scores highest in each, though in one case that's good and in another bad.
18631
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
The Tech Report has taken an in-depth look at Quad SLI, Nvidia's insane four-GPU solution for extreme gaming graphics. The article explains how load balancing is handled between four GPUs, why OpenGL works better than DirectX for Quad SLI, and how SLI antialiasing achieves 16X and 32X sample sizes. They've also tested Quad SLI against 22 different graphics solutions at a range of settings, exposing Quad SLI's surprising performance and image quality shortfalls in the process.
14835
submission
Bender writes:
The idea of Windows Vista's Aero interface using a graphics processor to deliver eye candy on the desktop seems like a fun one at first glance, but what happens when you run it on a high-end graphics card with lots of power draw and a loud blower? Will the Vista Aero GUI make your PC go all Dustbuster on you? TR has tested that possibility with a range of graphics cards, and the initial answer looks better than expected.
13661
submission
Dr. Damage writes:
Last week's Intel Developer Forum didn't produce any major announcements because it wasn't focused on imminent new products. But quietly, in a number of small ways, we saw something further off, but more significant, coalesce: the future of Intel CPU technology is increasingly about highly parallel floating-point processing, whether it be via multicore processors, SSE4, application-specific accelerators, new types of coprocessors, or massively parallel chips with huge 'tiles' of execution resources offering teraflops of power for scientific computing, multimedia, physics, or — Intel appears to be especially sweet on this one — graphics. Could future tera-scale CPUs challenge GPUs for dominance?
