Thread: Anandtech News

The Surface lineup for Microsoft has been extremely interesting to watch. What first launched in October 2012 as the Surface RT has been constantly iterated upon, and of course the Surface Pro line has evolved even faster. The Surface Pro 3 has finally provided Microsoft with something that critics and consumers alike seem to have bought in to, and sales have been very strong since the Pro 3 was launched.

More...

Today I want to discuss a minor change in our PSU testing procedures, and how they have evolved since our 2014 - How We Test PSUs pipeline post.
To date, all of our testing was being done in accordance with Intel's Power Supply Design Guide for Desktop Form Factors and with the Generalized Test Protocol for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of Internal AC-DC and DC-DC Power Supplies. These two documents describe in detail how the equipment should be interconnected, how loading should be performed (as the power lines should not just be loaded randomly), and the basic methodology for the acquisition of each data set.
However, not all of our testing can be covered and/or endorsed by these guidelines.
Even though these documents are just a few years old, their methods fail to account for modern "enthusiast grade" computer switching mode power supplies. The industry has been making leaps on the creation of more energy-efficient devices, continuously lowering their power requirements. Nowadays, the vast majority of computers that require very powerful PSUs simply employ multiple components, such as numerous graphics cards. As the majority of energy-consuming components require a 12 V source, PSU manufacturers have been continuously driving the 12 V output of their units upwards, while the 3.3V/5V outputs remained inert or are getting weaker. There are many design rules that modern "enthusiast-grade" PSUs do not adhere to nowadays, such as the current safely limits and the maximum size of the chassis, but this particular change creates a problem with the generalized test protocol.
Furthermore, nearly all switch mode power supplies with multiple voltage rails will exceed their maximum rated power output if all the rails are loaded to their maximum rated current. This includes nearly every PSU ever made for a PC. It is not possible to load every rail (3.3V, 5V, 12V, 5VSB, -12V) to its maximum rated current without severely overloading the PSU. For this purpose, the derating factor D exists, which calculates the contribution of each rail in relation to the maximum output of the PSU. The derating factor for a computer PSU always has a value lower than one. A lower derating factor indicates overly powerful lines in relation to the total output of the PSU, which practically is good. A value greater than one would suggest that fully loading every rail does not exceed the maximum power output of the PSU, which is never the case with a PC power supply.
According to the generalized test protocol, the derating factor D of the 3.3V/5V lines should be:

Simply put, the formula is maximum rated power output of the unit divided by the sum of the power output ratings of each individual power line.
However, this formula frequently leads to the overloading of the 3.3V/5V lines with >1 kW PSUs. The effect is particularly severe in some high efficiency units, in which the designers moved the 3.3V/5V DC-to-DC conversion circuits on the connectors PCB, reducing their maximum power output significantly. Although some PSUs would operate normally even if their 3.3V/5V lines were overloaded, the continuous degradation of the 3.3V/5V lines in comparison to the 12 V line resulted to PSUs appearing in our labs that could not operate under such conditions.
The grandest example of them all would be the Andyson Platinum R 1200W PSU that we reviewed just recently. This PSU has a lopsided design such that the 3.3V/5V rails that can output just 100W combined, which is nothing compared to the 1200W the single 12V rail can output. Furthermore, the current rating of the 5V line alone can reach the maximum output reserved for both the 3.3V and 5V rails. This great imbalance creates an issue with the generalized PSU testing protocol, which has been developed for PSUs that do adhere to the design guide standards. If we were to load that PSU using the standard derating factor formula, it would create a load of over 150 Watts on the 3.3V and 5V rails, which were rated for an output of just 100 Watts. Other units did work with their 3.3V and 5V rails slightly overloaded but, in this case, the Platinum rated unit failed long before it reached its maximum output. Therefore, it was obvious that the official derating factor calculation method could no longer be used for modern high output PC PSUs.
Therefore, we had to alter the derating factor formula in order to compensate for real world testing. Without at least two significant energy consumers, no modern system requires > 500 Watts. Greater power demand suggests the presence of devices that load only the 12 V line (i.e. GPUs, CPUs, liquid cooling pumps, Peltier effect coolers, etc.). After certain calculations and research, for units with a rated power output over 500 Watts, we will be using the following formula:

Which effectively halves the impact of the 3.3V/5V lines on the calculation of the derating factor, imposing the difference on the 12V line. This does not mean that their load is being halved, only that their contribution to the total output of the PSU is now considered to be of lower importance. Furthermore, the loading criterion of the 3.3V/5V lines for a load rating X (in % of the unit's maximum output) is now changed to:

For the 12 V line(s), the loading criterion remains unchanged.
This formula results to the more realistic representation of the requirements that actual systems have, at least up to a power output realizable today.
Furthermore, there are no guidelines on how transient tests should be performed and the momentary power-up cross load testing that Intel recommends is far too lenient. Intel recommends that the 12 V line should be loaded to < 0.1 A and the 3.3V/5V lines up to just 5 A. We also perform two cross load tests of our own design.
In test CL1, we load the 12 V line up to 80% of its maximum capacity and the 3.3V/5V lines with 2 A each.
In test CL2, we load the 12 V line with 2 A and the 3.3V/5V lines up to 80% of their maximum combined capacity.
The End Result

If that all sounded like jargon, the end takeaway cause is this - due to user requirements of high wattage power supplies, manufacturers have altered the design of their products outside of the specification documents in order to compensate for cost and engineering prowess.
A power supply should have a balance between the 3.3V/5V and the 12V rails, such that when one is increased the other will rise as well. However this doesn&#39;t happen with high wattage power supplies like the specifications says it should. Normally the power rating advertised should be based on this balance, but it doesn&#39;t have to. It means that some designs are not like others, and the level of balance is different to get to the power rating.
If the OEMs did adhere to specifications, the cost of the end product would increase to accomodate the higher wattage 3.3V/5V outputs, which is bad for a product that sells based on margins. Meanwhile the extra power that users actually need is all on the 12V, after all, so keeping parity with the guidelines is perhaps a fruitless task. But this means the products do not follow the guidelines, much in the same way that some cars disregard emission guidelines in various markets. The end result is that by testing against the guidelines, the results become erroneous because the device isn&#39;t built to strict specification.
Nevertheless the design underneath still works for the user, just like the car with high emissions still drives like a car. You just can&#39;t test it like a normal car, or some of the guidelines no longer apply. As a result, we&#39;re going to adjust our testing on a sliding scale. If we didn&#39;t, some units that will work happily in a real system might fail on our test-bed well before we hit 100% load. The culprit is that &#39;guidelines&#39; are ultimately not &#39;rules&#39;, and these guidelines can be blurred without proper inspection and preparation.

More...

Hot on the heels of the recent announcement of a Haswell-E based mini-ITX motherboard from the main motherboard division of ASRock, the ASRock X99E-ITX, the server division has decided to release one of their own. One of the main complaints about the mainstream model was the reduction to dual channel DDR4 memory in order to fit everything on the board &ndash; however the EPC612D4I from ASRock Rack moves to SO-DIMM modules and elegantly fits one DIMM per channel within a 17cm x 17cm footprint for quad channel support.

The motherboard uses the narrow ILM socket, usually found in the server space, similarly to the X99E-ITX. We also get a single PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, four SATA 6 Gbps ports, an integrated server control ASPEED 2400 module for headless running with KVM support and dual Intel gigabit Ethernet (I210 + I217). There is also an on-board USB 3.0 type-A connector for in-chassis USB devices such as dongle licences, and the rear panel is almost at the thin-mini-ITX standard for z-height. Notice that there is no onboard audio due to the space limitations.

Sources of DDR4 SO-DIMM modules, especially ECC ones for servers, are relatively few right now. But because this is a server motherboard, chances are that the board is mostly available through B2B channels, athough we might see some consumer outlets start selling it later in the year similar to the C2750D4I. Also by virtue of server focused sales, chances are that the EPC612D4I will not come with a bundled narrow ILM cooler (like the X99E-ITX does) and users will have to source their own. The pricing reflects this, as we see that the price is reported to be at $265, making it a very cheap LGA2011-3 motherboard especially when we factor in Xeon and ECC support.
Much like the X99E-ITX, ASRock is targeting the small form factor CPU compute markets rather than large GPU compute systems. We have the X99E-ITX in for review so stay tuned for that within the next few weeks.
Source: ASRock Rack (product page)

More...

Recently a new budget oriented device was launched on T-Mobile USA. It&#39;s the Alcatel OneTouch POP Astro. At $149.76 outright, the POP Astro is aimed squarely at buyers who need an inexpensive smartphone with only the most basic set of feature and hardware specifications. With that in mind, you can see the details of the POP Astro&#39;s specs below.

Alcatel OneTouch POP Astro
SoC	MediaTek MTK6732 4 x Cortex-A53 at 1.5GHz ARM Mali-T760 GPU
Memory and Storage	4GB NAND + MicroSD, 1GB RAM
Display	4.5" 960x540 LCD
Cellular Connectivity	2G / 3G / 4G LTE (MediaTek Category 4 LTE)
Dimensions	133.6 x 65.3 x 7.62 mm, 145g
Camera	5MP Fixed Focus Rear Facing VGA (0.3MP) Front Facing
Battery	2000 mAh
Other Connectivity	802.11 b/g/n + BT 4.1, microUSB 2.0, GPS/GNSS
Operating System	Android 4.4 KitKat

While we haven&#39;t been able to test MediaTek&#39;s MTK6732 in depth, it should be competitive with the other devices at this price point which use Qualcomm&#39;s Snapdragon 410. It may actually prove to be faster than the 1.2GHz Snapdragon 410 in the Moto E, although we would need to test the device to properly characterize this.
The most notable point about the POP Astro is that it&#39;s the first device in the United States to be powered by one of MediaTek&#39;s processors with their integrated LTE baseband, marking MediaTek&#39;s formal entry into the US LTE market. After being dominated by Qualcomm over the first few years, in the last year we&#39;ve seen competitors such as Samsung, Intel, and now MediaTek pick up momentum in getting their solutions into the US LTE market. Being a device aimed at the US market, the POP Astro has support for LTE bands 2, 4, and 12, and can fall back on 42Mbps DC-HSPA on any carrier that uses 850/1700/2100MHz frequencies for UMTS.
As for the rest of the device, the specs are decidedly low end. The amount of storage, fixed focus camera, and KitKat 4.4 all remind me of the original Moto E, and it may be a hard sell with the new 2015 Moto E selling for roughly the same price. Buyers who are interested can order the Alcatel OneTouch POP Astro from T-Mobile now for $149.76 up front, or $6.24 every month over a 24 month term.

More...

T-Mobile has become a very different company under CEO John Legere. Since his appointment in 2012, T-Mobile has gone through several phases of their Uncarrier campaigns which aim to differentiate them from Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon. Both he and their advertising campaigns are not afraid to directly attack other carriers in the United States for policies that have long been dreaded by consumers.
Today they launched a new campaign targeted at Verizon users in the United States. The campaign pokes fun at the "Never Settle" tagline and #NeverSettle hashtag that Verizon has been using in their recent ad campaign to promote their LTE network. T-Mobile&#39;s new Twitter hashtag for their campaign is #NeverSettleforVerizon, and the Never Settle Trial is a free trial of T-Mobile&#39;s service that current Verizon customers can sign up for.
The Never Settle trial will begin on May 13, and it will work as follows. Verizon users will port their number to T-Mobile for the trial period, but hold on to their current Verizon phone. If the user was happy with their service on T-Mobile then T-Mobile will cover their Verizon Early Termination Fee (ETF) and remaining device subsidy up to a maximum of $650 when they trade in their existing Verizon phone and sign up for one of T-Mobile&#39;s plans. If they were unhappy with the service, they can port back to Verizon and T-Mobile will cover their activation fees by sending them a prepaid Visa card for that amount, and they will also waive cost of their service while on T-Mobile.
I would assume the system is such that you keep your Verizon line during the duration of the trial, and when you port your number to T-Mobile a new number gets assigned to your Verizon account until you either leave or port back. I know on my carrier in Canada a number port request usually goes along with an account closure, so hopefully T-Mobile has planned all this out.
T-Mobile has made eight videos to promote this new campaign, and you can check those out in the source below.

More...

The Call for Writers has become something of an annual tradition over here at AnandTech. As anyone who follows the site knows very well, the list of things we have to review/cover usually exceeds our available time. So the call for writers gives us a chance to find new talent and new opportunities to grow, be it into new coverage areas entirely or just covering more of the existing products our readers have come to enjoy over the years.
In the last year of course we were acquired by Purch, which presents us with some additional opportunities we have not had in the past. Purch is making good on their commitment to helping us grow, which means that for 2015 in particular we&#39;re aiming higher than ever before.
Anyhow, the ultimate purpose of the Call for Writers is to find new talent. To continue to grow, we need your help. We&#39;re looking for writers with a true passion for the technology we cover, a deep understanding of what&#39;s out there and a thirst for more knowledge.
We&#39;re looking for contributors to help out both with reviews as well as our short to medium form Pipeline coverage. The areas in particular we&#39;re looking for help with are listed below:

• SSDs
• Monitors
• GPUs
• Mobile (US-only, potential for quick promotion to full-time)
• Systems/Laptops (US-only)
• Networking
• Home Automation
• Professional Graphics
• Pipeline

If you find yourself at the intersection of knowledge and passion about any of those areas, and have some time to contribute, you&#39;re exactly what we&#39;re looking for. These are paid, part-time positions that we&#39;re looking to fill, with most positions open on a world-wide basis, and certain positioned primed for a quick promotion to full-time. What I need is a writing sample that demonstrates your ability to talk about any one of these topics. Your sample can be in the form of a review, a pipeline post or an analysis piece - it should be something that looks like it would fit in on AnandTech.
Once you&#39;ve produced it, send it on over to callforwriters@anandtech.com. We&#39;ll read through all samples but can&#39;t guarantee a reply due to the sheer volume of submissions we tend to receive. If we like what you&#39;ve sent and there&#39;s a potential fit on the team, we&#39;ll be in touch.
I&#39;ll conclude this post with a passage from our About page:

In the early days of technology reporting on the web the focus was almost exclusively on depth. We had a new medium for content that didn&#39;t come with the same restrictions as more traditional forms. We could present as much data as we felt was necessary and we could do it quicker.
As the web grew, so did the approach to gaining readership. In many cases, publishers learned from the tips and tricks of more traditional media to growing their audience. The focus shifted away from ultimate understanding of what was being reported, to producing content significantly motivated by increasing traffic, or revenue, or both. Thorough observations were out; sensationalism, link baiting, and the path to shallow 10-o&#39;clock-news reporting were in.
While I believe it&#39;s definitely easier to produce content by going this route, I don&#39;t believe it&#39;s the only way to build a well read website.

If the above resonates with you and you&#39;d like to help by being a part of something different, I&#39;d encourage you to submit a writing sample.
Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How old do I need to be to work for AnandTech?
A: You need to be old enough to legally work in your country of residence without significant restriction. Otherwise we have no specific requirements so long as you can do the job well. Anand started the site at 14, after all.
Q: Do I need to be located in the United States to work for AnandTech?
A: Some positions do require that you be in the US for logistical reasons, and those specific positions are noted. However unless otherwise noted, most positions are open on a world-wide basis.
Q: Do I need to supply my own products for testing or contacts at companies? (i.e. do I need to be an insider?)
A: No. Assuming for the moment you have a computer to write on, then you already have the most important piece of equipment that you need. Meanwhile you will need some knowledge of the field at hand, but will introduce you to the people you need to know for your position at AnandTech.
Q: Can I really work for AnandTech even though I don&#39;t have a Ph.D in electrical engineering?
A: Yes! We are first and foremost looking for people with a passion to learn, and the knack to make it happen. There&#39;s a certain degree of baseline knowledge needed for any given position, but if you can read existing AnandTech articles then you&#39;re already half-way there.
Q: Is there a submission deadline?
A: We have a tentative end point for the end of May.

More...

Back in March NVIDIA launched their Witcher 3 game bundle promotion, which saw game codes for the forthcoming ARPG packed with a number of GeForce GTX 900 series cards. With that promotion set to expire later this month, today NVIDIA is announcing that they have renewed and updated their game bundle promotion.
Launching today is the Two Times The Adventure bundle, which sees the Witcher 3 joined by the forthcoming Batman: Arkham Knight on the GeForce GTX 980 and GTX 970. Batman: Arkham Knight is the 3^rd Batman game created by series developer Rocksteady, and the 4^th game in the series overall. The latest entry in the series is still Unreal Engine 3 powered, but this marks the first time the game has been targeted solely at PCs and what are now the current-generation consoles. Meanwhile as a traditional showcase for NVIDIA&rsquo;s GameWorks technologies, Arkham Knight will once again be tapping NVIDIA&rsquo;s PhysX libraries for cloth, turbulence, and destruction.
This latest update will see just the GTX 980 and GTX 970 receiving both Arkham Knight and the Witcher 3, while the GTX 960 and higher-end GTX 900M parts will continue to receive just the Witcher 3, indicating that NVIDIA is especially keen to improve the value proposition on their higher-end desktop cards. Meanwhile notably absent entirely is the GeForce GTX Titan X, which launched back in March. NVIDIA bundles that include GTX Titans are hit-and-miss, and with little competitive pressure for their Titan cards more often than not NVIDIA excludes them from bundles, as is the case here.

NVIDIA Current Game Bundles
Video Card	Bundle
GeForce GTX Titan X	None
GeForce GTX 980/970	Batman: Arkham Knight + The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
GeForce GTX 960	The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
GeForce GTX 750/750Ti	None
GeForce GTX 980M/970M	The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
GeForce GTX 965M/800M Series	None

Finally, as always, these bundles are being distributed in voucher from, with retailers and etailers providing vouchers with qualifying purchases. So buyers will want to double check whether their purchase includes a voucher for either of the above deals. Checking NVIDIA&rsquo;s terms and conditions, the program is valid in all regions except China, and the codes from this bundle are good through July 31st, so it looks like this will bundle will run for just short of 2 months. The Witcher 3 will be distributed DRM-free through GOG, meanwhile Arkham Knight will be distributed through Steam.

More...

In February Intel refreshed its enterprise SATA SSD lineup with the DC S3610 and S3710 SSDs, but left the entry-level S35xx series untouched. That changes today with the launch of the DC S3510, which succeeds the popular S3500 that has been around since late 2012.
Similar to its big brothers, the S3510 features Intel&#39;s second generation SATA 6Gbps controller that was first introduced in the high capacity S3500 models late last year. Intel has remained quiet about the specifics of the second generation controller (and the SATA 6Gbps controller as a whole), but we do know that it adds support for larger capacities, which suggests the internal caches and DRAM controller could be larger.
The most significant change in the S3510 is the NAND. The S3510 switches to IMFT&#39;s latest 16nm 128Gbit MLC NAND node, which is a rather surprising move given that all Intel&#39;s client SSDs are still utilizing 20nm NAND. The reason lies behind the fact that Intel didn&#39;t invest in IMFT&#39;s 16nm node, meaning that Micron produces and owns all 16nm NAND output. Intel and Micron reconsider the partnership and investments for each generation separately and for 16nm Intel decided not to invest -- likely because Intel&#39;s focus is in the enterprise nowadays and 16nm is more geared towards the client market given its lower endurance, and Intel also wanted to concentrate more heavily in the companies&#39; upcoming 3D NAND.
That said, Intel and Micron do have strong supply agreements in place, which gives Intel access to Micron&#39;s 16nm NAND despite not investing in its development and production. I suspect the use of 16nm NAND is why the S3510 wasn&#39;t launched alongside the S3610 and S3710 earlier this year because validating a new NAND node is time consuming and might be that the 16nm node wasn&#39;t even mature enough for the enterprise back then. In any case, the S3510 is the first enterprise SSD to utilize sub-19nm NAND, which is a respectable achievement on its own already.

Intel SSD DC S3510 Specifications
Capacity	80GB	120GB	240GB	480GB	800GB	1.2TB	1.6TB
Controller	Intel 2nd Generation SATA 6Gbps Controller
NAND	Micron 16nm 128Gbit Standard Endurance Technology (SET) MLC
Sequential Read	375MB/s	475MB/s	500MB/s	500MB/s	500MB/s	500MB/s	500MB/s
Sequential Write	110MB/s	135MB/s	260MB/s	440MB/s	460MB/s	440MB/s	430MB/s
4KB Random Read	68K IOPS	68K IOPS	68K IOPS	68K IOPS	67K IOPS	67K IOPS	65K IOPS
4KB Random Write	8.4K IOPS	5.3K IOPS	10.2K IOPS	15.1K IOPS	15.3K IOPS	20K IOPS	15.2K IOPS
Avg Read Power	1.93W	2.14W	2.21W	2.32W	2.39W	2.61W	2.69W
Avg Write Power	1.91W	2.14W	3.06W	4.45W	4.74W	5.24W	5.59W
Endurance	45TB	70TB	140TB	275TB	450TB	660TB	880TB

On the performance side, the S3510 provides slightly better random write performance at larger capacities than its predecessor (you can find the S3500 specs here), but other than that the S3510 is a very close match with the S3500. Typical to enterprise SSDs, the S3510 features AES-256 hardware and full power loss protection that protects all data, including in-flight user writes, from sudden power losses.

Comparison of Intel's Enterprise SATA SSDs
	S3510	S3610	S3710
Form Factors	2.5"	2.5" & 1.8"	2.5"
Capacity	Up to 1.6TB	Up to 1.6TB	Up to 1.2TB
NAND	16nm MLC	20nm HET MLC	20nm HET MLC
Endurance	0.3 DWPD	3 DWPD	10 DWPD
Random Read Performance	Up to 68K IOPS	Up to 84K IOPS	Up to 85K IOPS
Random Write Performance	Up to 20K IOPS	Up to 28K IOPS	Up to 45K IOPS

The endurance is also equal to the S3500 and comes in at 0.3 drive writes per day for five years, which is a typical rating for entry-level enterprise SSDs that are mostly aimed for read intensive workloads like media streaming. For more write-centric applications, Intel offers the S3610 and S3710 with higher endurance and better write performance (but at a higher cost, of course). I didn&#39;t get the S3510 MSRPs from Intel yet, but I suspect that the S3510 is priced around $0.80 per gigabyte, but I&#39;ll confirm this as soon as I hear back from Intel.
All in all, even though the industry is transitioning more and more towards PCIe and NVMe, there is still a huge market for SATA drives. Many applications don&#39;t necessarily benefit much from higher performance and especially hyperscale customers are looking at cost and compatibility, which is where SATA is still the king of the hill.

More...

Today NVIDIA announced plans to wind down their Icera modem operations in the latter half of their fiscal 2016. Icera was originally an independent British semiconductor company before they were purchased by NVIDIA in 2011 for $367 million dollars. Their operations primarily focused on software and hardware design for wireless modems, with a strong focus on the software side. Their main product offering was their line of software modems (often shortened to softmodem) for use in cellular hotspots, computers, and mobile devices.
All modems function through a combination of hardware and software. However, at the time of NVIDIA&#39;s purchase, Icera&#39;s solution was significantly more software based than Qualcomm&#39;s. Since Qualcomm was really the only big name in modems at the time, NVIDIA&#39;s purchase of Icera made sense in order to ship future Tegra chips without having to rely on external basebands. Unfortunately, NVIDIA&#39;s efforts to ship SoCs with integrated modems in the mobile space haven&#39;t worked out as well as planned. While there have been some past design wins for discrete Icera basebands such as in the ZTE Mimosa X, NVIDIA wasn&#39;t able to drive adoption of their Tegra 4i SoC with its integrated Icera i500 baseband, and Tegra chips since that time have relied on external modems from Qualcomm or other manufacturers.
NVIDIA&#39;s press release states that Icera currently employs around 500 employees, which are mostly located in the United Kingdom and France. They are open to a sale of Icera&#39;s technology or the company itself. It&#39;s unlikely that they&#39;ll be able to sell the company for anything near the original $367 million dollars that they paid, as many different companies have begun to offer their own softmodem products in the years since then.

More...

The workstation market has always been a consistent seller. The dream of offloading to an on or off-site VM and a cluster for work processing still lies more in the realm of mass production over local quick-to-compute work, and because of that low latency for quick interaction, workstations are here to stay. While the consumer is going smaller, business aims to scale and on the back of our P300 review, Lenovo sent their 34kg dual Xeon E5 v3 behemoth version of the ThinkStation P900 for review.

More...