Technology - Google News |
- iPhone XR: This is what to expect from the camera
- Intel Core i9-9900K Review: Ridiculously Fast But Better Than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X In Games?
- The 7 great features that will hopefully return to the MacBook Pro
| iPhone XR: This is what to expect from the camera Posted: 19 Oct 2018 03:30 AM PDT Apple's iPhone XR shares the same wide-angle camera as the iPhone XS and XS Max. But it's cheaper than either of those two phones. If you're deciding between the iPhone XR and iPhone XS (the Max's camera has the exact same specs and features as the regular XS), wondering if there's any difference in the camera, read on. Preorders for the iPhone XR start on Friday, Oct. 19 at 12.01 a.m. PT. CNET's own Bridget Carey went hands-on with the new iPhone XR and all its delightful new colors. First, here's what we know will be the same:
That looks like plenty of common ground. Both phones also share the same computational photography pipeline, using the A12 Bionic chip and the image signal processor. But the big difference is that the XS and XS Max have an additional 12-megapixel f2.4 camera at the back, which is used for 2x optical zoom. It's also an important part of portrait mode, as that telephoto lens helps create a depth map that determines where your subject is in relation to the background. To be clear, I have yet to use the iPhone XR and what follows is purely based on my experience with the iPhone XS, Apple's specs for the iPhone XR, my own camera expertise and a healthy degree of speculation.  Watch this: iPhone XS vs. iPhone X: Camera comparison 5:16 Portrait mode may have some limitations on the iPhone XRWithout that second telephoto lens, the iPhone XR relies on software and its single rear lens to create portrait mode. Other single-lens phones, such as the Google Pixel 3, also achieve a similar effect through software and processing. We won't know for sure until we've tested it, but portraits taken on the iPhone XR may look slightly different from those on the XS. A portrait taken on the iPhone XS with the background blur set to f/1.4. Lexy Savvides/CNETPortrait lighting is Apple's name for the effects you can apply to portrait mode photos, either before or after the shot's been taken. On the iPhone XS and XS Max -- as well as previous iPhones that have portrait mode -- you can choose five different lighting effects: Natural, Studio, Contour, Stage Light and Stage Light Mono. By default, shots are taken with the Natural light effect. A portrait of a wax figure of Steve McQueen, taken in portrait mode on the iPhone XS with Stage Light Mono. Lexy Savvides/CNETThe iPhone XR's rear camera will only have three of these effects: Natural, Studio and Contour. But you'll still be able to change the bokeh (background blur) using sliders the same way you can on the iPhone XS and XS Max. It lets you adjust the bokeh anywhere between f1.4 to f16, simulating the shallow depth-of-field effect you get from changing the aperture on a DSLR lens. It doesn't seem like the iPhone XR's portrait mode will work on subjects other than people, as one initial reaction suggested. Other phones with single-lens cameras can render the bokeh on any subject, not just on people. We won't know for sure if the iPhone XR can do the same until we test out the camera ourselves, however. This is how you change the depth effect on the iPhone XS. Lexy Savvides/CNETIt's the same selfie camera as the iPhone XS and XS MaxThat 7-megapixel TrueDepth camera is shared between the three phones. So it doesn't appear that there will be any surprises here in how the camera renders selfies. You'll still be able to take portrait-mode photos using the front camera. You'll also be able to use all five lighting effects on portrait mode selfies. And having the TrueDepth camera also means you'll be able to make Animoji and Memoji to your heart's content on the iPhone XR.  The front-facing camera on the iPhone XR. James Martin/CNETZoom is more limitedThe iPhone XS and XS Max have 2x optical zoom from the telephoto lens, but also can achieve up to 10x digital zoom. But the XR is limited to 5x digital zoom for still photos. This means you won't be able to get as close, but digital zoom does tend to make images look messy and over-processed the more you increase the magnification. Videos will also be limited to 3x digital zoom, rather than the 2x optical zoom extending out to 6x digital zoom that's available when recording on the iPhone XS and XS Max. iPhone XR doesn't have 3D TouchThis means you won't get quick access to launching the camera in different modes if you're used to 3D Touch. By pressing and holding the camera icon on the iPhone XS and XS Max, you can launch the camera instantly in selfie mode, video recording mode, scan a QR code or take a portrait photo. Once we receive our iPhones, we'll run real-world camera tests to see if there's any other differences between the iPhone XS, XS Max and iPhone XR cameras. Here are more sample photos and details of the differences between the iPhone XS and X cameras. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Intel Core i9-9900K Review: Ridiculously Fast But Better Than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X In Games? Posted: 19 Oct 2018 06:00 AM PDT  The last 18 months has been a blur of activity from both Intel's Core i9-9900KAntony Leather Intel's launch has been marred by some concerning pre-launch benchmark results, but today I can finally reveal just how fast Intel's new flagship is and whether you should buy it. Specifications
I should add that the pricing for the three 9000-series CPUs above is based on pre-order pricing, which was current on Newegg when I wrote this, but I'll update the prices if they change significantly within the first week of launch. For now, let's talk about pricing and specifications. It's fairly obvious that the Core i9-9900K that I'm reviewing today is hugely expensive. It's nearly $200 more than the Core i7-8700K and nearly $300 more than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X, which also sports 8 cores and 16 threads. Intel's new 8-core CPU - the Core i9-9900K comes in funky retail packagingIntel Specifications have changed considerably in Intel's product stack this time too. We now have two 8-core CPUs, but while the Core i9-9900K features hyper-threading, giving it 16 threads, the Core i7-9700K, only has 8 threads from its 8 cores, lacking hyper-threading. It seems that Intel is moving away from offering hyper-threading with its desktop Core i7 CPUs, although it's still likely to be a faster processor, especially in multi-threaded workloads, than the similarly-priced Core i7-8700K. It's then quite a step down to the Core i5-9600K, which only has 6 cores and 6 threads. Intel Core i9-9900KAntony Leather The Core i9-9900K, in addition to two more cores compared to the Core i7-8700K, also gets 4MB more L3 cache and it's worth noting that the Core i7-9700K actually has less cache per core than both it's Core i9 sibling and the Core i7-8700K. I'll hopefully be looking at the Core i7-9700K and Core i5-9600K soon. Some significant advantages the Core i9-9900K has over both the Core i7-8700K and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, though, are stock speed frequencies. Unlike the old Intel 6-core CPU, the new Core i9 can reach 5GHz on not one, but two cores at the same time in turbo boost. It also has a monstrous 4.7GHz all-core boost, which is 400MHz faster than the Core i7-8700K, 700MHz higher than the Core i9-7900X and roughly the same over the Ryzen 7 2700X depending on worldload. So, in multi-threaded tasks such as 3D modelling and video editing, it should be a beast. Solder is back along with thicker CPUs Intel has re-introduced solder as the thermal interface material between the core and heatspreader of its K-series and X-series CPUsIntel Intel is re-introducing solder with all new K and X-series CPUs - that includes the three 9000-series CPUs listed above and the seven new X-series models due later this year. Intel had ditched solder as the material sitting between the CPU heatspreader and CPU core way back with Ivy Bridge CPUs in its mainstream platform and since then, de-lidding - removing the heatspreader and applying high-performance thermal paste has very popular as Intel's non-soldered CPUs appeared to run much hotter, with big drops in temperature seen after de-lidding. This is a good move by Intel, although the jury is out on just how much of an impact it will have. I've managed to reach 5GHz when overclocking with my Core i9-9900K and temperatures seem to be a little lower than my Core i7-8700K at the same settings so given the new CPU has two more cores, it does seem to be running a little cooler. Intel has used a thicker substrate with its 9th gen CPUs (left) compared to post-Skylake CPUs (right) which should make them more durable.Antony Leather Intel has also used thicker CPU substrates with its 9th gen processors. The sandy-colored plate into which the core sits beneath the heatspreader thinned with Skylake, which was released in 2016. However, numerous reports surfaced of the substrate bending under pressure from some CPUs coolers as you can see in the image below via PC Gamer. This should now be a thing of the past. Thinner CPU substrate's introduced with Skylake CPUs have been bending under pressure with some CPU coolersPCGamer Z390 Chipset There are numerous Z390 motherboards already available, but you don't need one to use any of Intel's trio of 9th gen CPUs as they're also backwards compatible with chipsets that support last generation Coffee Lake 8th gen CPUs too, such as Z370 and B360. The Z390 chipset does add a couple of features, though, namely integrated 802.11ac WiFi and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support, but apart from that there's little reason to upgrade. If you do intent to use a 9th gen CPU in an older motherboard, then you'll also likely need to update its BIOS and that may mean using an 8th gen processor to do so depending on whether the board has some kind of USB BIOS flashback. The new Z390 chipset adds some new features but not a whole lot has changed since Z370Intel Performance Common test hardware included a Corsair RM850i PSU, Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD and a Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 AMP! graphics card along with an NZXT Kraken X42 cooler, while I used an X52 cooler for the high-end desktop CPUs. I used 3,000MHz memory with identical timings across all systems, with the only difference being a 16GB dual-channel kit was used with the mainstream platforms and a 32GB quad-channel kit was used with the high-end platforms. Game benchmarks were a mix of built-in benchmarks that I found to be consistent enough for testing and timed runs using fraps (World of tanks and Ashes of the Singularity). The content creation benchmarks include both timed benchmarks and built-in test scores, which are indicated in each graph. I should add that not all CPUs appear in all graphs for the simple reason I don't have constant access to all of them, namely the Core i7-8080K, which I obtained with a short-term loan a few months ago and wasn't able to re-test in some of my new benchmarks. Overclocking There doesn't seem to be much headroom with the Core i9-9900K with my own sample and those of several other enthusiasts I've spoken to reaching a limit at around 5GHz, with significantly more voltage needed to get any higher, where I was met with excessive temperatures too. In the end I settled on 5GHz with a vcore of 1.26V, which is typically what I used with the Core i7-8700K as well. Temperatures here was a little lower at around 80-85°C with the new CPU too, despite the fact it has two more cores. However, 300MHz is fairly poor overclocking headroom and I suspect this is just down to Intel reaching the limits of this architecture and 14nm (14nm++) manufacturing process, especially as we now have soldered heatspreaders again. Content creation and rendering Adobe Premier Pro performanceAntony Leather With 4K content becoming more mainstream, the time it takes to export a project is becoming more of an issue. This test looks at exporting a project combining several short 4K video clips with some basic effects applied and the time taken to complete the export is shown above. Amazingly, the Core i9-9900K matches Intel's Core i9-7900X at stock speed - a CPU that costs hundreds of dollars more and has two more cores. It's also 17% quicker than AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X a little quicker than the Threadripper 1920X too. PCMark 10 Image Editing performanceAntony Leather PC Mark 10's image editing test does seem to love AMD CPUs and it's the only test where the Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms the Core i9-9900K. I should point out that this is unlikely to be the case across all image editing benchmarks so I'll be doing some investigating soon and hopefully including more popular applications such as Gimp or Lightroom. HandBrake performanceAntony Leather The popular video encoding application HandBrake loves cores so it's no suprise to see both Threadripper CPUs at the top of the graph. However, despite a four-core deficit, the Core i9-9900K still matched the Threadripper 1920X and again it beats the Core i9-7900X until the latter is overclocked. It's also 18% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X and a massive 31% faster than the Core i7-8700K. Cinebench R15 multi core performanceAntony Leather Cinebench is a real-world 3D modelling application and again it's software that scales well with cores and threads. AMD has a distinct advantage here with the Threadripper 1920X outperforming the Core i9-9900K convincingly while the Ryzen 7 2700X is only 13% slower. The Core i9-7900X is again slower than the Core i9-9900K until the former is overclocked. Cinebench R15 single core performanceAntony Leather Single core performance can also be measured in Cinebench and its no surprise to see the Core i9-9900K sitting at the top of the graph here along with the rest of Intel's CPUs as they enjoy a healthy lead in frequency over AMD. Gaming Antony Leather Far Cry 5 performance I've added a couple of new tests to my benchmarks this time including Far Cry 5. Interestingly there was quite a bit of variation here between CPUs at 1,920 x 1,080, so if you like high frame rates the graph is quite telling. There AMD struggles here, but so too does the Core i9-7900X until it's overclocked, pointing at Far Cry 5 simply favoring high frequencies and lightly-threaded performance. Even so, Intel's mainstream CPUs I tested were fairly dominant, managing a 26% faster minimum frame rate compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X. World of tanks performanceAntony Leather CPU-bound games are fairly rare and in most that kind of a gap is rare too, and there are plenty of games that don't appear to see gains between the CPUs I tested here, World of Tanks' eNcore benchmark being one of them. Shadow of the Tombraider performanceAntony Leather Shadow of the Tombraider also didn't yield sgnificantly more performance between the cheapest and most expensive CPUs here, even at these modest settings that give the graphics card a fairly easy ride. Deus Ex: Mankind Divided performanceAntony Leather Another game that does still see some advantage for Intel over AMD is Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, but it's also one that see's AMd gain ground with the Ryzen 7 2700X, which performs even better with faster memory than I used here. However, The core i9-9900K didn't extend the lead I'd seen with Coffee Lake CPUs, instead sitting amongst them. No gains here. Ashes of the singularity performanceAntony Leather The final game test is Ashes of the Singularity, which is another game that AMD has been looking to boost Ryzen performance in. Intel enjoys a 22% advantage in the CPU benchmark here using the same memory, but again, that gap is closed using faster memory with AMD Ryzen CPUs. Unigine Superposition performanceAntony Leather The Superposition benchmark is more GPU-bound but I like to include it with CPU benchmarking anyway. There's next to no difference between the CPUs I tested and only the Threadripper 1920X and Core i9-7900X fall outside the margin of error in the scores with somewhat low results. Stock speed power consumptionAntony Leather Overclocked power consumptionAntony Leather Power consumption is usually way down the priority list for PC enthusiasts and there were few surprises here with the Core i9-9900K drawing noticeably more power than the Core i7-8700K and around 50W more than the Ryzen 7 2700X under load, likely down to its much higher boost frequencies. As I onlt managed to add 300MHz to the all-core frequency when overclocked, the power consumption only rose by 30 W or so. Conclusion I can't help but be impressed by the Core i9-9900K in that it's simply a monstrously powerful all-round CPU. It's top in games that exhibit degrees of CPU-bound performance thanks to its high boost speeds and the fact it can boost all eight cores to 4.7GHz out of the box means it's not only much quicker than the Core i7-8700K and Ryzen 7 2700X, but actually managed to better Intel's own Core i9-7900X 10-core CPU in multi-threaded tests such as HandBrake, Adobe Premier Pro and Cinebench. Not only is that CPU much more expensive and has two more cores, but the platform cost is more expensive too with pricier motherboards and memory. The issue is compounded by the fact that the Core i9-9900K's awesome stock speed performance can be achieved on cheap previous-generation motherboards too making its appeal much wider, especially as, unlike Ryzen CPUs, you don't need a discrete graphics card if you're not gaming either. While the Core i9-9900K appears to be a better-value option to the Core i9-7900X, if you don't need quad-channel memory and additional PCI-E lanes, of course, it's price doesn't paint a particularly good picture elsewhere. While it was anywhere between 12 and 26% faster in games and content creation than the Ryzen 7 2700X, that's clearly not justifying the fact the AMD chip can be had for $300, which is just over half that of the current pre-order price of the Intel CPU. Intel Core i9-9900KAntony Leather The performance scaling with price argument, though, is an idiotic one for the simple reason it rarely if ever works - AMD's Ryzen 2700X isn't 50% faster in games than the Ryzen 5 2600X, for example, despite costing 50% more. However, while there are some big gaps between Intel and AMD's mainstream flagships, the fact the core i9-9900K currently costs close to $600 means that both the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-8700K are much better value both for gaming (especially with the 8700K) and content creation. There's another CPU that makes a compelling case at its current price too - AMD's Threadripper 1920X, which is why I added to my benchmark line-up. You can currently pick it up for around $400, making a $150-200 saving compared to pre-order pricing of the Core i9-9900K. A cheap X399 motherboard, 16GB quad-channel memory and the Threadripper 1920X currently cost $845 on PCPartpicker. However, a similar system with a decent Z370 motherboard for overclocking the Core i9-9900K costs $874, and that's with Amazon's new pricing for the CPU at $529.99 that hit just before I published this article (incidentally, it was out of stock too). You're looking at over $900 with the previous pricing. Sure, the Intel CPU is much quicker in games, but for a pure content creation system the Threadripper CPU makes a strong argument. Ultimately I hope this downward price trend continues for Intel. $600 is too much, but if it dips below $500, while still $200 more than the Ryzen 7 2700X, you're getting a CPU that's noticeably quicker than any other mainstream CPU in content creation and one that grabs the top spot in every game too. The fact that you can use it with a fairly cheap motherboard if you won't be overclocking is appealing too. Whether that big premium is worth paying depends on your own needs and budget, of course, but the Core i9-9900K is without doubt the fastest ever mainstream desktop processor. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The 7 great features that will hopefully return to the MacBook Pro Posted: 19 Oct 2018 05:54 AM PDT  I miss the old MacBook Pro. Remember when the MacBook Pro had a good keyboard? Or an SD Card slot? Or an escape key? I miss the time when the MacBook Pro was 2mm thicker than the current version but had a full-size USB port. Remember the wonder of MagSafe? Or the glory that was using a MacBook Pro outside because of the matte screen? Remember when the power adapter for Apple’s laptops had little fold-out tabs to hold the cord? There was also a time that a random brush of the keyboard wouldn’t trigger Siri. There was a time when Apple made great laptops and there is now. Yesterday Apple announced an upcoming event where the company will likely release new laptops and iPads. These are some of the features TechCrunch writers hope return to Apple’s notebook computers. Escape KeyThe Touch Bar is clever. I like it most of the time. But I like the escape key more. Right now, on Macs equipped with the TouchBar, the escape key is a temporary button on the TouchBar. It’s positioned off-center, too, which forces users to relearn its location. It’s silly. The escape key has been with PCs for generations and is critical across applications and use cases. Everyone from causal gamers to coders use the escape key on a regular basis. Keep the TouchBar, but make it a bit smaller and position it between an escape key and a real power button. Just give me my escape key back. And make Siri optional. I’ve had a TouchBar-equipped MacBook Pro for nearly two years and have yet to find a reason to use Siri. USB PortsI’m over living the dongle life. From everything from charging a phone to connecting a camera, standard USB ports need to return to the MacBook Pro. Since we’re dreaming here, I would love to have one per side. The PC industry has been slow to jump on USB-C. Even Apple hasn’t gone all-in and that’s the issue here. Think about it: If a person buys a MacBook Pro and iPhone, that person cannot connect their iPhone to their new MacBook Pro without buying an adapter or cable. Same goes for an iPad. If a person wants to buy a new iPad and new MacBook Pro, the two products cannot connect out of the box. Apple launched the USB-C equipped MacBook Pro in 2016. It’s 2018. For a company that understands ecosystems, Apple has done a poor job ensuring all of its products are compatible out of the box. The first USB-C Apple Watch cable was released today. SD Card SlotThe MacBook Pro is billed as a laptop for the mobile professional yet it doesn’t allow some mobile professionals to connect their gear without adapters. The SD Card is the overwhelming standard of photographers and videographers — a key audience for the MacBook Pro — and yet these folks now have to use adapters to connect their gear. Until the latest MacBook Pro redesign, there was a built-in SD Card reader, and Apple should (but won’t) build one into the next version. External battery level indicatorA few generations ago, the MacBook and MacBook Pro had tiny button on the side that, when pressed, illuminated little lights to give the user an approximation of the remaining battery life. It was lovely. You know the drill: You’re running out the door and need to know if you should bring your large power adapter. You don’t need to know exactly how much time until your laptop dies. You need an idea. And that’s what these lights provided. With just a press of a button, the user would know if the laptop would last 20 minutes or 2 hours. Clever Power AdapterFor generations, Apple laptop chargers had little tabs that folded out and gave the owner a place to wrap the cable. It’s a simple and effective design. Steve Jobs is even listed on the 2001 patent. Those tabs disappeared when Apple went USB-C in 2016. The latest charger is the same shape as the previous version but lacks the tabs, forcing owners to store the USB-C cable apart from the charging block. It’s a little thing but little things was what made Apple products delightful. MagSafeThe elimination of MagSafe is nearly too painful to talk about. It was magical. Now it’s dead. Here’s how it worked: The power cable was magnetic. Instead of sticking into the laptop, it connected to the side of it. If someone tripped over the cable, the cable would harmlessly disconnect from the laptop. When Apple first launched MagSafe, the company loudly proclaimed they did so because customers kept breaking the connectors that plugged into the laptop. You know, like what’s in the current MacBook. A good keyboardI could forego all of the above if Apple could fix the keyboard in the latest MacBook Pro. It’s terrible. Our Natasha Lomas said it best in her excellent piece called “An ode to Apple’s awful MacBook keyboard,”
Seriously. The keyboard is the worst part of the latest generation of the MacBook. AlternativesFor the first time in 15 years I’m considering switching back to a Windows laptop. Microsoft’s Surface Book is not without flaws, but it’s a solid machine in my limited experience. I would be willing to try the less-powerful Surface Laptop 2, too. They’re just missing one thing: iMessage. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Technology - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
This post have 0 komentar
EmoticonEmoticon