Nokia Lumia 800 review

The Nokia Lumia 800 is the first Windows Phone handset to spring from the Microsoft / Nokia tie-up announced in February, and we've got our hands on an early sample to check it out.

The Nokia Lumia 800 shares its exterior styling with the previously substantially less hyped Nokia N9, a Meego-based smartphone, although the screen size is reduced from 3.9" (854x480 pixels) to 3.7" (800x480 pixels) to conform to the Windows Phone spec list.

The CPU, however, increases from the 1GHz ARM Cortex-A8 to the 1.4GHz MSM8255 Snapdragon/Scorpion which certainly helps add snap to the Windows Phone Mango OS.

The Nokia Lumia 800, although being the more expensive of the two Nokia Windows Phone offerings (the other being the budget Nokia Lumia 710) shares the Nokia N9's 16-bit AMOLED ClearBlack display whereas the Nokia Lumia 710 sports a 24-bit ClearBlack TFT.

This being said, even though the colour depth is theoretically deeper than in the Nokia Lumia 710, AMOLED screens are seen as better than the older TFT technology due to the more vivid colours and better contrast ratios.

Moving away from Nokia comparisons, the Lumia 800 also has to compete with the likes of the HTC Titan and HTC Radar Windows Mango phones. When we compare screen size we find the Nokia Lumia 800 feeling a little small with the HTC Radar and HTC Titan entering the fray with 3.8" and 4.7" screens respectively although all competitors are limited to the same 800x480 pixel resolution.

Obviously the iPhone has managed to be a success with a smaller screen at 3.5-inches, but the trend towards bigger displays is increasing all the time, and we have to say we're fans of those over four inches thanks to the improved internet and media experience.

This means that the pixel density on the Lumia 800 is a little sharper, but in our side by side comparisons we noted very little difference between the three, and even the Lumia 800 displaying text with a little less clarity.

When it comes to internal storage the Nokia Lumia 800 and HTC Titan are equal with 16GB of fixed internal storage, with the Nokia Lumia 710 and HTC Radar weighing in with 8GB a piece.

Based on the two manufacturer's product specs it soon becomes apparent that the Nokia Lumia 800 is intended to compete against the HTC Titan and the Nokia Lumia 710 with the HTC Radar.

When compared dimensionally with the HTC Titan (131.5mm x 70.7mm x 9.9mm and 160g) we note that the Nokia Lumia 800 (116.5mm x 61.2mm x 12.1mm and 142g) cuts a very slim profile, with a lighter yet reassuring weight.

The physical appearance of the Nokia Lumia 800 is a dream to observe and handle, with its smooth curves fitting snugly to the hand both with and without the protective case provided in the purchase packaging.

First impressions of the phone are mixed. If you're used to handling the current crop of super slim handsets doing the rounds in today's phone shops, you can't help but feel the Lumia 800 is a little on the chunky side, even compared to the iPhone 4S thanks to it being around 10% thicker.

However, that's not to say it isn't an attractive device, with its large 3.7-inch OLED screen pushed to the sides of the chassis and a cool curved polycarbonate shell gives the phone a very premium feel indeed.

Nokia has worked very hard on the unibody design here, making the battery inaccessible and using top-mounted flaps to cover the charging port and SIM slot - intriguingly, we're seeing a microSIM here, which seems to be the fashion for the next wave of smartphones.

It's a slightly odd system, and one that some will find a little bit difficult to get used to - but it does lend a certain sleekness to the design.

One area we can see getting consumers annoyed is on the back panel - as you can see the demo sample we tried was already scratched up, and the same thing has already begun happening on our review model.

The Nokia Lumia 800 is quite reasonably priced, costing nothing on as little as a £26 Orange or Vodafone contract with Carphone Warehouse compared with HTC Titan starting at £31 pm with Vodafone and £36 pm with Orange.

Need for Speed The Run Teaser Trailer

Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S unboxing and UI demo

Making of Intel Core i7

Symbian Belle - UI hands-on demo

iPhone 4 goes into 'self combustion' mode on a flight

One of the iPhone 4 decided to go rogue yesterday while on board a flight to Sydney. Just as the flight was about to land the device was said to produce 'a significant amounts of dense smoke, accompanied by a red glow', according to the Australian airline Regional Express.

No one knows what could have triggered the incident but looking at the marks on the back of the phone, it was likely caused due to a faulty battery.

Fortunately, other than creating a bit of panic no one was harmed due to the occurrence of this incident. Whether it was caused due to the phone being on-board a flight is yet to be determined.

As of now the device has been detained by Australian Transport Safety Bureau for analysis.

Ignis announces 300ppi true RGB pixel AMOLED

Ignis Innovation has just announced that it has developed an AMOLED screen with a pixel density of over 300 ppi that uses a conventional RGB matrix. So far, the only AMOLEDs that boasted such density were using the often criticized PenTile matrix.

The newly announced screen also features a new pixel circuit and driving scheme to compensate for the non-uniformity and enhance the lifetime of such a high-ppi display.

According to Ignis, these techniques will enable the creation of AMOLEDs that match the resolution of the Apple Retina display, but offer substantially better color quality, higher contrast ratio, and wider viewing angles.

Ignis Innovation doesn't plan on manufacturing the screen itself - instead, it will just stick to licensing it to OEMs. There's no saying though when we might get a change to try this new technology on an actual device.

Intel Core i3-2100

If you’re planning to build a budget desktop PC and you’re determined to use current parts, the least-expensive Intel option available to you is the Core i3-2100 ($117 list). Still a part of Intel’s second-generation Core (“Sandy Bridge”) family, it contains most of the bells and whistles of its more powerful (and expensive) cousins, the Core i5-2500K and the Core i7-2600K, but predictably little of the power. It will do the trick for a modest-needs machine, but for stronger processing potential you’ll want something faster; and if even basic gaming is your goal, a discrete video card—or considering a system based on AMD’s newest technology instead—will be a better bet.

Like all the latest Core CPUs, the Core i3-2100 is based on Intel’s 32nm production process. It’s a dual-core chip clocked at 3.1GHz, but it can operate up to four processing threads at once due toHyper-Threading. It does not, however, support Turbo Boost, so you can’t count on extra bursts if speed if you have idling cores (which, given that this chip only has two, makes sense).  The Core i3-2100 is loaded with 3MB of cache, as well as Intel HD Graphics 2000 for integrated video—this is the lesser of the two Sandy Bridge integrated video options, but it will provide some power and support for DirectX 10.1 (DX10.1), if not DX11, 3D.

As with all the Sandy Bridge CPUs, you’ll need a newer motherboard sporting an LGA1155 socket to even house the Core i3-2100—an older LGA1156 model won’t do the job. With a maximum TDP of 65 watts, this processor is also not much of an energy hog.

Performance with the Core i3-2100 was right in line with our expectations.  It didn’t make much of a dent in the Core i5-2500K’s or the Core i7-2600K’s performance scores—some examples: It needed 1 minute 40 seconds to convert a video using the open-source utility Handbrake, a task the Core i5-2500K could complete in 1:12; and it rated 69.7MBps in our TrueCrypt cryptography benchmark test compared with the 142MBps the Core i5-2500K managed—though it did decently well in almost every area except gaming.

There, it showed itself to be unsuitable to even relatively low-resolution titles, earning a barely serviceable 5,718 in our 3DMark Vantage DX10 test on the Entry preset (1,024 by 768) and a paltry 1,062 on the Performance preset (1,280 by 1,024), as well as maximum average frame rates of 22 frames per second (fps) in H.A.W.X. 2, 8.5fps in Lost Planet 2, and 3.9 in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat—all at 1,024 by 768. Like all of Intel’s CPUs, it’s better suited for everyday usage rather than more intense pushing—a standalone video card, would make a big difference.

As, for that matter, would one of AMD’s new A-Series Accelerated Processing Units (APUs). AMD and Intel chips aren’t interchangeable of course—you need to make your decision and stick with it through the life of your system—but if basic 3D gaming interests you, the A8-3850 delivers markedly better results. With that APU in an ASRock A75 Pro4 motherboard in an otherwise identical test system, it earned 3DMark Vantage scores of 14,828 (on the Entry preset) and 3,685 (on the Performance preset); as well as 49fps and 41fps in H.A.W.X. 2, 27.4fps and 20.7fps in Lost Planet 2, and 13.2fps and 9fps in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., in each case at 1,024 by 768 and 1,280 by 1,024 respectively. Plus, it could even run DX11 games Intel can’t (though, in fairness, its frame rates took an even steeper drop, at least with all of the details cranked up the way we had them).

AMD accomplishes these gains by sacrificing some processing power, however: The A8-3850’s Handbrake time of 2 minutes 10 seconds was drastically behind the Core i3-2100’s, and it finished applying 12 filters and effects to a photo in Photoshop CS5 in just over 3 minutes instead of just over 5. So if you aren’t going to need or want the 3D capabilities, you’re better off with a speedier Intel chip.

There’s nothing wrong with the Intel Core i3-2100, provided you have a clear understanding of its limitations. If bang for the buck is really important to you, and you have a few more bucks to elicit those bangs, the Core i5-2500K costs almost exactly $100 more, but offers an even better blend of performance characteristics in every area. (If you don’t care about its unlocked multiplier, the otherwise identical Core i5-2500, for $205, is also a fine deal.) If graphics are a deal-breaker and you can’t be bothered to get a separate card, only AMD will come close to satisfying you. But if you know you want to go the Intel route, the Core i3-2100 is in no way a bad choice.

How Much does it Cost to Build a Gaming Computer?

Building a gaming computer can be an expensive proposition, especially when you want to build a top of the line gaming beast.

Here are my Christmas 2011 estimates for how much it will cost to build a gaming computer, and the performance you can expect out of it:

• Top of the line - $15,000. Will be able to play current and next generation games at high resolutions and high frame rates.
• High end - $8,000. Able to play current generation games at high resolution and frame rate, but will be obsolete quicker than top of the line
• Mid range - $3,000. Able to play current generation games at a decent frame rate, may need some tweaking of video options for optimal speed.
• Low end - $1,000. Able to play current generation games by turning down video options
• Tight budget - $700. Able to play most games with most video options turned down in game.

Intel Core i5-2500K review

Ready or not, here they come. Intel is rolling out a thoroughly overhauled range of PC processors based on its new Sandy Bridge microarchitecture. Our first taste of the new chips comes in the form of the Intel Core i5-2500K and Intel Core i7-2600K desktop CPUs.

Thanks to the baffling array of chips, sockets and brands, we've barely got to grips with Intel's existing CPU range. Certainly Intel's main rival, AMD, has no answer in outright performance terms to the chips Intel already offers, but the relentless march of technology must go on.

So, ignore the familiar Core i5 and Core i7 branding. These are all new processors and they're ready to roll.

As it happens, Intel could actually do with more powerful and, crucially, more power efficient processors for laptop PCs. Deep down, that's what Sandy Bridge is really about. However, as we'll learn, Sandy Bridge has a lot to offer for the desktop, too, including exciting new features such as a hardware video transcoding engine and much-improved integrated graphics.

At launch, it's not quite a full range of processors. In total, Intel is rolling out 14 new desktop CPUs based on Sandy Bridge under the Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 brands. Pricing extends from around £75 to £250.

The very top and bottom of Intel's desktop range will remain unchanged. The six-core Gulftown derivative of the Core i7 and the entry-level Pentium chips live on for now. Everything else is effectively for the chop.

With new chips inevitably come new chipsets, but what you might not expect is the new processor socket. Known as LGA1155, it's almost identical to the existing LGA1156. It loses just one pin. Problem is, the two sockets are entirely incompatible.

You cannot drop Sandy Bridge processors into any existing motherboard. Nor can you use any previous Intel processors with Sandy Bridge-supporting motherboards.

Although Intel will absolutely deny it, we believe this change in sockets is unlikely to have been a technical necessity.

Instead, at best, we suspect it represents a disregard for existing customers, and at worst a tactic designed to force whole a platform upgrade rather than drop-in CPU changes.

Unfortunately, the new socket isn't the only dubious new feature that debuts with Sandy Bridge. Intel has also made a fundamental change to the chip's architecture that has killed traditional processor overclocking using the CPU bus stone dead. We'll come to the details later, but the bottom line is that Intel has brought overclocking under strict control.

It's not completely gone, but it's only available where and when Intel allows it.

However, don't let those negatives convince you the new Intel Core i5-2500K and Intel Core i7-2600K chips are stinkers. Compared to their closest equivalents from Intel's existing range – the Intel Core i5-760 and Intel Core i7-870 – the new chips are arguably in a different league.

In fact, even the mighty six-core Core i7 980X isn't safe from Intel's remarkable new Sandy Bridge architecture. It's that good.

The First Intel Ivy Bridge CPU Clock Speeds and More

Intel's Ivy Bridge specifications and release windows for Q2 2012 and beyond.

ZoomIntel's Ivy Bridge will be the next "tick" in the company's tick-tock release strategy. This one will be fairly significant with its 3D tri-gate transistor technology introduction. While Intel hasn't revealed much about its Ivy Bridge release schedule, we're expecting them in time for Q2 2012.

Ivy Bridge is expected for Q2 of 2012, with most pinning the first chips to arrive in April. Like previous new releases, the initial introduction will be in the mainstream and mid-performance ranges first before Intel cranks speeds up to levels suitable for the high-end performance and enthusiast segments.

Performance Desktop Ivy Bridge CPU Roadmap

Performance Segment	Q2 2012	Q3 2012	Q4 2012
Premium P1	Core i7-3770K Core i7-3770	≥ Core i7-3770K Core i7-3770	≥ Core i7-3770K Core i7-3770
Mainstream 2	Core i5-3570K Core i5-3550	≥ Core i5-3570K Core i5-3570	≥ Core i5-3570K Core i5-3570
Mainstream 1	Core i5-3450	Core i5-3470	Core i5-3470

 

What we know so far about these first Ivy Bridge offerings so far:

Processor	Base Frequency (GHz)	Total Cache (MB)	Cores / Threads	Memory Speed Support (DDR3)	Turbo Boost max single core (GHz)	Intel HD Graphics	Frequency / Dynamic Frequency (MHz)	Intel SIPP 2012; vPro 2012; VT-d; TXT
Core i7-3770K	3.50	8	4 / 8	1600, 1333	3.90	4000	650/1150
Core i7-3770	3.40	8	4 / 8	1600, 1333	3.90	4000	650/1150	X
Core i5-3570K	3.40	6	4 / 4	1600, 1333	3.80	4000	650/1150
Core i5-3570	3.40	6	4 / 4	1600, 1333	3.80	2500	650/1150	X
Core i5-3550	3.30	6	4 / 4	1600, 1333	3.70	2500	650/1150	X
Core i5-3470	3.20	6	4 / 4	1600, 1333	3.60	2500	650/1100	X
Core i5-3450	3.20	6	4 / 4	1600, 1333	3.50	2500	650/1100
Core i5-3330	3.00	6	4 / 4	1600, 1333	3.20	2500	650/1050

Features shared by all the above mentioned Ivy Bridge CPUs are a TDP of 77W, a 2-channel integrated memory controller, and AES-NI support.

Stay tuned as more details trickle out.