Sep 09 2010

Review: Intel Core i5 760

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 4:00 am

Speedier performance for more or less the same money is always welcome. That’s exactly what you get from the new Intel Core i5 760. In almost every regard, it’s identical to the existing Core i5 750 processor.

It’s therefore a quad-core chip based on Intel’s 45nm Nehalem processor architecture. What it does offer, however, is a speed bump from 2.66GHz to 2.8GHz. Not exactly a spectacular explosion in performance, we admit. But then Intel is only asking for an extra fiver.

In any case, even after a year on sale, the Core i5 750 is still an excellent all round performer. The slightly quicker Core i5 760 is only going to be better. The only snag is the arrival of AMD’s new Phenom II X6 1055T beast. Six cores for a similar £150 or so price tag is awfully hard to resist.

Fire up any of Intel’s Core i5 processors and you’ll be greeted by four little green graphs in Windows Task Manager. That indicates the presence of four logical processors and therefore support for crunching a quartet of software threads in parallel.

But not all logical processors are equal. Intel’s Core i5 600 series chips are actually dual-core models that support two threads per core thanks to HyperThreading. Core i5 700 series CPUs lack HyperThreading. Instead, you get four bona fide execution cores and one helluva lot more performance. Effective as HyperThreading is, it’s no substitute for a real processor core.

Despite a relatively modest 2.8GHz stock clockspeed, it’s therefore no surprise to find the Intel Core i5 760 flattens the Core i5 661 and Core i5 655K in literally every performance benchmark. You have to wonder why anyone would want to pay more for one of those Core i5 600 series chips. Intel would no doubt justify the price premium by pointing to the Core i5 600′s integrated graphics.

Anyway, a much tougher nut for the Core i5 760 to crack is AMD’s new six-core processor. The Phenom II X6 1055T is actually slightly cheaper despite giving the Core i5 760 a pretty solid schooling in our multi-threading tests. As ever, however, the 760 hits back with awesome gaming performance. It also shows the Phenom chip who’s boss in our file decompression test.

It’s also disappointing to find the new 760 does not appear to offer any additional overclocking headroom. In our testing, the older Core i5 750 actually hits higher frequencies.

We liked:

If you fancy four cores for the price of two, it’s hard to argue against the Core i5 760. It’s cheaper than many of Intel’s latest dual-core processors and hammers them for all round performance. At this price point, it’s also the finest gaming CPU on the market.

We disliked:

Intel has a nasty habit of artificially hobbling some of its mainstream processors. So it is for the Core i5 760. By switching off HyperThreading, Intel has compromised the 760′s performance in highly threaded applications such as video encoding and handed the advantage to AMD’s similarly priced six-core Phenom II X6 1055T. Shame.

Verdict:

Replaces the Core i5 750 as our favourite gaming chip. No HyperThreading is a bit of a bummer.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links


Sep 08 2010

Review: Sharp LC-32DH510E

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 10:00 pm

At just £430 in shops – or as little as £300 if you dig about online – you don’t have to look very hard for the potential appeal of the Sharp LC-32DH510E.

It sits towards the bottom of Sharp’s current output, a large step below the flagship, LED-lit and Quattron-driven LE821/LE811 ranges.

With its normal CCFL backlight, the LC32DH510E also sits underneath the LED-powered 32LE320E, while its HD ready resolution puts it beneath the 1080p LC-32FH510E in the overall pecking order.

The price-busting ethic is all too apparent in the TV’s design. Viewed straight on, from distance, it doesn’t look too bad, with its glossy black finish and reasonably attractive little arc of grey in the middle of the bottom edge. However, get up close and the finish starts to look and feel plasticky and lightweight.

The backside, meanwhile, sticks out a mile and suffers from bits bulging out all over the place in seemingly random fashion.

While the 32DH510E isn’t going to win any design awards, it does have one or two surprising features up its sleeve.

Sharp lc-32dh501e 1

The 32DH510E’s features appear to be a rather eccentric mix at first glance, but the longer you live with them, the more sense they make.

To start with the bad news, though, the set is painfully short of picture fine-tuning tools. The menu just offers a tint adjustment, noise reduction options, a colour temperature adjustment, a backlight adjustment, a small selection of predictable picture presets, and bog-standard contrast, colour, brightness and sharpness options.

You might not expect many sophisticated tweaking options on a budget TV, but the extreme flexibility offered by some of Toshiba’s recent budget offerings show you what’s possible.

The 32DH510E doesn’t have much to say for itself in terms of picture processing, either. In fact, there really doesn’t seem to be anything of note beyond the simple work entailed in converting standard-definition material to the screen’s HD Ready resolution.

Another disappointment is the 32DH510E’s lack of a Freeview HD tuner, although standard-def terrestrial reception is all you might reasonably expect at this price.

Good EPG

Things start to look up a little with the electronic programme guide. This is well presented, with clean text and a solid – if uninspiring – amount of information presented onscreen at once.

It’s great, too, that the picture from the programme you were watching when you pressed the EPG button continues to play in the top left corner. The only disappointment is that you can only set viewing reminders from the guide, rather than selecting programmes to record.

Record? That’s right. For in a move we really didn’t expect from such a cheap TV, the 32DH510E carries timeshifting via USB. In other words, if you stick a storage drive (minimum 1GB) into the TV’s USB port, the set can record the programme you’re watching to it.

This function takes two forms: straightforward pausing of live TV that starts when you press the relevant button on the remote, or an ‘always’ mode that continually records the channel you’re watching, dumping the recording and starting again when you switch channel and just deleting the oldest parts of recordings on the fly when you hit the capacity of your USB drive.

This system works rather well, accepting the majority of USB drives we tried it with and recording programmes immaculately. This result is really no surprise, since the recording system simply stores the direct digital bitstream carrying the channel data, so there’s not really any room for quality to be lost.

USB capability

The last surprising feature of the 32DH510E is also connected with its USB port. For it can play a startlingly wide variety of multimedia files: JPEG, BMP and PNG photo files; MP3, AAC, PCM (.WAV) audio files; and most unexpectedly of all, MPEG 1/2/4, H.264, DivX and XviD video files.

Connections-wise, tthere are a couple of Scarts (one RGB), a component video input, a digital audio output, a headphone jack, a composite video input and two HDMIs. The latter is a bit disappointing, perhaps, but is in line with many other sets at this sort of price. More frustrating is the absence of a D-Sub VGA port

Let’s now go back to the point we made at the start of this section, that the 32DH510E’s slightly odd mix of features actually makes sense in the end. For given its low price, it could very well find itself as a second-room TV rather than a main living room TV.

And in that context, it appears eminently sensible to focus on practical multimedia capability and an easy recording system ahead of stuff like an HD tuner and endless picture processing/tweaks.

Sharp lc-32dh501e 2

Our first experience of using the 32DH510E is, of course, its remote control. First impressions of this are mixed, as a rather crowded look and cheapo finish are offset by a comfortable and attractive, rounded-off shape and a bold black and white colour scheme.

Extended use reveals it to be an average tool that’s good when it comes to navigating the onscreen menus, but less intuitive and easy to learn when it comes to such things as selecting different AV inputs, calling up the EPG and using teletext.

The TV goes into auto install mode when you first switch it on and you’ll be surprised by how attractively presented and straightforward this process is. It only really lets you set up language, auto-tuning and whether you want to run it in shop or home mode, but it certainly sets an inviting early tone.

This continues, even arguably improving, when you head into the proper onscreen menus. They’re also bright, colourful and clean, and feature a nifty circle of icons that cycle around when you push left and right on the remote, with each icon bringing up a different list of options.

It doesn’t harm the 32DH510E’s ease of use that there aren’t that many features in the onscreen menus to have to find your way around.

The 32DH510′s multimedia features offer the only potential point of confusion, but they’re mostly well handled. The only daft thing is the random button used to activate the USB recording feature, making us think that Sharp hasn’t bothered to come up with a dedicated remote control for the 32DH510E, instead merely adapting a more generic model.

Sharp lc-32dh501e 3

Bright and breezy daytime HD broadcasts look refreshingly natural. The lack of any heavy-duty processing gives them a pleasing, almost CRT-like simplicity, although longer viewing reveals a few issues that some healthy processing might have been able to improve.

The screen also pumps out more brightness than many affordable 32in/26in CCFL LCD TVs, which gives the impression during predominantly light, colourful sequences that the picture is pretty dynamic.

High-def material looks sharper and more textured than you might expect from a non-1080p TV, revealing all those tell-tale little bits and bobs like skin pores and the weave in clothing. Or at least this is the case if you turn off the set’s noise reduction tool.

Shifting from HD studio and sports footage to Blu-rays in some ways makes us feel even better disposed towards the 32DH510E. The sharpness seems even more defined, despite the set having to downscale full HD feeds to its 1,366 x 768-pixel resolution; pictures still look punchy and detailed, colours look bright and motion is handled well without any obvious processing to help it out.

Black level

However, Blu-rays also allow us to home in on a couple of notable shortcomings. The set’s black level response, for instance, is pretty underwhelming, in that dark parts of the picture look rather grey and lifeless, even if you ramp down the TV’s backlight setting.

Having spotted this, we also couldn’t resist shifting our viewing position to the TV’s side, and low and behold, the familiar (with LCD TVs) fairly dramatic loss in contrast and colour soon materialised.

The other problem concerns colours. For despite the picture being quite good at pushing brightness, hue can look unconvincingly anaemic.

A lesser but still noteworthy issue during some Blu-rays is that the 32DH510E’s pictures are a touch noisy. It’s hard to pinpoint the cause of this, but one contributing factor seems to be that the way the screen over-brightens dark parts of the picture is causing it to emphasise digital noise that would normally be lost in darkness.

Oddly, for a screen with a slightly lower native resolution than most TVs we see, the 32DH510E’s standard def performance is one of the more disappointing we’ve seen for a while. Noise levels are quite high, and there’s noticeably more motion blur on show – something we guess was probably inevitable given the screen’s lack of such processing options as 100Hz.

This can result in standard definition pictures also looking slightly softer than they might, and flesh tones looking a bit waxy and the overall palette seems even weedier.

Sharp lc-32dh501e 4

The set’s big bottom does not, sadly, help the audio performance. Bass is just as lacking as it is on more slender flatscreens, the mid-range is rather thin and cramped and treble tones are harsh.

It’s not bad, as such, for a 32in set, it’s just disappointingly average.

Value

We’d hoped that the 32DH510E’s reasonably affordable price might be the first step towards it being a real bargain.

But by the time you’ve taken the average looks, inconsistent pictures and par-for-the-course sound into account, the price seems merely fair, rather than remarkable.

Sharp lc-32dh501e 5

With Sharp having proved that it’s still got innovation in its heart with its Quattron TV range earlier this year, we had high hopes for the brand’s 32DH510E, despite it residing in the lower reaches of the brand’s latest TV range.

It doesn’t get off to the best of starts thanks to its rather old-school and cheap design, but it’s passably well connected and the onscreen menus are exceptionally engaging.

We applaud Sharp, too, for building USB video recording and expansive USB multimedia playback into a relatively affordable TV (an ideal feature for the second-room market).

However, while pictures occasionally look attractive and natural with the right sort of bright, colourful, HD material, they’re rather patchy overall, thanks to sporadic noise, colour and motion-handling problems, while sound is no better than average at best

We liked:

The set is reasonably affordable for what’s on offer, and the USB recording is a great feature that works well once you’ve learned the rather obscure button you need to press to start recording!

The file flexibility of the USB playback feature is good, meanwhile, and pictures look natural and unprocessed; brightness levels are high; and HD pictures can look very sharp and detailed.

We disliked:

The set’s build quality is unimpressive, with one of the biggest and ugliest back ends you’ll ever see. We wouldn’t have minded a third HDMI either and there’s no D-Sub PC jack.

On the picture side, with precious few adjustments on offer to help us out we were left unable to tackle a few inconsistencies, such as washed out and sometimes off-key colours, black level shortcomings, and a below-par standard def performance.

Verdict:

If you’re in the market for a second room TV that goes big on multimedia convenience and enables you to record video without needing an external box, then the 32DH510E is almost uniquely well qualified to do the job.

However, don’t expect these convenience features to be accompanied by any state-of-the-art performance. In fact, while pictures have their moments, there are times when they feel quite dated in the colour and motion departments, especially with standard definition sources. And Sharp has provided next to no tools for you to attempt to improve things.

Its sound is absolutely as average as that of most other budget 32in TVs in town too. In other words, it’s a TV that seems to have chosen practicality over performance a little too one-sidedly for comfort.

The 32DH510E might have counted as a decent effort from a B-list brand, but classes as something of a disappointment from a top-flight manufacturer.

Related Links


Sep 08 2010

Review: Mark Levinson No.326S Pre-amplifier

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 4:01 pm

What better time than the new era of austerity for us to discover how much difference a really good pre-amplifier can make to an already impressive high-end system. Mark Levinson was one of the first to build seriously engineered high-end amplifiers. We don’t mean excessively large or massively powerful, although it was ahead of the power game, we mean Rolls Royce or SME-style build quality.

It’s unusual for us to review a pre-amplifier on its own, but the new No.326S is such a phenomenal sounding piece of equipment that we had to tell you about it.

In truth, this product has rearranged our notion of what really counts in a high-end system and that doesn’t happen very often.

Steel shield

At present, the No.326S is the only pre-amplifier in the Mark Levinson range, which seems a little incongruous in the context of its power amps which top out at £40K (for a pair of No.53 monoblocks), a matching reference preamp is on the way to plug that gap, but this compact beast is probably up to the job.

It has been painstakingly designed to keep all forms of noise away from the power supply and hence the audio signal itself.

This is achieved with shielding in the form of steel boxes encasing both signal processing circuitry and the power supply itself. It is dual-mono right back to the mains transformer – there are two of these, but not for each channel – one is for the control circuitry.

Internally it’s separated into three sections: power supply, signal processing and control circuitry. Incoming AC is heavily filtered using noise suppression and isolation techniques of the variety usually found in external power filters, all of which is designed to keep the signal as clean as possible.

Mark levinson no.326s preamp internal

The PCB itself is made of Nelco, which replaces Arlon in the previous incarnation and is said to have even better dielectric (insulating) properties. In practical terms, it’s an extremely flexible workhorse, with seven inputs in both balanced and single-ended varieties and for each of these you can set the gain and dial-in a name of your choice, so long as it doesn’t exceed seven characters.

What’s more, doing so is remarkably intuitive and we managed it without a manual (all too often extra facilities means extra complication, but with the dot-matrix display this preamp is as easy to use as it is to enjoy, well almost).

Another very nice touch is the way that the volume is faded down and then up when changing inputs, which gives you a few microseconds to switch back if the next source is too loud. Of course, if you’ve set input gain properly this shouldn’t happen too often, but there are always rogue recordings with silly levels.

Volume is indicated in tenths of a decibel (above 23dB, 1dB increments below that) which seems a little bit on the fine side – it makes changing level with the remote a bit slow – but these steps come into their own at the top and bottom of the range where small increments are more useful.

If you want to reduce volume quickly the mute button is the best bet, especially as you can dial in just how much attenuation you want.

There are two volume attenuators inside the box, one for each channel, continuing the dual-mono theme. Useful features include a mono setting for older recordings – the Beatles mono box set sounds significantly better than its stereo counterpart for instance – and polarity or phase inversion, both available on the remote handset.

Extra miles

The supplied remote is a comfy lump with a rubber pad on the underside so that it doesn’t slip off the sofa, plus it has a reassuringly heavy build that exudes nearly as much quality as the unit itself.

But not quite, there is something about the quality of metalwork, fit and finish of Mark Levinson products that puts them at the top of the tree. Maybe it’s because they were among the first to go the extra mile in this department, but whatever it is, it’s certainly reassuring when you are being asked to shell out the readies.

Everything from the matte-finished buttons and knobs to the anodised metalwork of the chassis exudes quality and durability. The RCA phono sockets are made to M-L’s design and are a shade smaller than usual, which is very nice when you have extremely tight-fitting plugs to deal with, as is often the case with high-end cables.

Mark levinson n0.326s preamp rear

In terms of value, the No.326S looks pretty strong, it’s very expensive granted, but it is built with utmost attention to detail by a company with a track record for making some of the best amplifiers in the business. Bowers & Wilkins does all its listening and tuning using a pair of Mark Levinson No.33 monoblocks and has been doing so for years.

Wonder drug

Our first impression with this preamp was not necessarily positive, because it seems to remove all the edges from the sound, smoothing things out and giving the impression of reduced detail.

But it’s not very long before it becomes apparent, that what has been removed is hash in the high frequencies, essentially noise that most amplifiers add to the signal in such a subtle way that it seems like part of the music, but once it’s taken away the amount of musical and spatial detail that comes through is nothing short of astonishing.

It’s not just audiophilia either, by which we mean it’s more than sound effects like sparkly highs or bone-crunching lows against an ‘inky black’ background. It’s more of the notes, more of the acoustic, more of the production and more of the music.

It’s surprising that any one component can do all this, let alone the one that changes the volume, yet this is clearly a very difficult thing to do really well otherwise the No.326S wouldn’t stand out so dramatically.

Led Zeppelin III is one of our favourite albums, it captures the band as it reached its creative peak and is remarkably well recorded to boot. The preamp delivered Bonzo’s chugging beats and Percy’s voice at its finest, while focussing on the remarkably inventive compositions of Page and Jones.

All the microdynamics are there to be enjoyed alongside the compressed vocals that seem so small compared to the band. This was a revelatory experience and one that continued with every familiar album. It literally makes you cast your troubles aside and live for the music, which can’t be bad at any price.

Sonic gold

What also makes this component worth its weight in sonic gold is the incredible three dimensionality it can produce, its uncannily clean sound which allows you to play at silly levels without discomfort and a world-beating sense of timing.

Bass lines are reproduced with a coherence and precision that is all too rare and this foundation means that rhythm and melody are delivered in a totally coherent, fluid fashion. This and the ability to show you the fine details of the recording in the context of a gripping overall presentation makes the No. 326S an addictive bit of kit.

Okay, so the price is high, but the rewards are truly the stuff of a music lover’s dream.

Related Links


Sep 08 2010

Review: Castle Knight 2

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 4:01 pm

Castle Acoustics was a Yorkshire-based company started in the early 1970s. Best known for its rich, real wood veneers and refined acoustic, the firm soon established a following from those appreciating a warm, full-bodied sound.

As with many of the British greats, however, Castle fell upon hard times at the turn of the millennium and came under the ownership of IAG (International Audio Group).

With IAG’s impressive portfolio that includes Quad, Castle should be in safe hands and as if to prove the parent company’s commitment, the all-new Knight range is voiced by IAG’s Director of Acoustic Design, Peter Comeau – of Heybrook HB1 and Mission 780 fame.

It has to be said that neither of these speakers has the ‘Castle sound’, so the question is; have his talents been successful with tuning the Knight?

Slithers of tree

There’s nothing especially innovative with the design, but such a conservative approach should suit the targeted audience.

Crucially, the Knight range uses high-quality wood veneer and is available in eight varieties. The veneers are genuine, book-matched and mirrored slithers of tree and not reconstituted pulp.

The cabinet itself is made from 15-millimetre MDF, with bracing across both planes. A flush-mounted rear bass port is fitted with a mesh to dampen the exiting air. The drive units consist of a soft-dome tweeter and fibre woofer.

Again, very conventional, but the decision not to select a metal dome tweeter is a wise move, as their occasional edgy characteristics would not have suited the Knight 2.

The woofer chassis is an ordinary pressed steel affair, but is magnetically shielded to allow for safe placement near magnetic recordings and CRT screens.

A bi-wirable crossover, with gold-plated terminals, completes the good first impressions. And with an above average sensitivity of 90dB, we expect the Knight 2 to present an easy amplifier load.

Knight attire

Given the price, the standard of finish is exceptional. Whereas rivals such as the Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 (£450) and Bowers and Wilkins 685 (£380) use vinyl wraps, the Knight 2 stands out with its real-wood veneering.

The full process, including sealing and waxing, apparently takes five days and in an ideal world the veneering would be extended to the inside of the cabinet, too, as this has a beneficial effect on the sound quality.

There are no complaints with the solidity of the cabinet, in which multiple bracing adds considerable weight and rigidity to these standmounts. Items such as the basic internal speaker cable show where costs have been cut, but this is an impressively engineered speaker.

Sense and depth

Castle fans will be relieved to hear that the Knight 2 has kept all the Castle Acoustics qualities intact.

The bass response errs on the side of taut control, rather than ultimate weight and is all the better for it. Sound staging is particularly spacious with vocals being especially well portrayed. Explicit but not aggressive, the Knight 2 strikes a very fine balance.

Against the Mezzo 2, you will find the Knight lacking a defining edge with, for example, drum beats, but the smoother balance will be ample compensation for most. Acoustic music suits these speakers with vocal texture readily revealed.

With classical music the Knight is one of the best speakers in its class. A true sense of space and depth creates a tension not usually found in this type of speaker and if you enjoy unforced realism, then you’ll appreciate the Knight 2′s subtle qualities of presentation.

Subtle charms

IAG deserves praise for not only producing a new speaker that looks like a Castle, but for producing one that emphatically sounds like a Castle, too.

In fact, we’d go further by saying that this is probably the best-sounding budget Castle speaker ever made. In addition to the traditional qualities of accuracy and refinement, the Knight 2 adds unforced detail and first-class soundstaging.

Whilst it won’t be the first choice for lovers of high-octane dance music, everyone else will be more than satisfied by its subtle charms. The class-leading finish cements this as a classic Hi-Fi Choice recommendation.

Related Links


Sep 08 2010

Review: Arcam rDAC

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 4:01 pm

Over 20 years ago Arcam produced the Back Box standalone digital-to-analogue convertor. This was one of the first (for obvious reasons, the claim to exactly who was first is hotly contested) devices that could bypass the output of an existing CD player via an S/PDIF digital output and convert it to an analogue signal via a higher-quality output stage than the CD player had internally.

Consequently, the Black Box was highly regarded and sold well. During the late 1990s, research into jitter and a change in philosophy saw the DAC fall out of favour and Arcam’s output at this time was comprised entirely of one-box CD players.

Now that a DAC renaissance is in full force, the company has returned to a keenly contested market with the rDAC. As the sub-£1,000 DAC market is looking rather busy these days, it’s good to see that the rDAC is far more than a ‘me too’ product.

Central to its performance is the new Wolfson Microelectronics WM8741 chip. This is the successor to the WM8740, which has been central to some very strong CD offerings from Arcam, as well as Cambridge Audio and Rega.

Boasting improved signal-to-noise measurements and detail changes to filtering, the WM8741 gives the rDAC some very strong credentials.

Wireless dongle

Arcam has made use of an ongoing relationship with high-end digital manufacturer dCS, a company that has contributed to some of its star performers over the years.

This time, the relationship has gifted the rDAC, the patented dCS Asynchronous USB Technology system. This is a relatively new take on USB transfer and allows for increased performance from this increasingly common connection.

Given that a great many rDACS are likely to find themselves being connected via USB over anything else, this is good thinking on the part of Arcam.

Later on in this year, the final part of the rDAC’s arsenal will become available in the form of wireless transmission. Arcam says that this will involve more technology from dCS and a wireless dongle. The transmission will handle everything up to lossless files and will open up another way of extracting audio from a computer, as well as making a great deal of sense if the rDAC is already connected into a particular computer via the USB input and you wish to use another computer ‘on the fly’.

As it is, the wireless input light sits on the front of the rDAC, but cannot currently be selected. The wireless version will be £100 more than the version tested here.

Red to green

As well as the USB and forthcoming wireless, the rDAC sports a relatively conventional optical and coaxial digital input and a single RCA phono output. If you need more than one of each particular input, or are interested in a balanced XLR output, you will need to look elsewhere, but the Arcam’s specification on the whole is competitive for its asking price when the Asynchronous USB input is taken into account.

Arcam rdac

The unit itself is small, but pleasant to look at and use and is styled as part of the Solo range – although it doesn’t look so different from other Arcam separates to be visually at odds if placed with them. The chassis is all-metal and feels solid and well constructed.

Input selection is via a single button on the top of the unit. The input light glows red and then switches to green when a connection is established, which is a nice touch if you should need to fault-find a connection.

Another sign of impressive attention to detail is the USB connection. Connect the rDAC to a PC and it will display on the PC as an ‘Arcam rDAC, rather than a generic USB component that so many of its key competitors will do.

Connection itself is fast and effective and our sample unit connected quickly and simply to a variety of PCs and Macs during the test period.

Good things in small packages

Sonically, the rDAC is a strong proposition. Connected over USB and given lossless or better files (although 24-bit/192khz files are limited to a transmission rate of 24/96), the rDAC is an enticing performer. It produces a natural and unforced presentation, entirely free from harshness or aggression.

Indeed, its performance is free from even the slightest sense of digital sheen or artefacts, which is a huge boost to long-term listening. Given that this naturalness is an intended outcome of the design of the Wolfson WM8741, it is good news to report that this appears to have succeeded in practice.

Vocals are well presented and believably real with the sense of space and decay vital for the suspension of disbelief. The rDAC will also present an excellent and well-judged soundstage, well in proportion to the recording being listened to.

Further good news is that switching to compressed music, be it the 320k MP3 of Spotify or music ripped to lossy AAC in iTunes stays involving and listenable. The rDAC is quick to reward the use of high-resolution files, but pleasingly slow to punish the use of compressed ones.

Switching over to the coaxial input does not change the behaviour of the rDAC in any substantial way, although this is as much a reflection of how good the USB input actually is, rather than any deficiency on the part of the coaxial input. The rDAC always remains natural and unforced and even poor recordings will not push it towards stridency or harshness.

Give the rDAC a typical modern recording with the levels turned Spinal Tap-style to eleven and it will manage to find the dynamics within it that have been compressed to within an inch of their life. This gets even better when you give it a CD recording which has been treated with a little more respect and the results are very nearly as good as high-resolution digital over USB.

The only real downside of this control and relaxed nature is that given a genuinely exciting recording, there is a sense that the rDAC is keeping some of the dynamics and force in check.

This is often apparent in the bass response which is fast and tuneful, but not as deep as some of the Arcam’s key competitors. Those who need more excitement in their lives and are possibly willing to trade off a little of the Arcam’s extremely forgiving nature with poor recordings, may be better served elsewhere. Alternatively, this is nothing some thoughtful system matching would not solve.

Market shake up

The rDAC marks a welcome return to an increasingly important product category from one of the original pioneers in the field. Just as importantly, the wait has also been worthwhile.

The arrival of well thought out and well-implemented Asynchronous USB at this price point is a welcome shake up to the market. That the rDAC has this and regular connections running through a desirable new DAC chip in a well-built box is even more welcome.

If you are in the process of going ‘post CD’ in your current system, then the rDAC is a must-audition product. It is able to achieve excellent results with computer audio and the lack of fuss or hassle – making it work with a variety of computers – bodes well for widespread compatibility.

Back in the realms of conventional hi-fi , the rDAC faces stiff competition from the large selection of very accomplished performers over more conventional digital connections, which means that it deserves a place on a slightly longer shortlist, but it certainly deserves a place nonetheless.

There has never been a better time, given the market trends, to be looking at the rDAC as an inexpensive boost to your digital replay.

Related Links


Sep 08 2010

Review: Intel Core i7 970

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 12:51 pm

Six cores, 12 threads, one billion transistors and a whole lotta processing power. That’s the Intel Core i7 970. It’s a fabulous technological achievement. But can it really be worth nearly £700?

Admittedly, the Core i7 970 is a bit cheaper than Intel’s top six-core chip, the Core i7 980X. But it’s still a tough ask given that AMD will sell you its own six-core Phenom II X6 1055T CPU for around one third the price. What the AMD chip doesn’t give you, however, is the very latest technology. The Core i7 970 sports literally the most advanced PC processor die on the planet.

Part of the 970′s advantage comes down to microprocessor architecture. Known as Nehalem, it’s as good as it currently gets thanks to features such as HyperThreading, a triple-channel memory controller and the super-fast QPI interconnect.

The Core i7 970 is also hewn from Intel’s latest 32nm silicon. That means the chip itself is physically smaller than most current quad-core processors including Intel’s own Core i7 870 and AMD’s Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition. In theory that means it should be cheaper to manufacture. For now, Intel isn’t passing on those cost savings to customers.

There’s no doubting the sheer power of the Intel Core i7 970. Try this for starters. In our HD video encoding benchmark it bangs out nearly 42 frames per second. That absolutely blows away both the quad-core Intel Core i7 875K (27 frames per second) and the six-core AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE (26 frames per second).

It’s a similar story in the professional 3D rendering test. The 970 is miles ahead. Arguably even more impressive are the game and file decompression results – benchmarks that do not normally favour CPU parallelism. The Core i7 970 is usefully ahead of the Core i7 870 and more than 50 per cent faster than the Phenom II X6 1090T.

In performance terms, therefore, no compromises are required. That’s because the 970 backs up its hefty parallelism (six cores and 12 threads) with a 3.2GHz clockspeed. Whatever the workload, it’s damn quick. In fact, the only CPU that operates in the same ballpark is the Intel Core i7 980X, which is of course a slightly higher clocked version of the same six-core processor die.

The one area where you might expect all those cores and threads to cause a problem is overclocking. But even here the Core i7 970 puts on a decent show, ramping up to 4GHz courtesy of nothing more than an air cooler and some voltage tweaks. It’s all very impressive until you remember the price. It’s possible to buy a very nice desktop PC, complete with processor, graphics and screen, for the cost of this CPU.

We liked:

In a word, performance. Whether it’s games, media encoding or just multi-tasking, the Core i7 970 has delivers rude amounts of it. But what else did you expect from six of the most advanced processor cores money can buy. The damn thing even overclocks well.

We disliked:

In a word, price. Awesome as the Intel Core i7 970 is, it’s also awesomely expensive and simply poor value compared to quad-core processors costing one third the price. In fact, if you’re willing to spend this much, you may as well go all the way with the Core i7 980X.

Verdict:

A six-core masterpiece in 32nm silicon. Shame about the grand-master pricing, though.

Related Links


Sep 08 2010

Review: AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 12:47 pm

It’s about time AMD released a properly new processor architecture. Until that happens, it’s stuck with execution cores that largely date back to 2003. With that in mind, can the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition really be a plausible performance processor?

AMD has certainly made life easier for its top quad-core chip by pricing it competitively. The Phenom II X4 965 BE is cheaper than Intel’s entry level quads, the Core i5 750 and Core i5 760. However, at 3.4GHz the 965 is clocked much higher than the Intel opposition.

However, the 965′s biggest challenge might just be the cheaper of AMD’s new six-core processors. The Phenom II X6 1055T is yours for an extra £10 or so. That’s awfully tempting. Of course, what the 1055T doesn’t have is an unlocked CPU multiplier. That’s an enthusiast-friendly feature that usually makes for easier and more effective overclocking and could tip the balance in favour of the quad-core 965.

Survival for AMD’s Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition is all about careful positioning in the price lists. Going by our multi-threaded benchmarks, you’d think AMD has nailed it. Compared to the more expensive Intel Core i5 750, the 965 returns almost identical figures in our HD video encoding and professional 3D rendering tests. Result.

That, however, is where the good news largely ends. Intel’s more modern processor architecture makes for smoother gaming performance, despite the Phenom’s clockspeed advantage. Likewise, the Core i5 750 completes our file decompression benchmark nearly 25 seconds faster.

Thing is, the Intel chip is not only more expensive itself, it also tends to come with higher overall platform costs. Put simply, Intel motherboards cost more. But that’s not a charge you can level at the six-core AMD Phenom II X6 1055T. It drops into precisely the same AM3 CPU socket and motherboards as the 965, levelling the playing field for the two AMD chips.

More to the point, the 1055T cranks out quite a bit more performance in our HD video encoding and pro rendering benchmarks. The six-core chip definitely makes more sense for a video editing rig. The 1055T is also a little snappier in our file decompression test.

Admittedly, the higher clocked 965 does turn the table in the World of Conflict timedemo, proving that more cores often doesn’t equate to better gaming performance. It’s also a better overclocking chip, with this latest C3 stepping of the Deneb core hitting 4.1GHz to the 1055T’s mere 3.65GHz. But as an all-round computing solution, this quad-core 965 Black Edition has been usurped by AMD’s new six-core processor.

We liked:

The 965 Black Edition is AMD’s most expensive quad-core processor. But it’s so aggressively priced, it’s yours for under £150. At 3.4GHz, the 965 is clocked pretty aggressively, too. All of which makes it very competitive with Intel’s cheaper quad-core chips. Add AMD’s cheaper platform pricing into the equation and the deal only looks sweeter.

We disliked:

The biggest problem for the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition comes from within. It’s AMD’s new six-core Phenom II X6. £10 or so seems like a good deal for a pair of extra cores. More generally, the Phenom architecture is nearing end of life. And it shows.

Verdict:

A solid quad-core processor, but the end is nigh. AMD’s newer six-core is better value.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links


Sep 08 2010

Review: AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 12:09 pm

Feeling lucky today, punk? We reckon that’s the question you need to ask yourself before taking a punt on the AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition.

Based on AMD’s flagship Deneb processor die, the 720 has the full 6MB compliment of L3 cache. It also runs at a reasonable 2.8GHz frequency. As a Black Edition chip, it even has an unlocked CPU multiplier for easy overclocking. Not bad for a chip priced well under £100.

There is, however, something missing. AMD has disabled one of Deneb’s four cores. The Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition is a tripler, as indicated by the ‘X3′ moniker. It’s here that your luck will be tested because it’s possible to unlock the hidden core in the BIOS of most AM3-socket motherboards.

When it comes to core unlocking, there are no guarantees. But with just one hidden core, your odds are at least better than the AMD Phenom II X3 550 BE, which has two hidden cores and double the chance of one being broken.

We were hoping to make this review a tale of two halves. The first was to be a story of the Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition in standard triple-core trim, the second was to include revelations of a fourth core freed from its digital shackles.

But like the other two AMD chips with hidden cores (that’s the Athlon II X3 435 and Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition), the triple-core 720 disappointed. The fourth and final core in our review sample is a dud. At least it proves AMD doesn’t try to influence the press by handing out carefully vetted samples.

Anyway, the result is thatthePhenom II X3 720 BE must make a case for itself purely as a triple-core chip. Unfortunately, that’s a tough ask. As an all-rounder, the 720 is reasonable. It’s notably faster than the dual-core Phenom II X2 550 BE in multi-threaded software such as video encoding. Similarly, it has the edge over AMD’s bargain-priced quad, the Athlon II X4 620, in games.

The 720 also overclocks fairly well, hitting 3.8GHz on air cooling and a tweak of the CPU voltage settings. Problem is, while the 720 isn’t awful at anything, it also falls well short of excellence across the board. In a word, it’s mediocre. If you are a hardcore gamer, the high-clocking Phenom II X2 550 BE is probably a better bet. For everyone else, the quad-core Athlon II X4 620 makes more sense and costs less.

We liked:

With Intel sticking to even core counts, it was almost inevitable that AMD would step in with some triple-core chips. The Phenom II X3 720 BE certainly makes for an interesting triple-core option and is worth a look if you’re looking for a true all rounder with a very low price tag.

We disliked:

If you know what you want from your PC, odds are you won’t like the triple-core 720. Adequate at all things, it’s not great at anything. Whether it’s gaming or encoding, there are better chips for the money. And remember, there are no guarantees when it comes to unlocking that hidden fourth core.

Verdict:

AMD’s triples look good on paper, but somehow don’t add up to the sum of their parts.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links


Sep 07 2010

Review: AMD Athlon II X3 435

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 9:00 pm

When AMD first rolled out a triple-core chip, it smelt like a desperate move by a company struggling to stay relevant in the face of Intel running rampant. What, therefore, should you make of the latest cut-price tripler, the AMD Athlon II X3 435?

In practice, it doesn’t really matter what AMD’s motivations are. All that counts is whether the Athlon II X3 435 delivers competitive performance at this price point. It’s certainly up against some pretty stiff in-house competition from the likes of the quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 620. OK, the triple-core 435 runs 300MHz faster at 2.9GHz. But can that really make up for a missing core?

The Athlon II X3 435 must also do battle with the dual-core AMD Phenom II X2 550 and triple-core AMD Phenom II X3 720. Both are based on AMD’s ritzier Deneb processor die but only cost a little more. As for Intel chips, it will be interesting to see if the Athlon II X3 makes for a realistic cut price alternative to some of Intel’s latest dual-core, quad-thread processors such as the Core i5 661.

On paper, the Athlon II X3 435 seems to be stuck in specification limbo. With three cores and a frequency of 2.9GHz it’s neither high-clocking screamer nor a massively multi-core monster. Its only hope is to be an effective Jack of all computing trades.

On the multi-threaded front, the quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 620 gives it a pretty good schooling despite costing less. Put simply, you’ll get your video encoding and content creation sessions finished faster with the cheaper quad-core chip. That said, the triple-core 435 looks like conspicuously good value next to Intel’s overpriced duals, such as the Intel Core i5 661. The 661 is over twice the price but only a few frames per second faster in our video encoding benchmark.

As for gaming, the Athlon II X3 435 is marginally quicker than its quad-core AMD sibling. But the difference is small enough to be academic: 37 frames per second compared to 35 in World of Conflict. It’s a similar story in our overclocking tests. By hitting 3.7GHz, the 435 does have an edge over the 620. But it’s vanishingly small.

However, the 720 has a potentially game-changing trump card. Because it’s based on the quad-core Propus processor, it’s possible to unlock the fourth and final core. Shazam! You’ve got a higher clocking quad-core chip, gratis.

That’s the theory, anyway. In practice, the hidden cores are often disabled because they don’t actually work. So it is with our test Athlon II X3 720. With the hidden core enabled, it falls over each and every during the Windows boot cycle. Bummer.

We liked:

At this price point, you can’t afford to be picky. But with the Athlon II X3 720, you don’t have to be. You get both an extra core compared to similarly priced dualies and a reasonable stock clockspeed. If you’re lucky, you might just be able to unlock the hidden fourth core, too.

We disliked:

In terms of absolute bang for buck, the 720′s triple-core configuration is slightly off target. AMD’s cheaper Athlon II X4 620 does multi-threading better and the dual-core Phenom II X2 550 is a better gaming chip. The fact that the fourth core in our sample is a dud also serves as a useful warning. Core unlocking doesn’t always work.

Verdict:

AMD’s budget tripler looks good on paper but fails to deliver in the real world.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links


Sep 07 2010

Review: AMD Athlon II X4 620

Category: ReviewsGadgets & Tech @ 9:00 pm

Remember when a quad-core PC processor seemed exotic, if not downright decadent? We can. It was only a couple of years ago. Today, the AMD Athlon II X4 620 is yours for under £70. By Grapthar’s Hammer, what a savings.

The startlingly low price is possible because AMD has cooked up a special new quad-core die for all Athlon II X4s. Instead of taking the existing Deneb die from its Phenom II X4 chips, such as the 965 Black Edition, and disabling a few features, the new Propus die is purpose built to deliver four cores for less cash.

The good news is that the only significant change has been the loss of Deneb’s 6MB L3 shared cache memory pool. Instead, Propus-based chips like the Athlon II X4 620 must make do with just 512k of L2 cache per core.

The 620′s super-low price also reflects its modest 2.6GHz clockspeed. Put it all together and you have an intriguing quad-core chip that’s actually cheaper than the triple-core AMD Athlon II X3 435. As for Intel’s processors, the dual-core Core i5 661is over twice as expensive.

If it’s maximum multi-threaded throughput for minimum cash, take it from us, the Athlon II X4 620 is definitely your bag. For starters, in highly threaded software such as video encoding and professional 3D rendering, it’s nearly twice as quick as AMD’s dual-core Athlon II X2 250. And remember, the X2 250 is only £15 cheaper.

Even more impressive is how close the Athlon II X4 620 gets to some of Intel’s much more expensive quads. Both the Intel Core i5 750 and Core i5 760 are well over twice as pricey but only deliver around 25% more performance. Put it this way. Are you really willing to pay close to £100 extra to encode video at 19 frames per second rather than 14 frames per second?

Less stellar is the 620′s performance in applications that thrive on cache memory or demand serious muscle from individual cores. It’s no surprise, therefore, to find it struggling in our game and file decompression benchmarks. The former means this chip isn’t suitable at standard clockspeeds for hard core gamers looking for an affordable processor. The latter is more of an issue for content creators dealing with large file sizes.

As for overclocking, in terms of maximum frequency compared to most other chips the Athlon II X4 620 isn’t spectacular. However, relative to its standard 2.6GHz clockspeed, 3.65GHz is far from shabby. Also, like any other chip designed for AMD’s AM3 socket, the 620 benefits from a very flexible platform and AMD’s proven track record for maximising socket compatibility.

We liked:

It’s remarkable how much multi-threaded zing you can buy for £60-odd. As a tool for encoding video on the cheap, for example, the Athlon II X4 620 is a winner. Crank up the clocks at it will even do a passable job as a gaming chip.

We disliked:

At this price point, frankly, not a lot. But strictly speaking, the limited cache memory and modest stock clockspeed do hammer the 620′s performance in games. In fact, any software that demands a lot of pulling power from a single core is going to chug a little on this cut-price quad.

Verdict:

One of if not the best budget chip you can buy. Fantastic multi-threading performance.

Follow TechRadar Reviews on Twitter: http://twitter.com/techradarreview

Related Links


Next Page »