Sponsored
Techradar |
- In Depth: 3D streaming is coming to your smart TV
- Buying Guide: 5 best replacement iPhone and iPod earphones
- Tutorial: How to use the Photoshop clone tool
- Review: Samsung SMT-S7800
- Review: Zotac GeForce GTX 570
| In Depth: 3D streaming is coming to your smart TV Posted: 29 May 2011 01:00 AM PDT When Samsung recently confirmed that it had started streaming 3D content via at app on its Smart Hub platform, it was unexpected - and a touch disappointing. The appearance of the latest 3D blockbusters would have been a genuine game-changer, but the collection of DreamWorks film trailers and other short 3D clips could still give some consumers their first taste of 3D in the home. Movie streaming in 2D is well underway, with most smart TVs from the major manufacturers hosting either Lovefilm or Acetrax - or both - but 3D streaming is only available from Virgin Media's FilmFlex service, and even there it's limited to ten or so 3D movies. Will other brands follow Samsung's example and bring 3D streaming to living rooms? "We do have the capability to do it, but we've not announced services as yet," Steve Lucas, consumer AV & imaging product specialist at Panasonic, confirmed to TechRadar. "The likelihood is that we'll start with a demo channel streamed on Viera Connect with Panasonic-created content." More 'goldfish-in-a-bowl' 3D, then, though it does seem harsh to expect TV manufacturers to broker content rights deals. Actual broadcasting should surely be up to existing movie streaming services such as Lovefilm or Acetrax, the latter of which streams 2D movies on Viera Connect (as does Eurosport for sports news, a broadcaster that now has a 3D channel on Virgin Media). Lucas agrees: "If Acetrax had the streaming rights for streaming in 3D, then we would host it. It's not something that we would go out to secure. We would be reliant on third party suppliers." Technical issues There are, however, a few technical problems that put the brakes on the 3D streaming future. Although at least a third of the UK's 200,000 3D TV owners are signed-up to Sky, the UK's newest 3D host, Virgin Media, could be well poised as it also runs a super-fast fibre optic broadband network. Bandwidth is a major factor in TV manufacturer's indecision over 3D streaming. "A 3D side-by-side format broadcast takes the same space as a regular 2D HD channel," explains Lucas, "so if that's the case for 3D streaming then the TV would cope with it perfectly well." "Frame sequential 3D - a Full HD image to each eye - will be possible in the future when bandwidth speeds are much greater, but today it would be difficult to make sure consumers get a good service that's not interrupted." Lucas points to the BBC iPlayer's 'higher def' service as an example; it's better than SD, but stops short of being HD quality because of bandwidth restrictions.
GROWING PAINS: Samsung's Explore 3D App could be the start of something big, though bandwidth limitations and content rights threaten the 3D streaming future Offering a stable stream and brokering rights deals is the bread and butter of movie streaming companies like Acetrax and Lovefilm, but is the UK's digital infrastructure up to it? "We would need a lot of bandwidth for 3D video on demand," says Leslie Golding, Chief Marketing Officer at Acetrax, "but we would probably do some kind of bandwidth detection, with a 'You can buy this 3D film, but beware' message." Golding also thinks adaptive streaming would be crucial for 3D, so if the bandwidth suddenly reduces, the movie could go 'less 3D' or more grayscale for a few seconds or minutes rather than the movie buffer and stutter. Content and quality But bandwidth, says Golding, is only one part of the jigsaw. "The numbers of 3D TV owners are lower than many expected a year ago," he says, "and while there is some 3D content available from National Geographic and the History Channel, popular 3D movies are much harder to get. Someday there will be a button up there on Acetrax for a 3D version, but at the moment the content owners want to keep hold of it for a 3D Blu-ray disc." "I think 3D streaming is additional to 3D discs," Andy Griffiths, Vice President of consumer electronics at Samsung, told TechRadar. "It's about broadening the access to content, and personalising it. There's space for disc usage and the increasing amount of high definition content that's feeding that on to Blu-ray. Then there's all the different access points in smart TV and new Blu-ray functionality that's beginning this year." Panasonic takes a different tack: it's not about access, but quality - and the latter would certainly suffer if 3D was streamed to TVs. "Panasonic very much supports the Full HD frame sequential system, and that can only be delivered via Blu-ray," says Lucas. "When Panasonic initially proposed the system for delivery for 3D movies we wanted to build a TV that would give you Full HD to each eye, but the broadcast side of things means they can't broadcast Full HD to each eye, so half resolution is the only way. You're not enjoying the ultimate picture quality, but that's always been the case with broadcast vs hard media." For Golding, it's less a problem of bandwidth and picture quality, and more to do with content ownership. "It's not the tech, it's that the rights of the likes of Avatar in 3D are being so carefully guarded, restricted and controlled by the content owners. If they were to make a strategic change we'd see 3D streaming happen very quickly." The first European country to benefit would probably be France, which has faster bandwidth, thinks Golding, but for the moment 3D streaming just isn't economically viable. "We have to give minimum guarantees to the studios - and the truth is that there are simply not enough 3D TVs in the marketplace yet." Lovefilm (which recently expanded its streaming service) also confirmed to us that it had no 3D streaming plans on the horizon, but a 3D video on demand future seems inevitable as broadband speeds increase and 3D TVs slowly spread in to living rooms. In the meantime, most people would be happy with a proper hi-def 2D streaming service. 
| ||
| Buying Guide: 5 best replacement iPhone and iPod earphones Posted: 28 May 2011 05:00 AM PDT Apple called the iPhone "the best iPod we've ever made" when it was launched, and while you'll hear no argument from us, it's nevertheless ironic that the company that has so completely reinvented the music industry ships headphones with its iPods, iPhones and iPads that are mediocre at best. You're really not letting your music shine if you stick with Apple's standard white earbuds, and their leaky sound is likely to turn fellow passengers on public transport against you. In this group test, we've selected five 'step up' earphones - models that you should consider if you want to get more from the music, movies and podcasts on your device. Even better: we've selected those that aren't especially expensive. Whether you've received an iPhone, iPad or iPod touch for Christmas, your notoriously delicate white Apple buds have broken for the umpteenth time, or maybe you just want to upgrade your sound, we'll tell you which of these five sets is right for you. We've lived with these headphones for weeks, playing a huge range of music at different bitrates - including lossless - and when we came to grade the audio performance, we sat down in a quiet room with a carefully selected playlist of eight tracks, each representing a particular musical genre or demonstrating a specific audio characteristic, such as stereo separation. In testing their abilities as handsfree kits, we set up a controlled environment with loud ambient white noise - a stereo playback of a stream and some other nature noises - and made several calls over a normal phone line for the most useful real-world testing scenario. So join us: ditch your buds and step up to one of these sets. Your albums deserve it! How we selected… While we set a rough budget, the selection here was more about picking headphones that offered a significant step up in quality. One note: the Apple headphones in this group test are not the ones that come in the box and are £26 on the Apple Store; they're the fancier, dual-driver models. Apple In-Ear Headphones - £44
Denon AH-C260R - £37
Etymotic mc3 - £70
Sennheiser MM 70i - £55
Shure SE115m+ - £83
Test one: Playing music
Predictably, the most expensive headphones here gave the best results when judged on audio quality alone. Shure defaults to fitting its headphones with slightly unusual foam earbuds. They make putting them on a bit of a palaver - you have to roll the foam between your fingers to compress it before holding them in place in your ears to let the foam expand - but it's worth it. The foam provides excellent sound isolation, blocking out most ambient sound, and letting the gorgeous audio shine. Bass is powerful and dense, but it doesn't overwhelm the mid or treble, and vocals float right on top of the instruments. Listening to layered, complex tracks is a joy because you can shift your attention easily to listen to each part of the track. Truly, these are stellar earphones, and genuinely not overpriced at £83. You don't, however, have to spend that kind of cash to get good audio. Even Apple's In-Ear Heaphones, almost half the price of the model from Shure, really impressed us. Different parts of a track - different frequencies in the audio - aren't as crisply defined as with the Shures, but they still deliver rich sound that's a significant step up from the white earbuds that Apple supplies with its devices. The bass is a little muffled and the treble a little tinny, but for £44, they're great value. The same, however, can't be said for Denon's AH-C260R; despite being initially impressed when we first plugged them in and just used them casually, when we sat down to really concentrate on the audio, it became clear that £37 wasn't buying you an awful lot. They're not actively bad, and if you were to ditch your bundled buds for these, you'd be blown away (at least initially) by the huge, bombastic bass - but that's pretty much all they're good for. Frequencies are a little muddled and the treble feels unpleasantly sharp; great, then, for dance or R&B, but not for much else. We were happier with the Sennheisers. Though we were wary of their cables' flimsiness, they actually belted out some terrific sound; very loud, with a lovely warm, saturated tone that made acoustic, vocal-heavy tracks sound wonderful. Note, however, that what Sennheiser has apparently done here is to trade fidelity for impact; our familiar test music sounded great, but not quite as it should. Instead, it was as if someone had applied a fresh coat of varnish to an old master; sure, the colours are more vibrant, but it's not what it's 'supposed' to look like. Etymotic's mc3s are quite the opposite. While to some ears the sound they produce is a little clinical, they are actually exceptionally good at reproducing music. This kind of dispassionate, efficient playback might not be to everyone's taste, but we love it, and when we came to grab a set from the five draped on the desk, we found ourselves reaching for Etymotic's earphones time and again. Results Apple In-Ear Headphones - 4/5 Test two: Making calls
All sets have a microphone built into the little in-line remote, so they can be used as handsfree kits to make and receive calls, and, on devices that support it, interact with the phone using Voice Control. A black mark immediately against the model from Denon, then, since positioning the mic/remote where the left and right earphones meet - below your sternum - means that it can't be used hands-free at all; you have to hold the mic up to your mouth. The very best results were from Etymotic's mc3s; our voice was picked up clearly - even having a decent stab at isolating it from ambient noise - and, unlike with the Shures' very snug foam earbuds, the nature of the seal didn't mean that your own voice echoes around your head. There were no strong disappointments. Results Apple In-Ear Headphones - 4/5 Test three: Design and features
Sometimes, it's the simplest things that remind us why we love Apple's industrial design. Take, for example, the case in which you can store your Apple In-Ear Headphones; it looks simple enough - a two-part plastic triangle with soft, rounded corners - but it's almost irritatingly well designed. Slot the headphones into the middle and begin to wrap the cable around the perimeter, and you'll notice that bumps on the cable - the mic/remote, the bit where the two cables join - always fall along one of the edges of the triangular case, and never try to fold around the corners. Apple's discreet remote is also the best of the bunch - the huge carbuncle on the Shures' cable is ungainly, and it's actually surprisingly hard to differentiate the buttons by touch alone. Most of the others just include a pouch or case into which you can loosely coil the cables. Sennheiser at least includes a rubbery thing you're supposed to wrap the cables around, but for the life of us we can't figure out how it's supposed to work; it's like one of those Christmas cracker puzzles. (Sennheiser, by the way, is the only manufacturer here to opt for asymmetrical cables, where you insert the earbud with the shorter cable into your left ear and bring the longer right cable around the back of your neck. Whether or not you like this system is very much a matter of taste.) Denon gets a smack on the wrists for positioning its remote so low down on the cable. Not only does this mean that you have to bother to bring it up to your mouth if you want to use the mic - it will pick up sound when dangling, but not well enough for your caller - but if you're in the habit of threading the cable neatly under your clothes, the remote buttons will be covered up. The models from Denon and Sennheiser have worryingly slim cables; treat with care. As well as a range of excellent eartips in the Etymotics' box, you can have custommoulded earbuds made. Results Apple In-Ear Headphones - 5/5 And the winner is... Etymotic mc3 £70
With this group test, happily, our job is pretty easy. The decision on which set to buy comes mostly down to how much money you have to spend. If you're feeling flush, then Shure's SE115m+ set is unmatched here if you're judging on straight music playback alone. There's something that happens when you get towards the £100 mark that makes expensive headphones sound not just better than their cheaper brethren, but actively different to them. You begin to listen to old favourite tracks in a new way, and discover subtleties - even entirely new instruments - in albums you thought you knew inside-out. The problem with the Shures, however, is that they're not especially good at the other stuff; the big remote is ungainly, and the foam earbuds, so great for music, mean your voice echoes distractingly inside your head when using it as a handsfree kit. If, on the other hand, your budget is stretched, Apple's own In-Ear Headphones are actually a terrific step up from the white earbuds that come bundled with iPhones, iPads and iPod touches. They're great value, sound genuinely accomplished, and are without doubt the best designed earphones in this group test. It's not just that they look smart - and, for hardcore Apple fans, that they mean you can still have white Apple earbuds discreetly announcing your brand loyalty - but that even such a simple thing as the case shows Apple's astonishing attention to detail. These earphones are so good that they've replaced Sennheiser's MM50 iP earphones in the Tap! Top 10. Ultimately, though, the best balance of price and overall performance here comes from Etymotic. Again: these are not the headphones for you if you love thumping great gouts of meaty bass, but if your taste is more refined, the mc3s are absolutely superb. It's not just in playback that they impress, however; they're great for making/taking handsfree calls, and the standard 'mini Christmas tree'-style tips mean that they fit snugly and comfortably in your ears. Even if you wear them when running, you're unlikely to dislodge them. Plus, if you want to boost the fit even more - and so improve sound by creating an even better seal - you can opt to have custom moulds made for your ears. 
| ||
| Tutorial: How to use the Photoshop clone tool Posted: 28 May 2011 03:00 AM PDT Almost since the concept of composition was first introduced, photographers have found all kinds of ways to get it wrong. Lamp posts growing out of people's heads, dust spots on film, and people's legs walking into or out of a frame can all conspire to ruin an otherwise great shot. Luckily, the ability to remove these objects from photos is almost as old as the medium itself, and as is the case with most aspects of photography, the digital practice is unbelievably easy. It's known as cloning, because you're copying and pasting an area of your photograph over the top of another, effectively deleting an object from a photo. The uses are myriad. Have you ever taken an otherwise perfect landscape photo with an articulated lorry on a distant road? Cloning can remove it. Is there another photographer in the background ruining your shot of a zoo animal? A quick wave of the cloning tool can make it look as if you were the only one there. Cloning needs to be done with finesse, though. Although recent versions of popular editing software like Photoshop Elements and GIMP have made cloning easier, it's increasingly tempting to reach for the clone tool at the drop of a hat, when what you actually need is the lightest of touches. Read on the find out how to make distracting elements of your shots invisible, invisibly. Choosing your shot As with most photo-editing techniques, you shouldn't view the clone tool as a magical implement that can clear up even the most cluttered backgrounds. For example, you need to remember that any object you remove has to be replaced with nearby detail. The sharper that detail is, the harder it will be to invisibly transplant over the top of an unwanted object. You may find that removing a significantly sized feature - a person standing in front of a church, for example - may be impossible without making it obvious that you've been tinkering. Also remember that if there's lots of detail behind the object you're getting rid of, you'll effectively have to re-draw that hidden detail by hand - a stern test of your artistic abilities.
CHOOSE WISELY: Although the cars ruin this image, removing them with a clone brush is impossible - the parts to be removed outweigh the usable bits of the photo Instead, the clone tool is best used to correct images that only need relatively small objects and features removed to perfect them - the larger the object, the more work you'll be making for yourself. The clone tool The clone tool is only available in relatively heavy-duty editing software. This isn't, for example, something you can do with free software like Picnik, the online photo editor, or even the often surprisingly powerful Google Picasa. Instead, you'll need what's known as a per-pixel image editor. Some editors, including earlier versions of Lightroom and Picasa, only let you make wholesale changes to your images, rather than giving you the ability to edit highly specific bits of them. You need to be extremely precise when using the clone tool - you don't necessarily need to be able to zoom your image to 100 per cent and work on individual pixels, but you still need a piece of software that will give you a reasonable amount of flexibility and power. Pick your software There are several options to consider. If you haven't already committed to a piece of software, we continue to recommend Adobe's Photoshop Elements 9 (£60), which offers a good blend of editing power and library tools. Don't worry if you've spent money elsewhere, though - the likes of PaintShop Pro (£44) and Serif's PhotoPlus X4 (£60) also offer cloning. Alternatively, if you'd rather save some cash, GIMP is open source, totally free and very powerful, as long as you can put up with what we'll call 'usability quirks'. When you use the clone brush, you'll be working at very close quarters with your image, which makes it easy to lose track of precisely what you're doing, or what your efforts will look like once you're done. With that in mind, it's important to constantly check your work by zooming out of your image and making sure that the cloning you're doing is going to end up being invisible. Once you've got the hang of the clone brush, there are a few tips that will speed you along and reduce the chance of you making any serious mistakes. Firstly, remember that [Ctrl]+[Z] (the Undo command) is your friend. If you make a clumsy brushstroke, always use Undo rather than trying to correct your mistake by ploughing on. You can ensure your final image's quality is as good as possible by opening the original, then saving it as a lossless format, like TIF or PSD. Saving a JPG multiple times results in a loss of image quality - bad news, since you'll want to save your progress frequently when working on an image to minimise the loss if your software crashes. Working on a lossless copy also guarantees that no matter how big a mess you make, your original file will remain safe. How it works At its heart, the clone brush is fairly simple. To begin, you assign a point from which the brush should copy. When you click and drag the brush, the area you pre-selected is copied and pasted over the top of the other area. It's like selecting an area of your image and dragging it over the part you want to remove. However, there's a huge amount of flexibility, which gives the clone brush its power. The ability to change brush sizes from very small to very large means you can work on all manner of objects, from telegraph wires to people. You can also "feather" the clone brush - that is, soften the brush's edge to make it less obvious that you've worked on your image. There are pitfalls to beware of when you're using the clone tool. Making multiple brushstrokes - particularly when you're sampling from the same place with every click of the mouse - is a sure way to introduce a new and obviously fake texture into your image. This is because you're essentially copying and pasting the same small area of the image again and again. Follow the walkthrough below to find out how to get a smooth, unnoticeable effect. Use the clone brush to remove distractions from your photos 1. Select the Clone Stamp tool
This image of a pair of deer locking antlers is perfectly focused, well exposed and shows a great bit of natural behaviour. If only it weren't for the jarring passers-by in the background. With the image converted to PSD format, select the Clone Stamp tool by pressing [S]. The square bracket keys are also handy for getting the brush size right without moving the mouse pointer. 2. Get a closer look
Now we'll use the [Z] key to select the Magnifying Glass tool, and click to drag it around the main areas we want to clone. You can zoom back out of your image using [Ctrl]+[0]. Alternatively, [Ctrl] and the [+] or [-] symbols will progressively zoom into or out of your shot. You should check that your work is effective - and difficult to spot - at every step, as mistakes caught early are easiest to fix. 3. Align your stamp
There are a few options on the Clone Stamp toolbar. The one to keep an eye on now is the 'Aligned' option. If the box is checked, your selected clone point will change relative to the position of the mouse pointer when you begin your brush stroke. If it's clear, the place you choose to clone from will remain in the same place. Your choice here will depend on the job at hand; for now we'll select 'Aligned'. 4. Resize the cursor
Press [Alt] and the cursor will change into a crosshair - clicking on your image will determine which part of the shot is cloned. In this case we want to clone the blurred greenery over the top of the person. The next step is choosing the right cursor size - we'll go for something around two-thirds the width of the object we're painting over, which gives a good balance between speed and accuracy. 5. Start cloning
Removing objects is as easy as clicking and dragging over the object to remove - the clone stamp will recreate detail from your chosen area. A steady hand and attention to detail will go a long way here - check your work after every stage to make sure you haven't inadvertently created a new feature that looks even worse than before. For fiddly bits, stop work and reduce the size of the cursor for more precision. 6. More challenging shots
This was a fairly simple case - the background we were using was out of focus, so there was no need to be particularly careful about which bits we used as clone points. If the background had been in focus, it would have been important to make sure we weren't replicating big areas of detail. The basics are the same - just be prepared to spend more time if you're handling more detailed images. 
| ||
| Posted: 28 May 2011 03:00 AM PDT Samsung has thrown its hat in the Freesat receiver ring with the SMT-S7800 500GB PVR. The new Freesat G2 specification will bring, at some unspecified time, further integration of broadcast and broadband delivered programming. Samsung sees no need for delay here in delivering a twin-tuner PVR with a sprinkling of its Smart TV magic, saying that when G2 boxes become commercially available it will issue a software update. First impressions of the SMT-S7800 are that it looks as attractive as Humax's benchmark-setting Foxsat-HDR. The spec looks an equal match too. Build and connectivity
Design-wise, the front panel is heavily populated with 11 touch-operated controls, a 12-character LED display, and a USB. Despite the hive of activity, the fascia exudes an air of confidence and quality. A peek round the back past a side-mounted CI+ slot (useful if Freesat ever offers pay-TV) reveals a pair of LNB inputs (but no loopthrough), an Ethernet input and another USB, which can be used with an optional Wi-Fi adapter. Outputs include an optical S/PDIF and an HDMI, which can pump out 1080p upscaled images should you have no faith in your screen's built-in scaler.
Under the hood is a 500GB hard disc, enough for 120 hours of HD recording or 250 in standard definition. You can also copy media from a USB drive. The full-size remote control doesn't match the box's attractive looks but it feels good in the hand and is sensibly laid out with decent-sized and nicely responsive buttons. The PVR functionality is strictly Freesat-only with no option for recording other channels/satellites, but at least this means setting it up is child's play. Setup Choose the language, screen ratio, display format and resolution, enter your postcode and after a visual display of the signal strength, you start scanning. The GUI is a visual delight – the fonts and graphics are reassuringly up to date, and if you press the main Menu button which provides access to Guide, Channel, Library, Media, Samsung WebTV and the Settings sub-menus each icon bobs up and down when highlighted and does a nifty 360° spin when selected. A separate mode (barely mentioned in the manual) caters for non-Freesat channels. You can scroll through the various satellites and scan manually, changing the frequency, polarity, symbol rate, and broadcasting format (DVB-S or DVB-S2 for SD and HD). There's no DiSEqC switch or motor control. In the setting menu there are options to select the sound output for both HDMI and the S/PDIF. The default setting is PCM but the box can output Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus if it receives it or DTS if it detects HE AAC. Audio description and audio delay are also to hand. Basic use
The three-quarter screen EPG is standard Freesat stuff, but well executed and can display 13 genre options including all channels and favourites. Eight channels are shown over a one, two or four-hour period with info about HD alternatives displayed and subtitles and series recording supported. BBC iPlayer (non-HD, sadly) and the forthcoming ITV Player are listed as channels 901 and 903 respectively, rather than falling into a separate portal. Pressing OK on the remote brings up a list of channels overlaid on the left side of the screen. From here you can scroll left and right through the genres or up and down through the channels and create and edit Favourite lists. It's all slick and intuitive. Non-Freesat channels can be picked from a separate list and also viewed in an EPG. PVR and multimedia
For timeshifting the box has a maximum 120-minute cache with the usual pause, rewind and fast-forward features up to 64x normal speed. Slo-mo options include 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 and 1/25 normal and dedicated keys on the remote let you create bookmarks, leap back 15 seconds or shoot forward by 60 seconds instantly. The receiver also lets you schedule a recording from the information banner, the TV guide or the Search menu. A red icon appears as a reminder in the info banner and channel list. Oddly, there is no padding or manual timer option. Smart TV sadly only consists of YouTube, albeit an impressive implementation. Multimedia playback (from USB attached, internal drives or DLNA-networked storage) is good where it works but file compatibility is severely limited, and the only DLNA-product ours would recognise was a Windows PC. Performance Aside from a bug that made five additional one-second recordings at the start of each scheduled recording, the SMT-7800 performs superbly. Some SD channels are rather too soft but on HD channels the quality of live, timeshifted and scheduled broadcasts is excellent. Verdict Humax should be flattered – the Samsung SMT- 7800 is uncannily similar in terms of its spec, design, price and performance. There are a few slight differences such as flexible satellite tuning and recording trimming on the Humax, plus the Foxsat-HDR is available as a much more aff ordable 320GB option. What should be the killer difference in the SMT-7800's favour is its internet TV selection and networking, but the sole presence of YouTube almost beggars belief, while the poor DLNA implementation is another example of unfulfilled potential. Absent features aside, the SMT-7800 delivers where it counts as a Freesat PVR. Setting up and using the box is a nonsense-free experience and the contemporary-looking menu system inspires confidence. And there are nice touches, such as quick messages about background recordings that make it a real pleasure to use. 
| ||
| Posted: 28 May 2011 02:30 AM PDT The Zotac GTX 570 is the daddy in graphics cards terms. At a chunk under £300 it's a card that will more than likely take up most of your upgrade budget, so is it worth that outlay on a single component? Well, as we've seen before the answer is not that easy. Dropping in the fastest, most expensive GPU is not always the magic pill to deliver instant frame rate bonuses for your favourite games. But this GF 110-powered graphics card is a quite excellent example of just why the Fermi architecture is so good, especially in this second generation of Nvidia's GPU. Despite the naming conventions this is not really a direct replacement for the GTX 470 from the previous generation, it's actually got far more in common with the top-card of that line, the GTX 480. Tweaked GPU It carries the same number of CUDA cores and texture units and only drops 8 ROPs compared with that gaming behemoth. Thanks to a transistor-level tweak of the Fermi architecture Nvidia was able to drop operating power-draw and heat production, meaning it could open up far more of the full Fermi GPU for the GTX 5xx series. So as well as being quieter, cooler and less power hungry, this latest line up of Nvidia cards are also significantly quicker. And that's definitely no mean feat of engineering. Despite the difference in price between the GTX 570 and the AMD HD 6950 there isn't a huge gulf in performance between them when you take the CPU out of the equation. Indeed, as we mentioned before, when it comes to the serious work of DirectX 11 tessellation in Metro 2033, the HD 6950 actually scales much better in terms of resolution compared with the GTX 570. When we're talking about upgrades though we always have to keep the CPU in the equation and that's where things get really interesting. On the Intel side the Nvidia architecture seems to favour its processors; scaling much better than competing AMD graphics cards. With AMD graphics cards on an AMD setup there is actually very little difference in the GPU's performance as you swap in faster, more powerful CPUs. With the Nvidia cards though they rely much more on the CPUs performance for their own speed. The Nvidia-favouring DiRT 2 benchmarks aside, the HD 6950 is just as capable as the more expensive GTX 570 with high-performance AMD CPUs and far better at coping with lower-end processors in general. So in the end it comes down to your platform choice. If you want the fastest frame rates on an Intel rig then Nvidia cards will generally deliver the performance you expect, and on an AMD setup pairing up its CPUs and GPUs is the way to go. Makes sense really. 
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from techradar To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment