ATI Radeon HD 5970 - The King Returns

source: hardwarezone.com
Reclaiming the Speed Crown

Speed and power. Men's insatiable lust for the two, and the desire to be the world's fastest and most powerful have led to wars. And not many are as intense and fierce as the one between ATI and NVIDIA.

Just last year, ATI snatched title of world's fastest graphics card from NVIDIA with their dual-GPU Radeon HD 4870 X2 from NVIDIA's single-chip GeForce GTX 280. This prompted a fierce response from the green camp, and it came in the form of the dual-GPU GeForce GTX 295. The GeForce GTX 295 was fantastic card in many aspects, because not only was it blazingly fast, it was also launched at a lower price than the competition. That's a huge double whammy in our books.

Lately, the tables have been turned. ATI has launched their new Radeon HD 5000 series to great success (although we hear availability of these cards are poor, no thanks to yield issues at TSMC), and NVIDIA is still sitting on the sidelines with nothing really noteworthy to show yet (besides the still shrouded Fermi).

The Radeon HD 5870 might be the fastest single GPU yet, but it is not the undisputed single fastest graphics card. While it is certainly a match for the GeForce GTX 295, it doesn't exactly beat it.

More firepower is needed and that's exactly what ATI is giving. Deviating from the usual "X2" suffix, the new Radeon HD 5970, codenamed Hemlock, is ATI's biggest, boldest and most powerful graphics card yet. The Radeon HD 5970 essentially squeezes two Cypress XT chips onto a single GPU, and as such the card boasts a whopping transistor count of 4.3 billion, 3200 stream processors, 160 texture mapping units and 64 raster operator units. This makes the new Hemlock card, the most powerful graphics card in existence.

With the legendary Excalibur sword emblazoned on the packaging, HIS's Radeon HD 5970 looks set to reclaim the speed crown from NVIDIA.

Join us then as we take a look at the kind of performance you can expect to get from a graphics card packing so much firepower under its cooler. But first, a quick look at how it stacks up against current high-end graphics cards just in raw specs:-

The Radeon 5970 and Competitive Comparison SKUs

Model	ATI Radeon HD 5970 2GB	ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB	ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 1792MB	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1GB
Core Code	Hemlock	Cypress XT	Cypress Pro	GT200 x 2	GT200
Transistor Count	4300 million	2150 million	2150 million	2800 million	1400 million
Manufacturing Process	40nm	40nm	40nm	55nm	55nm
Core Clock	725MHz	850MHz	725MHz	576MHz	648MHz
Stream Processors	3200 Stream Processing Units	1600 Stream Processing Units	1440 Stream Processors	480 Stream Processors	240 Stream Processors
Stream Processor Clock	725MHz	850MHz	725MHz	1242MHz	1476MHz
Texture Mapping Units (TMU) or Texture Filtering (TF) units	160	80	72	160	80
Raster Operator units (ROP)	64	32	32	56	32
Memory Clock	4000MHz GDDR5	4800MHz GDDR5	4000MHz GDDR5	1998MHz GDDR3	2484MHz GDDR3
DDR Memory Bus	256-bit	256-bit	256-bit	448-bit	512-bit
Memory Bandwidth	256GB/s	153.6GB/s	128GB/s	223.8GB/s	159GB/s
PCI Express Interface	PCIe ver 2.0 x16	PCIe ver 2.0 x16	PCIe ver 2.0 x16	PCIe ver 2.0 x16	PCIe ver 2.0 x16
Molex Power Connectors	6-pin, 8-pin	2 x 6-pin	2 x 6-pin	6-pin, 8-pin	2 x 6-pin
Multi GPU Technology	CrossFireX	CrossFireX	CrossFireX	SLI	SLI
DVI Output Support	2 x Dual-Link	2 x Dual-Link	2 x Dual-Link	2 x Dual-Link	2 x Dual-Link
HDCP Output Support	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Street Price	Launch price: US$599	~US$379	~US$259	~US$500	~US$350

The HIS Radeon HD 5970 2GB GDDR5

When the first screenshots of what was supposedly a Radeon HD 5970 surfaced on the Internet, we were slightly shocked to read that the card was a whopping 13.5 inches long. This meant that only the largest of casings would be able to accommodate it.

And our fears came to fruition when we finally unpacked the HIS Radeon HD 5970. At 12 inches long, it was shorter than we had first feared, but still long enough to pose a problem for most users with medium-sized casings. It just about made it into our Cooler Master Storm Sniper, and that's already a huge casing.

Despite the added length, the Radeon HD 5970 retains a similar cooler design to the one on the other Radeon HD 5000 series cards - at least from the exterior outlook. This means it gets a single fan, and two vents at the opposite end of the connector ports. With the card being so long, this also means that the fan is now situated further away from the GPU cores, and we can't help but wonder if this will have a negative effect on operating temperatures. Fortunately this wasn't the case in our temperature testing segment. Internally, we were told that it it's a vapor-chamber based heatsink to accelerate heat draw and massive heatsinks akin to the previous "X2" series of dual-GPU graphics cards.

Perhaps that is why the Radeon HD 5970 card's clock speeds are on the conservative side to ensure the cooler can handle the job decently. Remember, a single Radeon HD 5870 is clocked 850MHz at the core and 4800MHz DDR at the memory. The Radeon HD 5970, however, is only clocked 725MHz at the core and 4000MHz DDR at the memory - equivalent to the Radeon HD 5850 clock speeds, but retains all the processing units available on the Cypress XT GPU. If you're watching the numbers, the new Radeon HD 5970 won't displace the CrossFire pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards yet as you'll soon see.

Measuring a grand 12-inches, the Radeon HD 5970 is easily the longest graphics card ever, and will require users to have an equally large casing to accommodate it.

The Radeon HD 5870 is not a small card, but look at how the Radeon HD 5970 dwarfs it.

Flipping the Radeon HD 5970 over, we can see where the two Cypress XT GPU cores are located.

Differing from the other Radeon 5000 series cards, the Radeon HD 5970 only gets twin DVI outputs and a single mini-DisplayPort. This allows it to have a larger vent, which would undoubtedly come in useful in dissipating heat from its twin GPUs.

The Radeon 5970 gets a single CrossFireX connector, which means a quad-GPU configuration is possible.

Test Setup

To tap onto the full potential of the powerful Radeon HD 5970, we'll be using an Intel X58 and Core i7 setup with the following specifications:

Intel X58 Test System:

• Intel Core i7 975 (3.33GHz)
  
• Gigabyte GA-EX58 Extreme motherboard
  
• 3 x 1GB Kingston HyperX DDR3-1333 in triple channel mode
  
• Seagate 7200.10 200GB SATA hard drive
  
• Windows Vista Ultimate with SP1

Unless something goes horribly wrong, the Radeon HD 5970 will, in all certainty, reclaim the title of the world's fastest single card. Therefore, the question here is how much faster it is than the current crop of fast single graphics card. To answer that, we have the Radeon 5870 and 5850, as well as the duo of GeForce GTX 295 and GTX 285 from NVIDIA. We've also plugged in results from dual Radeon HD 5870 cards in CrossFireX configuration for comparison.

Here is the full list of cards and driver versions used:

• HIS Radeon HD 5970 2GB GDDR5 (Beta 8.66 RC4)
  
• ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB GDDR5 (Catalyst 9.10)
  
• ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB GDDR5 in CrossFireX (Catalyst 9.10)
  
• ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB GDDR5 (Catalyst 9.10)
  
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 1792MB GDDR3 (ForceWare 191.07)
  
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1GB GDDR3 (ForceWare 191.07)

The cards were tested using the following benchmarks:

• Futuremark 3DMark Vantage
  
• Crysis Warhead
  
• Far Cry 2
  
• Warhammer: Dawn of War 2

3DMark Vantage Results

We begin our report with 3DMark Vantage, and immediately saw the Radeon HD 5970 powering ahead. On the most intense setting, it comprehensively outscored the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 by an astonishing 31%. However, the Radeon HD 5970 could not beat the combined might of two Radeon HD 5870 cards in CrossFireX configuration - the duo has higher clock speeds.



Crysis Warhead & Far Cry 2 Results

Crysis Warhead saw the Radeon HD 5970 dominating again, and it gets the distinction of being the only single graphics card capable of producing playable frame rates (above 30fps) on the most demanding setting of 1920 x 1440 resolution with anti-aliasing enabled. To add, it was about 30% faster than the GeForce GTX 295. And again, it lost out only to the pair of Radeon HD 5870 cards in CrossFireX configuration.




It was the same story on Far Cry 2, as the Radeon HD 5970 was once again the best performing single graphics card by some distance. Interestingly though, the pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards managed to outperform the new single graphics card king by quite a margin yet in this benchmark.






Dawn of War 2 Results

The Radeon HD 5970 disappointed on Dawn of War 2, where it managed low and inconsistent frame rates. The same problem was exhibited by the pair of Radeon 5870 in CrossFireX too, which could point to a problem with poor driver optimization for CrossFireX configurations. Looks like we'll need newer drivers to heal these issues.



Dawn of War 2 Results

The Radeon HD 5970 disappointed on Dawn of War 2, where it managed low and inconsistent frame rates. The same problem was exhibited by the pair of Radeon 5870 in CrossFireX too, which could point to a problem with poor driver optimization for CrossFireX configurations. Looks like we'll need newer drivers to heal these issues.




Temperature

In terms of load operating temperatures, the Radeon HD 5970 did better than we expected, recording a respectable (for high-end cards at least) 78 degrees Celsius. Perhaps the larger vents had a role to play? Also note that both GPUs in the new card recorded roughly the same load operating temperatures which is quite comforting to know that the card's cooling system works for it.




Power Consumption

Power efficiency is one of the bright points of ATI's latest generation cards and the Radeon HD 5970 does not disappoint. Overall, power consumption figures are impressive for a card this powerful. It outperforms the GeForce GTX 295, yet consumes significantly less power than it. Such claims were barely thinkable in the previous generation ATI cards, but they've finally showed themselves as capable.




Overclocking

Using the in-built ATI Overdrive overclocking tool, we managed 800MHz at the core and 4400MHz DDR at the memory, which gave us a negligible improvement of 120 3DMarks. Further attempts to replicate the higher speeds of the Radeon HD 5870 failed, as Vantage would crash halfway into the benchmarking run. Apparently, the Radeon HD 5970 is not a very keen overclocker despite what ATI /AMD would like to have us believe. Perhaps it could be somewhat linked to the early driver nature and this may yet see an area of improvement in the near future.



The Extreme Graphics Card

Overall, there can be no doubting the power and speed of the new Radeon HD 5970. It is simply blazing fast, and as far as single graphics cards go, nothing in the market comes close. The previous speed king, the GeForce GTX 295, has been utterly outclassed by newest dual-GPU offering.

What's more, it does so by offering very impressive levels of power efficiency. In our tests, it easily overpowered the NVIDIA GTX 295 and was on average about 20% faster. Despite that, it also managed to achieve markedly lower power consumption figures. This is testament to the new Evergreen chips' efficiency and is certainly amazing, to say the least.

While it may be an adept graphics cruncher, there are other considerations that work against it. For one, its immense size necessitates an equally gargantuan and high-end casing for it to fit. So unless you have a similarly large casing to begin with, or are prepared to upgrade, the Radeon HD 5970 may not be for you. There are other options yet like a CrossFire pair of Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards, which is actually the current speed champ configuration to beat.

And then there is its massive launch price, a wallet-busting US$599 (S$830). This is US$200 more than a Radeon HD 5870, and is enough to buy two Radeon HD 5850 cards with change to spare. The old adage, "you pay for what you get", certainly holds true here.

The Radeon HD 5970 is easily the fastest single card in the world and so don't expect it to come cheap. This is one for the seriously, seriously hardcore.

To add on, the HIS Radeon HD 5970 we have here retails for US$599.99 but comes bundled with a redeemable copy of Dirt 2 and also comes with a handy multi-purpose screwdriver.

At the end of the day, the King has returned for there's no denying the sheer brute power of the Radeon HD 5970. But with its colossal dimensions and steep asking price, this is ultimately still one for the extremists.
Read More..

Review: Apple's redesigned, late 2009 13-inch MacBook

source: appleinsider

Apple's new 13-inch MacBook delivers a lower cost option to the company's MacBook Pro line of aluminum notebooks, while providing a similar unibody construction, much improved display, glass trackpad, and environmentally friendly design.

Position in the MacBook family

The new 13-inch MacBook brings the company's "white plastic" model in line with the rest of its notebook offerings, but remains distinguished from the 13-inch MacBook Pro by its slightly larger and heavier polycarbonate body, limited upgrade options for CPU and RAM, and a few significant missing features: no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, no SD card reader, no external battery level indicator, and no IR receiver for using an Apple Remote.

Previous versions of the lower-end MacBook cut costs by supplying a whimper GPU or video output options and supplying a slower processor, but today's version uses the same NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics chip supplying the same output display features, and supplies the same 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo processor with a 1066MHz front side bus and the same 2GB of fast DDR3 RAM as the entry level MacBook Pro. The new MacBook also delivers a much improved, LED backlit display that's much closer in quality to the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro.

This makes the new low end of Apple's notebook lineup a compelling buy for users who want to spend less but don't want to end up stuck with a much less capable machine. For users willing to spend more, the 13-inch MacBook Pro offers a variety of options including a faster 2.53GHz processor option and up to 8GB of RAM expansion; the white MacBook is limited to a maximum of 4GB of RAM.

The new MacBook also now comes standard with a larger 250GB, 5400 rpm hard drive, with options to upgrade to a 320GB or 500GB disk. The new MacBook is still $999, and it's cheaper than the MacBook Pro line for clear reasons, but its a better deal than ever as Apple's entry-level notebook.

Unibody design changes

The new MacBook's unibody construction not only provides a tighter fit and finish, but also provides the same 60 watt-hour battery that is sealed into the case rather than being designed to pop out for replacement. The new integrated battery means the MacBook now delivers up to 7 hours of "wireless productivity," an exceptionally long capacity for a notebook and particularly an entry level model. A two-hour DVD played through twice before the machine shut down; that's a hair over four hours of continuous DVD-spinning, sleepless uptime on a single charge. In more normal use, where the machine can idle the processor, spin down drives, and fully use its battery saving technologies, the seven hour maximum looks attainable.

The integrated battery also means there's no covers or latches on the bottom. Instead, the notebook's bottom is finished with a lap heat-insulating, rubberized surface held in place by eight screws. Apple says the battery is rated to last through 1,000 charging cycles before its performance begins to wane, around five years or about as long as the system's life span.

After the battery begins to fade it can be replaced, but the company says it should last about as long as three conventional laptop batteries, which it touts as a significant edge in environmentally friendly sophistication. However, the new MacBook doesn't have a physical integrated battery indicator like the MacBook Pro models, so if you want to know how much life you have left, you'll need to have it on to check the menu bar indicator.

While the aerodynamic curves of the body styling are new, it builds upon design cues from the original MacBook introduced in 2006 as Apple's first Intel Mac: a recessed keyboard frame that backs the keyboard into the top surface of the machine, allowing the lid to shut without the screen hitting the keys; a lid that shuts with magnetic attraction rather than using physical latches; and an internal layout that locates its ports along the left side and places the optical drive in the top-right corner.

The white plastic used in the new MacBook design is glossier than ever, with an almost wet look on the top cover and palm rests. This will defiantly show smudges and scratches, particularly when light glances off its shiny surfaces, although the white color tends to hide any minor scuffs in general use. There's no black version this time around, as a dark machine this glossy would look terrible almost instantly. Don't expect this machine to stand up to scratches any better than the backside of an iPhone.

Like the aluminum MacBook Pros introduced last year, the MacBook's display lid and hinge is similarly built tighter and stronger, resembling the design of the MacBook Air. The case is a bit thinner than the previous model, but its rounded corners give it a cleaner, thinner, and more solid feel and appearance. The lid has no 'bounce flop' when adjusting the viewing angle. The lid also opens significantly wider than the previous model, another welcomed change.

The MacBook lid doesn't have the same "fall shut" problem we discovered on the aluminum models, so if you hold the body perpendicular to the ground, its lid won't fall shut by gravity. With Apple's earlier unibody notebooks, if you're laying in bed and hold the screen closer for examination, the lid will fall shut and smack you in the face. The new MacBook lid offers more resistance to closing; its open screen will stay open when held at any angle. The new lid design closes with a more pleasing, smooth action and shuts precisely with an invisible magnetic latch action that sticks the lid shut but offers no resistance when you want to open it.

The new MacBook is 4.5 lb (2.0 kg) and its body is 0.95 x 12.78 x 8.94 inches (24.1 x 325 x 227 mm). The previous white MacBook body weighed in at a slightly heavier 5.0 lb (2.3 kg) and was a little thicker at 1.08 x 12.78 x 8.92 inches (27.5 x 325 x 226.5 mm). There's no longer an IR receiver, only a sleep indicator light on the front right edge.

The glossy LED-backlit screen

Apple upgraded the new MacBook's 13.3-inch screen to use LED backlighting, which provides better overall brightness for the same 1280x800 resolution. The new panel also delivers significantly better color and viewing angle performance as the previous MacBook, but it still isn't as vivid and wide-angle viewable as the MacBook Pro screens. It has the same rated contrast ratio as the similarly-sized MacBook Pro. The most significant difference between the two models is that Apple advertises a 60 percent greater color gamut for the Pro version.

The MacBook's flat white margin around the screen is one of its two surfaces mercifully missing a high-gloss sheen (the other being the indented area behind the keyboard). The aluminum MacBook Pro sports a black display margin covered in glass, which tends to make the screen's colors snap vividly (in contrast to the shiny black), but also creates a distracting ring of reflective mirror around the screen. This makes it hard to avoid background glare, not just on the glossy screen itself but from the entire lid's surface.

Apple decided to tone this down (and actually reverse things) on the MacBook, so while the palm rest and top cover are now clear coat shiny, the parts that you focus on while actually using it are a flat matte white. This results in what seems to be less contrast for the display, but the screen actually seems to perform just as well, it just has a flat white frame rather than a shiny black one.

The display itself is still as glossy as the other MacBook models, and there's no option for a plain matte screen finish on this model. Apple says that users overwhelmingly prefer the glossy option (it knows because it previously offered both versions). Glossy not only looks more pleasing but is actually more color accurate than a flat matte screen, which diffuses light, providing a softer image. Those pluses tend to overshadow the annoyance of reflective glare, but do nothing to assuage users who are not a fan of glossy screens.

Unlike the aluminum models, the MacBook's screen and its frame are not one smooth surface behind a panel of glass; the screen is inset slightly, so you can't wipe the screen off from edge to edge. The edge does have a slight bevel to it however, which helps prevent it from collecting a line of dust that's hard to clean away. Above the screen is a more subtle, round iSight camera with a recording indicator lamp. There's a mic integrated into the body of the notebook, but if you're recording videos or videoconferencing with iChat, you might want to use the integrated mic on iPhone-style headphones.

The keyboard and trackpad

The new MacBook retains the same indented keyboard that debuted in 2006, but now sports a larger glass multitouch trackpad. The white keyboard, its white margin, the white trackpad, and white cover makes the new model perfectly camouflaged against a a snow storm, and differentiates it from the silver and black finish of the MacBook Pro line.

The new keyboard feels the same as the previous model. The white keys with light grey labels are a bit subtle, but do not seem difficult to read. There is no backlit keyboard option on the white MacBook, so if you want to type in the dark you'll have to rely on illumination from the screen. Like the previous MacBooks, it sports the same updated F Key shortcuts, including volume and audio playback buttons, Exposé and Dashboard buttons, and screen illumination controls.

The MacBook's new large multitouch trackpad replaces the previous version with a separate physical button below the trackpad; the entire surface of the trackpad functions as a button. More accurately, the bottom 80 percent of the trackpad surface acts as a clickable button while the top edge is fixed. This is the same trackpad that appeared on the MacBook Pro line last year; our MacBook Pro review described its pros and cons.

Expansion ports

Last year, Apple incited irritation when it removed FireWire from the 13-inch aluminum MacBook, which has since been renamed as a MacBook Pro and regained its missing FireWire port. The white MacBook has always supplied a FireWire port, but now in its unibody redesign it has lost it, restoring the company's position that consumers don't need it. FireWire still does things USB can't do, so this is disappointing to see, but anyone who uses FireWire is actually quite likely to be in the group that would opt for the aluminum 13-inch MacBook Pro instead.

If a Mac notebook model is destined to lack FireWire, at least it makes more sense to have it missing on the low end model aimed at students on a budget. Also missing is the SD card slot that showed up on MacBook Pros this summer as a replacement for their ExpressCard slot. While this consumer-oriented feature makes sense on the MacBook, it appears it didn't make the feature list due to space constraints. There's two USB ports, so users who want to connect to their camera's SD card will still be able to do what most Mac users have always needed to do: use a USB adapter. The other alternative is to use Eye-Fi's WiFi-enabled SD card to transfer pictures without handling a card at all.

The new model apparently still provides no support for audio output over its Mini DisplayPort connector (which is supported in the DisplayPort specification), so unlike Apple TV there's no way to output both audio and video over the same cable in the manner of HDMI. That necessitates either using a hybrid Mini DisplayPort plus USB cable for driving an HDMI display with audio, or using a separate audio cable from the MacBook's headphone audio output using an analog cable or digital optical TOSLINK cable for audio.

The MacBook retains the excellent audio out options that support both headphone and digital optical mini S/PDIF output, although it does not support S/PDIF audio input on a dedicated port. The headphone jack also supports iPhone-style headphones with an integrated mic and a playback control button. That's a great feature for anyone doing iChat audio or video conferencing or using another VoIP program on the go, as the notebook's built in microphone makes it hard to isolate background noise, and most mics and headsets designed for generic PCs lack the higher line level output required by previous Macs' mic input port.

The MacBook's MagSafe power adapter is 60 watts, and uses the compact style connector of the MacBook Air, although it also works fine with existing adapters that shipped with other MacBook models and the connector used by the 24" LED Cinema Display.

For more information on FireWire features, see: Jobs responds to outrage over MacBook's missing FireWire
For more information on audio and DisplayPort features, see: Inside the new MacBooks: Audio and Video
For more information on iPhone-style headphone jacks, see: Using iPod & iPhone Video Out: Background and In-Depth Review

Performance overview: CPU and RAM

The new MacBook offers the same CPU/GPU and standard RAM as the entry level 13-inch MacBook Pro: a 2.26GHz Intel P7550 Penryn Core 2 Duo CPU paired with NVIDIA's MCP79MX controller with integrated GPU, which Apple calls by its marketing name: the 9400M. That chip also provides chipset controller functions (such as RAM, PCIe, SATA, and USB interfaces). Apple uses faster DDR3 "PC3-8500" RAM, which runs at 1067MHz along with the FSB for communications between the CPU, RAM, and the integrated GPU.

The MacBook's GPU supports NVIDIA's PureVideo HD for hardware acceleration of H.264 and MPEG-2. The primary purpose for NVIDIA including this on the GPU is to support Blu-ray, which the new notebook does not support. However, Apple has now added a hardware support component to QuickTime to enable any application that uses QuickTime to play MPEG-2 (DVD Player) or MPEG-4 (iTunes) content to do so more efficiently. Farming video decoding off to the GPU rather than the CPU means better battery life and cooler operation.

For more information on how the NVIDIA chipset compares to previous architectures, see the article Inside the new MacBooks: FireWire, USB, and the NVIDIA Controller.

The performance numbers presented by Primate Lab's Geekbench 2.1 (below) indicate that the new MacBook's performance is very close to last year’s MacBook Pro models, and nearly as fast as a two year old desktop iMac, but not nearly the speed of a Mac Pro workstation. The Core 2 Duo MacBook is a 3-5x jump over performance of a three year old PowerBook G4. Longer bars are better.

The New MacBook in Review

The new unibody MacBook is better built, more attractive, thinner, stronger and more rigid, with a nicer feel to the tighter-fitting display lid. It delivers a nice balance between weight and performance, using a built-in battery that delivers long life without needing to carry around spares.

The glossy screen will not appeal to some users, but the display itself looks great, and is a significant jump up in quality compared to the previous MacBooks. This model offer a minor jump in overall performance. If you're in the market for a new MacBook, the new model makes a great, well rounded upgrade.

Compared to the 13-inch MacBook Pro, the choice is pretty simple: the cheaper, plastic consumer-oriented version that drops a few hardware features (including FireWire, SD reader, and the backlit keyboard) and upgrade options (a max of 4 rather than 8GB of RAM, and a slightly faster CPU) or $200 more for the aluminum finished, compromise-free Pro.

Rating 4 out of 5

Pros:
Greatly improved construction
Brighter, higher quality screen
Great overall value; same base specs as MacBook Pro

Cons:
No FireWire, IR, SD card reader, battery indicator
Few BTO upgrade options outside of the MacBook Pro

akhir
Read More..

Motorola DROID review, First Android 2.0

source: engadget.com

It's hard to look at the DROID without looking at the company which brought the device to life. Motorola: for years the name has been synonymous with... well, disappointment. While the industry-stalwart made cellphones sexy with the RAZR, the days which followed have not been especially fruitful or compelling. Over the past year or so, we've seen Motorola beating its way back into the mainstream through a series of smart plays: first embracing Android as a platform, then shucking off the weight of Windows Mobile and finally bringing some desirable (and high profile) devices to market.

With the DROID, the company has perhaps created its most attractive and intriguing piece of technology yet. Forging an alliance with both Verizon and Google, Motorola has come up with a second compelling reason to count the phonemaker down, but certainly not out, while the other two giants have finally found a seemingly worthy device to position against the iPhone. So we must pose these questions: is this the phone which will catapult Android into the mainstream? Is it the device that will pull Motorola back from the brink? And -- most importantly -- is it the lynchpin Google and Verizon have needed to challenge the leader in mindshare in the smartphone market? After putting the device through its paces, we think we can give you the answers you seek -- so read on to find out!

Gallery: Motorola DROID review hands-on

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Hardware

The DROID is an odd and beautiful device. Looking at the hardware from a purely philosophical standpoint, the ID of the phone seems staunchly defiant. Instead of taking its cues (and lines) from current contenders in the smartphone space, the DROID is all hard edges and angular slopes. The construction is a mix of plastic and metal, and the phone has a solid, expensive heft to it. Couple that weight with soft touch materials and gold highlights, and the effect is somewhere halfway between a Vertu device and the European version of the Hero -- and it's a good mix.

The basic structure of the phone is made up of two main pieces, the large, glass display up top, and the slightly longer keyboard / mainboard lower half. Above, the 3.7-inch screen dominates, almost filling the space edge-to-edge, though there are four capacitive buttons at the bottom of the display: back, menu, home, and search (which might be tricky for folks coming from other Android devices, since they've thrown the order of the buttons in the blender). The top section slides smoothly upwards to reveal the aforementioned QWERTY keyboard, though unlike other models of this ilk, it doesn't snap automatically into place; rather, it requires a bit of force to move up, then clicks firmly once settled. The keyboard is a wide (though mostly flush) affair, with minimal amount of spacing between the keys. To the right of the four row QWERTY is a 5-way rocker -- a bizarre deviation from the CLIQ's left-sided controls -- and the bottom piece has a strip which juts out from the device with a small mic hole (closed or open). It's almost like Motorola's version of the HTC chin... though tempered somewhat. Atop the phone is a 3.5mm headphone jack and a power / sleep button; along the right edge is a volume rocker, and camera button on opposite ends; the left side houses a MicroUSB port; around back the 5 megapixel camera (and flash) are revealed, along with a thin, gold, crosshatch strip that hides the DROID's speaker.

The thickness of the DROID is striking, coming in at just a hair (13.7mm vs 12.33mm) thicker than the iPhone 3GS. The body itself is actually narrower than the iPhone. While thinness is important (though typically not a deal breaker for us), the fact that the phone packs a larger, higher resolution screen and a physical keyboard in such a small frame is notable.

In all, Motorola has pulled off what seemed unimaginable for them just 12 months ago; they've made a device which is truly lustworthy, even next to the best efforts of Apple, HTC, and Palm.

Internals

Inside the DROID beats an Arm Cortex A8 CPU (a 600MHz, OMAP3430 chip downclocked to 550MHz), 256MB of RAM, and 512MB of ROM. If that CPU sounds familiar, it should -- it's similar to the chip inside the iPhone 3GS and Palm Pre. If you're wondering about performance, you can breathe a sigh of relief... kind of. Yes, there is a noticeable bump in speed when switching applications on the phone, scrolling through lists, and generally getting any basic tasks done. We did notice, however, that paging through homescreens on the the DROID actually seemed somewhat stuttery; odd, considering this phone is certainly better equipped than most Android devices to handle pixel pushing. Pulling down the window shade notification area also seemed less than optimal. We don't know if this was due to the screen resolution being jacked up, or just a software quirk, but it was mildly disheartening -- especially considering that the rest of the phone's performance seemed extra snappy to us. As an aside, in a totally unscientific test of playing a 3D game (Mystique, in case you're wondering) the rendering seemed considerably smoother on the DROID than with other, older Android-based phones we've used.

Throughout our tests, we were consistently impressed with the tightness and speed of navigation on the phone. The DROID makes Android feel modern the way the iPhone 3GS and Palm Pre are -- like machines designed for a pace of life that's increasingly more Twitter and less USPS.

Display

As we mentioned, the screen on the DROID is a 3.7-inch capacitive touchscreen -- a full glass display with a WVGA resolution clocking in at a handsome 480 x 854. We found the responsiveness on the DROID to be on par (if not better) than most of its Android contemporaries; gestures and flicks registered with little to no lag. Whether that can be attributed to Moto's screen technology, Android 2.0 improvements, or just the speedy CPU inside the DROID is anyone's guess, but we certainly won't knock the phone for it. Another perk to having that big screen is seeing webpages how they're meant to be viewed (or at least closer), and browsing on the DROID is a solid experience. Those additional pixels definitely come in handy when you're looking at something graphically intensive or wordy... such as Engadget.

As you have probably heard (or guessed), there's no multitouch on this device. That's clearly an issue with Android 2.0 and choices that Google is making about user interface -- we're fairly certain there's nothing technically holding back the DROID from utilizing multitouch input, and we wouldn't be surprised to see some tweaked ROMs hit the information superhighway with the functionality onboard. Regardless, the resolution, materials, and clarity of the DROID display make it an absolute pleasure to keep your eyes on. Motorola gets a +1 for the bump in resolution, and we can only hope everyone else follows suit.

Note: Android 2.0 does support multitouch events, but the functionality isn't implemented here.

Keyboard

A physical keyboard can be a blessing or a curse, depending on just how well (or poorly) it performs. In the case of Android devices, QWERTYs have definitely been hit or miss. We think the closest case for comparison with the DROID's version would be the G1; both have shallow, clicky keys, and both force your right hand into a bit of an awkward position. On the G1, it's due to the placement of the "chin," and with the DROID, it's all down to the five-way rocker living next to the 'board itself. We're happy to report, however, that after a short adjustment period, typing on the DROID is a reasonable experience. It's not as slick or comfortable as a nice, portrait-oriented Tour or (better yet) Bold layout, though it bests the CLIQ, and holds its own against other landscape contenders like the Moment.

Visually, the keyboard is an easier read (and more aesthetically pleasing) than those other QWERTY phones too, though sometimes the keys can feel a bit cramped. Additionally, we had major issues with the auto-dimming on the DROID. If we left the screen in auto brightness mode, the constant on / off dimming of the keyboard was intolerable; eventually we had to just switch the auto dim off altogether. We also had issues with the keyboard not lighting up at all in some instances, requiring us to close and open the pad again. Not a huge deal, but annoying when you're trying to quickly tap out a message. Admittedly, we missed the CLIQ's two-stage keyboard backlighting that only enabled the second light when ALT was pressed, but it's a luxury we can do without.

As you would expect, Android 2.0 includes the onscreen keyboard as well, but there don't seem to be many improvements in this area. As a backup keyboard for quick SMSs and the like, it works, though we eventually had to replace it with the Better Keyboard application -- which we think is more usable and snappier. In comparison to the iPhone keyboard (really the high bar for virtual keys) Android continues to feel like a distant second. Still, you won't go to it that much -- the DROID's physical keyboard is solid, but it's going to take some getting used to for most people.

Camera

Google has made some pretty major changes to the camera application in Android 2.0 (including more control over white balance, focal length, flash settings, and effects), and Motorola has smartly outfitted the DROID with a 5 megapixel camera coupled with an LED flash. It sounds like a match made in heaven, right? Well, not quite.

No, no, no. Yes! Our attempts to photograph a watch in broad daylight.

While the camera certainly seems capable of taking great looking photos, getting everything to play nice isn't as easy as it should be. First off, the camera is painfully slow to focus and snap pictures -- and when it does, the results can be unpredictable. Strangely, the lens seems to be able to take pretty sharp macro photos (it's even a setting in the camera app), but it struggled with getting adjusted to close subjects, even in broad daylight. Sometimes we got lucky and cranked out a decent pic, but the process was frustrating. Furthermore, the new settings Google has added to 2.0 are contained in a hard to get to and counterintuitive menu which sits to the left of your viewing area. Trying to make changes on the fly was a hassle. If this is the best the engineers at Google can do, they need to outsource this work.

Gallery: Motorola DROID camera test shots

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Video, on the other hand, was somewhat of a pleasant surprise. The DROID is capable of shooting at a 720 x 480 resolution, and in our tests, produced watchable -- if not totally shake-free -- video. The phone definitely fares better in this department than with stills, and we could easily see using the DROID as a stand-in for a flip cam. You can check out a little of the action in the video below (with a surprise cameo from !!!'s Nic Offer).

Speaker / earpiece

The sound on the DROID is second to none -- really. In fact, this is simply one of the best sounding devices we've ever used. Whether it's audio through the loud (but undistorted) earpiece, or a speakerphone call -- even music -- the sound which Motorola's device outputs is crystal clear. Now, obviously Verizon's reception has something to do with our in-call sound, but it's likely Moto put some thought into the aural aspect of the phone. There's not really much to say except that we were more than pleased with the audio fidelity of the DROID, and we can only hope that future phone makers (ahem, Apple) look to this device as a high water mark in this department.

Software

Besides the introduction of the phone itself, obviously 2.0 is a major update for Android. Based on the launch and hype surrounding Moto's device, we'd say it's fair to assume that Google wanted as many eyes on the achievement as possible. They definitely got it with the DROID -- but was it worth all the fuss?

The first thing you should know is that Android 2.0 isn't drastically different than 1.5 or 1.6, save for a few notable features and tweaks that have significant impact. True to form, Google hasn't gone for visual flair or wild embellishments for the sake of a few dropped jaws; most of these changes are about functionality and usability.

One of the first major changes Google has made is support for multiple Gmail or Exchange accounts, and a new universal inbox which allows you to get a look at your electronic correspondences in a single view. For BlackBerry users, this concept is old hat, but for most people with multiple accounts, it should feel like manna from heaven. We would have been slightly more stoked about the feature if it allowed you to look at both Gmail and POP / IMAP / Exchange accounts in one field. Instead, you can view your Gmail accounts separately (not in a single stream, but in one place), and your other accounts can be blended in the "Combined Inbox" view. Not exactly a perfect implementation for those of us with both Exchange and Google accounts, but certainly a solution light years beyond what previous versions of Android were offering. Another minor niggle: deleting an email now takes you to the next email in your inbox rather than bumping you back out to the list of emails, as it did in 1.5 and 1.6. We preferred the old functionality, though we imagine some will prefer the new as well.

We loved being able to keep a few of our accounts in the phone, but we ran into a weird and annoying issue when attempting to remove one of them. We were using the DROID with two Gmail accounts active, but when we tried to remove the second one we'd added (note: not the account we used for our contacts or calendars) the device informed us that we would need to factory reset the phone because that account was "required" for certain applications. Try as we might, we couldn't find a way around the problem, and we eventually did reset the device. The behavior was strange to say the least, especially since it was a barely-used, secondary account -- not a daily use address which tied into services.

As you may have heard, Facebook account integration is now built into 2.0, and there should be more of that coming, as Google has created "sync adapters" which allow third parties to plug into the contact and calendars of your phone. Mercifully, Google has figure out that you might not want your Facebook contacts in your address book, and gives you the option to turn off contact syncing (as it does with Exchange and Gmail accounts). You're also given the option to sync contacts, but keep certain sets from displaying in your contacts list; this variation is best demonstrated with Facebook integration, because it merges duplicate names and pulls the accompanying images, but doesn't clutter up your Gmail contacts with additional names. Beyond that, the pairing doesn't go tremendously deep, even though we're told Facebook had a hand in this version of the OS as well. Really, you get a widget for your homescreen which auto-updates, and that contact integration if you really want it. This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg for this kind of... er, synergy, and we expect to see lots of people taking advantage of the feature (hello, Twitter). Regardless, it's a forward thinking move that will clearly obviate the need for some of the functionality built into BLUR, and makes the DROID (and other 2.0 phones) competitive against the Pre and Pixi when it comes to social networking integration.

Speaking of contacts, Google has made some big and thoughtful changes to how contacts are handled (and used) in Android 2.0, most notably adding a "Quick Contact" menu to your contact list. The quick contact function allows you to tap on someone's name and get a context menu with jumps to the various ways you can reach out; if you're friends with someone on Facebook, you'll be given an option to message them there, along with SMS, phone, and email choices. It's a brilliant little touch that makes quickly pinging someone a cinch. Android 2.0 also improves the SMS and MMS experience by giving you the option to search your messages, and also allowing you to set a limit on how many SMSs to store before beginning to delete old threads. It's not groundbreaking stuff, but nice choices to have (finally).

You'll notice some major changes within the browser, most notably the fact that when you load up pages now, you're presented with a fully zoomed-out "overview" (much like the iPhone and Pre). If you've been griping about that weird, half-zoom that Android has relied on for so long (as we have), this is a breath of fresh air. Coupled with the DROID's massive display, it makes navigating pages roughly a million times more pleasant. The updated browser also now supports double-taps to zoom (as does Google Maps) -- making navigation a bit more natural -- though we noticed some weird column display issues on our site and others. As we mentioned before, there's still no multitouch, but this does stand in quite well for pinch zooming. While the overall browser speed still isn't as snappy as the iPhone 3GS (or even the Pre), it's a step up from previous efforts, and when you factor in little touches like auto-prediction on URL entry, it's eminently usable.

As we said, most of the alterations are under the hood -- not stuff that immediately jumps out at you, though there are some notable visual tweaks which bear mentioning. Google has added some new fades and cross-application animations into 2.0 which makes Android seem a bit more contemporary. Of course, older iterations of Android contained animations, but 2.0 seems far more polished to our eyes. Additionally, icons and elements have been updated across the board to give the OS a more modern look, sadly there is much of this UI and its applications that remain unchanged -- and not for the better.

A few of the obvious spots include the music player, which is quite frankly a mess; not only is the navigation poorly thought out, but the application is just straight-up ugly. It's not easy on the eyes, and not much fun to use either. The same goes for the phone app -- the remnants of a hastily thrown together interface are plain here, and the functionality of the phone itself gave us some issues. Often the screen was confused or unresponsive during calls, as if the hardware and software weren't communicating with each other properly. It seems obvious to us that some portions of Android need a serious, ground-up reworking... but they don't get them here. Another annoyance was the home screen -- unlike with HTC's tweaks (or even Motorola's BLUR), you only get three screens for icons and widgets. Furthermore, the DROID doesn't come equipped with even the most basic widgets you see in most new builds, like weather. The weird thing is that there is a weather app in the dock display, but no way to access the application in standard phone mode.

Additionally, some third-party (and even some first-party) software seems unable to deal with the DROID's new resolution. There are bitmaps that look upscaled and jagged, such as the attachment icon in Gmail. The game Robo Defense seemed to play slower than it did on the Hero, which was a bit of a surprise, though it has been updated to support the new resolution. None of these problems are show stoppers, but it points to a disconnect between where Google is at versus its developers. There is catch-up to be played.

Also notable (and perhaps a selling point for some) is that the DROID is a Google Experience device, which should theoretically mean that it's more likely to receive fast and frequent software updates than its skinned cousins like the CLIQ. The Google Experience is sort of the "gold standard" Android showcase for the company, so to speak, and it's in Google's best interest to keep it rock solid at all times -- and since there's no third-party skin to revalidate after every Android version is released, the update process should go a heck of a lot smoother.

One thing to keep in mind: when it comes to media syncing, you're in the same boat you were for previous versions of Android -- which means sideloading or additional desktop apps. doubleTwist has just introduced DROID compatibility, though the experience leaves much to be desired. In fact, after our tests, we'd say you're better off just mounting that SD card and dragging your content over.

Gallery: Motorola DROID / Android 2.0 screenshots

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Navigation

One of the biggest pieces of news (perhaps the biggest) to come out of the DROID launch was the introduction of dedicated, fully realized turn-by-turn navigation which integrates with Google Maps. The DROID makes further use of this functionality by switching into a nav mode when snapped into a dock (you can also enter the application normally, sans dock). Google has gone all out on this, providing a rich mixture of its satellite, map, traffic, and location info with text-to-speech directions. Of course, the big G takes it one step further and adds layers like parking info, ATM spots, restaurants, and gas station locations (amongst others) to the stew, making the navigation more robust than many dedicated PNDs -- which would explain that nasty drop in Garmin and TomTom stock we saw yesterday.

In our tests, the nav worked excellently for the most part, though as you can see in the video above, we did run into some minor issues on our hunt for cannoli. It's not uncommon for a GPS unit to send you the wrong way down a one way street, and maybe it was just unlucky coincidence that it happened on our first outing, but being told to turn left where you can't -- then being sent in a loop -- doesn't fill us with warm, fuzzy sensations. Still, the navigation is super intuitive and cleanly laid out, and even if there were major issues (which there really aren't), it's hard to knock a service that is completely free. We think a little more time and some longer trips will help put it in better perspective, but we like what we've seen so far.

Accessories

The DROID will get a few nifty extras when it launches, most notably a dock for setting your phone on a nightstand (or appropriate flat surface), and a car mount for using the device as a proper GPS unit. Both are notable because they use sensors to alter the DROID's functionality. The dock turns the DROID into something that looks not entirely dissimilar from Verizon's now defunct Hub, while the car mount just boots the phone into nav mode. Both are nice touches, and you'll want the car mount if you plan on taking Google up on that offer of free satnav.

Battery life

We haven't had a lot of time to put the DROID through its paces when it comes to battery life, but at a glance it seems to be holding its own against the current crop of 3G devices -- impressive considering it's only packing a 1400mAh battery behind that extremely sexy door. Paul Miller, who has been concurrently testing the phone, claims he had 24 hours of on and off usage before requiring a recharge (syncing, but no major phone calls or lots of screen time). In general, you won't be blown away by the DROID's staying power, but it doesn't deviate in any wild ways which should make you take pause. It's solid, not breathtaking, and it seems better than the CLIQ, which -- despite using the same battery -- typically manages to just barely eke through a day's worth of typical use.

Wrap-up

It will be difficult for casual observers not to see the DROID as a kind of anti-iPhone in Verizon's arsenal. Certainly the company has played up the comparison with its "DROID does" ad campaign, and it's no secret that Verizon and Apple have previously had some friction -- the V famously passed on the first-generation iPhone, after all. Of course, it's easy to draw parallels between the two devices; as with most current smartphones, they share a tremendous number of similarities, though there is plenty that set the two apart as well. And that's really kind of the point -- it's useless to look at devices like this in black and white, or to try and figure out if an Android device on Verizon is better than an Apple device on AT&T (or any other device on any other carrier, for that matter). What it ultimately comes down to when judging this kind of device is more complicated than a "yes" or "no" answer.

If you must compare the DROID to the iPhone, then know that the Android platform still has a ways to go before the experience of using the phone is as seamless as the one Apple has created -- but also know that Apple has a long way to go before its messaging, email, and customization can match what Google is offering. Both products have very distinct strengths and weaknesses.

So, is the DROID a good smartphone? Yes, the DROID is an excellent smartphone with many (if not all) of the features that a modern user would expect, and if you're a Verizon customer, there probably isn't a more action packed device on the network. That's not to say the device doesn't have its faults; the camera was unpleasant to use, the application selection feels thin in both quantity and quality (despite the claim of 10,000 options), and the phone has bits of basic, non-intuitive functionality that might chafe on some users after a while. But even still, it's hard not to recommend the DROID to potential buyers eager to do more with their devices. It's easily the best Android phone to date, and when you couple the revamped OS, Verizon's killer network, and an industrial design straight from a gadget enthusiast's fever-dream, it makes for a powerful concoction. Ultimately, the DROID won't usurp the iPhone from the public's collective mindshare or convince casual users that they must switch to Android, but it will make a lot of serious geeks seriously happy -- and that's good enough for us.

Read More..