'2018/02/03'에 해당되는 글 8건

  1. 2018.02.03 애플 실적 발표, 예정된 "사상 최대 실적" by 랩터 인터내셔널
  2. 2018.02.03 마이크로소프트 오피스 2019는 윈도우10 전용, 올해 후반 출시 by 랩터 인터내셔널
  3. 2018.02.03 애플, 2017년 한해동안 무려 19개의 IT 기업 인수 by 랩터 인터내셔널
  4. 2018.02.03 레노버, 액정 회전식 ThinkPad X1 Yoga, X380 Yoga, L380 Yoga 출시 by 랩터 인터내셔널
  5. 2018.02.03 삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 : Replacing A Legend by 랩터 인터내셔널
  6. 2018.02.03 EVGA 지포스GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 리뷰 : iCX Brings the Lights and Sensors by 랩터 인터내셔널
  7. 2018.02.03 인텔 SSD 760p 512GB 리뷰 by 랩터 인터내셔널
  8. 2018.02.03 2018년 1월 스팀 점유율, AMD의 끝없는 내리막 by 랩터 인터내셔널


미국 애플이 2017년 10월 ~ 12월 실적 발표

실적 데이터 - 애플 프레스 릴리스 (괄호는 전년 동기 대비 비교폭)
이전 실적 확인 - http://raptor-hw.net/xe/rapter_analysis/153375


총합
매출액 : 882억 9300만 달러 (13% 증가)
순이익 : 200억 6450만 달러 (12% 증가)


각 제품별 판매량
아이폰 : 7731만 6000대 (1% 감소)
아이패드 : 1317만 0000대 (1% 증가)
맥PC : 511만 2000대 (5% 감소)


각 제품 및 서비스별 매출액
아이폰 : 615억 7600만 달러 (13% 증가)
아이패드 : 58억 6200만 달러 (6% 증가)
맥PC : 68억 9500만 달러 (5% 감소)
서비스 : 84억 7100만 달러 (18% 증가)
기타 : 54억 8900만 달러 (36% 증가)


지역별 매출액
아메리카 : 351억 9300만 달러 (10% 증가)
유럽 : 210억 5400만 달러 (20% 증가)
일본 : 72억 3700만 달러 (26% 증가)
중국 : 179억 5600만 달러 (11% 증가)
아시아 태평양 : 68억 5300만 달러 (17% 증가)


애플 실적 요약

아이폰 판매량은 1% 감소했으나 고가의 아이폰X 영향으로 아이폰 매출이 전년 대비 13% 증가

세계 태블릿 시장 몰락이 가속되는 상황에서 애플은 이전 분기에 이어 아이패드 사업 호조

서비스와 기타 부문도 각각 18% / 36% 두 자릿수의 높은 성장을 보이며 호조

아메리카-유럽-일본-중국-아시아 태평양, 전세계 모든 지역에서 사업 호조

예정된 "사상 최대 실적" 기록

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


마이크로소프트가 공식 사이트를 통해 차기 오피스 2019를 당초 발표대로 2018년 후반에 출시할 예정임을 밝혔습니다.


프리뷰 버전은 올해 2분기(4~6월)부터 이용이 가능하게 될 예정이며 새로 밝혀진 정보로는 오피스 2019의 클라이언트 앱 지원 환경은 이하 3가지로 윈도우10 전용으로 윈도우8/8.1과 윈도우7은 제외됩니다.


Windows 10 SAC(Semi-Annual Channel) 릴리스
Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC(Long-Term Servicing Channel)
Windows Server의 새로운 LTSC 릴리스


오피스 2019는 5년간 메인스트림 지원과 약 2년 연장 지원을 제공하여 2025년 10월 14일 연장 지원이 종료될 예정입니다.

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


애플이 2017년 한해 동안 무려 19개의 IT 기업을 인수한 것으로 확인됐습니다. 이는 애플의 CFO(최고 재무 책임자)가 공식적으로 밝힌 내용으로 인수한 기업의 명단은 아래와 같습니다. 단, 11곳의 회사만 밝혀졌으며 나머지 8개 회사는 불명입니다.


2월 : RealFace(얼굴 인식 기술)
3월 : Workflow(작업 자동화 앱)
5월 : Beddit(수면 추적 앱)
5월 : Lattice Data("다크 데이터"활용 인공지능 관련 기업)
6월 : SensoMotoric Instruments(시각 추적 기술)
9월 : Vrvana(AR 헤드셋 개발)
9월 : Regaind(컴퓨터 비전 관련 기업)
10월 : Init.ai(메시지 도우미)
10월 : PowerbyProxi(무선 충전 기술)
11월 : InVisage(이미지 센서 기술)
12월 : Shazam(음악 검색 앱)

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널
1_l.jpg

ThinkPad X1 Yoga


레노버는 액정이 360도 회전하는 2in1 "ThinkPad X1 Yoga(2018년 모델)","ThinkPad X380 Yoga","ThinkPad L380 Yoga"의 3가지 모델을 출시했다. 2월 중순 출하 예정.


모두 액정이 360도 회전하고 랩톱 모드, 태블릿 모드, 텐트 모드, 스탠드 모드 4가지 스타일로 운영된다. 플래그 십 ThinkPad X1 Yoga는 14형, ThinkPad X380 Yoga는 13.3형, ThinkPad L380 Yoga는 13.3형.



ThinkPad X1 Yoga

ThinkPad X1 Yoga의 2018년 모델은 종전과 마찬가지 태블릿 이용시 키톱이 플랫으로 되는 장치를 채용한다. 또 액정을 내렸을 때도 키톱이 파지게 되고, 키톱의 피지가 액정 면에 붙는 것을 막는다.


Web 카메라 탑재 모델은 카메라 렌즈를 물리적인 커버로 감추는 "ThinkShutter"를 채용해 보안도 배려한다. 지문 센서도 탑재하고 옵션으로 얼굴 인증용 IR 카메라도 선택할 수 있다.


구성 예로서 "20LD0011JP"는 CPU에 Core i5-8250U(1.6GHz, 비디오 기능 내장), 메모리 8GB, 256GB SSD, 1920×1080 10점 터치 대응 14형 IPS 액정 디스플레이, OS에 Windows 10 Pro 탑재.


인터페이스는 microSD 카드 리더, Thunderbolt 3 ×2, USB 3.0 ×2, HDMI 출력, 전용 Gigabit Ethernet 연결기(부속 장치로 변환), IEEE 802.11ac 대응 무선 LAN, Bluetooth 4.1,720p 대응 Web카메라, 음성 입출력 등을 갖춘다.


배터리 구동 시간은 약 16시간. 본체 크기는 약 333×229×17.05mm(폭×두께×높이), 무게는 약 1.42kg.



ThinkPad X380 Yoga

2_l.jpg
ThinkPad X380 Yoga


ThinkPad X380 Yoga는 X1 Yoga보다 한층 작은 13.3형 액정을 채택한 모델. 태블릿 모드로 하면 키보드 면의 프레임이 상승해 키를 보호하는 "Lift'n'Lock" 장치를 채용한다. 또 책상에 놓았을 때는 발이 나타나며 트랙 패드나 키를 보호하도록 되어 있다.


구성 예로서 "20LH000HJP"는 CPU에 Core i5-8250U, 메모리 8GB, 256GB SSD, 1920×1080 대응/10점 터치 대응 13.3형 IPS 액정 디스플레이, OS에 Windows 10 Pro 탑재.


인터페이스는 microSD 카드 리더, Thunderbolt 3, USB 3.0 ×2, HDMI 출력, 전용 Gigabit Ethernet 연결기(부속 장치로 변환), IEEE 802.11ac 대응 무선 LAN, Bluetooth 4.1,720p 대응 Web 카메라, 음성 입출력 등을 갖춘다.


배터리 구동 시간은 약 11.6시간. 본체 크기는 약 313.5×222.2×18.2mm(동), 무게는 약 1.44kg.


3_l.jpg

ThinkPad L380 Yoga

4_l.jpg
ThinkPad L380 Yoga


ThinkPad L380 Yoga는 태블릿 모드를 이용할 때의 키 저장 기능을 없애는 것으로 가격을 낮춘 모델.


구성 예로서 "20M7001QJP"는 CPU에 Core i5-8250U, 메모리 8GB, 256GB SSD, 1920×1080 대응/10점 터치 대응 13.3형 IPS 액정 디스플레이, OS에 Windows 10 Pro 탑재.


인터페이스는 microSD 카드 리더, USB 3.1 ×2, USB 3.0 ×2, HDMI 출력, 전용 Gigabit Ethernet연결기(부속 장치로 변환), IEEE 802.11ac 대응 무선 LAN, Bluetooth 4.1,720p 대응 Web카메라, 음성 입출력 등을 갖춘다.


배터리 구동 시간은 약 11.9시간. 본체 크기는 약 322×224.2×18.8mm(동), 무게는 약 1.56kg.



5_l.jpg


L380 Yoga에서 액정 360도 회전 장치를 생략한 "ThinkPad L380"시리즈도 준비된다. Celeron 3965U(2.2GHz, 비디오 기능 내장), 메모리 4GB, 256GB SSD, 1366×768 대응 13.3형 TN 액정 등을 탑재한 사양으로 중량은 약 1.46kg.


6_l.jpg
ThinkPad L380


출처 - https://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1104381.html

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 - https://www.anandtech.com





Samsung 860 PRO Specifications
Capacity256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TB4 TB
Form Factor2.5" SATA 6 Gbps
ControllerSamsung MJX
NANDSamsung 64-layer 3D MLC V-NAND
LPDDR4 DRAM512 MB1 GB2 GB4 GB
Sequential Readup to 560 MB/s
Sequential Writeup to 530 MB/s
4KB Random Read up to 100k IOPS
4KB Random Write up to 90k IOPS
DevSleep Power2.5 mW – 7 mW
Endurance300 TBW600 TBW1200 TBW2400 TBW4800 TBW
Warranty5 years
MSRP$139.99 (55¢/GB)$249.99 (49¢/GB)$479.99 (47¢/GB)$949.99 (46¢/GB)$1899.99 (46¢/GB)


삼성전자 860 PRO SSD


메인 컨트롤러 : Samsung MJX

폼 팩터 : 2.5인치 SATA 6Gbps

낸드 : Samsung 64-layer 3D MLC V-NAND

DRAM : 512MB~4GB

시퀀셜 읽기 : up to 560 MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : up to 530 MB/s

4KB 랜덤 읽기 : up to 100k IOPS

4KB 랜덤 쓰기 : up to 90k IOPS

DevSleep Power : 2.5 mW – 7 mW


테스트 시스템


AnandTech 2017 SSD Testbed
CPUIntel Xeon E3 1240 v5
MotherboardASRock Fatal1ty E3V5 Performance Gaming/OC
ChipsetIntel C232
Memory4x 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR4-2400 CL15
GraphicsAMD Radeon HD 5450, 1920x1200@60Hz
SoftwareWindows 10 x64, version 1703
Linux kernel version 4.14, fio version 3.1















ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

Samsung's dominance of this test wasn't being seriously challenged, but the 512GB 860 PRO does show improvement to the average data rate on The Destroyer, putting it up in the range of Samsung's multi-TB SATA drives. It's a small change, but SATA doesn't leave room for big gains.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The good average and 99th percentile latency scores of the SanDisk Ultra 3D match or beat the best scores from the Samsung SATA drives. The 512GB 860 PRO shows substantial improvement in 99th percentile latency and more modest gains in average latency, relative to the 850 PRO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The Samsung 860 PROs show the best average read latencies in their respective product classes, but the SanDisk Ultra 3D isn't far behind. For average write latencies, the Ultra 3D takes a clear lead over the Samsung drives, and the Crucial BX300 is ahead of the Samsung drives by a hair.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read and write latencies of the 860 PRO show substantial improvements at 512GB, and smaller improvements among the multi-TB drives.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

While the 4TB 860 PRO performed better on The Destroyer than the 512GB model by every measure, the 512GB model was more power efficient, and sets a new record for its class. The improvements relative to the 850 PRO are remarkable: the old 512GB 850 PRO required 60% more energy to complete The Destroyer than the new 512GB 860 PRO. Samsung has caught up with the modern competitors in terms of energy efficiency.



AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

As with The Destroyer, Samsung's SATA SSDs were still on top before the Samsung 860 PRO arrived. The 860 PRO brings only modest improvements to the average data rates on the Heavy test, and the 512GB models is slightly faster than the 4TB model. The only real outlier here is the Crucial MX300, for its poor performance when the drive is full.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The Samsung MLC SSDs and the SanDisk Ultra 3D offer the best average and 99th percentile scores among the SATA drives, but even the current models from Intel and Crucial are close enough to be indistinguishable without benchmarking tools.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

Most of the drives show small differences in average read latency between the full and empty drive test runs, but it's the write latencies that account for the bulk of the delays experienced during this test. The Samsung 860 PROs are among the several drives that show virtually no difference in average write latency when the drive is full.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read and write latency scores show that most of these SATA SSDs are equally competent at keeping latency under control. As usual, the Crucial MX300's full drive results stand out as particularly bad, and the BX300 is revealed to have a problem with high latency writes whether or not it is full.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The 860 PRO mostly eliminates the gap in power efficiency relative to the modern competitors. The 4TB model requires slightly more power than the 512GB, but is still a substantial improvement over the multi-TB 850s.


AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Samsung SATA drives can mostly be distinguished from the other SATA drives by how much of their performance they retain when full; most of the competing drives show a bigger relative drop in average data rate. Between the Samsung drives, the differences are insignificant, and the peak performance of the competitors is pretty close to that of the Samsung drives.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores on the Light test show that most of these SATA drives perform almost identically, but the 860 PROs have smaller full-drive performance hits than the other drives.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average read latencies on the Light test tend to be a bit lower than the write latencies when the test is run on an empty drive, but when the drives are full, the read latencies climb to be slightly higher than the write latencies. The Samsung SATA SSDs all show smaller performance hits from being full than most of the competing SATA SSDs.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies are in the 2-3ms range and the 99th percentile write latencies hover right around 3ms. The Crucial drives provide the biggest outliers, but even the 5-6ms response times of the MX300 aren't bad as a worst-case performance measure.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The 500 GB Samsung 850 EVO is once again the most efficient Samsung drive while the 860 PROs  improve upon the poor efficiency of the 850 PROs but don't entirely catch up to the competition.


Random Read Performance

Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.

Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The 512GB Samsung 860 PRO has the fastest burst random read speed among these SATA SSDs, about 5% faster than the 850 PRO. The 4TB model is the same speed as the 4TB 850 EVO.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

On the longer random read test involving some higher queue depths, the Samsung 860 PROs take a clear lead, and the 4TB model even outperforms the PM981 NVMe SSD.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)

The two Samsung 860 PROs offer the same power efficiency, which is a huge step up from the 850 PRO's efficiency and significantly better than any of the competition.


Random Write Performance

Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

The 4TB 860 PRO has the fastest burst random write speed, while the 512GB model scores slightly worse than the 512GB 850 PRO.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

The sustained random write performance of the Samsung 860 PRO is a very slight improvement over their previous drives. Most of the competition is significantly slower on this test, but the Crucial BX300 is pretty close.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)

The Samsung 860 PROs are again the two most efficient SATA SSDs, and the 512GB model manages to match the efficiency of the much faster but more power hungry PM981.


Sequential Read Performance

Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read speeds of the 860 PROs are good but not record setting, and the differences between the SATA drives are all dwarfed by the performance of the NVMe drive.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

With the exception of the 500GB 850 EVO, all of the Samsung SATA drives in this bunch offer about the same sustained sequential read speed. These drives have a substantial advantage over the competing drives, which are led by the Intel 545s at about 85 MB/s slower than the 860 PRO.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)

The two Samsung 860 PROs have the clear lead for power efficiency during sequential reads, above even the fast PM981 NVMe drive.


Sequential Write Performance

Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

Both models of the Samsung 860 PRO show a bit of a regression on the burst sequential write test, with the 4TB 860 PRO coming in at 13 MB/s slower than the 4TB 850 EVO, and the 512GB 860 PRO is behind the 512GB 850 PRO by twice that margin.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

The sustained sequential write speeds of the Samsung 860 PRO are slightly lower than some of the 850s, but not noticeably. Only the Intel 545s and SanDisk Ultra 3D are slow enough to really care about.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the 860 PRO continues to be a huge improvement over the 850s, with the 512GB 860 PRO taking a big lead over everything else in its class.


Mixed Random Performance

Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

The Samsung 860 PRO is the fastest SATA SSD on our mixed random I/O test, with the 4TB model scoring slightly better than the 512GB model. This is a big improvement over the multi-TB 850s which were substantially slower than the half-TB models.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The 850 PRO is again the most efficient drive in the bunch, but the 512GB model is clearly more efficient than the 4TB despite being a bit slower.


Mixed Sequential Performance

Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

Neither capacity of the Samsung 860 PRO quite manages to top the performance of the 4TB 850 EVO on the mixed sequential test, but they're close enough.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency gap between the 860 PROs and the rest of the SATA SSDs is huge. The 512GB model takes first place, and the 4TB model is tied with the PM981 for second place efficiency.


Power Management

Real-world client storage workloads leave SSDs idle most of the time, so the active power measurements presented earlier in this review only account for a small part of what determines a drive's suitability for battery-powered use. Especially under light use, the power efficiency of a SSD is determined mostly be how well it can save power when idle.

SATA SSDs are tested with SATA link power management disabled to measure their active idle power draw, and with it enabled for the deeper idle power consumption score and the idle wake-up latency test. Our testbed, like any ordinary desktop system, cannot trigger the deepest DevSleep idle state.

Idle power management for NVMe SSDs is far more complicated than for SATA SSDs. NVMe SSDs can support several different idle power states, and through the Autonomous Power State Transition (APST) feature the operating system can set a drive's policy for when to drop down to a lower power state. There is typically a tradeoff in that lower-power states take longer to enter and wake up from, so the choice about what power states to use may differ for desktop and notebooks.

We report two idle power measurements. Active idle is representative of a typical desktop, where none of the advanced PCIe link or NVMe power saving features are enabled and the drive is immediately ready to process new commands. The idle power consumption metric is measured with PCIe Active State Power Management L1.2 state enabled and NVMe APST enabled.

Active Idle Power Consumption (No LPM)Idle Power Consumption

In addition to load power efficiency improvements, the 860 PRO brings modest improvements to  idle power consumption. Samsung's active idle power consumption was already pretty good, but the 860 PRO provides further savings. The idle power in slumber state is a big improvement for both of the 860 PROs, likely due to the use of LPDDR4.

Idle Wake-Up Latency

The idle wake-up latency of Samsung's drives hasn't changed, and is still hovering just above 1ms.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널

EVGA.png




GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Specification Comparison
 EVGA
GTX 1070 Ti FTW2
NVIDIA
GTX 1070 Ti Founders Edition
EVGA
GTX 1070 Ti SC Black Ed.
CUDA Cores243224322432
Texture Units152152152
ROPs646464
Core Clock1607+MHz1607MHz1607+MHz
Boost Clock1683+MHz1683MHz1683+MHz
Memory Clock8Gbps GDDR58Gbps GDDR58Gbps GDDR5
Memory Bus Width256-bit256-bit256-bit
VRAM8GB8GB8GB
TDP180W180W150W
Power Connectors2x 8-pin1x 8pin1x 8pin
CoolingDual fan open airBlowerDual fan open air
GPUGP104GP104GP104
Manufacturing ProcessTSMC 16nmTSMC 16nmTSMC 16nm
Launch Date11/02/201711/02/201711/02/2017
Launch MSRP$499$449$469
Current MSRP$569-$519

















Battlefield 1 - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Battlefield 1 - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation - 3840x2160 - Extreme Quality

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation - 2560x1440 - Extreme Quality

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation - 1920x1080 - Extreme Quality

Ashes: Escalation - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Extreme Quality

Ashes: Escalation - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Extreme Quality

Ashes: Escalation - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Extreme Quality


Doom - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Doom - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Doom - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Doom - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Doom - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Doom - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality


Ghost Recon Wildlands - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality

Ghost Recon Wildlands - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality

Ghost Recon Wildlands - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality


Dawn of War III - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Dawn of War III - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Dawn of War III - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Dawn of War III - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Dawn of War III - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Dawn of War III - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality


Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

 

Grand Theft Auto V - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality


F1 2016 - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

F1 2016 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

F1 2016 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer - 1920x1080- Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer - 99th Percentile - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer - 99th Percentile - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Total War: Warhammer - 99th Percentile - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality


Idle Power Consumption

While the stated TDP remains 180W, the GTX 1070 FTW2 does possess two 8-pin PCIe power connectors over the Founders Edition’s single 6-pin. Considering the default 100% power limit, this extra power draw capacity can hardly be used in most applications, and for Battlefield 1 system consumption only ends up around 8W higher. But a power virus like FurMark has much less qualms about taking as much as it can, with the GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 immediately pulling a little extra, in the region of 30W at the wall.

Load Power Consumption - Battlefield 1

Load Power Consumption - FurMark

Like most high quality custom boards, the GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 can maintain a typical idling temperature with passive cooling. Under load, the fans kick in and the card settles just below its default 72 degree throttle point, even while running FurMark.

Idle GPU Temperature

Load GPU Temperature - Battlefield 1

Load GPU Temperature - FurMark


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널

760p_drive_575px.jpg

 


Intel SSD 760p Specifications
Capacity128 GB256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TB
Form FactorM.2 2280 single-sidedM.2 2280 double-sided
ControllerIntel-customized Silicon Motion SM2262
NANDIntel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLC
Sequential Read1640 MB/s3210 MB/s3230 MB/sTBATBA
Sequential Write650 MB/s1315 MB/s1625 MB/sTBATBA
4KB Random Read 105k IOPS205k IOPS340k IOPSTBATBA
4KB Random Write 160k IOPS265k IOPS275k IOPSTBATBA
Idle Power25 mWTBATBA
Endurance72 TBW144 TBW288 TBW576 TBW1152 TBW
Warranty5 years
Price$72.99 (57¢/GB)$108.99 (43¢/GB)$198.99 (39¢/GB)TBA (Q1 '18)TBA (Q1 '18)

 

인텔 SSD 760p

메인 컨트롤러 : Intel-customized Silicon Motion SM2262

낸드 : Intel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLC

폼 팩터 : M.2 2280 single-sided / double-sided

시퀀셜 읽기 : 1640 MB/s ~ 3230 MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 650 MB/s ~ 1625 MB/s

4KB 랜덤 읽기 : 105k IOPS ~ 340k IOPS

4KB 랜덤 쓰기 : 160k IOPS ~ 275k IOPS

파워 : 25 mW

워런티 : 5년


ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Intel SSD 760p falls on the good side of a big gap in average data rate scores on The Destroyer. Scoring far below the 760p are SATA drives and most earlier entry-level NVMe SSDs. The 760p is a bit slower than some of the drives using planar MLC NAND or 3D TLC NAND, but it is clear that the 760p is capable of handling The Destroyer better than any previous SSD in its price range.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores don't provide the clear separation that the average data rate shows, so the Intel 760p simply looks a bit below average for a NVMe SSD. Given the relative pricing and the poor performance of the Intel 600p, that's a good result for the 760p.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

Breaking down the average latency by reads and writes, the Intel SSD 760p ranks about the same either way. It is roughly on par with the slower (read: not Samsung) MLC NVMe SSDs.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the Intel SSD 760p on The Destroyer is rather poor, and the 99th percentile write latency isn't great either. The 760p doesn't seem to have serious problems with garbage collection pauses, but The Destroyer definitely does stress the 760p.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The energy consumption of the Intel SSD 760p during The Destroyer is almost as low as Samsung's best NVMe SSDs, but nowhere near the SATA-like efficiency of the Toshiba XG5. Overall, the 760p is much more efficient than Intel's previous NVMe SSDs, but there's still room for improvement.


ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

The average data rate of the Intel SSD 760p on the Heavy test makes it clear that the 760p is not a high-end NVMe drive, but it does perform much better than SATA SSDs and previous low-end NVMe SSDs. The 760p also handles being full relatively well, so its SLC caching strategy seems well done.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the 760p aren't great, but they're still a big improvement over most earlier low-end NVMe SSDs. The 99th percentile latency has more room for improvement, since it is no better than a good SATA SSD.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average read latencies of the Intel SSD 760p on the Heavy test are not quite as good as a high-end NVMe SSD but are definitely close enough for a product this cheap. The average write latencies are more in line with some of the better previous budget NVMe SSDs, and are close to the level of SATA SSDs.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies from the Intel 760p don't particularly stand out, and are reasonable for this product segment. The 99th percentile write latency scores are rather high, but not to egregiously like the Intel SSD 600p and a similar ADATA drive.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

As with The Destroyer, the Intel SSD 760p shows very good power efficiency by NVMe standards, but the SATA drives and the Toshiba XG5 show that there's still room for much improvement.


ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Light test reveals bigger performance differences for full and empty drive states than the Heavy test, but the 760p doesn't suffer as much as most drives. The average data rates from the 760p are slightly higher than from the Intel SSD 750, and much higher than the 600p or the SATA drives. On the other hand, the TLC-based Samsung PM981 is almost twice as fast.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average latency scores of the Intel SSD 760p are twice those of the fastest NVMe SSDs, but this isn't enough to amount to a noticeable difference on a light workload. The 99th percentile latencies are much higher than those of Samsung's NVMe drives, but are still faster than SATA SSDs.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average read latencies from the Intel 760p fall into the middle of the range for NVMe SSDs, but the average write latencies are clearly on the high side of normal.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies of the 760p on the Light test are acceptable for a low-end NVMe SSD, but the full-drive score is actually slightly worse than the Intel 600p. On the write side, the 99th percentile latency is actually very slightly worse than good SATA SSDs, but the 760p doesn't get noticeably worse when full.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The two SM2260-based NVMe SSDs join the Toshiba XG5 this time as the most efficient NVMe SSDs ahead of the Intel 760p, but the SM2260-based 600p and GAMMIX S10 fall behind when the test is run on a full drive. The Samsung drives mostly use slightly more power than the 760p, but the PM981 ends up near the bottom of the chart.


Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random read performance of the Intel SSD 760p is great, even when compared against MLC-based NVMe SSDs. Samsung's 960 PRO is the only flash-based consumer SSD that currently beats the read latency of the 760p. The 760p has more than doubled the QD1 random read performance of the Intel SSD 600p, and is 17% faster than the Intel SSD 750.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

With a longer test runtime and some higher queue depths involved, the Intel SSD 760p no longer stands out from the crowd. Its sustained random read performance is reasonable given its pricing and the current field of competitors, but in a few months time it may be looking rather sluggish. The 760p is about 5% slower than the Intel SSD 750, but on the other hand it is 54% faster than the 600p.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p during random reads is about average. Samsung's SSDs dominate the top half of the chart, and the two SATA SSDs hold the top two spots, showing that the performance of NVMe SSDs still doesn't offset their increased power consumption. Intel's previous consumer NVMe SSDs are tied for last place in power efficiency: the 750 is reasonably fast but power hungry, while the 600p has more modest power requirements but is quite slow.


Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random write performance of the Intel SSD 760p is second only to the Intel SSD 750. Since the 750 is based on an enterprise SSD platform with MLC NAND, this regression isn't at all surprising. That the 760p manages to beat the Samsung 960 PRO is quite an accomplishment. The 760p is also 73% faster than the Intel 600p on this test.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

On the sustained random write test that involves some higher queue depths, the performance of the Intel SSD 760p is good but not outstanding. Several of Samsung's drives and the Intel SSD 750 are faster. However, the 760p is on par with some of the slower MLC-based competitors and is almost twice as fast as the Intel SSD 600p.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p during random writes is a bit above average, and is substantially better than any previous Intel consumer SSD. The Toshiba XG5 and most of Samsung's recent drives are far more efficient.


Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read speed of the Intel SSD 760p is a substantial improvement over the Intel SSD 750 and 600p, but isn't quite fast enough to match Samsung's NVMe SSDs.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

The sustained sequential read speed of the Intel SSD 760p is only slightly above SATA SSD speeds. This makes it more than twice as fast as the Intel SSD 600p, but still far slower than other recent NVMe SSDs using 3D TLC NAND such as the Toshiba XG5 and the Samsung PM981.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)

With subpar performance, it isn't surprising to see the Intel SSD 760p score near the bottom for power efficiency. There are a few TLC-based NVMe SSDs that score even worse—including the Intel SSD 600p—but there's clearly a lot of room for improvement here.


Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential write speed of the Intel SSD 760p is slightly above average and far above Intel's previous flash-based SSDs. It is only slightly slower than the larger 1TB Toshiba XG5, and about 15–20% slower than Samsung's NVMe SSDs.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

The sustained sequential write speed of the Intel SSD 760p is comfortably above the limits of the SATA interface, which many NVMe SSDs can't manage. However, the Samsung PM981 is 60% faster than the 760p, and the 960 PRO is almost three times faster. The performance of the 760p is reasonable for a low-end NVMe SSD, but it can't compete at the high end.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p on the sequential write test is slightly below average. This is twice the efficiency of Intel's previous NVMe SSDs, but substantially worse than more recent drives from Samsung and Toshiba.


Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

The overall performance of the Intel SSD 760p on the mixed random I/O performance is quite high for a TLC-based drive. Samsung's PM981 is much better, but the 512GB 760p is almost as fast as the 1TB Samsung 960 EVO. The 760p is clearly a viable competitor to the non-Samsung drives that use MLC NAND flash.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The Intel SSD 760p does not score quite as well for power efficiency as it does for raw performance on the mixed random I/O test, but it is still above average and far better than previous Intel SSDs.


Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

The average performance of the Intel SSD 760p on the mixed sequential workload test does not exceed the limits of a SATA link, but it does clearly beat the best speed achieved by a SATA drive on this test. Previous budget NVMe SSDs have failed to even match the fastest SATA SSDs due to the use of slow TLC NAND.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

The power efficiency of the Intel SSD 760p on the mixed sequential I/O test is not great. It only beats drives that were notably slow (600p, WD Black) or unusually power-hungry (Intel 750, Plextor M8PeY). Samsung and Toshiba have set a much higher standard.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널


전세계 게이밍 유저들이 접속하는 스팀의 2018년 1월 하드웨어 및 소프트웨어 점유율 결과

출처 - http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/


cpu.jpg


인텔에 밀려 작년 말 한자리수까지 떨어진 AMD CPU 점유율은 2018년 1월에 들어서도 끝없이 떨어져 8.07%를 나타내고 있다. 반면 인텔 CPU는 계속 상승해 91.93%까지 점유율이 상승했다.


gpu.jpg


CPU 시장과 마찬가지로 GPU 시장에서도 엔비디아에 밀려 한자리수 점유율로 떨어진 AMD 라데온 GPU는 8.16%로 끝없이 떨어지고 있다. 엔비디아 지포스 GPU는 무려 86.43%까지 상승하고 있다.

반응형
Posted by 랩터 인터내셔널