Review: Updated: Apple TV

Overview

This second version of Apple TV (also commonly known as Apple TV 2) dumped its forebear's 40GB of local storage, chopped its footprint by three-quarters and halved its UK price down to £99.

But its real advance only became apparent when iOS 5 was released in October 2011, which is why we're updating this review, first published when Apple TV 2 was released in 2010.

iOS 5 has opened up Apple TV to a whole new level of functionality, which means that if you're an iPad, iPhone or iPod touch owner its well worth reconsidering Apple's little black box if you don't already own one, because it just developed a reason to exist.

Perhaps we're being a bit harsh though – Apple TV has always been a darn good media streamer to use with your Mac/PC. You simply plug it into your HD TV via a HDMI cable and connect it to your Wi-Fi network using the on-screen menus and you're good to go.

But while Apple's 2010 refresh saw a welcome reduction in its price, it still wasn't clear what the point of Apple TV was.

The biggest confusion is that it still doesn't let you do what its name would suggest - i.e. watch TV channels over the Internet.

Instead its a device for streaming your media from iTunes on your Mac or PC for playback on your TV over Wi-Fi using a system called AirPlay, or for renting or buying movies directly from the iTunes Store, cutting your computer out of the equation altogether. That's all well and good, but it's only with the most recent update to iOS that Apple TV has really found its feet.

The first exciting feature that hooks up Apple TV and iOS 5 is mirroring, in which everything that appears on your iPad/iPhone/iPod touch's screen also appears on your TV as you use it.

This has many obvious applications - from a quick way to display photos from your iPhone to a teacher giving a presentation in a classroom, but gaming is the most exciting one.

Some iOS games, like Real Racing 2 HD or Modern Combat 3take simple mirroring to the next level, enabling you to use your iPhone as the controller for the game, which is displayed on your TV, effectively moving you into proper games console territory: There's you on the sofa, your iPhone in your hand as a controller and the game on your big screen TV with no wires getting in the way.

Anyone who has ever had any experience of doing anything complicated over Wi-Fi might be forgiven for thinking this is a venture doomed to be a laggy mess of bad connections and random error messages, but amazingly it's not - in true Apple style it just works.

Just watch this video of Modern Combat 3 playing on an iPhone 4S connected to an Apple TV 2 to see what a simple and elegant solution it is.

It's almost perfect, and games like Real Racing where you use the accelerometer to 'steer' your car work really well. The only problem is the lack of physical buttons on the iPhone mean you often have to look down at the iPhone's screen to make sure you've got your thumb in the right place to fire, which spoils the experience somewhat.

Next is Photo Stream. Photo Stream is part of Apple's free iCloud service - its designed to give you quick access to any photos you've taken on one device on all your devices.

So, take a photo on your iPhone and it automatically appears on your computer and all your other iOS devices automatically, without having to sync.

To make all this work you have a Photo Stream album connected to your Apple ID that lives in the cloud, and Apple TV can now access this album displaying your photos with ease. So, you can take pictures of the kids at your school's sports day, then watch them back on your Apple TV when you get back to the house without having to manually upload them somewhere, or go anywhere near your computer.

They just appear there as if by magic. And of course Apple present your photos beautifully too - the slideshows are gorgeous, with a large variety of styles from polaroid-like snaps to classy reflections.

iOS 5 also supports Airplay streaming from your iOS devices to Apple TV, so you can stream a movie from your iPad to your Apple TV, as well as from your Mac or PC. Again, it's as simple as could be - when you play a movie there's an Airplay button that turns blue when it detects an Apple TV on your Wi-Fi network.

Just tap this, select Apple TV and it throws the movie over to the Apple TV where it immediately starts playing. It works equally well with music from your iOS 5's iPod app.

Since we first reviewed the new Apple TV back in 2010 the menu system has changed quite a bit, and for the better we might add, but before we look at that let's recap the hardware.

The rear of the device now only has HDMI for video (but no HDMI cable in the box, so you'll need to bring your own), optical audio and Ethernet, though 802.11n wireless networking is built in. Dumping other video inputs makes sense, though it will annoy some as will the lack of phono audio outputs.

Inside is Apple's A4 processor, now one generation behind compared to the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S, but still perfectly capable. It doesn't make a sound when its on either, so it won't distract you while you're watching a movie with whirring fans like some PCs can when used as a home media centre.

A shiny new aluminium Apple remote is included with the Apple TV, though you can also control Apple TV with Apple's Remote app available for iPad, iPod touch and iPhone.

Interface

Apple TV works seamlessly with any iTunes 10 install with Home Sharing enabled – all you need to do to set it up is enter your Wi-Fi password and then the sync is performed using your Apple ID. Once that's done all the content from your iTunes library will be available (so long as your computer is connected to the network and iTunes is opened, that is).

The inclusion of the A4 processor makes Apple TV absolutely zip through menus and, having used various media streaming devices, this is certainly the most responsive we've tested. The menus are extremely simple to use - the Apple TV controller only has a click-wheel style navigation buttons and a menu and play/pause button.

Our only gripe being that there's no easy way to go back to the top menu level - pressing the Menu button takes you back up one level, but if you've watched several YouTube videos, for example, you have to go back through each one a click at a time to get back to the menu.

In the US new Apple TV has expands on the UK's four main menus - Movies, Internet, Computers and Settings to include TV Shows, Music, Podcasts and Photos at the top level, but here in the UK we still have just the four menu headings, with Podcasts and Photo Stream hidden away in the Internet menu. As this suggests, there's no way of browsing or buying TV Shows and Music on the Apple TV in the UK - you're limited to purchasing Movies. Your only options for buying TV shows and music is to purchase on a Mac or PC, then stream them across.

The best thing about the Apple TV interface is that content is presented so nicely. The Movies selection is pretty good - it's current and you can view trailers for everything before deciding to purchase. iTunes rentals are available for £3.49 for HD films, £2.49 for SD – you have 30 days to start watching and then 48 hours to finish once you've clicked to rent. You can also view trailers for films in theatres.

The Internet menu is where the rest of the action is. The Podcasts selection again looks nice, and sensibly enables you to just browse all the video podcasts on offer - there's a Featured collection and a Top Podcasts selection, which is a great way to discover new content.

Another example of Apple TV's US bias is the MLB.TV option - that's Major League Baseball, in case you didn't know. If you have a (paid-for) subscription then there's an option to view live games. There's also an option to view the free Wall Street Journal Live for financial-related news. We'd preferred to see a BBC option here for a UK audience instead.

For video there's YouTube and Vimeo. Both of these are superb, enabling you to search for content easily and you can log in with your YouTube user name, so that your Favorites are easily accessible. The on-screen keyboard you use for searches is merely adequate for the task - there is none of that usual Apple inventiveness here, but then, Apple's determination to have a simple remote is the source of the frustration.

Actually playing video - whether from your own PC or Mac using AirPlay or from YouTube or one of the other Internet services - is responsive and the experience is, by and large, pleasant. You can do all the usual things like fast forward, rewind, pause and play.

There's also a Flickr option, but we found integration slightly sluggish. We've already touched on Photo Stream, but again, we should stress how beautifully everything is presented, and the only menu option really letting the side down here is the Radio entry, which is as terrible as it is in iTunes itself - just a basic category tree. Where is a decent search? Or a Favourites option?

From a UK perspective more could definitely be done though. What about iPlayer? Like the ITV and Channel 4 players, it's nowhere to be seen, and frankly, we don't really care about baseball - where's the cricket coverage?

Home Sharing

So, to the Computers menu. You'll need to enable Home Sharing in iTunes on your Mac or PC first and this works alongside your Apple ID.

It's a real shame that the Apple TV can't stream content from an iTunes Server on a network storage device. Some have managed to get this working by hacking Apple TV boxes in the past, but it seems absolutely crazy of Apple to restrict this. Why should you have to have your Mac or PC running to stream media? And also, why does it have to be in iTunes first?

Vast improvements have been made to viewing your own content on the Apple TV 2 from its initial release though. When it comes to music you get album art, although not the nice Cover Flow view you may have been expecting - why Apple hasn't included this great browsing method in Apple TV's software is anybody's guess, because it seems like such a natural fit.

And there's no visualiser or any groovy visuals to accompany your music, which is disappointing considering the efforts Apple has gone to when displaying photos. You could however start an album playing then head off to your photos collection and start a slideshow, but it feels like a lot of hassle to go to. We'd rather have an option right there to just have something nice to look at when playing music.

Your Movies are now grouped by either genre, alphabetically or you can go straight to anything that is unwatched. There's no search option - you simply have to scroll through a list, but unless you've got a massive movies collection that shouldn't be a problem. There's also a preview thumbnail of each movie to help you find what you're looking for. Your TV Shows and Podcasts use exactly the same menu system.

Finally there's the Photos menu - here you can look at any photos from your iPhoto album on a Mac with ease using great slideshows.

Despite its simplicity, Apple TV does have a lot of settings you can tweak, plus a screensaver you can change. You can use your own photos in the screen saver, too - providing they are synchronised with iTunes on your computer. There's also your Photo Stream which you can use as a screen saver.

Verdict

Apple TV is still one of the best media streamers you can get, and is holding off the challenge from Google TV well (we've still to see a Google TV launch in the UK, and Logitech has recently given up on it altogether And while we'd love it if it actually played TV channels the iOS 5 enhancements add yet another string to its bow, and turn it into a must-have device for iOS device owners.

But while we love Apple TV it still has three big issues.

When it comes to performance Apple TV is still the most reliable media streamer we've seen. But this reliability comes at a cost - and that's flexibility. Other streamers can take content from NAS devices and other sources, but Apple TV needs you to have your Mac or PC on, and the media to be inside your iTunes library to work effectively. It seems a bit draconian, but then again so is Apple. But the boons are reliability and speed - Apple TV simply can't be beaten here.

The second is to do with the UK. In the US, the box is compatible with Netflix, providing video on demand TV programmes and movies for a fee. In the UK, there is no such service available for Apple TV. LoveFilm would be an obvious partner, but it hasn't happened yet.

We also don't get the same menu options that are available in the US - we can't buy or rent TV Shows on the Apple TV yet, for example. We hope these things will be added over time, but right now US users are definitely getting a better deal. Some of the content - like the baseball channel - is obviously more suited to the US market too, and we'd love it if Apple would wake up and serve the demands of its UK audience and integrate iPlayer.

You can get iPlayer on the Wii for heaven's sake - how difficulty would it be to get it on Apple TV?

Finally, while the Apple TV can output 1080p, movies are only available as 720p HD – the lack of 1080p support remains bewildering and really marks the Apple TV as a poor relation to other streaming media boxes such as the WD TV Live – even if the Apple TV is a more polished user experience.

We liked

Apple TV is very quick and responsive, and that alone is enough to recommend it highly. The menus and photo slideshows look stunning, too. Last year's A4 processor is still holding up well and the Internet streaming video works very well - YouTube especially. Apple TV is also very stable streaming content from your Mac or PC. The integration with iOS 5 is top-notch, and mirroring can turn a mobile device into a games console with considerable ease. Airplay works like a dream from a Mac, PC or iOS device and Photo Stream takes all the hassles out of getting your shots onto your TV to display.

We disliked

The over-reliance on rentals and lack of a Netflix-like, or even an iPlayer, service is a problem. Apple also needs to loosen up its vice-like grip over the file formats that Apple TV can play. The lack of 1080p HD content is also unforgivable and is a real limitation for iTunes. There are also no cables included in the box aside from the power, so you'll need to buy them. We also need more UK content.

Verdict

The iOS 5 integration means Apple TV is really finding its feet at last. While it was once a curious enigma it now feels like part of the Apple family and integrates beautifully with your Mac and iOS device. The interface is fantastic and the speed and execution of playing media is great, the lack of 1080p is a big miss.

Likewise it's a pain to have to have your Mac or PC on to stream content directly from iTunes. It guarantees reliability, but it's inflexible. At least the price is now cheap enough that, like Apple, you can consider the purchase somewhat of a hobby.

]]>

Review: Sony Tablet P

Overview

This time last year - when the Tablet P wasn't even a twinkle in Sony's eye - we were weeping into a mound of rubbish iPad rip-offs, begging for sweet release from our tiresome lives.

Every week we saw yet more rectangular lumps of plastic, fit only for use as door wedges. They ran outdated versions of Google's Android operating system, designed for the humble smartphone, so the blocky desktops and stretched-out apps looked truly horrendous.

But just as we were headed to the bathtub with our toasters, two miraculous things happened. First, Google released Android Honeycomb - a slick, tablet-oriented version of its mobile operating system. And second, manufacturers started paying attention to the slew of negative reviews and actually started producing decent devices.

The excellent Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, ViewSonic ViewPad 7, Motorola Xoom and the innovative Asus Eee Pad Slider are all fantastic devices, which we'd happily use as our personal tablets. At long last Apple has competition for its much-loved iPad 2.

Sony has further innovated the humble tablet by releasing this dual-screen Google Android beast, nicknamed the Tablet P. Unlike the folded-magazine design of the recent Sony Tablet S, this device folds in the middle, similar to Nintendo's handheld 3DS console.

However, the Sony Tablet P is up against some strong competition, coming after so many other great Honeycomb tablets. The £499 UK/$599 US asking price isn't doing it any favours either, with many of its rivals available for £299-£399.

So can the Sony Tablet P do enough to warrant a purchase from more than just Sony fanboys?

Features

We were a little surprised at how chunky the Sony Tablet P looks, as our (admittedly useless) memory of the prototype models was a slim and sexy build. However, it still slips easily into a handbag, and we even managed to cram it into our jeans pocket.

The 375g weight makes it lighter than many competitors and comfortable to hold for extended periods. The Sony Tablet P is solid enough too - we only noticed a little flex when pushing on the exterior.

The Sony Tablet P's smart clamshell design is a great way to keep the dual screens protected on the move, especially if you throw your kit straight into a bag before hitting the road. You'll still want to take care of the tablet, however, since the silver finish picks up light scratches quite easily. Keys and other sharp items are its mortal enemy.

Google's Android Honeycomb 3.2 operating system runs the show and does a sterling job as usual. Barring a couple of little tweaks, this appeared to be vanilla Honeycomb. You have five homescreens to populate with apps and widgets, and our review tablet came with plenty of both.

We won't dwell on the operating system's functionality because we've said plenty about it already in our Android Honeycomb review. All we'll say is it's well implemented here, and the only issue we had was the occasional icon selection, thanks to the compact screens. More on that later.

You can browse the web using Wi-Fi, or 3G if you have a valid SIM card with a data contract. Web browsing is smooth, and as usual you can zoom in or out with a pinch of the fingers. Flash video is also currently supported in the browser, which is standard for Honeycomb tablets – for now.

Unfortunately, the Sony Tablet P's Wi-Fi receiver isn't great. Just 10m from our home router we had a full signal on our laptop, but the Sony Tablet P barely registered the network. Cue the occasional "No internet connection" message when loading pages.

We haven't noticed this problem with other Honeycomb tablets, making this doubly disappointing.

Despite the chunky build, you only get a single mini USB port and an internal microSD slot on the Sony Tablet P.

You'll want to use a memory card too, because the 4GB of storage fills up instantly if you're carrying music or movies around. Considering many rivals such as the Asus Eee Pad Transformer and ViewSonic ViewPad 7 have 8-16GB of storage space, this seems particularly stingy.

We were also disappointed to note that the Sony Tablet P doesn't charge via USB, only via the mains. At least we had no trouble copying files between the tablet and our computer with the USB port, using Windows Explorer.

Performance

Skimming through the Sony Tablet P's menus is a smooth experience, as expected from the Japanese giant. The desktop is split between the two screens, both of which are touch-sensitive. While we thought the bezel separating the two screens might be irritating, it rarely gets in the way.

Apps are spread across the two displays, which again takes a little getting used to but generally works fine. It can be a little disorienting when using the likes of Google Maps, with streets appearing skewed across the bezel, but we didn't encounter many problems.

However, we're unlikely to see many apps emerging soon that actually take advantage of the dual-screen setup, which is a real shame.

The dual 5.5-inch screens are supremely crisp, thanks to the sharp 1024 x 480p resolution. Photos and movies look fantastic, with realistic rendering. Sadly you can only view movies and photos on the top screen, with the bottom screen used for media controls.

Of course this makes sense - who actually wants to watch a film with a thick black line across the centre - but the compact upper display isn't an ideal way to watch a Hollywood blockbuster. Not only is there not much screen space, your films are also bordered either side by thick black lines due to the narrow aspect ratio.

Note that full-screen YouTube videos play over both displays, while 4OD TV shows are shunted to the top screen. Bizarrely, full-screen iPlayer videos are crushed into a tiny box on the upper screen, so you'll want to watch them in a pop-out window instead.

The Sony Tablet P is compatible with MP4 and WMV movie files, as standard for Android Honeycomb tablets. We tested a couple of Full HD 1080p films and they played perfectly, with no stuttering or smearing.

However, if you're watching movies we'd recommend using a pair of earphones even if you're nestled in your sofa at home. The Sony Tablet P's built-in speakers are tinny, so you'll struggle to hear if there's any kind of background noise.

We were impressed by the brightness of the screens. You can comfortably use the tablet even in bright sunlight, despite the reflective surface (which is a magnet for fingerprints).

Viewing angles are among the best we've seen on a tablet.

If you're looking for a tablet for instant messaging or bashing out emails on the move, the Sony Tablet P is a great option. Its compact build means it's comfortable to hold the device two-handed and type with your thumbs, while Honeycomb's virtual keyboard is one of the better efforts we've tested.

Predictive text brings up a row of possible words when typing to speed up the process.

However, the tiny screens make precision-selection a royal pain at times. For instance, the tiny Wi-Fi icon in the bottom-right corner often takes two or three jabs before the menu appears, and good luck trying to change the volume in the likes of 4OD.

We were frothing with rage after five minutes of prodding, and only a serious kitten-stroking session could calm us down.

One unique feature of the Sony Tablet P is the ability to download and play classic PlayStation 1 games. The compact build is well suited to playing titles such as Crash Bandicoot (which came pre-loaded), thanks to that comfortable grip, while the Nvidia Tegra 2 processor handles these games with ease.

Of course you're restricted to using virtual touchscreen buttons, which can be a little awkward during fast-paced moments, but it worked better than we expected. Our major gripe was the shoulder buttons, which are shunted to the top screen and are very difficult to reach with your thumbs.

Another niggle is the impending release of the PlayStation Vita, which costs considerably less than the Sony Tablet P, features proper buttons and thumbpads, and can do much of the same stuff - including surfing the web and playing media. Hardcore gamers should certainly wait for that to emerge.

The Sony Tablet P is certainly compact enough to carry around everywhere you go, but how does its battery fare?

We found it drained quickly when playing games or watching video, lasting just over three hours on average - although that's with screen brightness turned to max and Wi-Fi enabled. If you drop settings and don't push it so hard, you should get five to six hours of use before it gives up.

Camera

A 5MP rear camera on the Sony Tablet P takes reasonably sharp pictures, thanks to the built-in auto-focus, although this generally takes two to three seconds to lock onto your target/victim. We rarely found our subject was blurred, even though you can't select which area to focus on manually.

However, both interior and exterior shots often came out darker than expected. We usually had to take two or three shots before we had one that was light enough to see clearly. There's no flash, so good luck trying to take a photo in a dim interior.

See full-res image

See full-res image

See full-res image

See full-res image

See full-res image

See full-res image

See full-res image

You get an 8x digital zoom for distant shots, but photo quality dips considerably once this is in play. As you can see from our example photos, detail levels are poor and you get serious blur.

As with pretty much all tablet cameras, it's more of a 'snap an unexpected moment' device than a dedicated camera.

YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbeL4LsxirI&hd=1

You can also shoot videos if the mood grabs you, which are pixelated but perfectly serviceable.

You also have a front-facing VGA camera for web chats, which does a good job of capturing your mug without motion blur or other side-effects. This is bizarrely located off to the side of the top screen, so you'll appear to be staring off into nothing during Skype calls. It's not ideal, but mildly comical for whoever you're speaking with.

Verdict

We admire Sony for taking a more novel approach with both of its tablets, but £499 is a lot to ask for a Honeycomb device. With a price like that, the Sony Tablet P has to really perform compared to its rivals.

We liked

The clamshell design protects the dual screens, and means this is one of the few tablets you can squeeze into an (admittedly large) pocket. We found the compact build made it a comfortable device for typing and web browsing.

Those screens are bright, crisp and vibrant, like you'd expect from Sony. The capacitive surfaces are responsive to swipes and prods and the Nvidia Tegra 2 processor keeps things running smoothly.

A 5MP rear camera takes decent shots, although we wouldn't replace our compact camera or even our smartphone just yet. Video chat fans get a decent VGA front-facing camera.

Nostalgic gaming fans can also download and play classic PlayStation 1 games, for a small cost.

We disliked

Although it's great to have the option to play PS1 titles on the Sony Tablet P, we weren't massive fans of the virtual buttons. They work better than we expected but the lack of tactile feedback is a pain in fast-paced action games, while the shoulder buttons are tricky to reach on the upper screen.

The Sony Tablet P isn't quite the ideal device for watching movies on the go, either. Videos are generally crushed onto the top screen, while the built-in speakers are rather rubbish.

We also found Wi-Fi reception was a little ropey, with signal swiftly dropping off as we moved away from our router.

Final verdict

If your current tablet has been scratched to ruins, you should definitely consider the Sony Tablet P. Its unique folding design makes it easy to carry and protects the dual screens, and the compact build makes it great for carrying around, getting online and social networking.

However, movie fans will likely prefer a single-screen tablet such as the Sony Tablet S, and we reckon gamers will wait for the Playstation Vita instead.

]]>

Review: Novatech nSpire 2760 Black Edition

There's not a lot that surprises us, and when we unboxed the Novatech nSpire Black Ed 2760, we feared the worst.

A flimsy chassis and the lack of style that we've become accustomed to on high-end laptops indicated another lacklustre machine, but it appears that we were mistaken.

Under the hood is an Intel Core i7 2460M processor, which stormed our benchmark tests, scoring among the highest figures we've seen in our labs. This was also helped by the 8GB of RAM that makes this laptop positively sing.

Next up is the impressive Nvidia GeForce 555M graphics card, which is easily capable of playing HD movies and the latest games. It got strong scores in our lab tests, and while you might not be able to play Battlefield 3 on full settings, with the detail turned down, you shouldn't have any problems.

Battery life also impresses, with our power hungry tests achieving a very strong 222 minutes. This means you could work away from the power for over four hours, and even watch an HD movie on the move.

While there's enough juice for working on the move, at 2.8KG we wouldn't recommend the Novatech as a portable laptop. It's bulky, heavy and cumbersome, and not one for a day on your back.

TechRadar Labs

Battery Eater '05: 222 minutes
Cinebench: 18842
3DMark 2006: 11654

Screen burn

However, for all the impressive tech that's packed inside, the poor build quality of the exterior does more than let this machine down aesthetically.

We tested a number of movies on the Novatech, and found the screen appalling. There was no vibrancy to the colours, it was grainy when playing back HD content, and there was substantial screen tearing. We hope this was just a problem with the review sample, but as the issue is caused by a disparity between the graphics card and screen refresh times, we think this is simply a gulf in quality between the two items.

The poor build quality manifests itself elsewhere too. The grey plastic wrist rest flexes when you push it, as does the lid. The keyboard is awful, with little refinement given to the black plastic keys. They're barely cushioned and feel loose and spongy to the touch.

The trackpad is better and we much prefer it to the current trend of single buttons which are a nightmare to master.

What we have with the Novatech is a fantastic powered laptop, admirably capable of dealing with most things you can throw at it. There's limitless performance power, great graphics and it even has a decent battery life as well.

Unfortunately, we're still yet to be surprised by a laptop, and the Novatech is no exception; a model hobbled by cost saving and corner cutting, that more than explains its low price. It's impossible to really enjoy movies or games on the poor screen, and if you have £750 to spend, we'd recommend saving up the extra for quality machines like the Dell XPS 15z.

]]>

Review: Acer Aspire 7750

At first glance, the Acer Aspire 7750 seems like a good choice for a 17-inch multimedia laptop. It has a simple, clean design with plenty of storage space and powerful speakers. Unfortunately, a couple of underlying issues pull the overall experience down somewhat.

Firstly, the grey and silver plastic design is nondescript. It looks much nicer on the inside of the laptop, though, offset against the black keyboard and screen bezel.

As this is a 17-inch laptop, there's lots of space to go around, and Acer accentuates this by putting a regular keyboard square in the middle of the chassis, adding a touchpad and leaving it at that.

There are no hotkeys, no flashing lights and although it's difficult to tell from the picture, the chassis feels expansive and spacious. All well and good, until you realise that the build quality (of the keyboard in particular) is pretty shabby. We felt quite a bit of flex around the edges of the chassis and the keyboard was practically bouncing up and down as we typed.

The machine isn't particularly heavy at 2.9kg, but since most people buying a 17-inch laptop aren't looking for portability we'd be happy with a few extra grammes in exchange for a more solid build.

While we're on the subject, we're going to assume most people buy a 17-inch laptop for the screen – be it to browse the web or watch a movie. The screen here is decent, complete with Super-TFT reflective coating, but the 1366 x 766 pixel resolution limits you to 720p HD content when, really, we'd quite fancy the full-blown effect of a 1920 x 1080 resolution.

Similarly, the integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics card means the latest games and editing suite will have trouble running here.

Huge hard drive

If you want to put your media on the Aspire 7750 – high-definition or otherwise – you have a huge 720GB hard drive to fill up. If music is your thing, then the Dolby Advanced Audio speakers will go some way to convincing you this is the laptop to buy. You can get plenty of volume, but at no point does the audio become fuzzy or distorted – no mean feat for a laptop.

General performance is no slouch either. The Aspire rocks an Intel Core i5-2410M CPU that coped admirably with both our benchmark tests and general usage. We should probably attribute some of that to the generous 6GB of RAM Acer has stashed away inside. It's more than the average 4GB and while it won't make much of a performance difference for the average user, it will help your laptop last that little bit longer into the future.

TechRadar Labs

Battery Eater '05: 135 minutes
Cinebench: 9652
3DMark 2006: 4646

Yet, in spite of the positives, we have difficulty recommending the Aspire because it doesn't specifically do what we want a 17-inch laptop to do – which is provide an awesome visual experience.

We understand Acer wanting to keep the price down, but a better choice would be the Dell Inspiron 17R or the Lenovo G770.

]]>

Review: AMD FX 4100 Black Edition

Overview

We've been waiting for AMD's brand new architecture for ages, and then Bulldozer turned out to be fairly underwhelming. Can the cheaper, quad-core AMD FX 4100 Black Edition rectify any of its wrongs?

Multi-threading and parallelism are all the rage. Put simply, more cores equals more fun, right?

Not, as it happens, when it comes to games, as seen in the AMD FX 8150. Despite the hype, the fact is PC games still don't scale all that well across multiple processor cores.

On the one hand, that's a disappointing state of affairs given the massively multi-core hoopla the likes of Intel have been pedalling for the last five years or so.

On the other, it also presents an opportunity for fanatical gamers to save a few quid.

After all, if it's just games that gets you going, we'd argue there's only so many cores you actually need.

Consider, therefore, the AMD FX 4100.

We can't be absolutely sure about this without official confirmation, but we reckon it's based on the very same two-billion transistor processor die as the range-topping FX 8150.

The difference is that two of the 8150's four Bulldozer modules have been nuked from orbit.

Benchmarks

The benchmarks don't make for particularly good reading for the AMD FX 4100 Black Edition.

Sure the multi-threaded application performance shows improvements over the equivalently-priced Intel Core i3 2100 Sandy Bridge CPU, but the single-core and gaming performance is rather poor.

That said the Bulldozer FX 4100 processor does overclock, which sadly the Intel chip cannot.

3D Rendering performance

Video encoding performance

Gaming performance

Verdict

What we can say for certain is that the FX 4100 is based on AMD's latest 32nm Bulldozer architecture.

It has two modules and therefore a grand total of four pseudo cores. It runs at 3.6GHz nominally, sports a 3.8GHz Turbo frequency and packs 12MB of L2 and L3 cache memory, combined.

And it's happiest in an AM3+ socket paired with DDR3 memory up to 1,866MHz.

But here's the real kicker. It's yours for just £100.

So, that's healthy clocks, four threads and AMD's very latest CPU architecture. Quite an attractive package. But not, as it turns out, terribly fit for gaming purpose.

The problem is the new AMD Bulldozer microarchitecture. If anything, its strongest suit is multi-threading. And that means you want as many of those modules switched on as possible.

What Bulldozer doesn't deliver, however, is decent per-thread performance.

For proof, first observe the single threaded benchmark results. The 3.6GHz (3.8GHz with Turbo) FX 4100 may be clocked significantly higher the similarly priced 3.1GHz Intel Core i3-2100, but the latter is absolutely off the map in terms of single or few-threaded performance.

The FX 4100 needs three minutes and 44 seconds to churn its way through Cinebench R10 in single-threaded mode. The i3-2100 needs just two minutes and 51 seconds.

Of course, what really matters is actual game performance and here Bulldozer's per-thread gutlessness duly rears its head.

The 67 frames per second average the AMD FX 4100 Black Edition achieves in the World in Conflict test may sound pretty reasonable, but it obscures the fact that the frame rate can, and does, drop well below 30 when the on screen action goes into overdrive.

Meanwhile, the merely dual-core Core i3-2100 cranks out 80- frames per second and generally keeps cooler under pressure.

In our testing, the 4100 didn't deliver significantly better overclocking headroom than the full eight-core Bully.

We liked:

To be honest, apart from the price, there really isn't a lot to like about this even weaker spin of the Bulldozer architecture.

We disliked:

We'd hoped for a lot more from this brand new AMD Bulldozer architecture, but the weak single-core performance, behind even the old Phenom II processors, makes us sad.

We could have forgiven it some of those failings if the gaming performance wasn't just as poor.

Final word:

The best that can be said about this dual-module Bulldozer, then, is that it's not far behind its triple and quad-module brethren in games.

If only they weren't all off the pace.

]]>

Review: Sennheiser X 320

Sennheiser X 320

Wireless? Pah, who needs it!? But seriously, do we really need it for headphones?

Well, actually we do. Sennheiser's latest set of headphones - the X 320 - are designed to be used with the Xbox 360, hence the obvious name similarity. And after a few minutes with them you might just be wishing that there was a wireless option available.

There are no less than three set of wires to contend with: one that goes straight from the headphones to the console, one that plugs into your TV, providing audio, and another wire that you plug into the gamepad to enable voice chat.

At times it feels like the spaghetti junction of wires - you would think Sennheiser might have tried to come up with some sort of smarter integrated solution that didn't involve multiple wire trails.

Thanks to the clear instructions, it's easy to connect everything and get started immediately. The length of the main cable is very long, so you can sit pretty far away from the screen.

The only problem with setting up the Sennheiser X 320 is its use of stereo audio connectors. Not all modern TVs come with stereo inputs, so if this is the case you'll need to buy the optional audio adapter for the Xbox 360.

A serious upgrade

The Sennheiser X 320 is a significant upgrade for those using the standard Xbox 360 headset, which, let's face it, isn't the greatest thing to start with.

They're pretty pricey though, at £89.99 in the UK or $149.95 in the US, but when you compare them to competing Xbox 360 headphones such as the Creative Sound Blaster Tactic 3D Omega or the Tritton AX Pro Dolby 5.1 they seem slightly better value.

However, these other headphones pack a lot of audio technology into their cans, and the similarly-specced SteelSeries Spectrum 5XB is around £20 cheaper.

But, typical of a Sennheiser headset, the X 320 headphones deliver an impressive audio performance in games, as well as in music and movies.

The sound is tight and has plenty of punch to it, and it's very clear. They don't have the sort of enveloping sound that you might expect from a surround headset, but don't let that put you off, because they are excellent.

You can enhance the low end of the X 320's audio on the fly with the use of the Bass boost switch on the in-line control, and you can also adjust the game volume level and mic volume level independently, which is handy when you've got a team mate who's shouting down the line in-game.

You can also mute voice chat quickly and conveniently, simply by lifting the sturdy microphone upwards and away from your mouth.

Design woes

The only downside to the Sennheiser X 320's audio, much like other Sennheiser headsets, is that the ear cups are open. While this is supposed to keep your ears cooler for longer gaming sessions, in reality it doesn't make that much difference. It also means that you get sound leak, so if you want to game in the vicinity of others they'll be able to hear some of what you're hearing.

They don't do a great job of insulating ambient sounds either, so if you're in a noisy environment then you need to politely ask whoever is making all those noises to hush up while you do some important gaming.

While the sound of the Sennheiser X 320 scores points, the design of the cans is much less convincing. With very little in the way of adjustment, apart from being able to alter the length of the head band, the resulting fit on the head isn't all that great.

If your head was big enough, they would probably sit nice and flush, but for the smaller head they sit sort of bowed inwards, which means the ear cups don't quite sit flat and can be uncomfortable.

Verdict

The Xbox 360 green theme looks good and they feel quite sturdy, but - you know what - they just feel a little on the cheap side. Thankfully, the great sound of these headphones makes up for any shortcomings, but you'll really need to convince yourself that they're worth £90.

]]>

Review: AMD FX 6100 Black Edition

Overview

When is a six-core PC processor not a six-core PC processor? When it's AMD's new FX 6100 Black Edition.

Long before AMD released its fancy new FX chips, we had a feeling a fisticuffs was brewing over the definition of what constitutes a processor core.

Now the FX has arrived and the gloves are off.

It all comes down to the radical new approach to simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) taken by AMD with the new Bulldozer architecture.

Intel's been doing SMT for a bit in the form of Hyper-Threading and fair to say Chipzilla's take can be called SMT lite.

It hasn't spent a lot of transistors in enabling each of its processors cores tow run two software threads in parallel. So a multi-threading performance boost of around 15 to 20 per cent is a pretty decent outcome.

AMD reckoned it could do better and verily cooked up the Bulldozer module. This little techno-beasty packs a pair of execution units. But much of what you'd normally consider a processor core is shared.

So has that Bulldozer module got enough power to give this six core processor a chance?

Benchmarks

The very least you'd hope from this latest 'six-core' processor from AMD is that it would beat the previous generation of hex core chips, here represented by the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T.

Sadly it's well off the pace the previous generation sets.

Most tragic of all is just how weak it is in gaming terms. The older processor has it licked.

3D Rendering performance

Video encoding performance

CPU gaming performance

Verdict

On paper it's hard to say whether a Bulldozer module it one hell of a single-core solution or truly deserves to be counted as two cores.

In practice, however, it's all too clear.

A single Bulldozer module doesn't deserve dual-core status. For proof, observe how this triple-module, supposedly six-core, AMD FX 6100 Black Edition chip compares with AMD's own Phenom II X6 1100T.

That's a true six-core chip and one that isn't exactly famed for world-beating per-core performance. Put simply, the 1100T owns and it owns in every metric save memory bandwidth.

As if that wasn't enough, comparisons with Intel's quad-core chips make the AMD FX 6100's six-core status look even sillier.

The non Hyper-Threaded Core i5-2500K mugs it in every test. Meanwhile, the Core i7-2700K is in another league.

What's more, in terms of overclocking, having one less active module compared to the FX 8150 doesn't appear to deliver much benefit. We didn't get significantly higher clocks out of the 6100.

If that makes the AMD FX 6100 sound pointless, it's not quite as bad as that.

AMD has priced it keenly. At £128, you can make an argument for it as a cheap multi-threading chip. The allure becomes even greater when you factor in the possibility that you might be able to flick a BIOS switch and enable that hidden Bulldozer module.

The same applies doubly to the dual-module FX 4100. However, there are absolutely no guarantees and it will take a few months and a bit of forum trawling before we have a feel for how successful FX buyers are finding their module-unlocking exploits.

Until then, we'll put a hold recommendation the AMD FX 6100 Black Edition.

At stock clocks and with the final module hidden, it's not terribly exciting. However, if it turns out that most of all 6100s will happily run with the final module enabled, it might just be worth a roll of the dice.

If that happens, we'll be more than happy to upgrade the 6100's status to buy.

We liked:

In multi-threaded terms the AMD FX 6100's performance isn't bad, still lagging behind the previous top hex core CPU from AMD.

We disliked:

Again it's the weak single-core performance of the Bulldozer architecture that makes for one massive technological sad-face.

We'd like to say positive things about the possibility of unlocking those dormant cores, sadly though we simply can't say how likely it is to happen.

Final word:

An interesting option, but only if the module-enabling prospects turn out good.

]]>

Review: Intel Core i7 2700K

Overview

The vanilla Sandy Bridge lineup has a new chip in the Intel Core i7 2700K . As well as populating a new socket with the Sandy Bridge E Intel Core i7 3960X, it has seen fit to give us another brilliant processor, but what makes it different to the Intel Core i7 2600K?

Short answer: not a lot.

Not that long ago, things moved fast in the CPU industry.

Between 2005 and 2010, we progressed from piffling little 100 million transistor single-core desktop CPUs to six-core, billion-trannie mofos capable of implausible feats of number crunching.

During that period, the technology used to knock out computer chips has powered ahead, too.

We've transitioned through 90nm, 65nm, 45nm and 32nm silicon, with 22nm CPUs just around the corner. Along the way, we've picked up all manner of fabulous new chip tech, including SOI, strained silicon and latterly tri-gate and 3D transistors.

It was relentless stuff.

Indeed, Intel has committed itself to rolling out either a new CPU architecture or a new production process every single year.

And yet here we are at the apex of 2011 and 2012 wondering where it's all gone wrong. The evidence comes in the form of both of Intel's new PC processors.

We've proselytised plenty enough on the subject of the new Core i7-3960X. Suffice to say we view its hidden cores as evidence Intel has taken its foot off the gas.

Benchmarks

Intel's new top-end Sandy Bridge is quite some chip. Sadly it was quite some chip when it was the slightly slower-clocked Intel Core i7 2600K. Not a lot has changed apart from the price.

It comfortably hoses the best that AMD has to offer and in the grand scheme of things isn't even the best that Intel can chuck into a desktop motherboard.

Multi-threaded CPU performance

Video encoding performance

CPU gaming performance

Verdict

This new chip is the Core i7-2700K. In many ways it's a much more interesting processor than the Intel Core i7 3960X.

We don't mean that in a technological sense. Deep down, the 2700K is nothing new.

It's the same four-core Sandy Bridge generation die seen in several existing chips, including the Intel Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K. The number of four-core Sandy Bridgers is legion.

However, the 2700K is the new de facto king of Intel's line of LGA1,155 models.

For us, it's the LGA1155 socket that's really relevant to PC enthusiasts and gamers, not the highfalutin', server-derived LGA 2011 platform and its quad-channel silliness.

The 2700K, then, is the fastest chip any mere mortal is likely to run in his PC any time soon.

Unfortunately, what it ain't is a big step forward over the existing Core i7-2600K. You suspicions will first be aroused by the pathetic clockspeed bump from 3.4GHz to 3.5GHz.

That's right, it's clocked fully three per cent higher. Needless to say, at stock clocks, the 2700K achieves absolutely nothing of interest.

Yes, it's a very nice little quad-core chip. Yup, it has the edge on AMD's ostensibly eight-core flagship, the AMD FX 8150 Black Edition, across the board. And yey, it absolutely hammers said AMD chip in any benchmark that majors on per-core performance rather than multi-threaded throughput.

All of which means the 2700K's only hope of giving something we haven't already got is overclocking.

What'll she do, mister? The answer during our testing, and in the context of air cooling and a modicum of extra voltage, is 4.8GHz. A very good result, we think you'll agree. But not materially better than you can expect from most Intel Core i7 2600K processors. Again, the game doesn't move on.

That said, the hefty 1.3GHz gap between what the 2700K is nominally clocked at from the factory and what it will do with a bit of tweaking is perplexing.

Why on earth doesn't Intel give us a 4GHz chip?

We liked:

You can't argue with the fact that this is a fantastic processor. It's way in advance of what AMD's top processor can manage.

There's also a huge amount of overclocking headroom nestled in that unassuming CPU enclosure.

We disliked:

Sadly there's absolutely no difference between this chip and the cheaper Intel Core i7 2600K apart from a higher price tag and a CPU multiplier upped by one notch.

And every single 2600K out there could manage that on the reference cooler.

Final word:

A great chip, but barely any better than the 2600K. Hardly worth Intel's bother bringing it out.

]]>