It was just a matter of time before the leading makers of central processing units (CPUs) start to sell dual-core chips for value computers and it now seems that the time will come in the first quarter of next year, when Intel Corp. unveils dual-core Intel Celeron microprocessors aiming the most affordable personal computers (PCs).

The first Intel Celeron E1200 dual-core processor working at 1.60GHz, utilizing 800MHz processor system bus and featuring 512KB of unified secondary-level cache will emerge in the first quarter of 2008 to target cost-effective desktops. Later during the year Intel plans to add more chips into the Intel Celeron E1000 dual-core lineup, creating a comprehensive family of affordable chips with two processing engines.

Intel’s Celeron E1000 dual-core processors are set to be made using 65nm process technology and are projected to fit into 65W thermal design power envelope. The new CPUs will be drop-in compatible with all platforms that support code-named

According to documents seen by X-bit labs, Intel plans to describe the new Intel Celeron dual-core processor as delivering “entry multi-tasking experience for value-conscious customers”. Currently Intel sells Celeron processors for $34 - $59, therefore, it is possible to expect that the new E1000-series will also fit into that gap. It is interesting to note that the launch of the new Celeron dual-core chips will not mean end of life for Intel Pentium processors, which will continue to serve upper segment of low-cost desktop systems.

Given relatively low clock-speed and not a large cache, it is unlikely that Intel Celeron E1000 dual-core microprocessors will show incredible performance. Nevertheless, the forthcoming emergence of the new chips proof that multi-core technology are rushing into the value segment of the market.

The launch of low-cost dual-core Intel Celeron E1000-series processors will cause the chip giant’s rival Advanced Micro Devices to either waterfall prices of its entry-level single-core AMD Athlon LE and AMD Sempron chips, or to introduce value dual-core processors as well and reconsider pricing of single-core offerings.

Officials for Intel did not comment on the news-story.

Source : X-Bit Labs

Bookmark To:

A few days ago I got an invitation to join a new social networking site from a co-worker. (Social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook, and Windows Live Spaces are services people can use to connect with others to share information like photos, videos, and personal messages.)

At first I thought it was strange that she was inviting me to join since we work together and already communicate several times a day using both high-tech and low-tech methods.

Even though I thought the invitation might have been a fraudulent e-mail message, I sent it back to her and told her I would join, if she was sure the invitation wasn’t a scam.

A few minutes later I received an e-mail message from my co-worker saying that she was horrified to learn that the social networking site had e-mailed an invitation to all of her contacts without her knowledge.

When you first sign up, many popular social networking sites offer to scan your e-mail address book to find out if other people you know are on that particular social network. Then you can choose whether you want to connect with others who are already on the network or send invitations to people who aren’t. These sites should ask your permission to send out invitations. My co-worker claims that this particular site did not ask her permission.

You’ve probably heard the news reports about how much time teenagers spend on social networking Web sites. However, online social networking is now used by adults as well as kids. Adults use these sites to keep in contact with friends or even to help them get new jobs. Whether you’re the parent of a child who uses a social networking site or if you use these sites yourself, here are a few basic guidelines to follow.

Social networking safety tips

Educate yourself about the site before you post any personal information. Evaluate the social networking Web site and read the privacy policy and code of conduct carefully. To avoid giving the site the e-mail addresses of your friends, do not allow the site to scan your e-mail address book.

Assume what you write on a social networking site is permanent. Even if you have the ability to delete your account, anyone on the Internet can easily print out the information or save it to a computer.

Consider using a site that doesn’t post your information publicly. Some sites allow anyone to view the content you post on the site; others only allow members to view pages. If you want to help protect your information even further, use a site that allows you to password-protect your information and only give your friends the password.

For more information tips specifically for parents see How to help your kids use social networking sites more safely.
Source MSDN.

Bookmark To:

When they were introduced a couple of years ago, hybrid hard drives seemed enticing. Pairing a standard hard drive with a flash component sounded like a good way to deliver on the theoretical performance boosts that flash can offer while still providing the long-standing price, capacity, and performance benefits of hard disks. We’ve now tested the first two hybrid hard drives to reach market, and we’ve discovered some clear benefits–but other results were inconclusive.

We looked at Seagate’s Momentus 5400 PSD drive, announced today, and Samsung’s SpinPoint MH80 drive, released this summer. Both models are 2.5-inch, 160GB notebook drives with 256MB of nonvolatile flash memory cache on board. The hard-drive industry concentrated on introducing the new technology in laptop drives because notebooks would be more likely to reap the benefits that hybrid tech promises, including faster boot time and power savings.

In the Test Center
Our Test Center examined the $190 Seagate Momentus 5400 PSD and the $299 Samsung SpinPoint MH80 alongside a $250 non-hybrid Hitachi Travelstar 7K200 (HTS722020k9SA00). We tested all three drives on a Dell Inspiron 1520, running a Core 2 Duo T7300 2-GHz CPU and 2GB of memory. Click the icon below to see a chart of our test results. To test the hybrid drives, we did a fresh installation of the 32-bit version of Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate and updated the drivers and BIOS. Surprisingly, we had to wait about 20 minutes for the operating system to recognize each hybrid drive. Once each drive was recognized, however, an NVCACHE tab appeared in the driver properties, and the drive was ready to work with Vista’s ReadyDrive technology, which uses the drive’s flash cache. You must run Windows Vista to use a hybrid hard drive.

To prepare the system to take advantage of any power savings the hybrid drive would provide, we entered the Power Options control panel and, under the Balanced power profile, changed the settings to enable the Windows Hybrid Hard Disk Power Savings Mode. Our experience was, in fact, much like that of someone who was upgrading their existing notebook with Vista and a hybrid hard drive.

The minimum requirements for using a hybrid drive are tied in with Vista’s minimum requirements: Beyond having a system that runs Windows Vista and uses a Serial ATA interface, Seagate suggests that your PC have 2GB of memory, a dual-core or quad-core CPU, the latest BIOS revision (less than one year old), and the newest drivers. Seagate notes that hardware drivers can have an impact on a hybrid’s benefits, though the company doesn’t go into detail on this point in its reviewer’s guide; when asked, the company stated that slow drivers can affect a PC’s boot performance.

Power Savings Confirmed
The Hitachi drive is a performance model that spins at 7200 rpm, in contrast to the 5400-rpm speed of the Samsung and Seagate drives. However, the Hitachi model is representative of the direction notebook computing is going, as increasingly we’re seeing mainstream and power notebooks with a 7200-rpm drive inside.

As such, it was no surprise that the Hitachi drive was the fastest at our timed hard-drive write tests. The Hitachi model required 154 seconds to copy 3.06GB of files and folders, versus the Seagate’s 208 seconds and the Samsung’s 217 seconds.

On our read tests, the difference was much smaller. The Hitachi required 25 seconds to search through its files, while the Seagate needed 29 seconds and the Samsung took 30 seconds. On our Panda virus-scan test of 6.12GB of files, the Hitachi and Seagate tied at 34 seconds, and the Samsung was just a shade behind at 36 seconds. Whether we can attribute those tight results to the hybrid models’ use of 256MB of nonvolatile cache is uncertain, but the flash memory could be a factor.

Source : PC World

Bookmark To: