A Googler managed to load up Samsung’s latest Chromebook with Ubuntu and spelled out the process for like-minded DIYers in October, and now some benchmarks of Mountain View’s $249 machine running Raring Ringtail — which is still in development — have surfaced. With a 1.7GHz dual-core Exynos 5 Dual processor under the hood, the ARM-based machine can hang with — and in some cases beat — the likes of a 1.8GHz quad-core Intel Atom D525 chip and a 1.4GHz quad-core Calxeda Highbank node in benchmarks using the Phoronix Test Suite. The rig also holds its own when pitted against a PandaBoard equipped with an OMAP4460 1.2GHz dual-core processor. Hit the source link to dig into pages of the test results for yourself.
With the world currently going crazy over smartphones with high-definition displays, it’s no wonder that manufacturers all want a slice of the high-end pie. We’re seeing it with HTC’s latest, the DROID DNA, and a new GLBenchmark listing suggests that it won’t be long before LG has a 1080p smartphone of its own to offer consumers. Benchmarks for a new phone called the LG F240K have appeared, and if the results are anything to go on, this is going to be one nice smartphone.
The size of the display isn’t known, but with that 1080p resolution, our friends at Android Community guess that it might come in at 5-inches by the time everything is said and done. Couple that with what’s suspected to be a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 processor clocked at 1.5Ghz and you’ve got a smartphone worthy of the high-end title. The handset is also running Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, so you won’t have worry about getting stuck with Ice Cream Sandwich (though it would be great to see Android 4.2 running on the F240K).
Keep in mind that a GLBenchmark result is hardly proof of existence, but it is a pretty good start. It seems that LG is working on something for the high-end, though we’re not likely to get an official announcement for a little while yet. In any case, since no one can keep a secret in the smartphone world, we should be seeing some F240K-related leaks popping up before long.
LG is only one of the companies looking to give HTC a run for its money in the 1080p smartphone market. We’re also expecting to see entries from Samsung and Sony at some point down the road, so the future is looking bright for 1080p smartphones. Keep it tuned here to SlashGear, as we’ll update you if we hear anything new about this mysterious smartphone!
It’s been a brisk and mostly enjoyable two weeks since the launch of Windows 8 and the start of this diary. Whereas my last entry was all about productivity, there’s now been ample opportunity to relax with the new OS, play a few titles in Steam, and run some general performance benchmarks. These not-so-onerous tasks were completed using an AMD FX-based triple-monitor gaming rig upgraded from Windows 7 Ultimate to Windows 8 Pro, with all games running at 5,760 x 1,080 and max detail settings, and all the hardware was kept constant to allow a before-and-after comparison. You’ll find the results after the break, along with a few broader impressions of what Windows 8 might mean for an early-adopting desktop gamer.
Along with the iPad mini, the 4th-generation iPad arrives on Friday, bringing with it the new A6X chip, as well the new Lightning connector and a better FaceTime camera. However, aside from Apple‘s claims, how much faster is the new iPad compared to its predecessor? It turns out that it’s more than twice as fast as Apple’s third-generation tablet.
The fourth-generation iPad runs off of Apple’s newest A6X processor, which now has quad-core graphics in order to run the tablet’s 2048×1536 Retina display more efficiently. It also appears to be clocked at 1.4 GHz compared to the third-generation iPad’s A5X clocked at 1 GHz, but it comes with the same 1GB of RAM as the previous model.
The chart above that compares Apple’s newest products, such as the iPhone 5, third-gen iPad, and the iPad 2, really puts into perspective not only how powerful the fourth-generation iPad is, but how much more powerful the iPhone 5 is compared to the third-gen iPad, which is most likely thanks to the A6 chip running at 1.3 GHz.
We would’ve liked to have seen the iPhone 4S in the benchmarks considering they had the older iPad 2 in the mix, just to round out the comparison a bit more, but we can’t complain. Either way, this should help out those who might be thinking about upgrading to the fourth-gen model. Most people will upgrade solely because of the performance boost, but the slightly upgraded camera, WiFi, and the new Lightning connector might also entice a few prospective upgraders as well.
Apple finally gave ambitious road-warriors with excellent vision the Retina MacBook Pro they’d been demanding, a 13-inch model to join the existing 15-inch Pro at the pinnacle of the company’s mobile range. Promising the same eye-watering visuals with the sort of processing power the Pro line-up is known for, the 13-inch version also makes some concessions so as to slim down to suit more frequent travelers. Is this the perfect notebook for your bag? Read on for our full review.
Hardware and Design
Side by side, the two Retina-class notebooks are almost identical in their thickness. The 13-inch model is actually slightly thicker – we’re talking a millimeter’s difference, mind – but the disparity in weight (3.57 pounds versus 4.46 pounds), width (12.35 inches versus 14.14 inches), and depth (8.62 inches versus 9.73 inches) are the most noticeable changes. If the original Retina MacBook Pro is a long, thin slice of computer, then the smaller model is a tiny powerhouse that can easily be dropped into a bag without demanding the sort of performance compromise of, say, a MacBook Air. Next to the old-style 13-inch, meanwhile, the differences are considerably more obvious. The new Retina model is thinner, lighter, narrower, and even less deep.
Still, there are some compromises to be made for reducing bulk (and for starting $500 less) from the 15-inch Retina Pro. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina loses the discrete graphics option of its 15-inch sibling, making do with Intel HD Graphics 4000, though you can still power two external displays – via a combination of the two Thunderbolt ports and the single HDMI – and run the notebook’s own display simultaneously.
Storage starts off at 128GB of flash, with 256GB, 512GB, and 768GB options; the default processor is a 2.5GHz Core i5 dualcore, whereas the 15-inch model heads straight to Core i7 quadcores. You can pay extra for a Core i7 chip on the 13-inch, but it’s the dualcore, not the quad. Memory is a fixed 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L, with no option to change that.
13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina: Hands-on and comparisons:
All the ports, wireless connectivity, and 720p webcam are the same as we saw on the 15-inch, as is the backlit keyboard and sizable trackpad. That means you get a pair of Thunderbolt connectors (which can double as Mini DisplayPort), two USB 3.0, a headphone jack, SDXC memory card slot, and an HDMI output. Inside there’s WiFi a/b/g/n and Bluetooth 4.0, and a pair of microphones are on the left edge.
Apple’s industrial design continues its gradual evolution toward thinner, pared-back computing, and the new MacBook Pro is no different. From the side, it’s like the old model but flatter; you can also glimpse the new “side gill” vents which are part of the reworked cooling system. In use, it’s quiet, with the fans only rising to a concentrated hum during the heavier moments of our benchmarking. The compromise to be made is one of repairability and room for improvement: the memory is soldered to the logic board, so as to shave away bulk, as is the processor, and the flash storage uses a proprietary connector so it’s sensible to buy the biggest drive you can afford initially.
Display
The 13-inch MacBook Pro Retina display is, at 2560 x 1600, slightly lower than the 2880 x 1800 of the 15-inch, but because of the smaller size its pixel density is even higher: 227 ppi compared to 220 ppi. With both in front of you, though, you don’t see any difference – the whole point, after all, is that the pixels aren’t supposed to be individually identifiable – only the mesmerizing detail and smoothness of the graphics that leave other notebook displays, no matter how bright or colorful, looking crunchy and jagged. Viewing angles are broad enough that you might have to worry about those next to you on the plane glancing over and seeing what you’re working on.
As before true Retina mode on the MacBook Pro doesn’t actually give you 2560 x 1600 resolution. Instead, you get a simulated lower resolution which is smoother all round, since each pixel is in fact a cluster of smaller pixels.Yyou can optionally switch out of Retina mode and pick a higher effective resolution, though the 13-inch misses out on the 1920 x 1200 of the larger machine; instead, the maximum is 1680 x 1050, still impressive (and impressively detailed) for a relatively small notebook. Third party applications are available which will force the display resolution even higher, though are not officially supported by Apple.
Apple is quoting a 75-percent reduction in glare from its new Retina display, versus the previous MacBook Pro 13. In practice, there’s certainly fewer reflections, which adds up to more flexibility in where you can use the notebook. It’s not a true matte finish, mind, though by ramping up the brightness you can use it outdoors and still see what’s going on.
Performance
We actually have two new 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina models on our test bench: the 2.5GHz Core i5-3210M dualcore (3MB L3 cache) and the 2.9GHz Core i7-3520M dualcore (4MB L3 cache). Each has 8GB of memory and supports Intel Turbo Boost, up to 3.1GHz and 3.6GHz respectively, and is running Mac OS 10.8.2.
We started with Geekbench, a synthetic test of processor and memory performance. The Core i5 machine scored 6507 overall, while the Core i7 pushed that to 8238. It’s worth noting that the increases weren’t solely in the processor categories: the Core i7 model also recorded better memory scores, suggesting that it makes better use of the 8GB it has. Still, each is a fair step behind the 15-inch Retina model, which scored 12,970 with its 2.6GHz quadcore Core i7-3720QM and 8GB of memory. Performance was roughly on a par with the mid-2012 13-inch MacBook Air.
MacBook Pro 13 with Retina – Core i5 – Geekbench:
Benchmark Score – MacBookPro10,2
Section
Description
Score
Total Score
Mac OS X x86 (64-bit) – Mac OS X 10.8.2 (Build 12C2034)
Integer
Processor integer performance
5081
6507
Floating Point
Processor floating point performance
8755
Memory
Memory performance
4979
Stream
Memory bandwidth performance
6691
MacBook Pro 13 with Retina – Core i7 – Geekbench:
Benchmark Score – MacBookPro10,2 i7
Section
Description
Score
Total Score
Mac OS X x86 (64-bit) – Mac OS X 10.8.2 (Build 12C2034)
Integer
Processor integer performance
6545
8238
Floating Point
Processor floating point performance
11131
Memory
Memory performance
6500
Stream
Memory bandwidth performance
7516
We then turned to Cinebench, which benchmarks processor and graphics performance with a mixture of 3D rendering and OpenGL testing. It’s a good way of examining how a system will handle intensive tasks such as video processing, or gaming.
The Core i5 model scored 2.12 CPU points, while the Core i7 scored 2.81 CPU points, or roughly half the result you’d expect from a quadcore processor. Unsurprisingly, with no discrete GPU, graphics performance showed the biggest hit, with the Core i5 managing 14.81fps and the Core i7 squeezing out 19.69fps.
By way of comparison, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina’s NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M GPU saw it record a score of 34.30fps in the same category. The MacBook Air managed 16.41fps.
If you’re planning use your new Mac for serious graphics or video editing, our suggestion would be to stick to the larger Pro, as the standalone GPU pays dividends. Of course, it also requires more power, though it includes the same Intel HD Graphics 4000 chip for more everyday use.
Battery
While the battery in the MacBook Pro 13 Retina may be smaller than before – 74-watt-hour, or versus the 95-watt-hour of the 15-inch – the fact it’s driving a smaller screen and less extreme components means Apple rates it for the same runtime: up to seven hours of wireless web browsing, or 30 days standby. However, the 60-watt MagSafe 2 power adapter is slightly smaller and thus continues the theme of the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina being easier to transport.
In practice, with a mixture of web browsing over WiFi, some music playback, a couple of YouTube videos and some emailing, and the display set to a usable half brightness, the Pro lasted just over six hours. Scaling that back to solely browsing and we broke past Apple’s seven hour estimate by a couple of minutes. In contrast, a more ambitious use of the notebook for video playback and some brief video processing in iMovie saw the battery expire in around four hours.
Wrap-Up
The $2,000 mark is an important mental barrier, and the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina’s $2,199 starting price put it out of consideration for many. In contrast, the 13-inch version starts at $1,699 with the 128GB flash drive, rising to $1,999 for the 256GB model.
Increasing storage isn’t cheap – you can boost the entry-level model to 768GB, yes, but it’ll cost you more than a MacBook Air to do so – but the $200 extra for the Core i7 dualcore strikes us as a worthy upgrade given the impact it has on performance overall. Apple still offers the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro, which starts at $1,199 with the same 2.5GHz Core i5 dualcore, though to specify the same memory and a 128GB SSD you’re looking at $1,499. You also get a gigabit ethernet port, FireWire, and an optical drive, though you miss out on the lighter chassis and far improved Retina display.
While the Air might be the smallest of Apple’s notebook line-up, the 13-inch Pro hits a more palatable sweet-spot for balancing power, performance, and functionality. At $1,699 and up, the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display sits at the premium end of the notebook market ($500 less than the entry-level 15-inch model, mind, although you do get extra performance for that) but it does offer features that, right now, you can’t get elsewhere. Those for whom sheer power – particularly multimedia editing – is essential should probably opt for the bigger model, but those road warriors looking to pare back weight and bulk without unduly sacrificing usability will find a lot to love in the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.
The new HTC One X+ has landed on the SlashGear test bench, and with HTC so especially proud of the performance tune-up its given its Android flagship, we were keen to see how it fared. Day-to-day speed we’ll have to test awhile ahead of our full review, but some early benchmarks should help identify where the Tegra 3 smartphone has been particularly polished. Plus, with the official Android 4.1 Jelly Bean update for Samsung’s unlocked Galaxy S III dropping in the UK just earlier today, it seemed rude not to run some comparative scores.
Compared to the One X we reviewed back in April, HTC’s new top-end Android phone steps up to the latest version of Tegra 3, a quadcore running at 1.7GHz. It’s paired with 1GB of RAM and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean with HTC Sense 4+; our review model is European-spec, which means no LTE.
We focused on some basic benchmarking tools most Android users are familiar with. First up, Quadrant Standard, which tests CPU, I/O, and 3D graphics performance; next SunSpider, a test of browser JavaScript performance, which gives a good idea of how web surfing compares to other phones, tablets, and even desktops; then Qualcomm’s Vellamo, which focuses on mobile web performance, examining HTML5 crunching abilities and CPU subsystem performance; and finally, AnTuTu, which looks at CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O performance.
In Quadrant, the One X+ pulled ahead with a score of 6068, over 800 points more than the Galaxy S III, at 5207. The HTC did particularly well in the CPU and I/O subcategories, though the Samsung did much better in memory performance and 3D graphics. HTC’s phone put in a better showing in SunSpider, too, scoring 1082.2ms (lower is better) against the Samsung’s 1215.4ms. Neither managed to quite match the results we saw from the iPhone 5, however, which nipped underneath the 1,000ms boundary with a score of 914.7ms.
Quadrant and SunSpider benchmarks:
As for Vellamo, the scores here were mixed. In the HTML5 side of testing, the One X+ did better, edging ahead with 1894 against the Galaxy S III’s 1615. However, the tables were turned in the Metal tests, with the One X+ managing 491 against the Galaxy S III’s 558.
Vellamo benchmarks:
Finally, AnTuTu. The HTC pulled ahead once more, though again not in all of the categories. In total, it scored 12,945, besting the Samsung in CPU, RAM, and I/O testing. The Galaxy S III, however, scored 12,082 overall, with better performance in the GPU category.
Synthetic tests of smartphone performance don’t tell anywhere near the full story; you can’t say from benchmark results whether a phone will necessarily lag in multitasking, or suffer frustrating pauses in keyboard responsiveness or when trying to open up a well-stocked inbox. They’re a good indicator of the raw potential of the smartphone, however: what well-written apps will be able to call upon to achieve great performance.
We’ll be running the One X+ through real-world testing ahead of the full SlashGear review, but already HTC’s new powerhouse has shown its mettle.
The folks at Mac Mini Vault have benchmarked and torn down the new Mac Minis. The Mac Mini’s $600, 2.5GHz Core i5 Ivy Bridge configuration racked up a Geekbench score of 7433 straight out of the box. That’s impressive considering last year’s Sandy Bridge i5 Mac Mini refresh has a standing average of 6323 on the Geekbench. More »
UK 4G carrier EE has been flaunting its speeds again, and we couldn’t resist stopping by to see how the iPhone 5 and other handsets perform on the new LTE network. Set to go live within a matter of weeks, EE – a combination of Orange and T-Mobile UK – promises to deliver the first taste of 4G speed to data-hungry Brits, and the numbers certainly are impressive: downloads nudging 60 Mbps and uploads of up to 18 Mbps.
EE had laid on a number of its devices for us to benchmark, with the iPhone 5 being joined by HTC’s One XL LTE, and Huawei’s Ascend P1 LTE. The handsets span the gamut of price points, something EE says is very much intentional: data plan pricing hasn’t been confirmed yet, but EE told us it has resolutely mass-market ambitions in mind.
That likely means a slight premium over 3G data, but hopefully not too much as to dissuade regular customers from dipping a toe into 4G. From what we’ve seen, it’s certainly worth their while: as our comparison video shows, all three phones are capable of impressive turns of speed.
EE 4G LTE benchmarks:
In our testing – conducted in central London – performance was reasonably variable, though we noted that the Huawei handset seemed to regularly post slower speeds than its HTC and Apple rivals. The biggest difference may well be how the 4G system holds up under heavy use: LTE is designed to take better advantage of the available spectrum, so EE’s network should be less prone to bogging down when multiple concurrent users are taking advantage of the upload and download speeds.
One minor blip may well be in the 3G/4G handover. As it stands, voice calls are still carried over EE’s 3G network, so the handsets automatically step down onto 3G whenever a call is made. That means, if you’re also tethering with the phone, the data connection you’re relying on will also slow. There’s a slight increase in the time it takes to initiate a call, though only of 1-2 seconds, and the 4G signal is restored shortly after the call is terminated.
The first EE phones go up for sale today, albeit through Orange and T-Mobile, with the promise of an easy switch to a 4G contract when the service goes live to the public. There’s more on the iPhone 5, meanwhile, in our full review.
The gurus of camera benchmarks at DXO Labs just published their review of the Nikon D600, rating its 24-megapixel sensor the third best of all time behind the two different versions of the Nikon 800. Where’s the top Canon? All the way down at number thirteen. Ouch. More »
Apple was pretty confident the iPhone 5 would outperform its predecessors overall with the new A6 chipset, and Sunspider benchmarks suggest the new iOS 6 smartphone now takes the top spot for mobile browsing. SlashGear ran the browser test as part of our full iPhone 5 review, and the Apple handset breaks a new record for phones in coming in under the 1,000ms mark.
Sunspider is a test of JavaScript performance, and a good indication of how a browser will hold up when it comes to real-world surfing the web. Faster scores are better, suggesting that your webpages will render more rapidly and be more responsive.
With a score of 914.7ms, the iPhone 5 squeezes in under the 1,000ms point. That’s faster than rival Android handsets such as the Galaxy S III – which scored 1,441.7ms in our testing – and the new LG Optimus G which managed 2,417.3ms with its Snapdragon S4 Pro chipset.
Considering how often we rely on web apps or services, or indeed how many local apps on the iPhone rely on the underlying browser engine, this extra jolt of performance is a welcome one. For more on the iPhone 5, check out our review.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
We then turned to Cinebench, which benchmarks processor and graphics performance with a mixture of 3D rendering and OpenGL testing. It’s a good way of examining how a system will handle intensive tasks such as video processing, or gaming.
