DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4th GEN. & 5th GEN. PROCESSORS

The 4th generation intels processors are based off of the Haswell and for the high end gaming cpu the Haswell-E micro architecture. The 5th generation intels are only based off of the Broadwell micro architecture. The Broadwell-E or 5th generation high end gaming cpu are not out yet. The difference between Haswell and Broadwell is not much. Intel follows a cycle when releasing micro architectures. It is a "Tock, Tick" cycle. When a brand new and different micro architecture comes out it is the "tock" The next release is the "tick" in which they take the same micro architecture as the "tock" but shrink it and make it more efficient in terns of heat, power, and performance. The Haswell or 4th generation cpus are the "tock" and the Broadwell or 5th generation cpus are the "tick"

To sum it up, Broadwell is only just coming out. If you want performance now, go with 4th generation because 5th generation is only in it's early stages and they are not much powerful than the mid or late 4th gens.

The desktop i5 is clearly a better buy.
The i5 5th Gen has 4 physical cores, no hyperthreading, and turbo boost.
The i3 5th Gen has 2 physical cores, hyperthreading, and turbo boost.

Without question the i5 is better. On top of that Broadwell (5th gen) is just a die shrink of Haswell (4th gen). So unless you're going to use the integrated GPU extensively, there is virtually no performance difference between the two generations. Broadwell just has lower power consumption, which you don't really care about on a desktop.

On laptops it's not so clear.
The i5 has 2 physical cores, hyperthreading, and turbo boost.
The i3 has 2 physical cores, hyperthreading, and no turbo boost.

Prior to Haswell, the turbo boost on most of the i5 line was pretty modest - about 5%-15% base clock speed. Not really worth the extra $50-$100 vendors were charging, and the i3 was a better value (the fact that Apple doesn't offer an i3 laptop was a big tip-off where the fat profit margins were). Only the ULV processors got bigger turbo boosts which made the i5 worthwhile.

Beginning with Haswell, the main i5 line became ULV processors (end in a U or Y), so most i5 laptops started to get turbo boosts of 30%-65%. So suddenly the i5 became a good buy compared to an i3 with the same base clock speed.

OTOH, Broadwell introduces some impressive battery life savings, and you're more likely to end up using the integrated GPU on a laptop.

So the answer becomes: If CPU performance is what's most important to you, then get the 4th gen i5. If battery life and integrated graphics performance is most important to you, get the 5th gen i3.

So i hope you would like to read this blog.
If you want to get more information then comment and like as

Read More

What's the difference between Gaming laptop & all day use laptop

Most gamers know that large PCs tend to be faster than small ones. Quicker chips require more power, generate more heat, and have more transistors, all of which adds up to more space. Very few people believe, even for a second, that a laptop can outrun an equally expensive desktop built in the same year.

Yet many gamers still struggle when choosing between the two. The fact that laptops are slower than desktops is common knowledge, but how much slower can be hard to quantify, and many gamers find themselves weighing the reduction in performance against the price tag and the portability a notebook provides. Here’s what you need to know to make an informed decision between the two

Processor Performance

Modern computer processors are rarely the limiting factor in video game performance. Important mechanics like the physics engine and artificial intelligence run on the CPU, but the load they place on hardware is trivial compared to 3D graphics. Still, the CPU does contribute to the speed of allsoftware, and it can in rare occasions be important. The strategy game Civilization V, for example, runs poorly on slow dual-core processors.

You might expect to see a big difference in performance between mobile and desktop parts, but the two are rather similar. Intel’s Core i5-4590, a mid-range quad-core desktop component, reaches an aggregate performance score of 80 in the SiSoft Sandra Processor Arithmetic benchmark. Intel’s Core-i7 4700HQ, an entry-level mobile quad, scores identically in the same test. A faster desktop quad-core like the 4770K can score as high as 125, but the Core i7-4800MQ mobile quad can hit 115. Dual-core processors tell a similar story. The Core i3-4130 desktop dual-core scores 55 in the Arithmetic test while Core i5 mobile dual-cores usually score in the low 40s.

There are, of course, some desktop parts that completely destroy notebooks, but these are exotic options like the recently released 5960X Extreme Edition processor. That chip is priced at $999 for the processor alone, so you’ll probably end up with something less expensive in your rig. The desktop processors most people actually buy are a bit quicker than their mobile peers, but it’s not the

crushing victory you’d expect.

Graphics Performance

High-end graphics chips are a real challenge for notebooks to handle. They consume far more power than an Intel processor and require a beefy cooling system to stay operational. This is the reason why gaming notebooks tend to be larger and heavier than standard models.

Mobile GPUs constantly trail their desktop peers. The recently released Nvidia GTX 880M, for example, scores around 6,000 in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark. That’s about eight times better than Intel HD 4600 on board graphics, but it’s nowhere near as quick as the GTX 780 Ti desktop video card, which usually hits a score of 9,000 or better in the same benchmark. Even the GTX 770 desktop video card is quicker, as it typically scores around 6,500.

With that said, though, the desktop’s margin of victory is narrower when budget video cards are considered. The affordable Nvidia GT 650 scores about 2,000 in Fire Strike while the GT 750M scores 1,700 when paired with GDDR5 memory (some versions have slower GDDR3 VRAM). The desktop video card still wins, but the notebook chip is quick enough to run games at the same detail settings with only a minor performance disadvantage.

Practical Performance

Benchmark numbers are useful, but they don’t tell the whole story. Performance in real games is key, and when approached from a practical perspective, laptops prove surprisingly capable.

Consider the Alienware 17. When configured with a GTX 880M this notebook can play Battlefield 4 at an average of 44 frames per second with detail set to ultra and resolution set to 1080p. That’s not bad, though a quad-core desktop with a GTX 780 Ti can easily exceed an average of 60 FPS at same detail settings, and ends up providing a noticeably smoother experience. Most gamers will prefer the desktop, but the laptop experience is far from awful.

But let’s say you don’t play Battlefield 4 and instead enjoy games that are less demanding, like League of Legends. A measly GT 750M can play that game at greater than 60 FPS with detail set to maximum and resolution set to 1080p, and the GTX 880M can exceed 130 FPS at maximum detail. A high-end desktop can double that pace, but does it matter? Not to most players.

In short, the hardware you need will be determined by the games you play, and that in turn should inform your decision between a desktop or a laptop. Gamers seeking to play the most demanding and attractive action titles will find a laptop to be noticeably slower than a similar desktop, but games with technically simplistic graphics can be tackled by either with ease.

Upgrade Options

Desktops and laptops differ in how they can be upgraded. The former, with a few rare exceptions, allows every component to be removed and replaced with new hardware. In theory you can buy a desktop and still be gaming on it a decade from now, albeit with most hardware replaced.

Laptops, by contrast, have many limitations. Most have a processor that uses ball grid array packaging. In this configuration the processor is soldered to the motherboard and can’t be removed. The same approach is used by many graphics chips. Some PC builders even solder the RAM and use non-standard solid state drives, though the majority of gaming notebooks still allow easy upgrades for these components.

Conclusion

Desktops are quicker than laptops. The two are closer than you might imagine in the arena of processor performance, but desktops enjoy a major advantage in graphics, which is what really matters for gaming. You’re also going to pay more for a gaming laptop than a desktop and, once the laptop is obsolete, your upgrade options are limited.

All of this makes gaming laptops look a bit silly. Remember, though, that the performance you need depends on the games you play. Hardcore gaming and cutting-edge hardware no longer go hand-in-hand; just ask the pro gamers who make money playing League of Legends and Starcraft 2. You’ll receive better value from a desktop, but gaming laptops are capable and can be a valid choice if you believe portability is essential.

Read More

What’s the difference between Mac and PC?

The battle between Mac and  PC users has been raging for decades and for those who are not sure which side to be on then the challenge is deciding between which platform to use. This is always easy, especially with an increasing number of programs that work on both systems or even in the cloud, not to mention the fact that both offer business-friendly operation systems. The real question is what are the differences between a Mac and a PC?

Design

Apple prides itself on its iconic design while PC design depends on which company is making them. Even with the first Macintosh, introduced in 1984, the Central Processing Unit (CPU) and monitor were housed in one single unit thus reducing the number of cables necessary and creating a sleeker look. This design forward view has carried throughout the company’s history and modern Macs are sleek, light, and designed to look cool.

PCs on the other hand, don’t come from one single manufacturer like Mac so there are countless designs available on the market. If you don’t like the design from one manufacturer you can simply look to others. With Mac, if you’re not keen on their design, you’re out of luck.

Specifications

While both Mac and PC have similar internal parts like RAM, hard drives, and graphics cards, their speed and capacity varies. Macs generally outperform PCs because of better hardware optimization, but tend to skimp slightly when it comes to RAM, hard disk space, and USB ports. PCs offer a wider range of customization, and you can add almost any parts you want.

Connections and optical drives found on Macs and PCs are different too. Mac offers standard selection of features including a Superdrive, audio in and audio out, USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt, and Ethernet. PCs on the other hand offer comparable features but with added bonuses like Blu-Ray players, TV tuners, touch screens, and HDMI ports.

The main difference here is that with Macs you have generally limited customization options, while PCs usually allow for a much wider range whilst supporting different kinds of hardware.

Operating System

Most PCs today come preinstalled with Windows 8.1 while Mac runs OS X Mavericks with users having the option to upgrade to the new OS X – Yosemite – this fall. OS X is generally thought to be more user-friendly, while Windows PCs generally see a more comfortable user base and a higher number of programs that work with the OS.

However, with the increasing adoption of virtual desktops and cloud systems, the idea of a separate OS being better is quickly falling to the wayside. This is especially true if you use a virtualized desktop solution where you connect to a server which delivers your desktop.

Software

One of the biggest reasons as to why Mac hasn’t captured a larger share of the market is due to the lack of software for its OS. This is most obvious in business computing where many applications are standardized for Windows but are not available on Mac. That being said, the major programs businesses use on a daily basis are all available for Mac too, so it’s more the customized software you will need to look into.

User interface (UI)

While many computer users will proclaim one or the other superior when it comes to user interface, or UI, this is ultimately a matter of personal preference. Highlights of the UI in Mac include Launchpad which is a screen full of app icons for easy access, hot corners that can be customized for various types of views, a dock featuring your favorite apps, full screen mode for apps, and spaces that create as many desktops as you like to help minimize clutter.

With PCs UI, highlights include a touch-friendly interface which contains live tiles or rectangular boxes on the screen that represent an app and which is refreshed with the latest app content. Above all, Windows has the familiar desktop which almost every computer user is comfortable with using, and may even prefer.

There are more components that set Mac and PC apart. Find out more next month where we will dig into security, selections and customer satisfaction between the two.

Read More

What's the difference between Mac OS, Windows, and Linux?

how to make your pc & laptop different.....

             Linux

              Mac OS

                                              Windows 

#1: Flexibility

If you've used OS X, you know it's user-friendly but not very flexible. In that regard, OS X is very much like Windows: You get what you have and there's not much you can do with it. If you don't like the layout of the desktop, you can move the Dock to either side, you can shrink it, or you can make it auto-hide. You can also add third-party applications and themes the desktop. Outside of that, you're out of luck. Say, for example, you would like to have only the Dock on your desktop (with the taskbar features integrated). You can't do it. That taskbar is as much a part of OS X as the Blue Screen of Death was in Windows 95. Linux is a different story. You don't want the taskbar but you like its features? No problem. Add whatever features to whatever taskbar or panel you want. Linux can pretty much take any configuration you throw at it. And if you still don't like what you have, install a different desktop or window manager and you're good to go.

#2: Open source

One of the biggest issues that Linux users have with OS X is the license. Apple took a BSD kernel to create its own Darwin kernel, released it under the Apple Public Source License (which was accepted by the Free Software Foundation), and then layered on top of that proprietary software to create OS X. At one point, Apple created OpenDarwin, which was a collaborative effort between Apple and the open source community. That project lasted four years before Apple took it down because it felt the effort to create an open source Darwin operating system had failed. In 2007, PureDarwin was created to continue the work that was developed with OpenDarwin. The PureDarwin project has come a long way and can even run Linux-based window managers (such as Enlightenment) on top of it. OS X, however, is still locked tightly together and can't compete with the openness of Linux.

#3: Command line

Although most OS X users would balk at this (saying they have no use for the command line), most power users know the command line is crucial to serious administrative tasks. In this department, OS X falls way short of Linux. With Linux, you can do pretty much everything you need from the command line. With OS X? Good luck. Sure, OS X does have a fairly good set of command-line tools, but for the power admin, it's just not enough. This is one area of OS X that I simply can't figure out. Why didn't Apple just migrate the Linux coreutils over to OS X? There are projects aimed at getting coreutils to compile on OS X, but it would have made more sense to have this by default. The coreutils package is a huge toolkit that contains nearly every basic command you need. OS X had to reinvent that wheel. But this goes beyond the coreutils package. What about installing via command line? What about command-line security? What about starting/stopping services from the command line?

#4: Hardware requirements

I have two Macs in my household. One Mac is an old iBook running at 800 Mhz with a 512 MB of RAM. That machine is slow with OS X running on it. But with Yellow Dog Linux, that little laptop runs much snappier. Same hardware, different OS. The other Mac is a G4 1.2 processor with 1 GB of RAM. I have an equivalent Intel machine running Ubuntu 8.10. The machines do not even compare in performance. The Ubuntu machine is faster on all levels (from boot to application launch). Taking a look at the minimum system requirements for OS X and Ubuntu, you see:

OS X: 876 MHz or faster CPU, 512 MB of RAM, 9 GB of disk space

Ubuntu: 700 MHz x86 processor , 384 MB ofRAM, and 8 GB of disk space

So obviously Linux can run on lesser powered machines by default. And Ubuntu 8.10 is not the most optimized of the Linux distributions. Mandriva Spring 2008 has even fewer requirements (claiming to run on ANY CPU and only 256 MB of RAM).

I have read of benchmarking tests claiming that OS X outperforms Ubuntu 8.10 soundly. But real world results would seem to contradict those claims. I ran a less-than-scientific test with the Mac iBook G4 1.2 and the Ubuntu 8.10 on a 1.2 processor. Both machines had 512 MB of RAM. On the Ubuntu machine (running the Enlightenment window manager), I was able to open up the following applications before the machine began to bog down: Firefox, OpenOffice Writer, OpenOffice Calc, OpenOffice Impress, Scribus, The Gimp, Amarok, GnuCash, Thunderbird, Basket, Audacity, Gqview, and aterm. The OS X machine was a different story. With OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, and iTunes open, the machine started to crawl. There was a noticeable degradation in performance. That's an OS running 14 applications vs an OS running four applications before the OS comes to a crawl. I don't know about you, but I would prefer the ability to run 14 apps.

#5: Security

In the most recent "Pwn 2 Own" competition, both the OS X and the Windows Vista machines were hacked, whereas the Linux machine was not. Of course there are pundits across the globe who will argue this one from all three sides, and finding unbiased results is akin to finding a definitive answer to the age-old TCO argument. But I can say, unequivocally, after 10-plus years of experience with Linux, that I have never had a machine or server compromised in any way. This, of course, is not to say that OS X is unsecure. But Linux simply is better equipped in the area of security. How? Tools. With tools like iptables, fwbuilder, and SELinux, Linux can lock down in many ways, on many levels. So you take a similar kernel but you add to that kernel-level tools to heighten security, and you can quickly see how Linux overpowers OS X in the area of security.

6. Portability

Another area where Linux shines over all other operating systems is in its ability to migrate an installation from hardware to hardware. Linux has an uncanny ability to be able to relocate. I have taken complete hard drives and moved them from one machine to another. So long as the architecture was the same (in other words, not moving from a x86 to an x86_64 machine), the migration always seemed to work with little to no adjusting. OS X, on the other hand, is landlocked to the machine it was installed in. Also, with Linux, you can take certain directories and move them from machine to machine. This works well with the /home directory. Having the ability to migrate your /homedirectory from one machine to another can make building machines a snap. With OS X, you'll always be reinstalling from scratch.

#7: Cost

This is a big one for many people. First, you have the cost of the operating system alone. Linux is free. Period. OS X is currently selling for $129.00. Next is hardware cost. The cheapest Macbook you can purchase is $999.00. You can purchase a $399.00 laptop that will run Linux like a champ from any given dealer. Add on top of that the cost of the software you will need, and you can run up a fairly large tab. Linux? Nada. You can have an office-ready Linux machine that will tackle most every task you put to it for the cost of the hardware alone. Mac? Not so much. So if you're looking to cut costs (and who isn't, in this economy?), Linux is the way to go.

#8: More available software

This may come as a surprise to you, but Linux has far more software available than OS X. In a completely unscientific test, I did a search for both Linux and OS X on  (an index of UNIX and cross-platform software). Here are the numbers: Linux 11,781 results. OS X 1,477 results. Of course, many would say that it's not a fair search because  is decidedly an open source  leaning repository. With that in mind, lets turn to Google and search for OS X Software and Linux Software. The results: OS X 19,100,000 hits. Linux 45,700,000 hits.

One of the things that separates Linux from all other operating systems is that for every task in Linux, there are numerous tools available to undertake it. Let's look at the task of word processing. For Mac, you have Microsoft Office and OpenOffice as the major players, and then you have minor players, like Bean, Nisus, Mellel, and NeoOffice. With Linux, you have the major player OpenOffice, and then you have the minor players Textmaker, Abiword, Hangul, EZ, Kwrite, gedit, nano, vi, emacs, Flwriter, Ted, Siag Office, LaTeX, EditPad Pro, etc. You get the picture. And yes, you can install Linux apps on OS X with Fink. I've done this. It's not a good solution because the software often is prone to crashing or not running at all.

#9: Not so dumbed-down

I have tried to come up with the phrase that is the opposite of "dumbed down," but I've had no luck. So work with me on this one. One thing that Apple did very well with OS X is dumb down the operating system interface to the point where most all tasks are easy for anyone to do. But there are those who do not want that dumbed-down experience. With Linux, you can have a desktop experience on every level. You can have the full-on, dumbed-down experience akin to OS X with either GNOME or KDE. Or you can go to the complete opposite and use the console as your desktop. Or you can experience anything and everything in between the two. With OS X, many power users feel like someone is holding their hand throughout the experience. With Linux, you can let go of that hand from time to time or even chop the hand off and replace it with a hook. When you're using the Apple desktop, OS X is in control. When you use the Linux desktop, you are in control.

#10: Keyboard efficiency

One of my biggest pet peeves with OS X is the fact that there is no normally functioning Delete key. Instead you have to hit fn + Delete to get the delete key to work as it should. This is pretty common practice with the OS X keyboard, which is about as efficient to a hard-core programmer as a salad is tasty. And it's not just the Delete key. The End key doesn't do what you would expect, either. To get to the end of the line, you have to add the fn key to the End key (so fn + End will get you to the end of the line.) Another issue — mouse buttons. I know this is a fundamental design that makes sense to Apple. But the majority of people like two mouse buttons. And with Linux, you actually get THREE mouse buttons. With those three mouse buttons, you can even do a simple copy and paste function (highlight text with a left mouse button and then click the middle mouse button to paste). The Linux keyboard is just far more efficient than the OS X keyboard....

I hope this is useful for you to make your pc & laptop different ....

Read More