text:
OCZ's Vertex 2, Special Sauce SF-1200 Reviewedby Anand Lal Shimpi on 4/28/2010 3:17 PM EST
44 Comments
Back to Article
ScottHavens - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkIn the article, it was suggested that random data is not representative of what users will see. While the current sizes of drives may make that true, the importance of performance under loads of random data will become more important with time and with the growth of drive sizes. Why? Users will start to store a larger percentage of already-compressed files, like mp3s and movies, on their SSDs instead of buying additional bulk drives, and compressed files are, by nature, effectively identical to random data. Reply
ggathagan - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkAnand made two important distinctions: *small* and *writes*.
He wasn't referring to all random data, regardless of size, and wasn't referring to reads.
Those are important qualifications. Most mp3 files, and certainly movies fall under the *large* file size.
Additionally, the vast amount of activity with those types of files are going to be reads, not writes. Reply
Lonyo - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkNot to mention that compressed files such as XviD/etc films won't see anywhere near as much benefit from an SSD in the first place.
Sure, your read/write speeds might double or triple, but when it comes to sequential activities, mechanical drives are fast. SSDs excel at random reads/writes, which large files don't have so much of, since it's typically stored in a big chunk, meaning sequential activity, not random. And that's only a copying scenario.
The point at which an SSD becomes useful for such large files will be further away than the point at which it becomes viable for a wider range of files. I would transfer my games to a large SSD long before I would start transferring compressed media files. They can stay on a mechanical for a loooooong time.
When we do finally have large enough drives that they might be the primary storage drives, I doubt Sandforce will necessarily be applying the same ideas, and if they are, they will have progressed significantly from their current state.
Talking about applying a realistic future problem to drives which exist today is meaningless when you consider how much progress has been already made up the this point, and how much progress will be made between now and when the future issue actually becomes a reality (when SSDs are affordable for mass storage purposes). Reply
ScottHavens - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkI'm not arguing about whether a particular disclaimer in the article was completely accurate. My primary point was that it's not unheard of for people to use only one drive and still have a significant portion of their data compressed, and the number of people affected by this will likely increase over time. Further, I missed a key scenario that other posters have mentioned: file/partition encryption would likely be affected as well, and it's reasonable to assume that scenario will become more common as well as disk-level encryption becomes easier and even required by some companies.
Further, I should point out that the problem (insofar as it is one) by no means affects only small writes. Large reads, according to the tables, have a 20% perf hit, and large writes have a 43% perf hit.
I don't intend to denigrate SandForce's methods here, by any means. If it helps, it helps, and I'll probably get at least one of these myself. I'm just pointing out that the 'YMMV' caveat is applicable to more people and situations than some people realize. Reply
TSnor - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkRe: Encryption and point that encrypted data doesn't compress. This is true, but... the SF controller self encrypts. There is little/no point in doing software full disk encryption before sending the data to the SF controller to be encrypted. SF-1200 uses 128 bit AES which NIST counts as strong encryption. Reply
ScottHavens - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkUnfortunately, the only way to use that encryption is to use the device (ATA) password. Management and real-world usage of that is a pain and not nearly as flexible as the options available with, say, BitLocker. I'd wager that most companies with OS-level encryption policies in place will want to continue with their current policies rather than make exceptions for using ATA passwords with drives like this, even if the quality of the encryption itself is just as good. Reply
beginner99 - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkStupid question:
Can I unplug my sandforce drive and put it in an other computer and read the data without knowing the encryption password?
if yes isn't then the drives native encryption useless? Reply
ScottHavens - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkNo, you'll be required to enter a password on startup. Reply
arehaas - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkMost laptops, including mine, allow for only one HD. I bought a Corsair F200 (before Anand reported the compressed file issue) and planned to keep my jpg photos, mp3s, some movies on the laptop attached to a TV (or a receiver). I think this is a reasonably common scenario. Users are already dealing big time with large compressed files which are slower sequentially on Sandforce than on Indilinx.
I wish Crucial fixed their firmware sooner because C300 256GB is about $50 cheaper than F200 or Vertex 2 and faster in all dimensions. Reply
beginner99 - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkget a cheap small external hdd if your concerned about this. But generally I would not consider mp3's and jpgs as large files.Yes, compressed but by no means large.
Yeah many small laptops only have 1 hdd/sdd. It's IMHO stupid. would be much better to have space for 2 and just ship an external dvd drive. i mean i need my drive like once every couple month. completely useless if you have to carry it around all the time. (that's one great thing about the hp envy 15) ;) Reply
carleeto - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkI don't think people are going to use an SSD for music and movies any time soon. At least, not until the price per GB falls within 200% of a normal hard drive. Where I could see this kind of thing being used a lot on an SSD is with a Truecrypt partition that is used to store source code, documents, mail etc. That's a lot of small writes and reads and the result, because of the encryption layer is really quite random. So I'd actually disagree with Anand here - it is something that is going to be quite relevant to a security conscious user and that is quite a large market, when you factor in enterprises. Reply
NandFlashGuy - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkAt my workplace, all PCs have PGP software installed. That should make the data in all writes to disk look like random data, meaning less than optimal performance.
Anand, can you measure performance under the normal benchmarks with PGP installed? It's a realistic use case for anyone in the corporate world. Reply
Squuiid - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkAnand, any news on how your replacement Crucial RealSSD C300 is holding up? Did Crucial fix the performance deterioration bug you last talked about?
Can you recommend the Crucial over the Vertex 2, or vice versa? Reply
Grit - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkI'd like to second that request. The Crucial drive manages impressive speeds in most benchmarks and does so without the loss in space. I can live with a 256GB SSD, but a 200GB SSD is cutting it a bit too close. Reply
DesktopMan - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkWill there be any tests on the AES features? Since this is a feature not present in most SSDs an article on how it works and performs would be very interesting. Reply
vol7ron - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkAll these comments, so little time :)
Looks good. Reply
diamondsw - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkAs much ink has been spilled about SandForce, I still haven't seen anything that would indicate it's a better choice than the Crucial RealSSD C300, which has better performance at a (slightly) better price. Am I missing something important? Reply
arehaas - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkCrucial C300 have a problem with its firmware that Crucial hasn't solved yet. Performance degrades significantly. Anand found this problem in a "Crucial's RealSSD C300: An Update on My Drive" from March 25. Crucial is currently promising to release the new firmware in mid-May, but they have shifted this deadline already twice. There is no guarantee they will manage to do it in May. Major reviewers do not recommend buying C300 SSD yet. Reply
xiphmont - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkI expect Crucial will fix their firmware issue just as it appears that Sandforce has fixed theirs.
The Sandforce's redundancy (silent correction and reprovisioning around bit errors and failed flash cells) is what sells me on the Sandforce. If the promises are true, these drives will last longer and throw unrecoverable errors far less often as the NAND ages. Performance is a nice extra.
It terrifies me that the other mass production SSDs appear to offer no redundancy or error detection/correction of stored bits at all. Reply
jimhsu - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkSandforce attempts to scare you with this in their marketing literature. ALL SSDs (even crappy first gen JMicron ones) do a substantial amount of error correction (the raw error rate for flash is something ridiculously bad like 10^-7 to 10^-8). I think even camera flash memory has embedded error correction (don't take my word for it though). Sandforce just does "more" than its competitors. Reply
xiphmont - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkYay, good to know. Do you have any pointers to descriptions of the error handling in other drives and devices? Reply
jimhsu - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkSome hard numbers:
Flash memory: 10^-8 to 10^-6 depending on # of cycles. Figure 2, when writing to MLC.
Hard drives: > 10^-4 (!!)
And people say flash memory is unreliable. ALL consumer storage devices (hard drives, SSDs, CDs, etc) have ridiculously massive amounts of error correction considering the rate of raw errors. It just so happens that the storage media that everyone in the world uses (DNA) is the same. Reply
MrBabbage - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkImpressive benchmark numbers, but is this drive really any faster than the original Vertex (assuming you're running Windows 7, and FW 1.5)?
From what I hear, you might shave a second or two off of application loading versus the original Vertex - and that's only with heavy duty applications like Photoshop and AutoCAD. Can you confirm that?
If that's the case, then this would seem to have been a step in the wrong direction: minimal performance gains for lost capacity and higher cost per gig. I still agree that SSDs are the single best performance upgrade you can buy at the moment, but with the amazing prices on Vertexes and X25-M G2s at the moment, why go for the Vertex 2? Nothing in this article suggests it's actually a good buy.
In short, benchmarking the drive's sequential read/write performance and random read/write performance is generally pretty useless. With a controller that is architected this way, it would strike me as worse than useless, given that such benchmarks will produce staggering figures that have little effect on the main uses for SSDs (faster boot times, faster application loading times, better performance with encrypted/compressed files and workloads). Reply
strikeback03 - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkThat is a question I wondered about in articles like this or the RAIDed 40GB Intel SSD one. Sure they turn out higher IOPS numbers, but is this something actually noticeable to humans? In a blind test would I be able to tell the difference between otherwise identical systems if one was running an 80GB X25M and one was running the RAIDed 40GB X25Vs? Reply
QChronoD - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkIf you wrote mostly highly compressable data to the drive, would you be able to write more "data" to this drive than a regular SSD? Reply
strikeback03 - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkNo, as far as the OS is concerned you do not gain space by compressing the data. Reply
hybrid2d4x4 - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkAnand, I don't know if you follow other sites' articles, but a fairly recent SSD roundup at Tom's also measured power consumption (see link at the bottom of the post), and curiously, they measured 0.1W idle for the Intel drive compared to similar numbers to yours for every other SSD. Are there some test system settings that might be tweaked to get such low idle power figures with the Intel drive (and others) or does it seem like there is something sketchy about their data?
I know that with these low power levels, this might seem like splitting hairs, but on a CULV laptop's power budget, 0.5W is still significant, IMO. Also, is there any chance you can throw in a modern 2.5" mechanical drive as a reference point in your SSD power charts? Thanks and keep up the good work on your SSD coverage!
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/6gb-s-ssd-hdd,... Reply
strikeback03 - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkI know the 200GB 7200 RPM drive I used in my carputer was rated for 1A at 5V. That was the only power number listed, no 12V draw. Reply
gfody - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkYou made a point to show iometer results using random data but you still present screenshots of HDTach's results using all-zero reads/writes. The all-zero tests are no more realistic than the iometer all-random tests - I think the all-random test is probably closer to reality than HDTach now. I may not always write perfectly random data but I certainly won't be writing all-zero data! Reply
xiphmont - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkI believe that OCZ has also released and is recommending the 3.0.5 MP firmware update for the Vertex LE (It is labelled 1.0.5 on the OCZ site). Given that users were bricking their Vertex LEs left and right due to suspend bugs, this is most welcome... Anand, do you happen to know if OCZ 1.0.5 and Sandforce 3.0.5 are the same, and if the Special Sauce is preserved in the Vertex LE with this upgrade? It's been asked on the OCZ forums, but not answered directly.
I have a pair of LEs that I'm going to update regardless, but it would be nice to know. Reply
Imperceptible - Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - linkI'd like to see how non-SandForce drives handle the truly random data write tests. Would they be expected to perform no different to the normal data tests? Reply
krazyderek - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkAlthough 100GB might be the sweet spot, it's still to expensive or to much for some people, i'm looking at these charts for workstation hard drives, and 50GB is perfect, but i want to know what kind of performance drop i'm also going to see on these. I wish manufacturer's would cut the crap and send more capacity points to be tested!!! IT DRIVES ME NUTS! the REAL SSD C300 is a perfect example, we get the 256gb version for testing, then find out later that the 128gb version isn't quite as hot.... well i want to see the numbers!!! and not just the manufacturer's "up to" numbers posted on newegg if any, often times you have to wait for someone to buy one of the drives and post some numbers them selve's but who know's how rigorous their test methods are.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE test the other capacity points!!!! Reply
Danse82 - Monday, May 10, 2010 - linkI know exactly what you mean! I've been looking at the 50G model for a while now, as it does hit the sweet spot for me too. And I too have been wondering how the 50G model's performance will stack up against the 100G. Reply
lentc01 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - linkI too would like to know the performance differences between the 50GB and the tested 100GB drives. I am debating between getting the OCZ 50GB LE or the OCZ 50GB V2 Reply
JPForums - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkIs there a reason that the Vertex LE is highlighted and not the Vertex 2?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but I thought the Vertex 2 was new and interesting data.
Not that it amounts to much, but the Vertex 2 ends up slightly outperforming the Corsair force in most cases where the Vertex LE falls slightly short.
The data is all there, but it would be misinterpreted by people who only take a cursory glance at the charts. Reply
Skraeling - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkI still need to put a ssd in my desktop, its done wonders for my laptop (120gb agility). My desktop now feels really really slow and its a quadcore gaming pc. Sigh I sense a win7 Agility2 upgrade in my future. Reply
DrJohan - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkI am a Swedish anesthesiologist with 2 kids, a research program and far too many hobbies. I am interested in computers but I just don´t have the time to be any good at it. I have just ordered a new laptop (see below) and want to equip this with a SSD. The upcoming Vertex 2 is the one I am thinking about. I have been surfing around during the limited free time I have and Anand and this forum seems to be about as good as things get. I therefore would like to ask a few questions and would be very happy if I could also get some decent answers:
I have ordered a 15" Macbook pro, core i7, 8Gb RAM, crappy 500Gb harddisk. I chose this because i needed a computer which would last a few years and with very good battery life. It also looks pretty cool.
I almost ordered the Apple 256Gb SSD upgrade until I read on the net that they are rubbish. Intel seem to make good stuff but OCZ Vertex are "compatible with Mac". The upcoming Vertex 2 seems to be a nice piece of hardware: My questions:
1. Mac does not have TRIM support. What is TRIM?
2. Since there is no TRIM, Garbage Collection seems to do the job. Is this correct?
3. Does the Vertex 2 have Garbage collection? If so, does it work?
4. The whole "limited lifetime due to limited read/write episodes" is confusing to me. Is this really an issue with new SSD´s? The Vertex 2? Doesn´t garbage collection sort this out?
5. Is the Vertex 2 "compatible with Mac"? Is this even necessary?
Will be REALLY happy if Anand or anyone else could help me out here. I know I sound like a loser, but I just don´t have the time to check these things out myself (and I lack alot of the basic computer know-how that I think is needed).
Cheers/ Johan Reply
Dylock - Friday, April 30, 2010 - linkJohan-
You'll receive a better response in a forum dedicated to SSDs, rather than in this article comment section.
http://forums.anandtech.com/ Reply
robert.staflin - Tuesday, May 04, 2010 - linkI would certainly think that it works! I bought the original OCZ Vertex for my 17" MacBook Pro (early 2009), and also an extra one that I fit in an Optibay (MCETech). The extra drive has failed twice, but the original one has worked now for a long time...
I haven't been able to find out if there's any real difference between OCZs "Mac versions" and the ordinary ones, but I'm pretty sure it'll work alright!
Best regards,
/Robert Staflin Reply
matthewfallshaw - Saturday, May 08, 2010 - linkI don't think that the Vertex 2 has garbage collection, but I'm unsure, and I'm having trouble working it out. See Tony (OCZ employee) on the OCZ forums at http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread...
> First thing is the LE is a Sandforce based drive, it does NOT work like an Indilinx based drive. There is NO idle time garbage collection on an LE. I am waiting to see what we can publish to educate you guys regarding just how the drives controller works...for now do not think it works like a regular Vertex as it does not. [posted 2010-04-13]
He's talking about the Vertex Limited Edition there, but it sounds like he's also describing the other Sandforce drives (like the Vertex 2).
Lloyd Chambers finds (http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-Befor... that the OWC Mercury Extreme, which is a Sandforce drive and I've seen described elsewhere as being the same as the Vertex 2, just doesn't suffer from slowdowns *at all*, but the AnandTech article we're discussing shows *read* slowdowns after working the drive, that are repaired after TRIM (which our Macs don't have) (I don't understand that at all, since I thought the slowdown was supposed to be on write due to having to prepare the memory locations to receive new data).
… still researching… Reply
marraco - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkThe data compression accelerates the writing speed, but, the question is:
The OS still considers that the non written space is occupied?
Or the compression releases the non used space?
I suspect that the unused space is marked anyways as used space, but I would like a confirmation. Reply
TheHolmes - Thursday, April 29, 2010 - linkIf Sandforce is largely about writing fewer bits to the NAND flash, wouldn't it also follow that turning on OS level compression would also work as well?
Also, I'd be interested to know if using OS striping is ok with TRIM, as there aren't any controllers out there that work with TRIM when SSDs are striped. Reply
cyrexo - Friday, April 30, 2010 - linkHey Anand,
have you put a Sandforce based disk into a mabook and let it running only on OSX?
Can you say something about speeddrops without Trim or does the build in "gc" wich isn't "gc" can handle it accurate?
i get my hands on a new I7 macbook and want to put a sdd into but i don't know if i should go for the old intels, use the new sandforce or wait some moths to see what intel does and how stable sandforce is without trim. Reply
529th - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - linkWhat is the verdict with these Vertex 2 100g SSD drives???
Because I just got one in the mail from OCZ as a replacement for my dead Vertex LE 100G SF1500
Anand, care to comment as they have been in your desktop for ~ 5 months now.. or anyone who owns one???
p.s. i am considering a main rig install with this, booting out my ever reliable 150g 1st gen Raptor... Reply


text:
The Ultrabook: Meet the New Thin and Light Intel Notebookby Anand Lal Shimpi on 5/31/2011 12:01 AM EST
- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Atom
- Haswell
- Computex 2011
- Laptops
- Trade Shows
- Ultrabook
33 Comments
Back to Article
StormyParis - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkIntel has a history of failing at anything where they don't have a huge headstart (ie, anything non x86, or non purely process driven: Itanium, networks, wireless, DGX, RISC... basically, anything non Flash and non x86, and even x86 they managed to mess up a few times.
They finally threw in the diversification towel and went all-in on x86. I'm very unclear about what advantages x86 has apart from Intel's fabs. MS dramatically dropping the ball in the phone/tablet space didn't help them at all. MS trying to avoid a catastrophe by going ARM doesn't either. Even if MS finally manages to put together something believable in the phone/tablet space, it won't be an Intel exclusive.
My new Desktop is a $350 E-350, and is plenty powerful for what I do with it. I'm guessing next year ARM will be at that level of power (basically, playing videos on one screen, office stuff on the other, very light gaming), and it will be a good time to take a long hard look at whether paying $150+ for a Windows license really makes sense.
I think the weak link int the ARM food chain is Linux: no games, too fragmented, too experimental still, bad documentation. If a good strong and above newb-friendly version of Linux could emerge as a good all-rounder, ARM's chances would be even better. If the Linux camp doesn't wake up quickly, we'll end up with Windows on ARM, which will be... sad. Reply
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkGenerally speaking, all modern CPUs are now RISC, but the x86 processors have an x86 decoding front end that translates the CISC instructions into RISC. Intel did this first way back in the P6 days. Of course, we also have all the SSE, MME, and other extensions (not just from Intel -- all the other CPUs have specialized instruction sets as well for certain work), so I'm not sure how valid calling anything "RISC" is these days.
I'd also take pretty strong exception with the assertion that Intel has "failed" at networks and wireless; my experience is that both their WiFi and NIC solutions are slightly better than the competition.
Then we get to the part where you say that an E-350 desktop is "plenty powerful for what you do". I suppose that's great for you, but having used E-350 and a lot of other systems, E-350 would be way down my list for a desktop system. I might use if for an HTPC, but anything more demanding than that and there are far better options. Llano at least is looking pretty good in initial testing, though. Reply
Wilco1 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkCISC CPUs are NOT RISC, as this is about the instruction set. And they are not the same internally either. CISCs always carry the extra overhead of complex variable length instruction decoders, large micro code ROMs and micro sequencers, extra logic to deal with read/modify/write instructions etc.
It is for this reason that you can have an Out-of-order RISC (Cortex-A9) which is not only several times smaller than an Atom, but also much faster while using far less power. That's the difference between RISC and CISC. Reply
Penti - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkThere's plenty of documentation, games and coherency in GNU/Linux but it is largely so in the embedded and mobile space as ARM doesn't target desktops.
So a GNU/Linux platform with Gstreamer (Gstreamer and OpenMAX decoders), PulseAudio, GCC toolchain, libraries or middleware such as Clutter, Qt, Android and EGL/DRI/OpenGL ES support does plenty well in the phone, tablet and embedded market with multimedia, applications, user friendliness and games. You have players such as MeeGo, WebOS, Android and low-level infrastructure oriented LiMo. What you don't have and never will have is a consumer GNU/Linux distro that will run on everything from desktop oriented netbooks, desktops and server to phones and tablets. But you already has great games for the GNU/Linux platforms through the mobile-variants. There's no reason you can't use the same tools and API's for full size aka desktop games. For that matter Microsoft will never run Windows (NT) on phones. 8 for ARM I'm sure won't be for desktop users and I'm even more sure you won't be able to install it yourself. Intel however was rather set on running GNU/Linux on x86 tablets and smartphones. That might change now when their partner Nokia decided to go with Microsoft and downsize a profitable company, but I'm pretty sure they don't base their business on that. Different platforms should exist just fine tomorrow too. It's the normal consumers and hardware manufacturers that decides if Windows 8 tablets/smartbooks stick. Just being Windows based and building on ribbon won't do it by it self. Reply
Freddo - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkLooking forward to the fanless Cedar Trail netbooks a lot.
I hope there will be at least one "quality" model that is released with metal, instead of just feeling like a cheap plastic toy. Oh, and support for HDMI, of course. Reply
SteelCity1981 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link"Silvermont to look like? I'd say it might look a lot like a modern, ultra low power take on Conroe."
So that will mean by 2019 the Atoms should have similar performace as the first gen Core I series. :) Reply
soydeedo - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkDoes anyone know the model of the laptop in the second picture on the very first page of the article? The picture below the new Padfone. Reply
stonedatheist - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkYes I do, seeing as how I just ordered one :) it's the Asus Transformer inserted into its keyboard dock. Reply
soydeedo - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkThanks a lot for the help, and enjoy your new toy. =)
Very sleek indeed. ASUS isn't playing around these days. Reply
Kepe - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkYep, the URL to the picture is http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tablets/ASUS/E... so it isn't that hard to guess what it is ;) Reply
soydeedo - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkHaha, you super sleuth, you. Thanks for the help. =)
I actually thought that might be it because of the giant hinge connection/protrusion, but when I went on Google's image search looking for profile pics, nothing really caught my eye. It's a shame, though - I was hoping there was a fully fledged notebook that looked like that. It looks great from that angle anyhow. Reply
duploxxx - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkThe final requirement is all Ultrabooks must be sold at mainstream price points, which Intel calls sub-$1000.
Intel estimates that by the end of next year 40% of consumer notebooks will be Ultrabooks. Given the desirable set of features and reasonable price point, I can see that happening.
With that pricepoint? your joking right? the share will be about 1-2% some geeks that want to show off on an airport or tradeshow. For that price i buy a decent tablet and a notebook. They will only be able to meat there perf goals in 2013, competition isn't idle in that area.
7x GPU perf means HD3000 like if they calculate from atom based right now, that ain't magic either :), that will just be brazos perf in early 2012 :). Reply
A5 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkApple has reached 5+% of the notebook market selling almost exclusively $1000+ products.
If I were spending the same amount of money either way, I'd rather have a super-thin notebook than a tablet + a "normal" laptop. Reply
Dribble - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkGot to agree. It's just a macbook air for windows with a different name. The macbook air for mac hasn't sold that well, and that's got all the apple fanboys that should love this sort of thing. The windows market is going to be substantially smaller - haven't other companies already tried this sort of thing?
Now if it was $400 they'd sell plenty but it's not so I don't see how it'll ever be more then a tiny niche market. Reply
name99 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link"The macbook air for mac hasn't sold that well, "
And you know this based on the scientific technique of pulling a number out of your ass?
COMMON SENSE would tell us that the product is doing well, given that Apple broadened the line from one to two different models. But we can do more than that, we can look at the numbers.
Q4 2010 Apple sold 1.1 million macbook airs. How does that compare?
In the same period, Apple sold a total of 2.9 million notebooks.
I'd say that's doing pretty well. Reply
jjj - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link" I fully expect Ivy Bridge to target relatively similar TDPs as Sandy Bridge"
Is that just an assumption or any solid info? The combination of smaller process and FinFET might allow them to play a bit with perf,power consumption and dies size. Reply
TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkI am suspicious about this statement well. The big TDP drop should happen with Ivy Bridge and its process change. Haswell, using the same process, will also have a much lower TDP. If not, I fear that the ultra book will get to market too late to counter the growing onslaught of ARM tablet. Reply
Khato - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkHere's to hoping that they can actually bring it to fruition. There might be a decent chance of it happening, since I'd bet that Intel is basically taking their learnings from trying to get into the phone and tablet market and applying them to a notebook platform. After all, why can't the same basic tricks used in an atom smartphone be applied to a sandy/ivy bridge laptop? Especially since they could now bring 4G mobile connectivity into the platform the same way they brought wireless into the mainstream with centrino. There's some pretty awesome potential, that's for sure. Reply
Calabros - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkat the middle of 2012 ULV IvyBridge (22nm) will be far better in performance/watt ratio than high end Saltwell Atom (yet 32nm).. and its exactly the gap AMD will fill Reply
A5 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkWith what? They haven't said anything about updates to Llano for that timeframe. Reply
OS - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkheh i am hardly a mac fanboy, but i take this as intel basically saying half the future laptops should look like a macbook air Reply
Penti - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkWell ultra portables are nothing new, but they are consumer friendly with pricing now. I.e. a laptop with a ULV processor doesn't cost over 2000 dollars any more. Which on the low end Apple was late getting on. CULV and consumer ultra-portables was already there by then. It's Intel that is responsible for all that as they provided the hardware platform for it to happen. A ULV-processor could before just a few years ago almost cost more then a CULV-laptop. Now they can be had for 100 USD. Performing not that badly. Falls in line with their "consumerising" of PCs. Reply
kevith - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkIs this a way to solve the input-problem with tablets?
You could have one of these new ultrathin ultrabooks, and - like some clam-type phones - have a screen on the outside for pad-use, where you could use swype or normal touch.screen input.
And then you could open it and have a normal keyboard and screen on the inside for more demanding work. Reply
TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkWhen Steve Jobs unveiled the MacBook Air last year he said that it's design was a prelude to future MacBooks. Now Intel says the future of the PC is ultra-thin notebooks. Hmmm... Reply
sstteevveenn - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkroadmap [s]going forward[/s] Reply
mino - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - linkAnyone else wondering when are the new "Hyperbooks" due?
/sarcasm Reply
tipoo - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link"Atom will service a new expanded range from ~800mW to 8W"
The Cortex A9 cores (each) draw 250mW at load. Still a ways to go for Intel, but if a single one of those 800mW cores can beat both Cortex A9 cores in performance that's competitive. Reply
name99 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link"The first requirement of an Ultrabook is that it's ultra-thin. In Intel's eyes this means less than 0.8" (20.32mm) which is thinner than anything Apple offers in the MacBook Pro line (0.95")."
So I guess that Intel (unlike a million screaming Apple haters) can see the writing on the wall. Optical storage is pointless for an ever larger group of users.
Let's see how long it takes for the story to switch from "but but but, how do you deal with not having a boot DVD" to "of course, Apple stole the idea of selling bootable USB sticks from MS/Linux/Nintendo/Atari". Reply
frozentundra123456 - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - linkI agree with Kevith. Seems to me like the ideal solution would be a combination of some tablet type screen that would then open up to allow you to use a keyboard.
I would pay 1000.00 for something like this that you could use as a tablet and laptop combination. otherwise, I could not consider paying this much for a thin and light notebook. As someone else noted, i would prefer to buy a 500.00 tablet and a separate 500.00-700.00 laptop. Reply
Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - linkIntel is obviously on a big money grab hoping their huge margins are going to carry them to the stars. Obviously they are delusional. All the idiot-trendy yuppie types who would actually pay the intel premium for a device like this are already buying Apple. lol. The non-ultrabook products will be significantly cheaper, thus they are what will sell, aside from the small % mindless yuppies who are already buying apple. Reply
Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - linkAll the reviews I can find are talking about a lot of heat and not very impressive battery life. Specifically, the i5-2537M. I wish Anandtech would do a more comprehensive review of these ultra expensive low power parts. When you comapre a 17W part with a 35W part, is the power consumption really cut in half or are they full of it? Reply
tipoo - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - linkIf both systems were under 100% load, it might be cut in half. Otherwise, absolutely not. THe 35w part might finish a task three times quicker and get to idle longer. Reply
High John - Sunday, June 26, 2011 - linkSurely the goal is 'ultraportability', which I would primarily evaluate in terms of performance, weight and battery life.
Why should it matter if an Ultrabook is more than 20mm thick? Reply

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thermalright Ultima-90: Small Wonder?by Wesley Fink on 8/20/2007 2:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
36 Comments
Back to Article
Rick1 - Sunday, August 26, 2007 - linkIn a couple of post above the questions are asked Why run one of these coolers
My answer is simple
Quiet and cool running system
The only fan I hear is the One installed in the hard drive compartment of this P182B case
( cooling 4 drives. 2x raptors and 2x Barracuda 7200.10 SATA 3.0Gb/s 500-GB )
With 2 fans S-Flex blowing in and the stock two exhaust fans
This Q6600 runs at 32Cto35C and has never gone over 48C under a full load
I was never able to get the stock H/S below 50C on warm days Reply
jnk - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - linkquestion for the reviewer:
when you reviewed the ultima-90, when mounted were you able to twist it? I recently bought one and i can twist it even while its locked and the screws are tight. I emailed thermalright about it and they that its normal. Reply
Patvs - Saturday, August 25, 2007 - linkThis is the best CPU cooler review on the net! I have one question though.
In the Noise Level test, some coolers are tested with low and high RPM settings.
For example the Tuniq Tower 120 @1000 RPM and @2100 RPM. However the Thermaltake Big Typhoon VX is only tested @2000 RPM.
Is the HIGH RPM setting always used for the Temperature Tests (IDLE and LOAD)?? Or do you use the LOW RPM setting as default for the temperature tests? *confused* If HIGH: it shows the Tuniq is really quiet at LOW RPM, but you show its cooler potential in temperature in HIGH RPM? How does it cool at LOW RPM? (or if LOW: how much does the temperature decrease if the cooler is at HIGH RPM) Also I would love to see a test with TWO fans hooked up to some of these coolers in the future.
Patvs - Saturday, August 25, 2007 - linkEdit: You state you use stock speed RPM settings for the temperature tests.
So why use 2000 RPM for the Big Typhoon VX? Isn't its stock speed 1300 RPM. (it is for the Big Typhoon non-VX version without the fan controller) Reply
muddocktor - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - linkAs always, a good heatsink review by you, Wesley. But I have a question about the Thermalright samples that you all get for review. Do you receive these directly from Thermalright or are they procured from an authorized reseller such as Sidewinder Computers or Newegg from actual shipping production? The reason I ask is that while I find the engineering and design of Thermalright's heatsinks to be top-notch, I have personally found that their base finish to be spotty. I own or have owned 2 XP90's, an XP90-C, SI 120, Ultra 120, and an Ultra 120 eXtreme (all bought at retail except the SI 120, which was bought used) and of those the only ones that had a half decent base finish that was usable as-is were the XP90-C and SI 120. The others either had a fairly poor base finish with visible machining marks left in them and in the case of the U-120, an absolutely horrible base finish with a ridge left on one side of the base. The XP-90's also had very concave bases too. All saw improved to much improved performance after giving the base a lap job. If you are getting your review samples directly from Thermalright instead of from a vendor that handles their heatsinks, I am sure that the samples you receive are thoroughly checked for finish before sending them out to you and aren't truly representative of what is actually going out for sale through normal channels. It would be interesting to see if you could get some samples from someone online that didn't know they were going to Anandtech (to minimize the chance of cherry picking the heatsinks) and do a consistency review showing differences (or lack of) in performance of production line Thermalright heatsinks.
Also, I have heard the thing Thermalright has put out about the concaveness of their bases being engineered into their design and don't buy that a bit. I think that is just something the salesmen have thought up to cover inconsistencies in the base finish from their manufacturer and my experience (so far) has proved out for me at least that a lapped, flat base works better on both LGA775 and socket 939 systems. Other than the base finish though, I find that Thermalright makes the best overall line of premium aircooling equipment on the market. Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - linkWe first tested the Ultima-90 with a pre-production cooler. Results were then verified with a Retail cooler from a stocking retailer. Where there have been questions about items being "hand-picked" we often verify results with a retail sample.
In the case of the Ultima-90 the performance of the Thermalright-supplied Ultima-90 and the one off the Retail shelf were exactly the same. Reply
muddocktor - Sunday, September 02, 2007 - linkThank you for the answer answer on your samples you test, Wesley. I guess I just have bad luck in the base finishes I get on the Thermalright heatsinks I buy then. But since I know how to lap the base anyways it's no big problem for me. Thermalright does make some truly excellent products for cooling highly overclocked cpus. Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, September 03, 2007 - linkThermalright is not alone in advocating convex bases. Swiftech has moved from promoting flat, mirror-finish bases to convex bases with a finish not as good. They call them their bow base and claim 2 to 4C better performance with the "bow".
Engineers have found that the convex base (fat center) mates tighter in the area of the CPU under the cap. Also Intel manufactures caps that are not flat by design - conncave, convex, and wave designs are all used in certain processors. Research shows the convex cooler base mates best with any of these 3 Intel cap types.
The point is this is not a marketing story, as you will see as we go into water-cooling in more detail. Lapping a convex base Thermalright can DROP performance by 2 to 4C. Reply
customcoms - Friday, August 24, 2007 - linkAny chance you guys will be reviewing an Ultra-90? The reason I ask is because silicon valley computers often has these heatsinks in stock and on sale for $15...that seems like a great bargain to me especially when the bigger brothers, the Ultra-120 and 120 eXtreme, retail for upwards of $50. I would really like to know if spending the extra money for an Ultima-90 or Ultra-120 is even worth the performance increase... Reply
dm0r - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - linkGreat review Wesley, as aways. Reply
andereandre - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link
In these articles the Intel HSF is always classified as having the same noise level as the best coolers (and system-ps & no fans).
I have a X2 4600 however, and I hear the AM2 stock cooler at idle.
Does this mean that de Intel stock cooler is that much better than the AMD one, or is it just the measurement?
That is of real interest to me as I am looking to replace my cooler to make my pc more silent, not to oc it. Reply
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - linkEarly Intel 775 stock coolers were very noisy, but for the last year or so the Intel stock cooler is very quiet. That is further enhanced by the 4-pin fan connection that varies fan speed based on CPU temp and BIOS settings. Intel also uses a fan that is a standard 25mm thick.
While I don't have measurements for you, the AMD fan is noisier to my ears. AMD does use heatpipes, but they also use a very thin fan that has to run higher rpm to move enough air for cooling. Reply
Beenthere - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkFor years Thermalright has delivered best in class performance with all of the products. No reason to expect any difference with the Small Wonder. Thermalright does good engineering and proves out their product instead of rushing some POS out the door as the trick-of-the week product. And with Thermalright you don't get some stupid shitze whisles and bells to sucker the clueless sheep into buying their products. Reply
Axbattler - Monday, August 20, 2007 - link@ Wesley Fink: Can you please confirm that the height of the cooler with a 120mm fan attached is indeed shorter than the Ninja with a 120mm fan attached? I know that the Ninja is 150mm high, whereas the Ultima is 139mm, so I would expect, all things being equal that the Ultima requires less space than the Ninja. But a confirmation would be helpful as I've been looking for a cooler with comparable performance with the Ninja but a few (5-10mm) shorter. Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - link1600 RPM is correct, and the chart is corrected.
As for the Scythe Infinity, we can only report what we find, and others report what they find. You might compare test beds and methods for an explanation. The Infinity is deservedly loved by those whose primary goal is silence. That means the fan is relatively low output compared to coolers designed for overclocking as the primary goal.
We did find the Infinity reached 3.90 GHz at the top tier of our performance results when two fans were used in a push-pull arrangement. That is also included in our Scaling charts. As reported in our Infinity review the cooler can mount up to four fans. Reply
jackylman - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkIn the first sentence of the last paragraph on the last page.
"We asked in the beginning of this review if the smaller and lighter Thermalright Ultima-120 might be too compromised... Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkWe saved the most obvious for last :) Now corrected. Reply
xxxCHAOSxxx - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkGents,
I have been looking at the cooler market for about 2 or 3 months.. I was torn between the Tuniq 120, thermalright Ultra 120 and the Vigor Monsoon.. however each had a few things that i am a bit leary of. Mainly the weight and size issue. Currently I am running a thermaltake typhoon but am not happy with it. I have to go in every so often and adjust the screws holding it down as they appear to lossen over a short period of time. Based on your review of the thermals, i have just ordered the Ultima 90 and will drop you a line based on my results.
EVGA 680i
2Gig Memory
EVGA 8800GTX KO w/ ACS3
Thermaltake Armor
Thermaltake Toughpower 800 Reply
yacoub - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkBeen looking forward to an Anandtech review of this cooler for about three months now (since the first sneak peak review was seen on another forum). Glad to see this is indeed a pretty badass cooler! =) Reply
MercenaryForHire - Monday, August 20, 2007 - link
Model Panaflo H1A 92mm (BX) with RPM Sensor
Fan Size 120mm x 120mm x 25mm
Something's not quite adding up there ... Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkCorrected. Reply
CZroe - Monday, August 20, 2007 - link"The Ultima-90 is also the first Thermalright we have tested with four sets of fan wire mounting holes. This means with the right fan wires you can mount two fans in a push pull configuration."
So why not test it in this configuration? You had both fans, and one of your statements even seems to say this when taken out of context:
"our test configuration needs to look at the Ultima-92 with both a 120mm fan and a 92mm fan."
INDEED! The Ultra-120 Extreme could mount two fans with a second set of clips and rubber, so I always thought that it was a shame that they weren't included. Sure the clips were designed to use the same holes (they didn't have to be), but one could easily be forced into the second set of holes from the top and the other could be forced into the second set of holes from the bottom.
Anyway, I noticed that there were no views of the underside or mention of the finish. I assume that it's identical to the Ultra-120 Extreme (which I am regretting buying after reading this ;)).
Also, the comparison showing both 120 and 92mm fans mounted shows the rubber strips mounted incorrectly for the 92mm fan. Does the final retail version include two more of these for a push-pull config?
Also, your cooler comparisons had me strongly considering a Cooler Master Hyper 6+, but it is 100% unavailable. I tried my darndest to buy one. Cooler Master does not offer it, so it only makes sense to remove it from the comparison. I know that it fills a unique position, but in light of availability, it really needs to go (especially seeing how crowded the chart is getting). Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkThe Ultima-90 includes one set of rubber strips, one set of 120mm fan clips, and one set of 92mm fan clips. Since the height is different than the Ultra-120 series those fan clips will not work and extras for the Ultima-90.
Therefore, we did not have the clips for testing push-pull with matched fans. We will try to test this when we do a retest of some of the top units.
The finish is about the same as the Ultra-120 eXtreme, and Thermalright has written many buyers who questioned the curvature that the " . . . the convex surface is made that way to work well with the bolt down retention mechanism." Reply
CZroe - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - linkI know that the clips on the Ultra-120 Extreme are different, so I wasn't suggesting/considering using clips from one on another (what a waste of an Ultra-120 Extreme ;)). Just testing the included clips with the two fans you've been using simultaneously would be enough.
I certainly wasn't suggesting matched fans. I've been told that push/pull configurations only help with a lower CFM fan pushing and a higher CFM fan pulling or else you get no increased CFM or decreased noise. This was the consensus when I had to quiet down my Shuttle SN45G XPC (SFF) a few years ago with a fan duct and some case modding.
Thanks for the info about the finish. Considering the top-end performance of the Ultra-120 Extreme, I don't think anyone will question their decision to do that (it certainly didn't impact performance!). Reply
Egglick - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkThis is an excellent article, along with what sounds to be an excellent heatsink. However, I must echo some of the same feelings that other posters have been expressing:
Fix the test system's setup.
If we want to get a legitimate idea of how loud a cooler is, you're going to have to do better than 38db @ 24in for a noise floor. Swap out the videocard for a fanless model, and if necessary switch to a quieter PSU. Hell, go with an 8500GT if you need to. We're not testing the framerate of the videocard, we're testing the noise/performance of CPU coolers.
Let readers judge the heat/noise of videocards on their own merit. Reply
yacoub - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkTotally agree!! Reply
Tiamat - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkI know its tough to show all the data, but I was wondering if you could include insets that show just the heatsinks in the neighborhood of the performance of the reviewed specimen. When displaying all of the data at the same time with much of the graphs overlapping, its very difficult to find the appropriate plot. In fact, I gave up trying after 3 seconds (standard attention span when looking at graphs) -- this kind of renders the plots useless! Usually the take home message should be as quick in the plots as it is in the text, if not quicker!
My suggestion would be to show only 5 trends in the graph (including the intel retail for reference, two above, two below) while keeping all of the data in the table for those who need the ancillary information.
Thanks and I hope this helps!
Keep up the good work! Reply
Final Hamlet - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkI don't get the attraction of max overclocks... are they any good, except ego-pushing?
What I would be really interested in is how these coolers do in a stock PC without any fans. That would be _really_ interesting... otherwise I don't see any point in buying these things or overclocking 10MHz higher (oh, great, you did it...). Reply
coolerman - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkMost of the good air coolers seem pretty comparable. The 30-90 MHz overclocking differences are laughable, and while the temperature varies a bit most coolers fall into one of two categories: top out at ~3.9GHz and 37-45C, or top out at ~3.8GHz with slightly higher temperatures at the lower clock. The Ultima-90 is nice in that it weighs less, but the Tuniq 120 does manage to best it in several tests - i.e. with 92mm at top OCs - and technically costs less once you add in shipping and fans. Speaking of which, am I the only one that finds the $20 fan with a $50 HSF to be humorous? Fan makers must make a decent profit, compared to the poor heatsink blokes!
Also, do you think you could possibly cram any more entries into the scaling charts? Perhaps sort them by some reasonable criteria while you're at it - say, temperature for instance? The upper portion is useless, as it's just a cluster of illegible lines, and the lower table is almost sorted alphabetically, which means if I'm looking for similar coolers I have to stare for a long time. And those lovely colours… the large images help some, but fundamentally there's just too much data there now I think.
Anyway, seems like even though Thermalright got a glowing review, the iCEAGE, Hyper 6+, Vindicator (with SilenX), Ninja (with SilenX), and Tuniq 120 are all in the same ballpark. Of course, some of those are tough to find (iCEAGE anyone, or Tuniq across the pond?), but for the price the Ultima-90 really doesn't look that special. Fan + shipping means you'll pay probably $65-$70, which while better than the $85 you'd pay for Ultra-120 eXtreme is still not exactly a steal. Ninja is $45 shipped, Tuniq is about $55 shipped. $55-$60 shipped, plus a fan? You'll have to do better than that! As it is, I'll buy whatever is cheapest within reason - which is often Scythe, for the money. (Let's not even talk UK/European prices on most of this stuff, as I'm sure the majority of you don't care.... I'll just avert my lustful eyes from Newegg.com, Xoxide, etc.)
Now, my real question is how a true water cooling setup compares to all of these coolers. Fundamentally, air and water cooling are still limited to room temperature. Water simply cycles all the liquid around to a potentially larger radiator (and reservoir). I'm sceptical that most water cooling solutions will really do much better than something like the Ultra-120 eXtreme, but I'd like to see some results using your own testbed. If you ever do water, though, please run it at full load for 8 hours or so. Some water setups depend on the water starting at a low temperature, and as it heats up they can't maintain cooling efficiency. I had one that would crash after about two hours of intense gaming every time unless I turned the overclocks down.
Last but certainly not least, the "we're thinking about a new cooling test system so that our noise testing might actually have merit" talk is getting a wee bit old. It's about time to actually move on I'd say. I'd like a more moderate (fanless!) GPU in there in terms of noise, if only to allow us to see how quiet (or not) the coolers really are. Your PSU testing seems to have a bit better equipment for noise analysis, so maybe you can get some help with that area. I don't think X38 is necessary, just like 680i isn't necessary for the most part, but I suppose getting more or less useful temperature readings might be needed. Just toss everything that doesn't make the top 5 and move to the new testbed! (Easy for me to say, since I'm not doing all the work!)
Charles Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkWhile the frequency difference may appear minor at the top, the wattage dissipation is not. For the last two reviews I have also been quoting wattage in the review commentary for comparison.
A stock X6800 represents 75 watts, while that CPU at 3.83Ghz is at 150W - or double the heat to dissipate. At 3.90Ghz at the voltages required the requirement is 160 to 161W, while at the Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme maximum stable speed of 3.94 GHz the wattage is around 166W.
Many tests only consider air cooling results to 150W, but most readers buy secondary cooling to extend their overclock. Since the C2D overclock extremely well the wattages at some of the very high overclocks are very demanding.
We have a water-cooling review in process for comparison with these results. Once that is done we will choose a few top performers for retest and start testing with the new cooling test bed. The new test bed will require retesting of all coolers included so that is why the shift when a section like top air-coolers is completed.
Thr 92mm fan costs just over $6, while the 120 was $20. We used the Scythe S-Flex again because that was the fan used in testing the Thermalright Ultra-120 and the Ultra-120 eXtreme. We wanted to keep as many variables the same as possible.
Looking at output and noise you should be able to select a value 120mm fan below $10 that meets your specs. The Yate Loon medium output fan, for example, is very popular as a value case fan. The Yate Loon D12SM-12 cost $6.99 retail and has specified output of 70.5cfm at 33db at 1650rpm. Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkThe performance of the stock Intel Retail cooler also needs to be put in perspective. In our testing the Intel Retail HSF is stable to 3.73GHz at 1.50V. That translates into about 137W with an X6800 CPU.
While early Intel Retail 775 coolers were very noisy, stock coolers since late Presller and through Core2 have been very quiet, as you can see in our noise measurements in reviews.
With a stock cooler performing this well, we think a cooler HAS to provide performance better than Intel Stock to persuade you to buy it. We could argue using your logic that the difference between the Intel stock of 3.73GHz and the top 3.94GHz is only 200 megahertz and so it is minor. The wattage difference, however, is between 137W and 166W, which is a significant difference in the ability of coolers to dssipate heat. Reply
ssiu - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkI have a serious question regarding this. 3.73Ghz is perfectly fine with me and I don't care for another 200Mhz. The louder noise of stock cooler is also okay with me. So that leaves the temperature difference of 71C for stock cooler versus (43C for Ultra-120 eXtreme, 47C for Ultima-90, 59C for NinjaB, 62C for Infinity, etc.) Does the stock cooler's higher temperature make the CPU die prematurely? Or is it a case of "the CPU is designed to withstand 71C; at 3.73Ghz, 71C may make it last 5 years instead of 10 years at 43C, but even at 71C it will become obsolete (too slow) before it will die"?
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkIntel shows a maximum recommended temp of 60.4C at 75W (stock) for the X6800 in their thermal design document at ftp://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts...">ftp://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts... However, 3.83 Ghz is about 137W and we really don't know the recommendations at these higher frequencies since they represent overclocks.
It would seem reasonable to aim for lower than the max recommended temperature at stock speed if you are aiming for longevity of the CPU. That cahart can be found on p.85 of the Intel PDF linked above. Reply
Wesley Fink - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkCorrection - 3.73GHz at 1.5V is about 135W - which is the max stable speed with the Intel stock HSF. Sorry for the typo. Reply
Jedi2155 - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkTo Coolerman:
I had the Tuniq 120 for about 6 months on my E6600 setup, and although it was a great cooler and signifcantly cheaper than the Ultra 120 Extreme, it just isn't as good when all things are considered (size, noise levels, fan options) and the Ultra 120 extreme is worth the price difference IMO. The size made installation ever so much easier than the Tuniq and improvement in cooling (even with a cheap $7 thermaltake fan) was significant (went from 80 C Intel TAT to around 70 C).
I definitely think that you should recategorize the coolers, but instead of temperature, how about price range or probably best category SIZE.
I've had a number of issues during builds for friends, where the a certain cooler wouldn't fit (like a Tuniq 120 or the Ultra 120 Extreme) fit inside a case without significant modification (with a pair of pliers and remove a good section of the case).
That should help us decide better than just pure temperatures and overclock speed. Reply
CZroe - Monday, August 20, 2007 - linkI think that sorting by value/prices is a bad idea. Have you looked for the actual prices? Anandtech's reported suggested prices and "actual" market prices have been FAR lower than I've been able to find in each cooler that interested me. I eventually just settled on the Ultra-120 Extreme and the same fan from Newegg and paid FAR too much.
Perhaps the observed difference is because they keep getting price results for similar models (which complicated my own searching) or the only places that still carry some of these still have them because they always overcharged. Reply


text:
Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management
Our Sponsors
Karen Golinski, a federal court employee, sought to add her spouse, Amy Cunninghis, to her employer-provided health benefits plan after they were married in California in 2008. Since Golinski works as a lawyer for the Ninth Circuit, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, acting in an internal administrative capacity, ordered in 2009 that Golinski be given the family coverage after she filed an internal employment discrimination complaint. But the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), part of the executive branch of the federal government, thwarted those administrative orders and refused to allow Golinski to enroll her spouse for health coverage, arguing that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevented OPM from recognizing Golinski's marriage.
Lambda Legal and Morrison & Foerster LLP filed suit in federal district court seeking to stop OPM's interference with the administrative finding that Golinski be treated equally. We requested enforcement of the court's non-discrimination rule arguing, at the time, that the court administrator had the authority to determine employee eligibility for benefits without reference to DOMA. Then in February of 2011, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder announced a dramatic policy shift based on their conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional. Although the Department of Justice would no long be defending DOMA in court it also made clear that the government will continue to enforce DOMA as long as the law is still in place and will continue to deny spousal benefits to all federal employees with a same-sex spouse.
Since OPM was being defended by the Department of Justice – which had defended OPM's refusal to cover Karen's spouse – the new development threw a curve ball into the litigation. The district court judge did not immediately rule in Golinski's favor, deciding instead that OPM had the authority to determine eligibility – but allowed us to file an amended complaint arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Lambda Legal filed the amended complaint on Golinski's behalf seeking to overturn DOMA Section 3, arguing that it violates the Constitution. This time, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued against DOMA instead of defending it.
In February of 2012, Federal District Court Judge Jeffrey White issued a sweeping order declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives that was now defending DOMA on behalf of the Republican House Majority.
While the case is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Solicitor General's Office has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case "prior to judgment" – that is, before review by the court of appeals. The Department of Justice argues that Golinski is a good vehicle for the Supreme Court to consider because Judge White, in a particularly persuasive and nuanced analysis, decided that heightened scrutiny applies to sexual orientation discrimination and applied that standard to find Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, accepting DOJ's argument in the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court, our nation's highest court, will be the ultimate court to decide whether DOMA violates the constitution.
There are three other similar cases brought by GLAD and the ACLU pending review as well.
Read The Top 10 Things You Should Know About DOMA and the U.S. Supreme Court.
- September 2, 2008 Karen Golinski submits an application to enroll her spouse Amy Cunninghis under her employer-provided insurance plan.
- October 2, 2008 Golinski files a compliant under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan that the denial of insurance coverage for her spouse constitutes prohibited discrimination.
- January 13, 2009 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski orders that Golinski be allowed to enroll Cunninghis om the Blue Cross/Blue Shiled plan that covers Golinski and her son.
- February 20, 2009 OPM announces it will ignore Kozinski's ruling and directs Blue Cross not to process Golinski's insurance application.
- November 19, 2009 Judge Kozinski again orders OPM to process Golinski's application and that she be compensated for back pay.
- December 18, 2009 OPM announces via press release it will ignore Kozinski's order.
- January 20, 2010 Lambda Legal files suit against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- December 17, 2010 Court hears oral argument.
- February 23, 2011 In response to an announcement that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and inappropriate to defend, Judge Jeffrey White addresses a series of four questions to the government asking how it plans to proceed in Golinski v. OPM.
- February 28, 2011 Government attorneys reply that they intend to continue to enforce DOMA—and to fight rulings ordering benefits for Golinski—until a court orders them not to or until Congress itself repeals DOMA.
- March 3, 2011 Lambda Legal replies to the government's answers.
- March 16, 2011 Judge grants motion by government attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit, but sets an April 15 deadline for an amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.
- April 14, 2011 Lambda Legal and co-counsel file amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.
- July 1, 2011 The U.S. Justice Department files a strongly worded brief arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional.
June 3, 2011 The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervenes on behalf of leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives to defend DOMA.
June 3, 2011 BLAG moves to dismiss Plaintiff's case.
July 1, 2011 Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, asking the court for a final order holding DOMA unconstitutional.
December 16, 2011 Court hears oral argument.
February 22, 2012 U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White declares DOMA unconstitutional as applied to Karen Golinski.
April 11, 2012 Ninth Circuit expedites briefing in the appeal and sets oral argument for week of September 10.
July 3, 2012 The Justice Department asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
July 10, 2012 132 members of Congress, 70 companies, the state of California—as well as hundreds of associations, legal scholars, religious, labor and civil rights groups and others—join 13 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to find DOMA unconstitutional.
December 7, 2012 Out of the four DOMA challenges the Supreme Court was asked to consider, including Golinski v. OPM, the Court agrees to hear United States v. Windsor.
March 27, 2013 The Supreme Court hears oral argument in United States. v. Windsor.
June 26, 2013 In U.S. v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court declares Section 3 of the federal, so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional.
July 23, 2013 Citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal of the U.S. District Court ruling in Golinski v. O.P.M.
Case Information
Karen Golinski
Lambda Legal
Tara Borelli and Jon Davidson
Co-counsel/Cooperating Attorneys
James R. McGuire, Gregory P. Dresser, Rita F. Lin and Aaron D. Jones of the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP


text:
We value your feedback.
Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!
Become a Premium Member and unlock a new, free course in leading technologies each month.
Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.
Connection-specific DNS Suffix Search List :
If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question
Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.


text:
Overwatch Reaper Die Mouthmasks SD02108
Customer satisfaction is very important to us.
If you are satisfied with the items you ordered,
please leave 5 stars feedback.
If you are not satisfied with the items you ordered,
please contact us before leaving negative feedback.
We can work together to resolve any dispute.
Estimated delivery time:
☆ USA: 8-16 business days ☆
Other countries:
18-35 business days
Countries with strict custom:
30-45 business days
45-60 business days
28-60 business days
Refunds are processed if the item is damaged or the item is incorrect. Please contact us with clear pictures of the damage within 7 days of receiving the item. We make sure to check every item before it is sent out! ♥
Items that are the wrong size or color on your part may be exchanged or returned as long as you can bear a restocking fee of 15% on the item and all shipping fees! Items can only be returned within 7 days of receiving the item. Please contact the store if you want to exchange and item. Items must be in original condition.
An item received late, slight color difference or a change of mind will not be accepted for a refund or exchange.
Some items may have a difference of 1-3 cm from the product description because the factory cannot make every item exactly the same. We cannot refund or replace items because of minor difference!
If an item is out of stock, we will refund you.
Related Products


text:
Trade name: Lanol JR
Strength: 500 mg
Type: Tablet
Active ingredient: Paracetamol
Category: Analgesic
Pregnancy category: Paracetamol belongs to Australia therapeutic goods administration (TGA) pregnancy category: A AND US FDA pregnancy category: C
Uses: Lanol JR 500 mg tablet is used to reduce fever and for mild to moderate pain from headaches, arthritis, menstrual periods, toothaches, backpain, cold.
How to use: Take Lanol JR 500 mg tablet orally as directed by your doctor. Large dose of paracetamol can cause liver damage. If you drink alcohol everyday talk to your doctor before taking this medication.
Side Effects: Side effects are rare. If you notice any of the below allergic reactions like difficulty breathing, hives, swelling of face, lips get emergency medical help.
Dosage: Usual adult dose is 325 to 650 mg every 4 to 6 hours for pain and fever. The maximum single adult dose is 1 gram and maximum adult dose per day is 4 grams. Usual pediatric dose (for 1 to 12 years) is 10 to 15 mg per kg per dose every 4 to 6 hours.
Written by: : healthplus24.com team
Date last updated: December 29th, 2015
Sponsored Links
Subscribe to our email newsletter.


text:
I usually write my name, using a rubber tipped tool, on the bottom. Occasionally, I miss a piece and it goes out unsigned. Not to worry though, I do not see myself being in the "collectable" ranks of potters.
Hamada did not sign his work -- he signed the box the vessel was packed in. So, authenticating a Hamada piece involves having the box that goes with it, not just the vessel.
how do you sign your work?
Started by oldlady, Nov 06 2012 02:47 AM
22 replies to this topic
Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:08 PM
Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:00 PM
For those of you who use stamps or hankos or that sort of thing... how have you typically constructed them? Wood block?
I carve what I want the imprint to be in a piece of hardened plaster using carving tools (dusting out excess), and then squish a wad of clay into it. When it's hardened a bit, I clean it up well and bisque fire the stamp. The trick is to make the plaster imprint very clear and very deep, and to clean the edges well so that you don't get an outline around the stamp (unless that's what you're going for).
Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:42 AM
I sign my work the same way I sign everything else, with my first initial and last name. I also have a chop I started using recently. I don't know if it would matter how legible it is, though, if someone who is not into ceramics came across a mug of mine someday when I'm long gone and famous (ha!). Even if my name is readable, that doesn't mean that someone will recognize it.
Korey Averill
ka Studios Pottery
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users