The HDTV output is supplied via a supposedly inexpensive ADD2 card which plugs into the PCI Express x16 port. I say "supposedly" because I haven't seen an HDTV-out ADD2 card yet. I've only seen DVI-D ADD2 cards as cheap options (around $10-20) from PC manufacturers. I don't know if the DVI-D output will work with your 42" HDTV.
Of course, I'm not really recommending Intel GMA 900 graphics for most Slashdot readers. But I think this is a good indication that easy HDTV output will soon be standard on all cards, even low-end cards.
Speaking of AMD being ahead of Intel, a recent Anandtech article says that Intel's next gen Xeon server/workstation chipsets, Blackford and Greencreek, will finally have multiple front side buses.
For those that don't know, Intel's current dual-Xeon chipsets (E7520 and E7525) share a single 800MHz front side bus between both CPUs. AMD's Athlon MP platform has had dual, independent front side buses since 2001.
If Intel can get a tri-mode wireless card into a Centrino notebook, why would it be difficult to include their tri-mode wireless chip in a desktop chipset? Is it more difficult to deal with heat dissipation and power consumption when the wireless chip is in the chipset and on the motherboard, rather than on a separate mini-PCI card?
Also, according to an Inquirer.net article, it looks like Intel will be pushing the BTX form factor with these new chipsets. Maybe the improved thermal environment of BTX will solve any problems with heat dissiptation, if they exist.
The GeForce4MX was what was first introduced in the Mac in January of 2002 before it was released to the PC world. Not the GeForce3. Actually, it was the first nVidia graphics card on the platform.
On 2/21/2001, Apple announced that the GeForce3 would be "coming to the Mac first." On 5/3/2001, GeForce3 cards were shipping for PCs. On 5/21/2001, GeForce3 cards were finally made available at Apple's online store for $499.
Also, the GeForce2 MX was the first NVIDIA card available on the Mac platform - in February 2001.
"Interestingly enough many, including myself, were expecting quite a leap with 1066mhz FSB, especially considering the huge leap from 533 to 800."
You may have forgotten the memory bandwidth. That leap from 533MHz FSB to 800MHz FSB was accompanied by a huge leap in memory bandwidth from single-channel DDR266/333 (845PE chipset) to dual-channel DDR400 (865/875 chipsets). There were no memory bandwidth increases to go along with today's leap to 1066MHz FSB.
Also, the Anandtech article notes that Pentium 4 Extreme Edition doesn't use its FSB as much as the non-Extreme because the P4EE has a large 2MB on-die 8-way associative L3 cache. I think the Prescott-based 3.6GHz P4 (with its smaller cache and longer pipeline) would see some improvement if its FSB increased to 1066MHz.
Yeah it does good on SPEC (page 8) then proceeds to come in dead last on basically every other benchmark (pages 9 to 13).
Not so impressive as you are implying...
But we should also note, for those who don't want to click through, that JDS 2.0 (Sun Java Desktop System) uses the 32-bit Linux 2.4 kernel while the others (SuSE 9.1, RedHat 9) use the 64-bit Linux 2.6.8 kernel. JDS's 32-bit binaries lagged behind SuSE's and RedHat's 64-bit binaries in those benchmarks.
Page 5 says that JDS's apps and kernel are "fairly dated," but Sun designed JDS as an enterprise operating system with tech support from Sun. Thus, "workstation stability is paramount." Maybe JDS is like a workstation version of Debian "stable." JDS may not have the latest features and performance tweaks, but it's more stable and easier to support.
Also, for those who want the whole article on one page, here's a link to the one-page version:
IBM's BlueGene is the king right now(well for the time being), but I don't see Big Mac(either version) beating the earth sim. Still, 2 out of the top 4 isn't bad.
So are you saying upgraded Big Mac (currently 12.05 teraflops Rmax, 20.2 Rpeak) and the apparently not-yet operational COLSA MACH5 (unknown Rmax, 25.1 Rpeak) will be 3rd and 4th on the Top 500 list? Aren't you forgetting Thunder (19.9 Rmax, 22.9 Rpeak) and ASCI Q (13.9 Rmax, 20.5 Rpeak) from the most recent list (June 2004)?
If we're assuming the Army's COLSA MACH5 will meet the October deadline, then that would make it 2 out of the top 6 machines being G5 based. But if we're counting installed but not-yet-operational supercomputers, then we should probably include Red Storm (41.5 Rpeak). Does anyone know if MACH5 and Red Storm will make the deadline?
It's not extremely fast, but a 1.5 GHz Pentium M isn't that slow, either. I don't know the exact equivalent here, but I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz.
Maybe even faster when the Pentium M system has a 7200RPM desktop hard drive and a desktop-class graphics card, which this hip-e system has. You're correct in saying that a 1.5GHz Pentium M notebook can compete with a desktop 2.4-2.5GHz Pentium 4. But Pentium M notebooks are held back by 4200/5400RPM notebook hard drives and notebook GPUs (sometimes Intel integrated graphics with "shared" memory).
This page and this page of an Anandtech review (September 2003) shows two 1.5GHz Pentium M notebooks keeping up with a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in Winstone 2003 and SYSMark 2002. A 1.6GHz Pentium M notebook was faster than the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in all but the Pentium 4-optimized Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2002 (Photoshop 6, Premiere 6, Dreamweaver 4, Flash 5, Windows Media Encoder 7).
However, this page shows that the Pentium M notebooks had slower hard drives (4200-5400RPM), slower graphics (ATI "Mobility" and Intel integrated), and sometimes less memory (256MB). In comparison, the hip-e has a 7200RPM hard drive, (apparently) a desktop Radeon 9700 graphics controller and 512MB of memory.
As I understand it, MCE is just pro with added junk. If it retails for the Same as Home, could be a nice, cheap way to upgrade to Pro.
The OEM version Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 is $129.99 at Directron.com. At the same store, OEM XP Home is $84.50 and OEM XP Pro is $135.00. I'm assuming you know that Windows XP MCE 2005 is only available in OEM form, and not in boxed retail versions (full and upgrade) like Home and Pro are.
From the reviews I've read, it does seem like MCE uses XP Pro as its base, not XP Home. Therefore, I will definitely consider buying MCE (instead of Pro) when I build my next PC, even though I'm not planning on using MCE's "added junk" (your description) right away. I'll just use it like XP Pro, then buy an MCE-compatible remote control, TV tuner, and video encoder if I want to use the "added junk."
Microsoft's remote control for XP MCE 2005 is not required, but it seems like the "added junk" would suck without it. It's $43.99 and (of course) comes with a USB remote control receiver.
How to display on 1 page without WinOpen script...
on
The Ultimate MacDate
·
· Score: 1
12 pages, all of them slashdotted, the print command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari
Yes, but apparently the iRiver H300 series doesn't have video-out to display photo galleries on televisions. Besides that, I think the rumored "photo iPod" is surprisingly similar to the iRiver H300 series.
From the article:
The new iPod...will pack Toshiba's new 60GB 1.8-inch hard drive, a 2-inch color liquid crystal display
The iRiver H320 uses Toshiba's 1.8-inch hard drive and has a 2-inch color LCD.
form factor will be identical to the existing 4G iPods...will be two millimeters thicker than the current 40GB iPod
This would make the photo iPod about 104 x 61 x 19.5 mm (4.1 x 2.4 x 0.77 inches). The iRiver H320 measures 103 x 62 x 22.5 mm.
The H320 also downloads directly from digital cameras without a PC.
Yet I bet Mac-addicts are already swooning over Apple's "innovation" on this one.
Although you have already been modded "Flamebait," I bet some Mac users will think iRiver ripped off Apple's photo-viewing ideas. Nonetheless, Apple's photo iPod will probably be at least slighty more elegant and get better reviews.
BTW, the iRiver also has a built-in FM tuner, voice recorder, and OGG support. I read about it at this Tom's Hardware review: "iRiver's H320 Takes on the iPod."
Itanium is a somewhat competetive cpu in the high end market, but it's far from the original goals of running in circles around the competition. Not to mention that currently Sun and IBM are selling dual-core cpu:s, which Intel isn't.
I don't think Intel's goal was to kill the competition in performance alone. I thought their goal was to be "somewhat competetive" in performance and kill them in price/performance. Using their supposedly superior manufacturing capabilities, Intel was to churn out high volumes of high-margin Itaniums that are way cheaper than RISC CPUs from Sun and IBM. Maybe they will reach this goal eventually.
I have a Blue and White G3/350. Purchased in 1999. It is currently running the latest Mac OS X and many apps at very usable speeds...
Compare that to the Windows world. Would you dare install XP on a Pentium II at 500MHz? How many driver incompatibilities would you have?
Windows XP will run fine on a 500MHz Pentium 2 with at least 256MB of memory. Have you seen the system requirements? I wouldn't try it on the minimum system requirements (233MHz Pentium I, 128MB RAM). Just like your switch from OS 9 to OS X, the 500MHz Pentium 2 PC will feel slightly less "snappy" when upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows XP. However, the added stability and software compatability is well worth it.
On a 1999 PC, why would you think Windows XP would have more driver incompatibilities than OS X? Windows XP drivers are almost identical to Windows 2000 drivers. Does Rage Pro 3D acceleration work yet in OS X on Rage Pro Macs (sold in 1999)? It does in Windows XP.
[nitpick] In 1999, the Pentium III was Intel's "prosumer" CPU (released Feb 1999). Not that it makes much difference. The Pentium III had the same core as the Pentium II but had SSE (Intel's version of Altivec) added.[/nitpick]
AMD is way ahead in 90nm process? See Dothan.
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 1
From the submission:
AMD looks way ahead in the 90nm process especially when it comes to power consumption.
Isn't Prescott's large power requirements (compared to Northwood) a result of its other architectural changes (longer pipeline, larger L2 cache, 64-bit support) rather than Intel's 90nm process?
We all know that a 90nm Prescott consumes more power than a 130nm Northwood at the same clockspeed. However, a 1.70GHz 90nm Dothan consumes less power (21.0W) than a 1.70GHz 130nm Banias (24.5W). Intel's 90nm process seems to be doing quite well if you look at their Pentium-M processors.
I am not an engineer, so please tell me if I'm just talking out of my ass.;-)
does anyone know if the nVidia 6600 will be DDL, thus letting people use the 30" Cinema Display?
NVIDIA seems to have reserved this feature for some of their workstation GPUs, not their "desktop" GPUs. Their Quadro FX Product Comparison Page shows that "Dual-Link DVI" is supported in their Quadro FX 4000 series and Quadro FX 3000 series.
Single Dual-Link Digital Display Connector
Dual-link TMDS transmitters support ultra-high-resolution panels (up to 3840 x 2400 @24Hz)--which result in amazing image quality producing detailed photorealistic images.
I suppose they included this feature on the GeForce 6800 for the Mac because they don't make "workstation" Quadro GPUs for the Mac. As you probably know, there is not much difference between their workstation and desktop GPUs. The only big differences (besides price) are which features are enabled/disabled and drivers. I'm sure they can include this feature on the 6600, but I'm sure they won't.
It wouldn't make much sense to compared them with cheap desktop Athlon64s.
If you RTFA, you'll notice that despite the article's name ("Linux Desktop CPU Roundup"), the article is clearly about workstations, not desktops. And those "desktop" Athlon64s in the article (socket 939 3500+, 3800+, and FX-53) are not "cheap" at Newegg.com (OEM/Retail): $342/$365, $627/$630, and $825/$849.
The EM64T Pentium 4s (3.20F, 3.40F, and 3.60F GHz) are priced at (bulk OEM) $278, $278, and $417 (source).
It would make perfect sense to compare socket 939 Athlon64s to EM64T Pentium 4s on 925X chipset, but I don't think EM64T P4s are easy to get without purchasing a whole workstation (oddly, boxed EM64T P4s are available in Japan). Can't Anandtech mooch a CPU from Intel for review purposes?
with the new 6600 cards coming out, this is going to be a firm kick to the nether regions of ATI. There just isn't a card on the market that can hold a candle to it
Haven't you heard about ATI's Radeon x700 cards? If you haven't, they are based on the same core as the x800 cards and will be launched on September 21. Details here: Radeon X700 series to launch on 21st
Since the GeForce 6600's are not available in retail yet, I wouldn't declare the future's "mainstream" ($150-$200) winner until we see x700 benchmarks and both are on retail shelves. Until then, the current mainstream cards are GeForceFX 5700/5750 and ATI Radeon 9600/x600.
BTW, the model number of the top model is the DMR-E500H (can't find link on Panasonic's site yet). Here's two more links with product info, both based on the press release:
The article blabs on and on about how nVidia's SoundStorm is the only audio chip that encodes Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC-3) "on the fly" in hardware and sends it out thru a digital output. But doesn't Intel's new High Definition Audio (part of the new LGA775 chipsets) do this? I'm not sure if the encoding is done in hardware, but Dolby's press release (June 21, 2004) seems to contradict some of the article's claims about SoundStorm's supposedly unique capabilities.
From Dolby's press release:
Dolby Laboratories announced today that the Dolby® Digital Live encoder has been integrated into select 915 chipset-based Intel® Desktop Boards featuring Intel High Definition Audio. Dolby Digital Live is a real-time encoding technology which converts audio signals into a Dolby Digital bitstream for transport and playback through a home theater system via a single digital connection.
Using this technology, users can enjoy PC-based audio entertainment in thrilling surround sound through Dolby-equipped A/V receivers or other devices. PC-users simply connect a single digital cable (such as S/PDIF or optical cable) directly to the home theater system, thus eliminating the confusion and hassle of multiple cables and ensuring the quality of the audio signal.
Additionally, PCs featuring Dolby Digital Live technology enable PC gamers to enjoy realistic and exciting Dolby Digital 5.1-channel surround effects during interactive game play by reproducing the audio cues and effects to correspond with the onscreen action.
From the SoundStorm-worshipping article:
Not only was the nVidia SoundStorm APU the only sound solution capable of encoding Dolby Digital on the fly (which produces true and accurate 5.1 surround sound via either optical or digital coaxial cable to a set of computer speakers supporting these connections or to an external amplifier), it was also hardware accelerated meaning it does not chew up precise CPU cycles like other inferior onboard solutions which in turn reduces frames per second and do not have the ability to send separate digital signals to anymore than two channels. You'll get 5.1 sound using three analog cables but this type of setup is nowhere near as impressive or realistic as what the SoundStorm produces.
...the beauty of the nVidia SoundStorm APU is that it is capable of encoding Dolby Digital 5.1 on the fly via hardware acceleration and not software (CPU). This means that in any games you play and as long as you are using optical or digital coaxial cable with your surround sound speakers (anything above 2.1 channels), the hardware APU will do the intensive job of reproducing the sound from the game to Dolby Digital 5.1 or AC-3 so you get proper positional surround sound.
Onboard sound solutions utilizing their digital SPDIF output (whether it be optical or coaxial, depending on what the manufacturer chooses to go for) can only output to the front two speakers as without an encoded 5.1 signal from the computer end beforehand, what is being sent through your digital optical/coax cable is limited to stereo (two channels) of sound...
The only way you can achieve proper positional surround sound in gaming with all other sound solutions on the market apart from the mighty SoundStorm is to utilize their analogue outputs (centre/sub, front, & rear jacks) but then it is not digital so you don't get the true to life effects of proper digital.
WMP 9 only had MP3 encoding in the form of an addon. In WMP 10 it's there by default, and other than the lack of some bitrates, it's not crippled.
I'm glad WMP 10 is finally including an MP3 encoder for free, but I wonder if MS will purposely include a crappy MP3 encoder (like Fraunhofer) to make WMA sound good in comparison? I'm already suspicious of iTunes's MP3 encoder, which placed dead last (worse than Fraunhofer) in Roberto Amorim's MP3 at 128kbps public Listening Test. It almost seems like Apple purposely chose a horrid-sounding MP3 encoder to make their AAC encoder sound much better in comparison. Thankfully, iTunes users can change their default MP3 encoder to LAME, which placed first in that listening test.
For years MS has been touting WMA's audio superiority over MP3 "at any bit rate" (see Demos: Audio Quality). However, Amorim's Multiformat at 128kbps public Listening Test showed LAME MP3 performing better than WMA 9 Standard. So I wouldn't be surprised if WMP 10 has a crappy MP3 encoder.
Maybe I'm just a cynical a-hole. I'm looking forward to Amorim's next MP3 listening test to see how WMP 10's MP3 encoder performs against LAME.
Actually, Microsoft currently offers two different "Works" bundles: (1) "Works" and (2) "Works Suite." "Works Suite" includes MS Word. "Works" does not. Some PC makers bundle "Works Suite", and some only bundle "Works" without MS Word.
MS "Works" (not "Works Suite") is that stripped down "Office Suite" that we've seen bundled with new PC's for over a decade. It still has that stripped-down word processor.
MS "Works Suite" is Works plus Word, Money, Encarta, Streets & Trips and Picture It. For $100 retail, this seems like a pretty good deal to me. When shopping for a new PC, make sure it comes with "Works Suite" if MS Word is important to you.
Given the fact that most people have only AGP ports, this is a barrier to adoption. It has been reported that AGP versions will follow.
Have you read about NVIDIA's HSI (High Speed Interconnect)? It's a PCI Express to AGP bridge that allows NVIDIA to easily make PCIe versions of AGP-native GPUs like the GeForce 6800 and GeForce 5900. Here's a photo of the HSI, which is integrated on the GPU package: NV45's on Package PCIe to AGP HSI
So to produce an AGP version of a PCIe-native GPU like the GeForce 6600, all NVIDIA needs to do (theoretically) is turn the HSI the other way. Since NVIDIA has stated that AGP versions will follow "shortly afterwards" (according to this Gamespot article), I don't think the PCIe/AGP issue will be a barrier to adoption.
What's weird is that nVidia already _does_ have a $200 variant of Geforce6 - the Geforce 6800LE. It's essentially a lower-clocked (GPU and RAM) 6800 with only 8 pipes (so, half of what the 6800GT/U has).
Still, it'll be nice to see nVidia actually try to deliver a better price/performance ratio than ATI for once.
I hope this forces ATI to respond with a "mainstream" retail GPU (~$200) based on some form of the Radeon X800 core. Currently, the cheapest retail GPU based on the X800 core (X800 Pro) is around $400. The cheapest OEM GPU is the X800 SE (~$300), which OEM-only.
ATI's current mainstream GPU, the Radeon X600, is based on the old Radeon 9600 core. ATI's only announced update for mainstream GPUs is RV410, which is just a 110nm version of X600. This will not do. ATI needs a slightly lower-clocked version of the X800 SE to compete with NVIDIA's $200 GeForce 6 offerings.
Compared to ATI's previous "SE" GPU's, the X800 SE seems pretty nice on paper. Unlike previous SE's, the memory bus isn't chopped in half. For those that haven't read about it:
Slashdot Mirror
The HDTV output is supplied via a supposedly inexpensive ADD2 card which plugs into the PCI Express x16 port. I say "supposedly" because I haven't seen an HDTV-out ADD2 card yet. I've only seen DVI-D ADD2 cards as cheap options (around $10-20) from PC manufacturers. I don't know if the DVI-D output will work with your 42" HDTV.
Of course, I'm not really recommending Intel GMA 900 graphics for most Slashdot readers. But I think this is a good indication that easy HDTV output will soon be standard on all cards, even low-end cards.
For those that don't know, Intel's current dual-Xeon chipsets (E7520 and E7525) share a single 800MHz front side bus between both CPUs. AMD's Athlon MP platform has had dual, independent front side buses since 2001.
If Intel can get a tri-mode wireless card into a Centrino notebook, why would it be difficult to include their tri-mode wireless chip in a desktop chipset? Is it more difficult to deal with heat dissipation and power consumption when the wireless chip is in the chipset and on the motherboard, rather than on a separate mini-PCI card?
Also, according to an Inquirer.net article, it looks like Intel will be pushing the BTX form factor with these new chipsets. Maybe the improved thermal environment of BTX will solve any problems with heat dissiptation, if they exist.
Also, the GeForce2 MX was the first NVIDIA card available on the Mac platform - in February 2001.
Links:
Also, the Anandtech article notes that Pentium 4 Extreme Edition doesn't use its FSB as much as the non-Extreme because the P4EE has a large 2MB on-die 8-way associative L3 cache. I think the Prescott-based 3.6GHz P4 (with its smaller cache and longer pipeline) would see some improvement if its FSB increased to 1066MHz.
Page 5 says that JDS's apps and kernel are "fairly dated," but Sun designed JDS as an enterprise operating system with tech support from Sun. Thus, "workstation stability is paramount." Maybe JDS is like a workstation version of Debian "stable." JDS may not have the latest features and performance tweaks, but it's more stable and easier to support.
Also, for those who want the whole article on one page, here's a link to the one-page version:
If we're assuming the Army's COLSA MACH5 will meet the October deadline, then that would make it 2 out of the top 6 machines being G5 based. But if we're counting installed but not-yet-operational supercomputers, then we should probably include Red Storm (41.5 Rpeak). Does anyone know if MACH5 and Red Storm will make the deadline?
This page and this page of an Anandtech review (September 2003) shows two 1.5GHz Pentium M notebooks keeping up with a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in Winstone 2003 and SYSMark 2002. A 1.6GHz Pentium M notebook was faster than the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in all but the Pentium 4-optimized Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2002 (Photoshop 6, Premiere 6, Dreamweaver 4, Flash 5, Windows Media Encoder 7).
However, this page shows that the Pentium M notebooks had slower hard drives (4200-5400RPM), slower graphics (ATI "Mobility" and Intel integrated), and sometimes less memory (256MB). In comparison, the hip-e has a 7200RPM hard drive, (apparently) a desktop Radeon 9700 graphics controller and 512MB of memory.
I agree with your point, though. Standalone, not preloaded on an expensive PC.
From the reviews I've read, it does seem like MCE uses XP Pro as its base, not XP Home. Therefore, I will definitely consider buying MCE (instead of Pro) when I build my next PC, even though I'm not planning on using MCE's "added junk" (your description) right away. I'll just use it like XP Pro, then buy an MCE-compatible remote control, TV tuner, and video encoder if I want to use the "added junk."
Microsoft's remote control for XP MCE 2005 is not required, but it seems like the "added junk" would suck without it. It's $43.99 and (of course) comes with a USB remote control receiver.
Note the difference between the http addresses of first page of the article and the 1 page version.
First page: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232
1 page version: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2232
Just replace everything between ".com/" and ".aspx?" with "printarticle"
From the article:
The iRiver H320 uses Toshiba's 1.8-inch hard drive and has a 2-inch color LCD. This would make the photo iPod about 104 x 61 x 19.5 mm (4.1 x 2.4 x 0.77 inches). The iRiver H320 measures 103 x 62 x 22.5 mm.The H320 also downloads directly from digital cameras without a PC.
Although you have already been modded "Flamebait," I bet some Mac users will think iRiver ripped off Apple's photo-viewing ideas. Nonetheless, Apple's photo iPod will probably be at least slighty more elegant and get better reviews. BTW, the iRiver also has a built-in FM tuner, voice recorder, and OGG support. I read about it at this Tom's Hardware review: "iRiver's H320 Takes on the iPod."On a 1999 PC, why would you think Windows XP would have more driver incompatibilities than OS X? Windows XP drivers are almost identical to Windows 2000 drivers. Does Rage Pro 3D acceleration work yet in OS X on Rage Pro Macs (sold in 1999)? It does in Windows XP.
[nitpick] In 1999, the Pentium III was Intel's "prosumer" CPU (released Feb 1999). Not that it makes much difference. The Pentium III had the same core as the Pentium II but had SSE (Intel's version of Altivec) added.[/nitpick]
I am not an engineer, so please tell me if I'm just talking out of my ass. ;-)
From the Quadro FX Features and Benefits page:
I suppose they included this feature on the GeForce 6800 for the Mac because they don't make "workstation" Quadro GPUs for the Mac. As you probably know, there is not much difference between their workstation and desktop GPUs. The only big differences (besides price) are which features are enabled/disabled and drivers. I'm sure they can include this feature on the 6600, but I'm sure they won't.It would make perfect sense to compare socket 939 Athlon64s to EM64T Pentium 4s on 925X chipset, but I don't think EM64T P4s are easy to get without purchasing a whole workstation (oddly, boxed EM64T P4s are available in Japan). Can't Anandtech mooch a CPU from Intel for review purposes?
Since the GeForce 6600's are not available in retail yet, I wouldn't declare the future's "mainstream" ($150-$200) winner until we see x700 benchmarks and both are on retail shelves. Until then, the current mainstream cards are GeForceFX 5700/5750 and ATI Radeon 9600/x600.
Shuttle XPC K Series
25db under a full load
Starting at just $899. (w/o monitor)
Panasonic Unveil New DVRs (includes photo)
Panasonic Unveils New DVRs
Important additional details I noticed:
From Dolby's press release:
From the SoundStorm-worshipping article:For years MS has been touting WMA's audio superiority over MP3 "at any bit rate" (see Demos: Audio Quality). However, Amorim's Multiformat at 128kbps public Listening Test showed LAME MP3 performing better than WMA 9 Standard. So I wouldn't be surprised if WMP 10 has a crappy MP3 encoder.
Maybe I'm just a cynical a-hole. I'm looking forward to Amorim's next MP3 listening test to see how WMP 10's MP3 encoder performs against LAME.
MS "Works" (not "Works Suite") is that stripped down "Office Suite" that we've seen bundled with new PC's for over a decade. It still has that stripped-down word processor.
MS "Works Suite" is Works plus Word, Money, Encarta, Streets & Trips and Picture It. For $100 retail, this seems like a pretty good deal to me. When shopping for a new PC, make sure it comes with "Works Suite" if MS Word is important to you.
Here's Microsoft's Works/Works Suite comparison page: Choose the right Works solution for you and your family.
So to produce an AGP version of a PCIe-native GPU like the GeForce 6600, all NVIDIA needs to do (theoretically) is turn the HSI the other way. Since NVIDIA has stated that AGP versions will follow "shortly afterwards" (according to this Gamespot article), I don't think the PCIe/AGP issue will be a barrier to adoption.
Here's a nice, simple Anandtech article on HSI: NV45 Preview: On Package HSI
ATI's current mainstream GPU, the Radeon X600, is based on the old Radeon 9600 core. ATI's only announced update for mainstream GPUs is RV410, which is just a 110nm version of X600. This will not do. ATI needs a slightly lower-clocked version of the X800 SE to compete with NVIDIA's $200 GeForce 6 offerings.
Compared to ATI's previous "SE" GPU's, the X800 SE seems pretty nice on paper. Unlike previous SE's, the memory bus isn't chopped in half. For those that haven't read about it: