Dell XPS 625

Processor: 3GHz Phenom II X4 940Memory: 4GB DDR2Storage: 500GB hard driveOptical Drives: DVD±RWMonitor: NoneGraphics: ATI Radeon HD 4850 (512MB)Operating System: Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit)

Over the past year, modest gamers' dreams of a $1,500 system primed for the latest 3D titles have become a reality. Dell ushered in the era last spring with its XPS 630, which brought enthusiast flash into the mainstream market at a reasonable price. So although Dell isn't breaking much new ground with its XPS 625 desktop, which is based on AMD (rather than Intel) CPUs such as the new Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition, the company is at least trying to rethink last year's good idea for a slightly different era.
Even with an unlocked multiplier for easier overclocking, however, the Phenom II doesn't quite stack up to Intel's high-powered, low-cost next-generation processor, the Core i7-920; you won't get the same performance from AMD in every area. One of the major standouts of the midrange field we've seen lately was Gateway's FX6800-01e, which cost considerably less than our XPS 625 test unit ($1,269 versus $1,499) and in many cases delivered better performance. That system seemed a bit more of a game-changer than the Dell, even if there's nothing intensely wrong with the XPS 625's playbook.
And there remains quite a bit to like about Dell's everyday-gaming box. The suave, angular case looks efficient and imposing but also primed for fun. (Dell has incorporated its AlienFX lighting scheme into the case, too, letting you use software to adjust colored illumination, just as you can in this system's big cousin, the XPS 730x.) You'll find a fair amount of expandability inside: two available external drive bays (one 5.25-inch, one 3.5-inch), three internal hard-drive bays, and expansion slots, including one PCI Express (PCIe) x16, one PCIe x8, one PCIe x1, and two regular PCI slots. There are also decent connectivity options outside: a FireWire port, two USB ports, and headphone and microphone jacks on the front panel' as well as six-channel digital audio, Ethernet, six USB, FireWire, external SATA (eSATA), and two PS/2 ports on the rear panel.
There's also a thoughtful selection of additional components, of course, to help you scratch your gaming (and, if necessary, productivity) itches. Our review unit came with 4GB of DDR2 RAM, a 500GB hard drive, a DVD±RW drive, an ATI Radeon HD 4850 for the graphics, and the expected 64-bit version of Windows Vista Home Premium. Configurations begin at $999, and lots of options are available, so you'll almost always be able to put together a system that matches your budget and your desires.
Our test configuration performed impressively, pulling down an 11,781 in the 64-bit version of the Cinebench 10 rendering test and earning a 5,650 in the 64-bit version of Futuremark's PCMark Vantage full-system benchmark. It also completed our Windows Media Encoder (WME) trial in 3 minutes and 20 seconds and our iTunes conversion test in 3 minutes and 22 seconds. The Gateway FX6800-01e scored a higher 14,160 in Cinebench and 6,279 in PCMark Vantage, but it also needed longer for WME (3 minutes and 36 seconds) and iTunes (3 minutes and 42 seconds).
In our actual gaming tests, the XPS 625 managed 150.3 frames per second in our DirectX 9 (DX9) Company of Heroes test at 1,280x1,024 resolution, compared with the Gateway's 163.1fps; at 1,600x1,200 the two systems were basically tied (102.3 fps for the Dell and 99.1fps for the Gateway); and at 2,560x1,600 the Gateway pulled ahead (53.1fps to the Dell's 44.5fps). The Gateway also surpassed the Dell in the Entry and Performance presets of our Futuremark 3DMark Vantage test, with scores of 21,903 and 7,112 (versus 19,051 and 7,053), but the Dell came out ahead in the Extreme preset test with 2,888 as opposed to the Gateway's 2,416. In our DX10 gaming tests of Company of Heroes and Call of Juarez, the two machines traded superior scores but were evenly matched in almost every case.
All these results are unquestionably acceptable; you can definitely do better, but you will have to shell out increasingly large sums of cash. Between these two systems, we'd rate the Gateway an overall better value, but if flash is important to you, the XPS 625 rates a bit higher on the bling-o-meter. We wouldn't mind a bit more oomph from the Dell, given its higher price, but you're still getting some handsome gaming performance from an attractive PC that you don't need to be exorbitantly wealthy to afford.Price (at time of review): $1,499.99

author : Matthew Murray

Oakley Split Thump

Storage Type: Flash memory
Capacity: 512MB; 1GB; 2GB
File Types Supported: AAC; Audible; MP3; WMA
Screen Size (Diagonal): No
FM Tuner: No
Video-Playback Support: No
Mfr. Rated Battery Life: 7 hours

The Oakley Split Thump sunglasses/MP3 player combo is a good idea in theory but not so great in reality. In this day and age, when everyone has an iPod and MP3 players come in supersmall sizes, sticking an MP3 player into a pair of sunglasses seems unnecessary. And given the price—$249 for the 512MB version, $299 to $359 for 1GB, and $399 for 2GB—we're not sure these will appeal to many buyers.

Not to say they don’t work well. The sound is impressive. Walking down a busy street, for instance, relatively little background noise filtered through. The earbuds are flexible, too, to ensure comfort while in use and optimal audio quality.

Controls are located discreetly on the sides of the sunglasses but are not exactly easy to use when they are on your head. We found ourselves fumbling a bit to try and change tracks or adjust the volume. You are basically left looking a bit foolish while groping with your sunglasses.

Once you find the button and determine exactly where you need to press, though, the Split Thump works quickly. Tracks change in less than a second, and volume control is satisfactory.

Designed for sports use, the Split Thump is sweat-resistant and stays put nicely. It only comes in one size, though, so make sure your head is big enough to support these shades. While the Split Thump fit one reviewer's face perfectly, it was too small for another. Battery life is rated for 7 hours, and we achieved close to 8.

Loading music onto the Split Thump is a snap. Just connect the shades to your Windows or Mac computer via USB (a cable is included), and it shows up on your computer as a flash drive. Drag and drop the music onto the drive, and you're ready to go.

You can easily convert the Split Thump into a normal pair of sunglasses by pulling the earbuds out of the frame's arms. Once these are out, there is no way to tell that it's anything more than a regular pair of sunglasses. As a pair of ordinary sunglasses, the Split Thump looks incredibly stylish.

We don’t have many complaints about the quality of the Oakley Split Thump. We are just left asking whether they are really necessary. If you are a workout fiend and this kind of technology will function for you, then the Oakley Thump is a great way to go. But for the price, we think they are a bit superfluous, considering that you can buy a 2GB iPod Shuffle and a nice pair of ordinary Oakley sunglasses for less than what Oakley is charging for the 512MB model.

Price (at time of review): $249 (512MB, direct price); $299 to $359 (1GB, direct price); $399 (2GB, direct price)

author : Jonathan Rougeot

AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition Processor

AMD's Phenom quad-core processor had a rough launch. It was late, had lower clock speeds than expected, and was slower than Intel's quad-core chips. And just as the chips hit the market, an erratum (error) was discovered in the chip that could cause lock-ups in rare multitasking situations, requiring a BIOS patch that slowed down the chip 10 percent or more.

Now AMD is back with its second-generation, errata-free Phenom X4 chips, which can run at their full potential. At the top of the line is the Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition. The Black Edition moniker signifies that the chip has an unlocked multiplier, offering more flexibility for overclocking. At stock speeds, this quad-core chip runs at 2.5GHz, with 2GHz Hypertransport and memory clocks (compared to 1.8GHz for lower-end Phenom X4s). Along with the 9850, AMD has also introduced the $215 2.4GHz Phenom X4 9750 and the $195 2.2GHz Phenom X4 9550.

These 50-series processors aren't radically different from the first-generation Phenom chips. Clock-for-clock, their performance matches the earlier chips they replace, but without the erratum patch slowdown. The Phenom X4 2.5GHz 9850 gets a slight speed boost over the formerly high-end 2.4GHz 9700, and adds the unlocked multiplier.

The Phenom now runs apps up to 25 percent faster than an Athlon X2 at the same clock rate. Speedup is even greater with multicore-aware programs such as video editors and some games. The Phenom X4 is a true quad-core chip, with four independent cores on a single die; AMD also plans a triple-core Phenom X3 series. Unlike the Athlon X2, the memory controller can run at an independent clock rate. Newer Socket AM2+ motherboards let you install fast 1,066MHz memory or overclock your RAM in a Phenom system without changing the CPU's operating speed.

Though AMD has added new SSE4a multimedia instructions, these aren't entirely compatible with the SSE4.1 instructions used on Intel's newer Core 2 processors, so programs will need to add specific support for them. DivX 6.8, for instance, takes advantage of SSE4.1 on the newest Core 2 CPUs, but defaults to the older SSE2 instructions when running on a Phenom.

Despite the unlocked multiplier, don't necessarily expect to pop into your BIOS and boost the chip's speed dramatically. The 50-series Phenom X4 chips are still built on a 65-nanometer (nm) process (compared to the smaller 45nm method used by the newest Intel chips), and due to heat and power issues, aren't likely to have a lot of overclocking headroom. We were able to overclock our 9850 easily to 2.7GHz with no voltage changes, but the system locked up at 3GHz even with a slight voltage boost. Higher clock rates might be achievable with additional trial and error, but don't expect the Phenom X4 to be a great overclocker. AMD does provide the helpful Overdrive utility, which lets you experiment by setting a wide variety of CPU settings directly from Windows.

Performance from the Phenom X4 9850 was much improved over that of the Phenom 9600 we tested last year. It still lagged behind Intel's similarly priced Core 2 Quad Q6600 chip, but the numbers were much closer than before. The Phenom X4 9850 finished our quad-core Sony Vegas 8 Professional rendering test in 4 minutes and 22 seconds. That's slower than the 3 minutes and 57 seconds achieved by the Q6600, but dramatically faster than the Phenom 9600's 7 minutes and 2 seconds. The iTunes recompression test finished in 7 minutes and 35 seconds, lagging behind the Q6600's 6 minutes and 2 seconds, but nearly a minute faster than the Phenom 9600's 8 minutes and 34 seconds.

The Phenom X4 chips still can't catch Intel in a pure speed race. If you need the fastest-possible computer for gaming, video editing, or other processor-intensive tasks, the Phenom X4 isn't going to be your top choice. If you're looking to build a budget system that still offers good performance for everyday computing chores, however, the Phenom X4 is an excellent multitasker. And if you're currently using an Athlon X2 processor on a Phenom-compatible motherboard, upgrading to a Phenom X4 is a no-brainer—it'll give you a noticeable performance boost in most apps, and a dramatic speedup in programs that can use take advantage of all four cores.