Hasta La Gadget!

Low-power processors aren’t just for netbooks: These computers-on-a-chip are going to be powering our smartphones and other diminutive gadgets in the forseeable future. So what’s the difference between the Atoms, Snapdragons and Tegras of the world?

Intel Atom
The current reigning king of low-cost, low-power processors, Intel’s Atom flat-out dominates the netbook market. Its single- and dual-core processors are also some of the most powerful on our list, despite having abilities roughly equal to, in Intel’s own terms, a 2003-2004 vintage Celeron. Based on the x86 architecture, the Atom is capable of running full versions of Windows XP, Vista (though not all that well), and 7, as well as modern Linux distros and even Hackintosh. While it requires far less power than a full-power chip, it’s still more power-hungry than the ARM-based processors on our list, requiring about 2 watts on average. That’s why netbook battery life isn’t all that much longer than that of a normal laptop.

You can find the Atom in just about every netbook, including those from HP, Dell, Asus, Acer, Sony, Toshiba, MSI, and, well, everyone else. The 1.6GHz chip is the most popular at the moment, but Intel is definitely going to keep improving and upgrading the Atom line. However, you’re unlikely to catch an Atom in a handset; it’s low-power, yes, but low-power for a notebook. Battery life on an Atom handset would be pretty atrocious, which is why Intel’s sticking to netbooks for now.

Qualcomm Snapdragon
Based on ARM, which is a 32-bit processor architecture that powers just about every mobile phone (and various other peripherals, though never desktop computers) out there, Snapdragon isn’t competing directly with the Intel Atom—it’s not capable of running full versions of Windows (only Windows Mobile and Windows CE), it’s incredibly energy-efficient (requiring less than half a watt), and is designed for always-on use. In other words, this is the evolution of the mobile computing processor. It’s got great potential: Qualcomm is trumpeting battery life stretching past 10 hours, smooth 1080p video, support for GPS, 3G, and Bluetooth, and such efficiency that a Linux-based netbook can use Snapdragon without a fan or even a heat sink. Available in single core (1GHz) or dual-core (1.5GHz), it can be used in conjunction with Android, Linux, and various mobile OSes.

Unfortunately, Qualcomm is still holding onto the notion that people want MIDs, and is championing “smartbooks,” which are essentially smartphones with netbook bodies, like Asus’s announced-then-retracted Eee with Android. Snapdragon’s got promise, but we think that promise lies in super-powered handheld devices, not even more underpowered versions of already-underpowered netbooks.

We’re frankly not sure when we’ll see Snapdragon-based devices sold in the US. We’re sure Snapdragon will end up in smartphones at some point, as at least one Toshiba handset has been tentatively announced, but the only concrete demonstrations we’ve seen have been in MIDs, and Snapdragon themselves spend all their energy touting these “smartbooks.” Snapdragon’s Windows Mobile compatibility suggests we may see it roll out with Windows Mobile 7, if Tegra hasn’t snapped up all the good handsets.

Nvidia Tegra
Nvidia’s Tegra processor is very similar to Snapdragon—both are based on ARM architecture, so both are designed for even less intense applications than the Atom. Like Snapdragon, Tegra isn’t capable of running desktop versions of Windows, so it’s primarily targeted at Android and handheld OSes, especially forthcoming versions of Windows Mobile. What sets Tegra apart from Snapdragon is the Nvidia graphics pedigree: The company claims smooth 1080p video, like Snapdragon, but also hardware-accelerated Flash video and even respectable gaming (though no, you won’t be able to run Crysis). They also go even further than Qualcomm in their battery life claim, suggesting an absolutely insane 30 hours of HD video.

While Snapdragon tends to be loosely associated with Android, Tegra is an integral part of Microsoft’s plan for next-generation Windows Mobile devices. Instead of focusing on “smartbooks” and MIDs, which we think are part of a dead-end category, Tegra’s commitment to pocketable handhelds could spell success. We’ve seen proof-of-concept demonstrations of Tegra already, but its real commercial debut will come with Windows Mobile 7—and if WM7 doesn’t suck, Tegra could take off.

Others
We haven’t included certain other processors, especially VIA’s Nano, due to intent: The Nano requires lower power than full-scale processors, but at 25 watts, it’s not even really in the same league as Atom, let alone Snapdragon or Tegra. The VIA Nano is really targeted at non-portable green technology, and looks like it’ll do a good job—it outperformed Atom in Ars Technica’s excellent test, and stands up to moderate use with ease. AMD’s Puma (Turion X2) is in a similar boat: It’s certainly markedly more energy-efficient than AMD’s other offerings, but as it’s targeted at laptops (not netbooks) with a screen size greater than 12-inches, it’s not quite right for our list here.

These low-power processors aren’t just, as we so often think, crappier versions of “real” processors. They’ve got uses far beyond netbooks, especially in the near future as the gap between netbooks and smartphones narrows.

Still something you still wanna know? Send any questions about why your iPhone can’t play Crysis, how to tie a bow tie, or anything else to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.

The original Xbox launched in November 2001, with the Xbox 360 following just four years later, the shortest console cycle ever. The four-year anniversary of the 360 is five months away, but yesterday Microsoft proclaimed that “the future of home entertainment has a new name: Xbox 360.” Huh.

It became remarkably clear today that Microsoft sees more than months left in the Xbox 360—more like years. Microsoft’s big ballyhoo, its motion control Project Natal, won’t even arrive until 2010. And likely deep into 2010—think next summer. The Zune Video Marketplace will deliver 1080p instant streams; you’ll be able to download full retail games come August, cutting out the Gamestop middleman; Netflix integration is even deeper; and Facebook and Twitter are now wrapped in. Why would Microsoft do all this for a console progressing into obsolescence in the next year or two? It’s not simply pumping out new games or features—they’re growing and entrenching the current platform.

Sure, there’s a incentive to extend this console cycle simply because of the high costs of development—the time and money that goes into producing a major game for the Xbox and PS3 easily approaches that of a (small) Hollywood film because of their enormous complexity. There’s still returns to be made on this generation. So perhaps Sony wasn’t so foolish for declaring that the PS3 is a ten-year console. The Wii is markedly cheaper, simpler and less powerful, so part of me suspects you will see a new console from Nintendo more quickly than from Microsoft and Sony.

But it’s more than that, especially when you consider how Microsoft and Sony are extending the life of their machines—they’re turning them into platforms beyond gaming consoles. Xbox Live’s Marc Whitten remarked at the Xbox party tonight that a big part of the reason behind the New Xbox Experience was to build the framework for these features. It’s interesting to think about the NXE as not simply the UI overhaul and stuff we reviewed a few months ago—it’s everything after that. We are squarely in Xbox 360 2.0.

Think of it another way: If we were talking about all of these new features on a computer or mobile—Netflix streaming, Last.fm, Zune Marketplace, Remote Play—what we would call them instead of features? Apps. That’s what makes this generation more platform than console—they have apps that tap into and expand their power in new and different ways, just like apps do on any other kind of platform.

But so far, we’ve only seen first-party apps. Or at best, closely partnered third-party apps. It’s effectively a closed system. Which reminds of us of another formerly closed system. The iPhone. It did some neat things before iPhone 2.0. But it was painfully limited. The iPhone wasn’t truly powerful until it got apps. Until it allowed basically anybody to develop apps for it, not just the chosen few (well, Google). That’s exactly what the Xbox 360 and PS3 need to live even longer. And not just longer lives, but better, richer lives. Cheap SDKs for anybody to develop apps. Just think of how long ago Twitter would’ve come to Xbox.

It’s already halfway there—you stream videos, download software, apply updates, listen to music, social network—and only going even further in that direction with the stuff we’re seeing it at E3, that the old, artificial distinction between these consoles and “real computers,” which was already laughable, is completely obsolete. So that objection, that consoles aren’t supposed to be like computers, they’re supposed to be self-contained is completely meaningless. It’s time to open the Xbox 360 and PS3 to apps, so we can see what they can really do.

Pretty as it is, 70mm film has been deemed too expensive for shooting Hollywood productions. So this is how IMAX preps finished movies for the up close and personal demands of IMAX.

(Left, 35mm reel. Right, IMAX reel.)

Before we move on, let’s explain IMAX film. Technically, it’s a 70mm standard that—unlike the 70mm that was popular back in the day with big movies like Lawrence of Arabia —has been turned sideways on the celluloid. So while typical 70mm motion picture film runs vertically and takes up 5 perforations on the film strip, IMAX runs horizontally and takes up 15 perforations. Yes, that means that the IMAX 70mm standard is three times bigger than normal 70mm and nine times bigger than 35mm.

Now do you know why we’ve been making such a big deal about it?

Kodak estimates their 35mm film stock to run at an equivalent of 6K digital resolution—that’s 2K better than the famous 4K Red One camera. As Kodak makes IMAX film out of the same ink/material that they make 35mm film, to scale, you can argue that IMAX reaches a theoretical equivalent of 18K digital, or 252 megapixels. In real application, even an expert we talked to within IMAX doubted if the viewer can see 18K projected, estimating that 12K might be a more accurate guess.

IMAX film is—unquestionably—far more impressive than any other standard on the block, analog or digital. So how the heck can IMAX claim they can take a normal 35mm film, like Star Trek, and play it on IMAX screens?

(Left, 35mm reel. Right, IMAX reel.)

To be fair, this insanely high resolution 70mm film format is only used in the huge free-standing IMAX theaters found in museums and parks throughout the world. As you might recall from our previous story on IMAX “retrofitting” in multiplexes, IMAX’s digital projection system used in those theaters is a mere 3K or 4K in resolution. There’s definitely a double standard, and though it’s still an impressive theater experience, it’s not the same and you have the right to feel a bit ripped off if you’re expecting a 70mm print.

But regardless of the film’s destination, it is carried through roughly the same process known as DMR (which, enigmatically, stands for “digital re-mastering”), which starts with a digital encoding of a standard 35mm Hollywood film, and ends with a remastered, (usually) higher-resolution digital format for multiplexes, and a bunch of reels of remastered crazy-high-resolution 70mm film for the true IMAX theaters.

During my day at IMAX HQ, I kept referring to the process as “uprezzing”—the same mundane miracle that allows DVDs to play on HDTVs. But every time I used this term, it was met with a shiver from production personnel. After seeing their process, I still think “uprezzing” fits, but blowing up a film’s resolution requires a lot of tweaking and artistry, so I can appreciate their reaction a bit more.

When IMAX converted Apollo 13, the first 35mm movie to be converted to IMAX, the whole process took three months. Now, a team of about 20 digital artists can convert a movie in three weeks with the help of a powerful render farm.

Source film generally arrives at IMAX pre-digitized in either 2K (2048×1080) or 4K (4096×2160) resolution. In the case of the Dark Knight, some footage reached 5.6K and even 8K. It leaves IMAX at anywhere from 4K to 8K resolution, sharpened with film grain reduced.

The staff views the movie while analyzing general trends like lighting and coloring in a film. Each movie has a certain overall look, and then each scene (exterior night, interior day, spaceship orbiting planet, etc.) has a certain particular lighting and coloring of its own, so they note all of the overarching trends—the keys to each scene type—and then they tailor uprezzing (or just polishing) algorithms to take them into account. The algorithms are unique to the film but the result, after all the painstaking customization, is a fairly automated hit-the-render-button-get-an-IMAX-movie video-scaling process.

Well, almost. About 80% of the film’s frames come out of the automated process looking great. It’s the remaining 20% that’s the real bitch. Sometimes the process arranges pixels in ways that bring forth unforeseen oddities in the image. These tainted frames are either sent back through the render farm again with tweaked settings, or they are fixed by hand.

I watched a member of the IMAX team screen a clip from Night at the Museum 2 in which Owen Wilson is green screened in front of a pile of sand. He had just a few frames of the film looped on his monitor, less than a second of real material, and they looked fine by my account. (Our apologies for a lack of pictures, but acquiring studio rights to images has proven difficult.)

Of course, this was a 20-inch display, and the film would play on a screen…a bit larger than that.

So the film analyst urged me to look closer, at which point I noticed an aura of softness around Wilson’s figure, killing the texture of the sand. With a keypress, the screen snapped to the same frames in the 35mm, which looked fine. The automated uprez process had highlighted some of the intentionally hidden seams of the special effects.

That footage was sent back to the artists to fix by hand, as are a lot of the 10,000 to 20,000 frames of film IMAX processes during a day of DMR work.

That’s just the artistic side, which happens for both the multiplex digital IMAX and the 70mm film IMAX —there’s also the delicate matter of assembling all this film properly back into one big strip for the the true IMAX theaters and their film projectors.

IMAX reels and 35mm reels don’t line up in a convenient 1-to-1 ratio. Because the film is physically bigger, there are almost five IMAX reels for every reel of 35mm. Not only do they have to make sure every single cut from one reel to the next is smooth, they have to make sure everything stays in the right order, a huge pain, especially when just a few frames are being fixed at a time.

The film part of the process culminates in a scene-by-scene analysis of the 70mm dailies—172,800 frames for a 2-hour movie—viewed on a lightbox with the 35mm film right beside the IMAX uprez. If the in-and-out points are the same, things are generally fine. If not…it’s gonna be a long night.

But even with all this earnest work of artists and video wizards, will that original 35mm content look better when either upscaled or just cleaned? I’m going to say yes, not because I’ve had the opportunity to analyze a pre- and post-DMR film with my own eyes, but because a staggering amount of the staff’s efforts are simply to eliminate film grain. And while, to me, that’s a sin to do for archival film restoration or 1080p Blu-ray transfers, I can understand the necessary evil when a movie is expanded to epic proportions and the audience is forced to sit in ridiculously close proximity to the screen. Nobody pays to see blackheads the size of a house, especially on Ben Stiller.

Besides, regular IMAX movies shot on IMAX 70mm film are always going to look better. Anyone who’s ever used Photoshop knows there’s no way that digitally enlarging an image will ever look as good as an already-large image in its native resolution. Parts of The Dark Knight were shot for IMAX, and I’ve seen that footage on true 70mm IMAX projection. I’ve also seen plenty of 35mm movies (like Star Trek) up on the IMAX screen, projected from a 70mm film print, after DMR. There is absolutely no comparison. Star Trek is fun to watch on a big screen. The Dark Knight is so ridiculously detailed that your brain can barely process it.

As much as I can admire IMAX’s DMR process and the truly staggering amount of effort going into digital enhancement, this does beg one question of Hollywood: You’ve got hundreds of millions for talent and marketing, but you don’t have enough cash to buy a truckload of 70mm film and deal with tricky cameras? I find that hard to believe.

Read more from Gizmodo Goes to IMAX

It’s impossible not to be at least a little impressed with the MacBook Air, but who can spend almost $2,000 on that laptop? The solution? The MSI X340, a $900 MacBook Air. And it’s a great idea…in theory…

First, let’s focus on what the X340 gets right. It’s a 13-inch (16×9, 1366×768) laptop that weighs just 2.86 pounds with its 4-cell battery. It measures .78 inches at its thickest point and .24 inches at its thinnest. (The MacBook Air measures but .76 inches at its thickest point and .16 at its thinnest.) In real life application, the X340 seems a tad bulkier than specs might reveal because the tapering isn’t as dramatic as the Air’s. But it’s still thin.

The 1.4GHz Core2 Solo processor is quite a bit faster than your average Atom, and its HDMI I/O port and draft n Wi-Fi are a welcome addition to such a tiny machine.

OK, now for the bad stuff.

The keyboard feels dreadful. Not only are the keys…mushy…the center of the keyboard literally bends while you type. It’s frightening to watch and extremely disconcerting as you wonder if they next keypress will greet your fingertips with a charged circuit board.

As for the remainder of the machine, it doesn’t feel much better. The only way to describe the plastic body is “cheap.” Not only does the glossy black finish reveal a strange, flecked iridescence under light, tap on the palm wrests with your knuckle and something about the hollowness of the pitch assures you that it could easily crack under a moderate amount of pressure.
Molding the trackpad into the case…that was a bad idea. The surface simply doesn’t feel lacquered as a working trackpad. Literally, it feels unfinished, like someone on the assembly line went on break instead of gluing on the proper touch sensitive rectangle.

When you hold the Air, it’s an incredible sensation not just because of its size but because of how sturdy it feels at its size. The X340 misses the pleasure of this dichotomy and gives us what I’m willing to wager is the most fragile laptop I’ve ever put my hands on.

Performance
Believe it or not, while the X340 is burdened by Vista’s heavy footprint, it’s quite usable. General navigation seems infinitely faster than running Vista on a true netbook, like the Dell Mini 12. The benchmarks support the fairly fluid experience of the OS.
The X340 is clearly closer to a netbook than the MBA in performance, but that performance gap between netbook and X340 is definitely noticeable in your general day to day experience of loading apps.

The X340’s graphics chip is the Intel GMA X4500MDH. All you really need to know is that this architecture is nowhere near as good as NVIDIA’s 9 series stuff, like the 9400M. And it’s not powerful enough for heavy gaming (the 9400M is already scraping the barrel pretty hard). You can see the two platforms side by side here:

Still, MSI claims that the system can handle smooth 1080P playback. Can it? In a word, no. Neither HD web content (like Vimeo) nor 1080P MPEG4 played back smoothly on the system. The Blu-ray quality MPEG4 probably never broke 15fps.

In reality, the X340 performs up to most of my expectations (since I never believed it could handle 1080P clips anyway). Just don’t expect it to be some sort of dream multimedia machine. In that regard, the X340 is like a netbook on steroids—fine for general use, just not juiced up enough to handle the next tier of graphics-intensive operations.

The battery lasted 1 hour, 43 minutes – ouch*
You could probably stretch the life beyond two hours with a few tweaks, like gimping the processor or squinting at the screen, but if you’re planning on watching a movie during your next flight, it’d better be from the 90-minute Pauly Shore Archives.
*MPEG 4 playback, Wi-Fi on, screen at full brightness, “balanced” performance. You can purchase an 8-cell battery that should hit 3 hours for a bit more weight

The Sad Conclusion
I should be thrilled with the X340. It’s lighter than many netbooks that have smaller screens. While not as tailored as the MacBook Air, hey, it’s damn close. It also runs Vista at a reasonable speed.

The problem is, I just can’t look at this machine, as thin and light as it may be, and feel good about dropping nearly $1000 to make one mine. If the X340 were much cheaper (unlikely) or sturdier (quite feasible), there’s a good chance I’d be thrilled in this review. I just can’t imagine showing this machine off to a friend, or getting extreme satisfaction when pulling it out of a bag. And if I’ve lost those attributes, I might as well settle for a somewhat thin full-blown laptop for less money, or a very light netbook for even less money.

But if you’re looking purely for the lightest way to fit a 13-inch screen into your bag that’s waaayyyy cheaper than the Air, and you only want to use a computer for 1 hour and 34 minutes at a time, then I’m not stopping you.

Extremely light and thin form


Runs Vista adequately


Short battery life


Weak for multimedia applications


Unreasonably poor build quality

[Additional research from Geekbench]

Having just played with a prototype for a few minutes, I’m really impressed with the Zune HD. I’ve got a video, too, showing off how well the animations work.

The device is tighter and more physically beautiful than the iPod Touch and it’s got a better UI, the main menu’s scrolling so natural through the swipe gestures. There’s a little note on the side, under the volume toggle—”Hello from Seattle.” The power button is up top. The home button is nice and prominent, a bar rather than a round button on the Touch. It’s smaller. And the accelerometer is more swift in responding to repositioning; images rotate very fast.

Of course, this thing won’t have hundreds of apps ready for download when it comes out, as the Touch does.

But I would take this in a heartbeat, provided they get around to making a Mac client.