cpu in ipad ....

There are some interesting highlights uncovered from this investigation:
HP Slate
The HP slate is a great example of what's wrong with the rest of the
industry. They believe that simply adding more features makes it a
better device - without considering the tradeoffs or how it will be
used.

In reality, HP slate starts at $549, iPad at $499 (Apple's price is lower
for a change).

HP Slate has a faster processor (1.6 GHz Atom vs. 1.0 GHz ARM), but
that's extremely misleading. iPhone OS is specifically designed to
eliminate unnecessary functions and is reportedly extremely fast on
the iPad. Windows Premium is going to run like a dog on 1 GB of RAM
with an Atom processor - particularly when you add the needed AV
software.

iPad is larger screen, better quality.

iPad has twice the battery life

iPad has faster networking.

iPad is lighter.

iPhone OS is optimized for multitouch. WIndows Home Premium is
going to be very clunky with touch.

The HP slate has more geek features - full Windows, more ports, etc.
But who cares? Anyone who needs all those ports and a full version of
Windows is not well served by EITHER of these devices.

If you simply need content consumption, the iPad is vastly superior -
for all of the above reasons. If you are into using your slate as a full
blown computer, you really need a full blown computer.

I can see only a tiny number of situations where the Slate wins out.
HP Slate:

+ $549 (aprox)
+ Atom Z530 processor. Optimized for embedded applications and in-order instruction execution.
+ Intel UMA graphic chip, with just 1080p optimization, but not real GPU.
+ Windows 7. An advanced OS with extensive use of .NET JIT Technology which, as any JIT, outputs non optimized out of order instructions. Also depends on a modern GPU, main reason most netbooks only have Windows 7 Starter. Interface is legacy keyboard and mouse system with a minimal API (Windows Touch) which appears to have a considerable lag maybe due to driver to API translation.

Apple iPad:

+ $499
+ A4. Part Cortex 8. Part PowerVR, SoC, with side by side RAM plane optimized for low power. No problem with instruction set or ordering.
+ GPU is part of SoC.
+ iPhone OS. Complete rewrite of Mac OS X system, optimized for small applications. All applications are cross compiled and optimized for the A4. Almost zero footprint for kernel and services. Almost instant touch response.

So in conclusion. The HP Slate is HP/Microsoft first attempt at emulating the iPhone (they had no idea what the iPad looked like), while the iPad is the logical heir to the iPhone/iPod touch legacy.
instead of trying to slam something that sells why not accept that what you need or want may not be the same as what someone else needs or wants.Apple tends to make products that just work very well for their intended use.If it fits the bill for what you need it will be trouble free -if you want something that does everything -but not one thing well ,then go for a microcrap based product.I think it is funny that the people who always want to slam apple will put so much energy into doing it.Why do you really care what other people want.Maybe you have wayyyyy too much time on your hands -or maybe it is just penis envy.BTW don't come near the urinal while I am there or your life will never be the sam
It's a no brainer. Maybe the Windows Phone 7 Series Slate Edition based on Silverlight (long horrendous Microsoft like name) might get any dent on the iPad. The problem's that that's coming until 2012, at the least. LOL!!! •The A4 package is composed of three layers: two layers of RAM (Samsung K4X1G323PE), and one layer containing the actual microprocessor.
•This Package-on-Package construction allows Apple to source the RAM from any manufacturer they want. While Apple is sourcing the RAM from Samsung now, this could be changed.
•The A4 processor is a single-core CPU, making it either an ARM Cortex A8 or a single-core variant of the A9. Most likely, it’s an A8.
•The two RAM layers each offer 128MB of memory, for a total of 256MB.
•The A4 is quite similar to the Samsung processor Apple uses in the iPhone. The primary focus of this design was minimizing power consumption and cost rather then developing a revolutionary new CPU.
•There are no markings on the CPU die, except on the Samsung DRAM
•Software benchmarks indicate that the A4 has the same PowerVR SGX 535 GPU as is present on the iPhone 3GS, but iFixit/Chipworks couldn’t verify this via hardware analysis. However, if the iPad’s graphics is powered by this GPU, graphics performance on the iPad is fairly poor relative to the screen size.
•Other manufacturer’s who supplied parts for the iPad include:
- Linear Technologies
- Intersil
- ST Micro
- NXP
- Cirrus Logic
- Texas Instruments
- Broadcom
The HP slate is a great example of what's wrong with the rest of the
industry. They believe that simply adding more features makes it a
better device - without considering the tradeoffs or how it will be
used.

In reality, HP slate starts at $549, iPad at $499 (Apple's price is lower
for a change).

HP Slate has a faster processor (1.6 GHz Atom vs. 1.0 GHz ARM), but
that's extremely misleading. iPhone OS is specifically designed to
eliminate unnecessary functions and is reportedly extremely fast on
the iPad. Windows Premium is going to run like a dog on 1 GB of RAM
with an Atom processor - particularly when you add the needed AV
software.

iPad is larger screen, better quality.

iPad has twice the battery life

iPad has faster networking.

iPad is lighter.

iPhone OS is optimized for multitouch. WIndows Home Premium is
going to be very clunky with touch.

The HP slate has more geek features - full Windows, more ports, etc.
But who cares? Anyone who needs all those ports and a full version of
Windows is not well served by EITHER of these devices.

If you simply need content consumption, the iPad is vastly superior -
for all of the above reasons. If you are into using your slate as a full
blown computer, you really need a full blown computer.

I can see only a tiny number of situations where the Slate wins out.

from -zdnet.com

AMD Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7GHz CPU

AMD has had a rocky start to its latest architectural update. K10 has had its major downs, suffering the TLB bug in the B1 and B2 stepping cores. When they were first introduced to market, they were the plague CPU; as in, every one avoided them like the plague! - It took many months for AMD to write this problem out, but B3 promised a fix and eventually delivered. Phenom really didn’t deliver what AMD was hoping, in fact it was clock for clock well behind the 8 ball compared to Intel’s Core 2 Duo. While Phenom wasn’t able to compete on the enthusiast platform, AMD has kept things interesting with its prices, trying to undercut Intel at every chance they can, and quite rightly so, a quad-core Phenom X4 can be had for almost nothing these days.
When it comes to their CPU division AMD has been having a tough time of it lately. First, their long anticipated "native Quad core" which was only just released this year had a bug in it (aka the "TLB erratum"); causing many a long time AMD buyer (who had already held off on upgrading to 775 because of the "just around the corner" X4s) to flock in droves to the already mature Intel 775 Core 2 quad core technology. In retrospect announcing that they had a bug in their chips was probably just about the worst thing they could have done. Heck, by that point they may have been just as well off in postponing the Phenom release as releasing it in that condition to be hammered by Intel's marketing machine did them no good at all. Maybe it was the sudden rush of Canadian sensibilities via the ATI take-over which made the heads of AMD suddenly grow a conscience, or maybe not; whatever the reason and no matter how laudable their ideals, it was a devastating blow to an already rocky company who were both low on liquid assets and trying to merge two company cultures into one. However, above all else they no longer had the top end of the market (hurting already shaky morale) as the Q6600 from Intel was stomping all over even the fastest X2 they could make.

This perfect storm of tragedy definitely threw them for a loop and in my opinion what really hit them the hardest was confirmation they had overstated the upgradeability of early AM2 motherboards. In the early AM2 days AMD said most AM2 capable motherboards would be able to just drop in a X4 and work perfectly with just a BIOS upgrade, this was quickly debunked when the Phenoms were released as they require HT 3.0 (thus the new and “improved” X4 capable AM2 boards are called “AM2+”) to work best. This was the equivalent of a swift kick in the head to an already downed opponent and the future looked awfully bleak as even super die hard AMD customers felt betrayed, threw in the towel and went to the dark side (heck this is what did it for me as my super expensive ASUS motherboard would never run an X4 properly!).

However, AMD gave themselves a bit of breathing room to regroup and fix that horribly overblown bug on their B2 revision silicon that hardly effected anyone (yet the fix seemed to universally slam every X4 owner). Now like a street fighter who can take a hit, AMD has staggered to their feet, shaken off the past errors and have a new weapon to resume the fight with. The only question is whether this weapon is nothing more than a broken beer bottle (which is really a terrible weapon and your much better off using a UNbroken beer bottle as a bludgeon than a broken one as a cutting/stabbing implement) or is the geeky equivalent of a base ball bat and six "friends" similarly equipped?

Today we will be looking at one of AMD’s latest weapon in winning back the faithful who had lost their way and have been debating stepping into Intel's camp. The weapon that we are referring to is the bug fixed X4; or to be more precise the 2.4ghz 9750 X4 in its B3 revision. In this review we are going to put the X4 through its paces, both in Windows XP and Vista to see what it is made of and compare it against the venerable Q6600. We will of course be overclocking the X4 until is screams to not only make sure the TLB error is toast but also see what the new Phenoms are truly made of. One thing is for sure: it may not be a pretty sight at the end but we intend to see how effective this now TLB error free native quad core really is.
While it wasn’t the success that AMD really wanted, it wasn’t a monumental failure; Phenom delivers more processing power per core than a similarly clocked K8 processor, which is impressive none the less.

Today we have been sent the latest update to the Athlon 64 family in the way of the Athlon X2 7750 Black Edition clocked at 2.7GHz and unlocked.

cpu up date

cpu up date

Thermalright is one of the top cooler manufactures, and for many years they sat as king of the hill with the Ultra 120 (or TRUE as some call it) and its many revisions. In the last couple of years that status has been challenged by companies like Noctua with the NH-U12P, and more recently the NH-D14. To get back on the top of the hill Thermalright has updated the Ultra 120 design and has called it the Venomous X.cpu up
We recently tested the Noctua NH-D14 and were very curious to see how the new Venomous X compared. So we contacted out friends at Crazy PC and they were nice enough to send us over a retail Venomous X. Let's get started by looking over the specifications and features of the Venomous X. cpu
Features
All new patented multiple support pressure vault cpu bracket system allows users to add pressure to the bracket system (40~70 lbs.) and have a more efficient and secure mounting (1366 / 1156 / 775).
Mirrored copper base increasingly upgrades the quality and the performance of the heatsink.
Special bent winglet design allows hot air to pass the heatsink more rapidly.
Heatsinks are all nickel plated to ensure the best quality and performance and could last for years.
Soldered heatpipes and copper base and fins to ensure the best cpu thermal conducting efficiency.
Six sintered heatpipe design: all heatpipes are nickel plated to slow the oxidation deterioration to the heatpipe and to ensure longer usage and performance of the heatsink for the cpu.
Includes 2 sets of 120 x 25mm fan clips and Chill factor II thermal paste.
Convex copper base design to ensure the highest thermal conducting thermal efficiency between the cpu and the heatsink.
Specifications

cpu up date
Heatsink Dimension: Length 127mm x Width 63mm x Height 160mm
Weight: 755 g (excluding fan and bracket system)
Heatpipe: 6mm sintered heatpipe x 6 units
Copper base: C1100 pure nickel plated copper base, with ultra-shine mirrored surface.

The Cell Architecture

The Cell Architecture grew from a challenge posed by Sony and Toshiba to provide power-efficient and cost-effective high-performance processing for a wide range of applications, including the most demanding consumer appliance: game consoles. Cell - also known as the Cell Broadband Engine Architecture (CBEA) - is an innovative solution whose design was based on the analysis of a broad range of workloads in areas such as cryptography, graphics transform and lighting, physics, fast-Fourier transforms (FFT), matrix operations, and scientific workloads. As an example of innovation that ensures the clients' success, a team from IBM Research joined forces with teams from IBM Systems Technology Group, Sony and Toshiba, to lead the development of a novel architecture that represents a breakthrough in performance for consumer applications. IBM Research participated throughout the entire development of the architecture, its implementation and its software enablement, ensuring the timely and efficient application of novel ideas and technology into a product that solves real challenges.

AMD Athlon II X3 435 CPU Review

Many users believe that the times of dual-core processors are coming to an end. However, so far there haven’t been any inexpensive processors with more than two cores in the market. Today AMD is correcting this: the new triple-core 45 nm CPUs are priced starting at $76!

Today, when Windows 7 OS launch is getting closer by day, AMD is rolling out quite a few new processors. Most of these CPUs are energy-efficient solutions from Athlon II family with two and four computational cores and relatively low clock frequencies, which maximum calculated thermal design power is 45 W. However, a few “standard” 95 W Athlon II X3 400 processors also got in-between their energy-efficient fellows. These are the products that are of primary interest to us today, because so far AMD hasn’t had any triple-core CPUs from Athlon II family, i.e. without L3 cache memory.
The launch of triple-core Athlon II X3 CPUs can hardly be called a big surprise. Being an exclusive manufacturer of processors like that, AMD pays special attention to these solutions. They are great from marketing as well as technical standpoints. On the one hand, Phenom II X3 and Athlon II X3 CPU series provide the company with an extra way of putting partially defective quad-core dies (with the defects in one of the cores) to good use. On the other hand, triple-core AMD processors are positioned as an alternative to dual-core Intel CPUs, which definitely appeals to those users that have already felt the benefits of multi-core architectures.
Since AMD cannot offer high-performance processors that could successfully compete against Intel Nehalem based CPUs, they chose different approach. The company focused on inexpensive solutions that would be superior in functionality to Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo and Pentium processors within the same price range. For example, new triple-core Athlon II X3 are targeted for sub-$90 price range, which means that they are competitors to dual-core Pentium processors recently enhanced by Intel by raising their clock frequencies and introducing 1067 MHz bus support.
By launching Athlon II X3 processors AMD concludes the expansion of their product lineup using 45 nm cores. Now the CPUs from this manufacturer start lining up according to very strict hierarchy: top CPUs have L3 cache and are called Phenom II, junior models have no L3 cache and are called Athlon II. However, there are quad-, triple- and dual-core processors in both CPU series.

Intel Core2 Duo E6600

Built on the innovative Intel Core microarchitecture, the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 processor features two independent processor cores in one physical package operating at 2.4GHz with a full 4MB L2 cache and a 1066MHz FSB to provide truly parallel computing for enhanced multi-application performance. PC users are running multiple, intense software applications simultaneously and demanding more on hardware resources. In office, PC usage has changed from data entry and word processing to e-Commerce, online collaboration and an ever-increasing need for continual security and virus protection. In the home, interests have shifted from low-bandwidth photos and Internet surfing to downloading and viewing high definition videos as well as advanced photo and video editing. The all-new Intel Core 2 Duo processor was developed to meet all these demands. There are reviewers who say that this is a CPU design for Intel which will really change the industry and what gamers consider as the CPU of choice. Other features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Digital Media Boost, all help the processor do more in less time.