intel = pwned


Recommended Posts

PC users - did you happen to notice that this thread is in the Mac section!!! This was not placed in the windows section so that you could say how much you hate Macs or why the benchmarks aren't true or whatever else you want to waste your time posting. No one in this section cares about your computer, period. Give it up. If you are coming in here to try to convert us to PC users, it's not going to happen.

Computers are computers. They have a use and every person likes something differet. If we were all stuck with the same thing, what a sad world it would be. If you like PC's then get one, if you like Mac's then get one. If you are interested in facts of the differences, then read about it, but why the hell do you feel like you have to come into the Mac section preaching about your PC. Give it up...

just as many people are trying to convert people to macs or saying how much better macs are

i just read this whole thread and i found it quite an interesting read. i'm glad there wasn't much flaming, because now i can type my response :D

most of you in this forum probably don't know me very well... i've used PCs for my whole life. i've used macs before, but never really liked them too much. I had some experience with OS7 or OS8, not totally sure which it was... OS9 was better, and OSX now is very good for the mac platform IMO.

i have to give it to apple this time, they got my respect from these benchmarks. i've been somewhat disappointed with intel's improvements over the past few years, and i was absolutely delighted when i heard about this small company who outclocked intel (AMD). i don't hate intel like some of you, and i don't hate IBM/apple like most of you. but i think the competition is good for the market. as long as it continues, we'll all just keep getting faster processors. BUT... i kinda hope intel wins this battle, because i like my PCs :blush: i'm also somewhat disappointed that the opterons weren't included in the tests, because i'd like to see how they fared.

btw, shouldn't this be in the hardware forum? :unsure:

And when Macs were (obviously) slower they were touting that "Mhz don't matter" and now that they are inching ahead (relatively speaking) they are all going crazy about how they'll reach 3 Ghz in such a short period of time.? Double standard or what?

(Y))

The Mhz myth has nothing to do with getting to a certain speed at a certain time, like you insinuate. It is merely saying that a higher megahertz processor doesn't necessarily perform better than a lower megahertz processor. And in this case, that hasn't changed. It's fairly obvious that Intel will be well above 3gigahertz next year when the 3gig G5 comes out. And guess what. The G5 will STILL be faster. The mhz myth continues. So no, there is obviously no double standard.

Well I just find the marketing strategy a little funny.

Megahertz do not matter as much with the "G" processors. That's true. But then after a while Intel and everyone else pushed ahead when Motorola was taking there good old time making new processors.

Now IBM is in and Motorola is out so hopefully that situation won't happen again.

I think thats the point were trying to get across.:))

sigh ignorant pc users make me laugh sometimes, I just got a G5, and I paid for it with my own money which I've been working hard to get, Macs are a little on the pricey side but the performance you get is worth it, and macs are upgradable, look at the G4's, there are tons of cpu upgrades for them, and now since IBM is making the G5 Apple will have faster cpu's coming out sooner than before, and if you want to argue about games, almost every game that is popular is out for mac, q1-3, doom 3 will come to mac, and even HL 2 will come to mac. So please don't flame when you don't even know about macs and what they can do.

-ps I've been a pc user for around 7-8 years and now I'm experiencing the mac world

Didn't you start another thread where you are trying to sell your G5 to buy a better G5? Can't be too upgradeable can they?

Firstly, a heat dissipation of 97 watts is paltry compared to the 100+ watts a Prescott is going to consume, which I *think* is 110 watts or so. And thats not bad considering the G5 is a lot faster then the P4 and still keep a nice heat dissipation compared to the P4's successor.

Also,who said G5 is going to have Hyperthreading?It may have something similiar, but certainly not HT. HT is an Intel branded feature.

I wouldn't say 97 watts is paltry compared to 100+ watts. Also, for the dual G5's does this mean they are dissipating almost 200 watts?

Didn't you start another thread where you are trying to sell your G5 to buy a better G5? Can't be too upgradeable can they?

the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

I dont see why the post was irrelevant. He was talking about how macs are so upgradable, well obviously the 1.6 g5 isnt.

the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

I dont see why the post was irrelevant. He was talking about how macs are so upgradable, well obviously the 1.6 g5 isnt.

because the 1.6 and 1.8 models have different motherboards, so you won't be able to put a 1.8 in a 1.6 since it runs at a different fsb speed and the 1.8+ have pci-x while the 1.6 doesn't, so it would be easier to buy a faster one, the 1.6 you can upgrade video card, hard drive's, ram, sound card, add in cards, so how is it not upgradable?

:no:

It's truly disheartening to me how many people in this thread apparently have zero understanding of benchmarking and its significance.

The normalized PS7Bench results do not tell us that the G5s are faster overall than Intel's offerings... they simply tell us that the 3K$+ dual 2.0GHz scores better than Intel's current chips at the normalized results for a specific benchmark, run under a single application (and that application is one that PPC/Altivec platforms traditionally do really well at). If you look at the total time to complete the benchmark instead of the normalized score the Xeons actually finish faster. I personally feel the normalized results are more meaningful though and based on other PS7 benchmark results, I feel comfortable saying that Apple has, on the highest end, the current fastest Photoshop machine.

So if you're willing to buy a 3K$+ workstation for running Photoshop, the Dual G5 2.0GHz looks good. If your price range is below there however, the single processor G5 models score worse than cheaper single processor P4-based systems (at PS7Bench Advanced).

Here's the complete normalized PS7Bench results list for anyone who's interested (compiled over the last couple of years):

2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7             555 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7             497 (energy settings auto bus slewing)
2x 3060 Xeon (no L3) HT enabled   490
2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400)          488
2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400)          471
   3200 P4 (800MHz)               427
   3000 P4 (800MHz)               405
   3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06)            386
   3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB)       358 HT
2x 2200 Xeon PC 800 RDRAM CPQ Evo 357 HT
2x 3000+Athlon (2166)             355 (provisional Utwig)
2x 1500 G4 (OC'd 1420)            348
2x 1333 G4 DDR OS9.2 (oc'd 1.25)  346
   1800 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5plugin   344 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 1420 G4 OSX 10.2.4             338
2x 2400+Athlon MP                 338
2x 1250 G4 OS 9.2.2j              337
   3200+Athlon XP                 332
   1800 Opteron(dual-chnlDDR 333) 332
2x 1333 G4 DDR OSX10.2.2(oc 1.25) 326
   1800 OPteron(singl-chnlDDR333) 320
   3000+Athlon XP                 318
2x 1250 G4 OSX 10.2.5             318
2x 1250 G4 DDR OSX 10.2.1         316
2x 1800 Athlon MP                 312
   2800+Athlon XP Barton          298
2x 2000 P4 Xeon                   286
2x 1200 G4Powerlogix(867MHzG4/QS) 285 upgraded
2x 1533 Athlon MP                 285
2x 1533 Athlon MP                 283
   2530 P4 mobile (OC'd 1400)     282
   2700 P4B (OC 2400, 600 MHz FSB)280 
2x 1466 Athlon XP                 279
   1600 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5 Plugin  276 *MacNNscores (energy settings on auto)
   2666 P4 (DDR 333)              269
2x 1000 G4 DDR 10.2               267
   2400+Athlon XP                 262
2x 1000 G4 OS9                    260
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.1.5             254
   2400+Athlon                    252
   2400 P4B (800MHz)              251
   2400b (sis 648 DDR400)         251
   1600 Centrino IBM T40          250
   2400 P4 (533MHz bus)           249
   2400 P4 B                      241
   2340 P4 (overclock)            239
   1600 Centrino Dell D800        236 
   2400 P4                        234
   1800+Athlon XP (1533 MHz)      226
   1577 oc'd Athlon XP (Lestat)   221
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.2.2 (upgraded)  218 ?!(dual 533 logic board)
   1548 Athlon XP                 214
   1670 Athlon XP (2000+)         213 
   1667 Athlon XP                 211
   1400 Athlon XP 1600+ xp pro    200 
1x 1533 Athlon MP                 197
   1300 Centrino Sony VAIO Z1A    196
   1000 G4 17" Powrbk OSX 10.2.6  196 
   2000 P4 Xeon                   194 
   1400 Athlon XP 1600+'98SE      191
   1000 G4 OSX TiPbk 10.2.2       185
2x  533 G4 OSX 10.1.5             175
2x  533 G4 OS 9.2.2               174
   1800 P4                        173
   1200 AthlonMP                  168
   1508 Celeron (overclock)       167
   1400 PIII Tualatin             160 **?
2x  550 G4 OSX 10.2.3 (OC Cube)   160 **?
2x  500 G4 OSX                    152 
2x  450 G4 OS9                    151 
   1333 Athlon TBird              147 
2x  450 G4 OSX 10.1.5             143 
    800 G4 Pbook OSX  1MB L3      135 
    733 G4 (miro7)                134 
    667 G4 PBk OS9 noL3           127
    667 G4 PBk OSX 10.2.3 no L3   125
    466 G4 OS9                    123 
    667 G4 OSX TiPBk 10.1.5 noL3  121
    866 PIII                      114 
    466 G4 OSX 133 MHz bus        112
    550 G4 Powrbk OS9*            104 
    500 G4 Pbook (OC'd 400)       103
1x  450 G4 OSX 100 MHz bus        101
   1000 Athlon TBird (PS6.01)     100
    550 G4 Powrbk OSX*             95
    933 Transmeta Crusoe Sony      78 
    700 G3 iBook                   74
    600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j         70
    233 PII                        30

Now, to get an idea of overall performance let's compare some more benchmark results between the platforms.

First let's start with the benchmarks C't magazine ran in their latest issue (if I remember correctly all the systems are using a radeon 9600). They used the G5 optimized version of Cinebench which isn?t publicly available yet.:

Cinebench 2003 Rendering (more = better)
2x 2 GHz G5: 504
1x 1 GHz G4: 92
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 655
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 310
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 380

Photoshop 7 (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 278 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 796 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 287 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 337 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 362 s

Mathematica 5 (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 1021 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 2023 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 725 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 553 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 678 s

FileMaker 5.5 (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 82 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 147 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 70 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 46 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 62 s

MP3 encoding (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 98 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 284 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 68 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 89 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 91 s

MPEG-4 transcoding (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 42 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 85 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 35 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 41 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 39 s

UT 2003 Asbestos flyby 1024x768
2x 2 GHz G5: 67 fps
1x 1 GHz G4: 33 fps
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 197 fps
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 203 fps
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 203 fps

http://www.heise.de/ct/03/20/098/

Another UT2K3 comparison can be found here, this time using Radeon 9800 Pros and scores from xlr8 & AcesHardware:

P4 3.4 GHz EE (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 104.4

P4 3.2 GHz EE (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 99.7

P4 3.2 GHz (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 90.4

G5 2.0 (x2) 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1024x768x32: 58.8

G4 1.25 (x2) 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1024x768x32: 34.51

Finally here are some Cinebench 2003 scores using the current version:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester : 
Processor : G5
MHz : 1.8GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 10.2.7
Graphics Card : gF FX
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 188 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU 
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 227 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 605 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 936 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 4.12
****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester           : Highest Performance 2
Processor        : Dual G5
MHz              : 2GHz
Number of CPUs   : 2
Operating System : 10.2.7
Graphics Card    : ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
Resolution       : 1024 x 768
Color Depth      : 24 bit
****************************************************
Rendering (Single   CPU): 220 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 398 CB-CPU 
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.81
Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 265 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 701 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1404 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 5.29
****************************************************

Processor : 3GHz P4/HT
MHz : 3260
Number of CPUs : 2 (actually 1 with hyper threading)
Operating System : XP

Graphics Card : 9700Pro

Rendering (Single CPU): 319 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 383 CB-CPU 

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.20

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 327 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1491 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2544 CB-GFX 

OpenGL Speedup: 7.78

Hyperthreading ON:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester           : sw
Processor        : Xeon
MHz              : 3.06 GHz
Number of CPUs   : 4
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP1
Graphics Card    : ATI FireGL X1
Resolution       : 1600 x 1200
Color Depth      : 32 bit
****************************************************
Rendering (Single   CPU): 306 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 650 CB-CPU 
Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.12
Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 301 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1267 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2084 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 6.92
****************************************************

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/p...0920455&p=1

Now that the Athlon 64 and Athlon FX are officially out today many of these benchmark results are have become slightly outdated. For now here's an updated version of the UT2K3 Asbestos Botmatch scores from AcesHardware:

Athlon 64 FX-53 2.4 GHz 119.8 ?
Athlon 64 FX-51 2.2 GHz 109.6 ?
Athlon 64 2.2 GHz Single Channel 106.3 ?
Athlon 64 3200+ 104.4 ?
P4 3.4 GHz EE 104.4 ?
P4 3.2 GHz EE 99.4 ?
P4 3.2 GHz "C" 90.4 ?
P4 2.8 GHz "C" 83.3 ?
P4 2.4 GHz "C" 76.2 ?
Athlon XP 3200+ 85.5 ?
Athlon 2700+ 72.7 ?
Athlon 2500+ 71.6
G5 2.0 (x2) (1024x768x32): 58.8
G4 1.25 (x2) (1024x768x32): 34.51

No, it does nto matter.

Its just thats the "benchmark" to determine how powerful a PROC is.

Its like 0-60 in a car. Really that does not mean much, but it is simply a good indication of the power of a car (no flaming on this issue please,it was jsut an analogy)

Alright, I'll throw in what I know and what I believe here. If it's wrong, then I take it back.

My understanding to the reason why a 700Mhz (somewhere around there) XBOX runs games better than many PCs is because the makers of the games do not have to worry about a large variance in computer configurations (software, hardware). On a console, you have ONE xbox. All the xboxes have the same specs. So for the XBOX there is less worrying about supporting the tons of software and hardware configs out there.

Having the said, I feel that the Mac is sort of like a console compared to the PC. You have a very small market for the Macs. You have one company that designs these computers. In the PC world, you have makers like Dell, Gateway, or you can even get your own custom PC built. Since all Macs are very similar, game makers can more easily design a game that supports a fairly limited hardware and software configuration. Thus, at the moment, even though Macs don't seem as fast as PCs, it's the way they handle the games and apps. Hell, you can start up an arguement saying today's consoles are faster than the Mac G4.

Having the said, I feel that the Mac is sort of like a console compared to the PC. You have a very small market for the Macs

Does it really matter how fast a g5 runs games? If gaming were even a small issue for someone purchasing a computer then a new macintosh would be excluded in seconds. Anyhow:

EDIT: I'm having no luck with quotes today.

Think about the x86 market for a minute: how many processors are there? Two - how larger are the functional differences? Some have SSE2, Some have 3DNow! otherwise the instructions are the same. Compiler flags should handle the different optimizations (for p4 vs athlon) though most are just targeted for i686 for compatibility.

How is the sound handled? The majority of x86 systems run Creative soundcards so EAX is the major 'wierd' extention. For most you can just write for DirectSound.

What video cards are available? most gamers are using Nvidia or ATI offerings (the same used in macs). How do you write for them? OpenGL or Direct3D.

One reason x86 PCs took off as a gaming platform is because the environment became so standaradized.

You have one company that designs these computers. In the PC world, you have makers like Dell, Gateway, or you can even get your own custom PC built.
You still write games using the same APIs: WinAPI/COM/whatever, Direct3D/OpenGL, and Direct Sound. Developers don't have to think about what soundcard, videocard, hard drive, etc are in the computer.
Since all Macs are very similar, game makers can more easily design a game that supports a fairly limited hardware and software configuration.
Thus, at the moment, even though Macs don't seem as fast as PCs
The seam plenty fast in video editing, encryption, compilation, sound editing, photoshop, etc. Games seam to be the only really problematic areas.
, it's the way they handle the games and apps

Exactly. It's not so much that the hardware is terrible for gaming (it may be - we don't know) but that the API available are either not suitable (possibly) or that developers don't care to spend the same amount of time optimizing for the differences in the 'port'.

To find out for sure we could compare games running on similar APIs, on a simlar OS and see how performance compares: unfortunatly tux racer isn't the most demanding benchmark out there.

Why is everyone focusing on the gaming benchmarks? The CT magazine scores are almost entirely application benchmarks.

Here's some Lightwave 7.5 scores from AnandTech and PCMagazine that show some Single Processor PCs versus a Dual G5:

Rad. Ref. Scene
P4 EE 3.2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 42.5 sec
P4 3.2C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46.0 sec
P4 3.0C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48.4 sec
Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 49.3 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 50.6 sec
Dual G5 2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 51.1 sec
Athlon 64 3200+ ? ? ? ?54.5 sec

Raytrace Scene
Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 87.9 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 88.3 sec
P4 EE 3.2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 89.3 sec
P4 3.2C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?93.1 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 96.4 sec
P4 3.0C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?99.1 sec
Dual G5 2GHz ? ? ? ? ?112.0 sec

Wow, a G5 is good at Photoshop. Who whoula thunk it?

Still waiting on some real benchmarks...

What? A benchmark using one the PRIMARY peices of software people use the computer for isn't "real" enough for you? Sorry to inform you, but number crunching ability actually has little to do with how fast the computer can get your job done...

the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

I really appreciate the insult at the end there. Really a sign of maturity. I was asking a question, not stating a fact.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hands-on with BOOX Tappy: cute little reading accessory by Taras Buria Page turners are quite popular accessories for e-readers, as they enable a hands-free reading experience, which is particularly useful with large readers featuring 10-inch or larger displays. The BOOX Tappy is a new accessory that was introduced earlier this year, and we took this cute-looking thingy for a spin. The Tappy comes in a small box, with two additional buttons and a user manual. The device is made of glossy green plastic and resembles old appliances from the nuclear age. Material quality is great, and each part feels quite premium. Plastic is high-quality, the switch is nice to flick, and the buttons are not rattly. At the bottom, four rubberized feet prevent slipping when used on a desk. Unfortunately, there are no color options, and the Tappy is only available in green. It looks good, but I wish there were other options as well. There are two removable buttons, an on/off switch, and an LED indicator that displays connection mode, charging status, and more. The buttons resemble those of an old typewriter, with quite a long travel distance and a pleasant clack. In the box, you have four buttons with different icons: heart, coffee, O, and X. You can easily swap buttons by simply pulling them upwards. Tip: buttons come with plastic covers, but they are quite tricky to remove. It is hard to call the Tappy the most ergonomic remote control, but after fiddling with it for a few hours, I managed to find a comfortable hand position. Attaching a lanyard to it can make it more comfortable in use without the fear of dropping it, but unfortunately, the Tappy does not come with one. The Tappy connects via Bluetooth 5.2, and it works in three modes, which you can toggle by pressing and holding both buttons for about five seconds: Reading Mode Multimedia Mode Browsing Mode Next / Previous page Next / Previous Track Up / Down scroll If you pair the Tappy with a BOOX device (I tested it with the BOOX Go 10.5 Gen 2 Lumi), you will get small pop-ups indicating the current mode. Plus, you can customize what each button does when pressed one time, two times, or held for a few seconds. The list of available actions and features you can use is massive, and I like that BOOX lets you map stuff like brightness adjustment, app launching, screenshot-taking, screen rotating, navigation, and more. Note, however, that while you can use the Tappy with other readers, its customization is only available on BOOX devices running firmware version 4.2 and newer. I could not connect the Tappy to my computer (Windows 11 claims a driver error when I try), but it worked with the DuRoBo Krono that I recently reviewed. My Kindle Paperwhite refused to work with the Tappy, though, just like my iPhone. The Tappy uses a non-removable Li-Ion battery, which can be recharged with a Type-C cable. BOOX rates the remote for "weeks of use," and I can say that it indeed has very good battery life. While there are no battery indicators on the remote, you can see the current level in the status bar or in Input settings in the BOOX firmware. After a few days of active use, mine still shows about 95%. Overall, the Tappy left a nice impression. It is well-made, and the integration with BOOX devices is great. I also like that BOOX decided to have some fun with its design and swappable buttons. I cannot say I am a fan of its odd shape, though. Still, I managed to find a way to use it comfortably. And when not in use, it just looks neat sitting on the table doing nothing or serving you as a small clacky fidget. Buy BOOX Tappy - $29.99 on Amazon US As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • AdGuard Family lifetime deal now only $14.97 by Steven Parker Today's highlighted Neowin Deal comes via our Apps + Software section, where you can get a lifetime subscription and save 91% on a lifetime AdGuard Family Plan. AdGuard is a unique program that has all the necessary features for what they claim to be "the best web experience." The software combines the an advanced ad blocker, a privacy protection module, and a parental control tool—all working in one app. This software deals with annoying ads, hides your data from a multitude of trackers, protects you from malware attacks, and even lets you restrict your kids from accessing inappropriate content. Install AdGuard and see the internet as it was supposed to be: clean and safe. Get rid of annoying banners, pop-ups & video ads once and for all Hide your data from the multitude of trackers & activity analyzers that swarm the web Avoid fraudulent and phishing website and malware attacks Protect your kids online by restricting them from accessing inappropriate & adult content Good to know Family Plan Length of access: lifetime This plan is only available to new users Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Max number of devices: 9 Access options: desktop & mobile Software version: AdGuard Family Updates included A lifetime subscription of AdGuard Family Plan normally costs $169.99, but this deal can be yours for just $14.97, that's a saving of $157.02. For full terms, specifications, and license info please click the link below. Get this AdGuard Family lifetime deal for just $14.97 (was $169.99) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support! Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. Why we post these deals We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. So for those that keep moaning and complaining, be thankful we're still online for you to even do that. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
    • Passkeys: Think of them like a broken heart necklace. Imagine one of those heart necklaces that breaks into two matching pieces. One person keeps one half, and the other person keeps the other half. With passkeys, the website has one half, and you have the other half. If the website gets hacked and someone steals its half, that stolen piece is useless by itself. It cannot unlock your account without your matching half. This particular heart necklace is one of a kind, there is only one in existence. Your half of the necklace has to be stored somewhere. It might be stored on your phone, tablet, computer, security key, or a password manager that can sync it between all your devices. A security key is a small physical device that you keep with you, kind of like a house key, car key, or flash drive. I would not usually recommend a security key as the first option for the average person. For most people, it is easier to use their phone, computer, or a password manager that can sync passkeys between their devices. A security key is more like a spare key you keep in a safe place, just in case you lose access to your other devices or your password manager. Some security keys plug into your computer. Some plug into your phone or tablet. Some get tapped against your device. The idea is simple: a security key can hold another passkey for the same website. Think of it like creating a second one-of-a-kind heart necklace for the same account. One necklace could be paired with your password manager, while another necklace could be paired with your security key. That means the website has more than one matching half on file. One half matches the passkey in your password manager. Another half matches the passkey stored on your security key. So, if you lose access to your phone, computer, or password manager, you would still be able to log in using the passkey stored on your security key. Think of it like keeping an extra special necklace piece on a tiny keychain, stored somewhere safe. The website still has the matching half for that security key, but your half is safely stored inside the little key. A passkey does not automatically exist on every device you own. It lives wherever you save it. If your half is stored on one device, then that device is the one that has the matching piece. For example, if you create the passkey on your Windows computer and it is only saved to that computer, your iPhone does not automatically have that same half. If you create it on your iPhone and it only stays on that iPhone, your Android phone does not automatically have it either. That is where password managers come in. A password manager can act like a protected jewelry box for your passkeys. Instead of your half of the necklace being locked to only one device, the password manager can securely sync that half to your other approved devices. For example, Apple Passwords and iCloud Keychain can sync passkeys between your Apple devices. Google Password Manager can sync passkeys with your Google account. But password managers such as 1Password and Bitwarden can sync passkeys between everything, your phones, tablets and computers. Now, you might ask: “What happens if I lose access to the device that has my passkey?” That depends on where your passkey was saved and what recovery options the website gives you. If your passkey was synced through a password manager, you may be able to sign in from another device that has access to that same password manager. For example, if your passkey is saved in iCloud Keychain, Google Password Manager, 1Password, or Bitwarden, another approved device may still have access to it. If your passkey was saved only on one phone, computer, or security key, and you lose that device, then you may not have your half of the necklace anymore. In that case, you would usually need to use the website’s backup login or account recovery options. A lot of websites that support passkeys still let you fall back to your regular password. So if you lose access to your passkey, the site may still let you log in with your password, a code sent to your email, a text message, a recovery code, or some other account recovery process. That is convenient, but it is also important to understand: if the website still allows password login, then your password still matters. Passkeys are safer than passwords, but if your account still has a password as a backup, you should still use a strong, unique password and turn on two-factor authentication if the website offers it. This is why it is a good idea to have more than one safe way back into important accounts. For example, you might keep your passkey in a syncing password manager, add a second trusted device, save recovery codes somewhere safe, or set up a backup security key. A passkey is very secure, but just like a real key, you need a backup plan in case you lose access to it. Now, you might ask: “What stops a hacker from copying my half of the necklace?” That’s the important part: your half is protected. It is not something you type in, and it is not something the website gets to keep. Think of your half as being locked inside a tiny safe on your phone, computer, security key, or password manager. That safe only opens when you approve it with your fingerprint, face, PIN, or device password. When you log in, the website does not need to see your half. It only needs proof that your half matches its half. Your actual half is not handed over to the website. This is different from a password. With a password, you type the secret into the website. If you type it into a fake website, the hacker now has it. With a passkey, you are not typing your secret into the website. Your device is proving you have the matching half without giving the half away. That also helps protect you from fake websites. If someone makes a fake login page that looks like the real site, your device can tell it is not the real match. It will not use your passkey there. Now, could someone use your passkey if they stole your device, got into your password manager, or somehow unlocked the safe that holds your half? Yes, that is why your device password, PIN, fingerprint, face unlock, and password manager security still matter. But a hacker cannot just steal your passkey from the website or trick you into typing it into a fake page like they can with a password. That is why passkeys are safer than passwords. The two matching pieces have to come together, like two lovebirds who were once separated and are finally reunited.
    • Newegg offers insane combo deal on Amazon Prime Day 2026 that beats Steam Machine by Sayan Sen Building a PC is undoubtedly difficult nowadays but with this epic combo deal, Newegg is trying to make it as easy for you as it is possible. If you are making a new one or even upgrading an old system to a new Windows 11 device, this combo bundle is truly unmissable as you get AMD's Ryzen 9800X3D, a compatible X870 motherboard, a 240mm AIO liquid cooler and finally a Samsung 990 PRO SSD all for under $1000 (purchase link under the specs table down below). This should beat out the newly launched Steam Machine from Valve in terms of performance and performance per dollar especially if you are willing to set Linux up on it. Essentially with this combo you will get the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D 8-core 3D V cache CPU, Samsung's 990 PRO 2TB NVMe SSD, the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX Motherboard, and finally the Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240. Thanks to that massive vertically stacked L3 cache, the X3D desktop processors, including the 9800X3D, also come with the benefit of not needing fast memory. Even DDR5-5600 should be plenty for it. The technical specifications of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D are given in the table below: Specification Value Architecture Zen 5 Cores / Threads 8 / 16 Base Clock 4.7 GHz Max Boost Clock Up to 5.2 GHz L1 Cache 640 KB L2 Cache 8 MB L3 Cache 96 MB Total Cache 104 MB CPU Core Process TSMC 4nm FinFET I/O Die Process TSMC 6nm FinFET Socket AM5 Default TDP 120W Max Temperature (Tjmax) 95°C Thermal Solution Not included Memory Type DDR5 Max Capacity 256 GB Memory Speeds 2x1R: DDR5-5600 2x2R: DDR5-5600 4x1R: DDR5-3600 4x2R: DDR5-3600 PCIe Version PCIe 5.0 PCIe Lanes (Total/Usable) 28 / 24 USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10Gbps) 4 USB 2.0 1 Graphics Cores 2 CU RDNA 2 Frequency 2200 MHz DisplayPort over USB-C Yes Overclocking Unlocked Up next we have the tech specs for the MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI Motherboard: Specification Value Chipset AMD X870 CPU Support AMD Ryzen 9000 / 8000 / 7000 Series Desktop Processors Socket AM5 Memory Slots 4 × DDR5 UDIMM Maximum Memory Capacity 256GB Memory Support DDR5 8400–5600 MT/s (OC), DDR5 5600–4800 MT/s (JEDEC) Integrated Graphics Outputs 1 × HDMI 2.1 FRL (up to 8K 60Hz) 2 × USB4 Type-C with DisplayPort 1.4 HBR3 (up to 4K 60Hz) Expansion Slots PCI_E1: PCIe 5.0 x16 (CPU) PCI_E2: PCIe 3.0 x1 (Chipset) PCI_E3: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset) Audio Realtek ALC4080 Codec 7.1-Channel USB High Performance Audio Supports up to 32-bit/384kHz playback on front panel S/PDIF output M.2 Slots 4 × M.2 M2_1: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 22110/2280) M2_2: PCIe 5.0 x4 (CPU, 2280/2260) M2_3: PCIe 4.0 x2 (Chipset, 2280/2260) M2_4: PCIe 4.0 x4 (Chipset, 2280/2260) SATA Ports 4 × SATA 6Gb/s RAID Support RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 for M.2 NVMe storage devices Rear USB Ports 4 × USB 2.0 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 2 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 2 × USB4 40Gbps Type-C Front USB Headers 4 × USB 2.0 4 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 1 × USB 20Gbps Type-C LAN Realtek 8126-CG 5G LAN Wireless Wi-Fi 7 (M.2 Key-E module pre-installed) Supports 2.4GHz / 5GHz / 6GHz bands Up to 5.8Gbps Supports 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be Bluetooth Bluetooth 5.4, MLO, 4KQAM Internal Power Connectors 1 × 24-pin ATX Power 2 × CPU Power Connectors 1 × PCIe 8-pin Power Connector Fan Headers 1 × CPU Fan 1 × Combo Fan (Pump/System) 6 × System Fan RGB Headers 3 × Addressable V2 RGB (JARGB_V2) 1 × RGB LED (JRGB) Other Internal Headers 1 × EZ Conn-header 2 × Front Panel Headers 1 × Chassis Intrusion 1 × Front Audio 1 × TPM 2.0 Header Debug Features 4 × EZ Debug LEDs 1 × EZ Digit Debug LED Rear I/O Ports Clear CMOS Button Flash BIOS Button HDMI 2 × USB 40Gbps Type-C 1 × USB 10Gbps Type-C 4 × USB 10Gbps Type-A 3 × USB 5Gbps Type-A 4 × USB 2.0 5G LAN Port Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Antenna Connectors Audio Connectors Form Factor ATX The Samsung 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification Value Interface PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC DRAM Cache 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,200 TBW MTBF 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink No Get the combo deal at this link: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, Samsung 990 PRO 2TB, MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI motherboard, Cooler Master Elite Liquid 240: $784.99 + $25 off with promo code FTTF77: $759.99 (Sold and Shipped by Newegg US) Good to know This Newegg deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      469
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      165
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      104
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      87
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!