Technology - Google News |
- Intel Core i9 vs. AMD Threadripper
- Why Microsoft and Google love progressive web apps
- iPhone XR camera: Here's how good we think it'll be
| Intel Core i9 vs. AMD Threadripper Posted: 19 Oct 2018 11:47 AM PDT  The release of AMD’s Threadripper chips changed the face of high-end CPUs forever. Not only did they provide the first competition Intel has had at the top end for years, but they introduced some of the highest cores counts we’ve ever seen on single CPU configurations that aren’t specifically targeted at servers. They aren’t typically aimed exclusively at gamers either, but if you’re looking for power beyond AMD’s $300 2700X, Threadripper is your best bet. Or it would be if Intel didn’t have some fantastically powerful Core i9 CPUs to go head-to-head with AMD. From extreme edition CPUs with up to 18 cores for big multi-threaded loads, to high-end gaming chips like the 9900K, Intel’s line up is equally worthy of your time if you’re looking for a big CPU upgrade. Productivity Some tasks, like video encoding or image editing, can see a real benefit from masses of processor cores. That’s where some of the more extreme CPUs can really come into play. Chips like the Intel 7980XE with its 18 cores, absolutely demolish more conservative core count chips like the 9900K, and if an application can handle its ludicrous core count, the 2990WX can pull ahead significantly over even the Intel competition. That isn’t always the case though, as some applications simply don’t know what to do with the 64 threads that the 2990WX puts out. In some cases, comparable performance can be achieved with much more affordable CPUs in the range, like the 2950X. In applications which favor individual core power over a larger multitude of threads, comparably priced Intel CPUs can pull ahead instead. While we weren’t able to test it against the second-generation Ryzen chips, the 9900K demolished last year’s Threadrippers in our Handbrake video encoding test. What about gaming? We said these chips aren’t really designed with gaming in mind, and while that’s true, it doesn’t mean they’re terrible at it either. Because modern games rely much more heavily on the system’s GPU, a 32-core processor might not make as big an impact on gameplay as you might assume. There is a reason that all of the top 3DMark Time Spy Extreme results utilize CPUs from Intel and AMD that cost thousands of dollars: Because they’re amazingly powerful. That’s not necessarily a perfect comparison for gaming scenarios, though. Out of all of the Core i9 and Threadripper CPUs, we would recommend the Intel Core i9-9900K over all of the others for your extreme gaming needs, as it performed far better than the competition in our testing. In CPU-heavier games like Civilization VI, the 9900K outperformed processors with much higher core counts. It’s not that the other chips in the series can’t game, they just aren’t really worth the extra cost. EfficiencyIf you look at a detailed specification table of the Intel’s Core i9 CPUs and AMD’s Threadripper CPUs side by side, you’ll see a lot of numbers. Those numbers tend to be higher on the Threadripper side of things, and that’s typically a good thing. More cores, more clocks mean more power. But power is the important word here, as the Threadripper CPUs need more power to run than their Intel counterparts. For example, the Core i9-9900K is only a 95-watt processor, but has a higher boosted clock speed than a 180-watt Threadripper 1920X. The most power hunger of Intel’s CPUs have a thermal design profile of 165 watts, and the somewhat entry-level options like the 7900X and 7920X require just 140 watts. Threadripper on the other hand, pulls a lot more. The first-generation required 180 watts across the board and the second-generation 2920X and 2950X demand the same. The top-tier 2970WX and 2990WX however, have a TDP of 250 watts. That means big power draw and big cooling requirements. Pricing As is quite typical of the AMD versus Intel debate throughout the last decade or so, AMD CPUs are the most cost-effective and that same scenario plays out much the same even at this extreme end of the spectrum. First-generation Threadripper CPUs can be had for between $320 and $600, while the second-generation varies between $650 and $1,800 — though the more budget-conscious 2920X and 2970WX have yet to be made widely available at the time of writing. In comparison, Intel’s 9900K might have a reasonable (although still expensive compared to more mainstream CPUs) price of $530, but the more extreme Intel CPUs are far more costly. The entry-level 7900X still costs $900 a year and a half after it was released, and the 7980XE, with fewer cores and lower clocks than its Threadripper counterpart, is $2,050. Prices are a little lower for the planned Intel refresh later this year, maxing out at $1,980 for the 9980XE, but no firm release date for those chips has yet been announced. It’s also worth mentioning that Threadripper’s TR4 socket design will be used in all upcoming motherboard generations until at least 2020, meaning CPU upgrades won’t require a new motherboard too. Intel is doing the same for the refresh of its Core i9 7000 CPUs, but the 9900K requires a new motherboard and its successor will do as well. Pay for what you needAll of the top-of-the-line CPUs from AMD and Intel are amazing pieces of hardware. They have performance and specifications that almost nobody needs, but for those that do, there are some takeaways from our comparison that are worth taking note of. In certain applications that can take full advantage of the extra cores AMD’s Threadripper chips offer, they have a big advantage over even Intel’s best. In many applications that isn’t the case though. These chips aren’t designed with everyone in mind. There’s a reason our guide to the best CPUs looks more at the mid-range than anything else. Even within the realm of high-end users, the top Threadripper and Core i9 CPUs cost close to $2,000 each, so aren’t typically recommended for anyone but the most extreme of cases. In terms of cost, AMD chips do tend to be much more affordable and that goes doubly so if you’re looking at first-generation Threadripper CPUs which massively undercut their counterparts in Intel’s Core i9 lineup. They do require more power though, so factor that into your long-term cost projections. If you’re looking to game only, the Core i9-9900K is the only CPU here really worth recommending as the others don’t offer enough of a performance improvement (if at all in some cases) for the added cost to be worth it. Editors' Recommendations |
| Why Microsoft and Google love progressive web apps Posted: 20 Oct 2018 03:01 AM PDT  Progressive web apps just got real. Though progressive web apps, or PWAs, have been around for about three years — an initiative mostly driven by Google — they got real this week when Google released Chrome 70. The new version of Google’s web browser comes with a robust roster of new features. But the biggest news is new support for PWAs that work with desktop Windows. (Mac and Linux support should appear in Chrome 72.) Google and Microsoft compete on many fronts. But when it comes to PWAs, the companies are in perfect alignment. I’ll tell you why below, but first let’s clarify exactly what PWAs are. PWAs: Easier for allA PWA is a website that can be made to look and feel like an installed app or application on a smartphone, tablet, laptop or desktop. PWAs use background-executing scripts (JavaScript files) called service workers that cache assets and enable higher performance. Service workers enable offline execution and access to offline storage. And they can display push notifications. PWAs are a minor benefit to users but a huge benefit to developers, brands and enterprises. Because PWAs rely on CSS3, JavaScript and other standard tools, they can be easily ported to other browsers and platforms. PWAs also support or actually replace a mobile-first design strategy, where you can create the PWA for mobile, then make that available on all devices. Because PWAs bypass app stores, they help solve the problem of app fatigue, where users resist wading into an app store to find yet another app they’ll try once and forget about. When users visit your site, you can offer the PWA installation on the spot, and launch it from that site with every visit. Most major retailers offer apps that enable loyalty and discount features, as well as a better experience with shopping. But most customers of those retailers have no interest in downloading the apps. PWAs can run when they visit the store, providing additional features that run like regular apps. Various test cases have proved that PWAs dramatically improve engagement, conversions, interaction, open rates for push notifications and opt-in. Pinterest launched a PWA designed to replace accessing the service through a regular browser experience. It reported huge benefits, such as a 50% increase in clickthroughs on advertising and a 40% increase in spending by users who spent more than five minutes on the site. The PWA outperformed not only the mobile web usage, but also the mobile app usage. Also: PWAs support all kinds of devices, including Chromebooks. The old choice for developers was to create separate apps for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS and Android — but still fail to serve Chromebooks, unless you created a sixth implementation with a Chrome extension. The new choice is to create PWAs, and serve all the platforms, including Chromebooks, with a single implementation. And that same work can ease access to PWAs from smart TVs and other IoT devices. PWAs feel like apps, but the content search engine is indexable and user-shareable. PWAs are also relatively secure. At installation, they have zero access to the systems’ hardware. This access has to be granted on a case-by-case — a resource-by-resource — basis after explicit permission is granted by the user. Gaining access to storage, location and Bluetooth requires three separate permissions. Users can say yes to Bluetooth, for example, but turn down the storage and location requests. This is more or less how mobile apps work, but it’s an improvement on how desktop applications have traditionally functioned. The bottom line is that PWAs finally turn browsers into app platforms — real apps, not yesterday’s horrible web apps. Why Microsoft is all-in with Google on PWAsThanks to Chrome 70, PWAs in Windows 10 function like regular apps. That means they support notifications, Live Tiles and Cortana, and they’re accessible from the Chrome menu, the Start Menu or as a pinned app on the taskbar. And they’re available in the Microsoft Store. Google and Microsoft are so far totally sympatico when it comes to PWAs. The reason is that PWAs increase the number and range of apps available to Windows users. But I think the biggest reason is that Microsoft hopes to re-enter the smartphone market with its Andromeda device. Instead of entering a market with no apps, it would instead enter a market with all the PWAs. Many of these apps will be created primarily as replacements for Android apps. And so many of the apps formerly available only to Android devices and Pixelbook devices will now also be available to Windows Surface Phone devices, or whatever Microsoft ends up calling Andromeda. It’s a win-win for Microsoft and Google. Microsoft gets tons of apps for its devices. Google gets everybody doing everything from the web, which supports its current ChromeOS strategy and future Fuschia strategy. Progressive web apps don’t always mean progressThere are downsides. Discovery for PWAs is decentralized. You can’t just go to an app store and find whatever you’re looking for with a search. Google maintains a directory of PWAs. But to the best of my knowledge there is no single resource for all the PWAs out there. What we don’t know is whether the industry can make sure PWAs represent a single app platform, or whether PWAs will either allow or engineer fragmentation. Microsoft and Google have been collaborating on PWAs so far, and that’s a good thing. Apple, not so much. And while Apple is starting to support PWAs in Safari, it’s not clear that the company is motivated to support common standards. And Safari functionality is wanting. One thing that’s broken for PWAs on iOS is web push notifications, for example. Raw performance of PWAs is generally lower than native apps. Another downside is that PWAs are highly isolated. So it’s hard and unlikely for different PWAs to share resources or data directly. So PWAs aren’t perfect. I still think they’re going to be huge. PWAs are far more efficient for both users and developers. They’re far more flexible, cross-platform and low-footprint than web apps, web sites, mobile apps or desktop apps. Brands and organizatons like Starbucks, Twitter, Burger King, Home Depot and NASA are all switching to PWAs. Maybe your company should, too. Now that PWAs have arrived for real on Windows, it’s time to get serious about them in your organization. Conduct an inventory and analysis of all your company’s apps and see which can be converted over to PWAs. It’s more work, but it will pay off tenfold in the long run. |
| iPhone XR camera: Here's how good we think it'll be Posted: 20 Oct 2018 05:20 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 Are open now. 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. |
| 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