Advertise here
Advertise here

fastest

now browsing by tag

 
 

What’s the fastest way to charge an iPhone X?

The iPhone X’s battery will last almost as long as an iPhone 8 Plus. In real life, it’ll get you through the day in most cases. But Consumer Reports said in its iPhone X review that battery life isn’t that great compared to other phones, and that’s why it ranked the phone below Apple’s iPhone 8 models and top Android rivals. But that doesn’t make the iPhone X a worse phone than other flagships, previous iPhones included.

Hardcore iPhone users who find themselves running out of juice on a frequent basis should definitely carry a charger and a battery case, and they should consider adding a wireless charger to their roster of iPhone accessories. The following battery charging comparison will help you buy the right charging gear for your iPhone X.

Performed by MacRumors, the iPhone X battery charging test looked at various charging options, including wireless and wired methods:

We used the same iPhone X for all tests, plugged into the same outlet. Between tests, the battery was drained to one percent, and then battery percent was checked at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 60 minutes while charging.

For all tests, the iPhone X was placed into Airplane mode with no apps running. The display was deactivated except for the four time checks. Tests were conducted without a case on the iPhone X.

The results aren’t surprising. Wireless charging, even the faster kind, is barely faster than what the 5W charger in the iPhone box can offer.

86760_iphone-x-battery-charging-speeds-comparison What's the fastest way to charge an iPhone X?Image Source: MacRumors

An iPad’s 12W charger is significantly faster, while USB-C charging takes the cake. However, you need to buy USB-C chargers and adapters to make it happen. The table above shows charging speeds for all the available charging options for the iPhone X.

iPhone X Charging Speeds Compared: The Fastest and Easiest Ways to Charge Your iPhone

With the addition of both fast charging and wireless charging to Apple’s 2017 iPhone lineup, there are more ways than ever to charge your iPhone. Every method is different — some are faster and more expensive, while others are slower but more convenient.

We tested several charging accessories from both Apple and third-party manufacturers with the iPhone X to see how charging speeds compare across different charging methods. These tests also apply to the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus, which share many of the same features available in the iPhone X.

Accessories Tested

Apple’s default 5W iPhone charger (Free with iPhone, $19 alone)
5W wireless charger from Choetech ($16)
7.5W Belkin Boost Up Wireless Charging Pad from Apple ($59.95) (Tested at 5W and 7.5W)
Apple’s default 12W iPad charger (Free with iPad, $19 alone)
18W USB-C power adapter from Choetech ($17.99)
29W USB-C power adapter from Apple (Free with 12-inch MacBook, $49 alone)
30W USB-C power adapter from Anker ($30)
87W USB-C power adapter from Apple (Free with 15-inch MacBook, $79 alone)

The 5W and 12W chargers from Apple were paired with a standard Lightning cable from Apple, priced starting at $19. All USB-C charging accessories were paired with a USB-C to Lightning cable from Apple, priced starting at $25.

Methodology

We used the same iPhone X for all tests, plugged into the same outlet. Between tests, the battery was drained to one percent, and then battery percent was checked at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 60 minutes while charging.

For all tests, the iPhone X was placed into Airplane mode with no apps running. The display was deactivated except for the four time checks. Tests were conducted without a case on the iPhone X.

Results

The absolute fastest way to charge an iPhone 8, iPhone X, or iPhone 8 Plus is with a USB-C power adapter and an accompanying USB-C to Lightning cable. Charging with USB-C activates a “fast-charge” feature that’s designed to charge the iPhone to around 50% in 30 minutes, and I saw about that level of charge in all of my USB-C tests.

5W wireless charging and 5W wired charging with the standard iPhone adapter were the slowest methods that I tested. 7.5W wireless testing was faster than 5W wireless charging, but not by much.

Click to enlarge
Charging at 12W with the iPad adapter wasn’t ultimately too far off of the fast charging results at the end of an hour, making this one of the better compromises between cost and speed.

USB-C

I tested both Apple’s 29W and 87W USB-C chargers that come with the 12-inch MacBook and the 15-inch MacBook Pro, respectively, along with much cheaper 18W and 30W chargers from Choetech and Anker. I saw little difference in charging speeds between 18W and 87W.

Click to enlarge
At the 30 minute mark in all tests, my phone was charged to between 45 and 49%, and at 60 minutes, I reached 77 to 79% battery life. The slowest charger was the Anker 30W, but the overall difference was so small that I think it can be chalked up to random variance. My charts are using 1 charging result, but I did test many of these chargers multiple times with the same general results.

Apple’s 29W MacBook charger costs $49 and the USB-C to Lightning cable costs $25, so you’re looking at about $75 for this charging method, but luckily, third party USB-C power adapters work the same way and are more affordable. That 18W Choetech charger I tested, for example, is just $18, while the one from Anker is $30.

Apple’s 29W USB-C power adapter and USB-C to Lightning cable
There are cheaper non-official USB-C to Lightning cables on Amazon, but given the problems we’ve seen with some third-party USB-C cables, it may be best to stick with verified Apple hardware as far as the cable goes. I didn’t test third-party Lightning to USB-C cables, but I wouldn’t expect to see major speed differences.

Choetech’s 18W USB-C power adapter and Anker’s 30W USB-C power adapter
If you go with Apple’s cable and something like the 18W Choetech charger, you can get a fast charge setup for just over $40. If you want to try your luck with a non-official cable, you can get fast charging for under $30.

Standard iPad and iPhone Chargers

All of Apple’s iPhones ship with a standard 5W power adapter and USB-A to Lightning cable, and charging with the standard setup is excruciatingly slow comparative to other charging methods. It’s not faster than 7.5W wireless charging and it can’t compare to charging with power adapters that put out more juice. At 30 minutes, for example, it had only charged my iPhone to 21 percent, and I only made it to 39 percent after 60 minutes.

Apple’s 5W iPhone charger and 12W iPad charger
Apple’s 12W iPad charger is much quicker, though, and it’s affordable at $19. With the 12W iPad charger and a standard Lightning cable, I saw charging speeds that weren’t too far off of what I got when charging with a USB-C power adapter. At the 30 minute mark, my iPhone charged to 39 percent, and at the 60 minute mark, I hit 72 percent.

That’s not too bad for a setup that’s one of the most affordable I found, and there are a lot of 12W equivalent third-party charging options on the market, including several with multiple ports and other conveniences.

Wireless Chargers

In general, wireless charging is slower than wired charging, but it’s undeniably convenient, and if you’re charging for a lengthy period of time, say at your desk at work or overnight on the night stand, the slower charging doesn’t matter.

That said, 7.5W wireless charging, which was activated in iOS 11.2, was faster than the standard 5W wired charging method in my testing. There’s also a noticeable but slight speed difference between 5W wireless charging and 7.5W wireless charging.

Click to enlarge
I tested this difference using the 7.5W wireless charger from Belkin, which Apple sells, on both iOS 11.2 and iOS 11.1.2, which limited iPhone charging to 5W. The Belkin 5W charging result on iOS 11.1.2 is the result included in my graph.

I also tested a Choetech 5W charger that was much slower than the Belkin at 5W, so much so that I wasn’t sure it was an accurate representation of 5W charging. From 1%:

– 15 minutes: 9%
– 30 minutes: 19%
– 45 minutes: 27%
– 60 minutes: 35%

There wasn’t a huge difference between 5W and 7.5W charging in my experience, but 7.5W is faster. If you’re buying a wireless charger, it’s worthwhile to get a 7.5W+ charger that offers faster charging for the iPhone, but which chargers are compatible with 7.5W wireless charging remains something of a mystery.

The Mophie and Belkin wireless charging docks
We know the Belkin and Mophie chargers that Apple sells offer the faster wireless charging option, but it’s not entirely clear if other higher-watt chargers from third-party manufacturers are able to charge the iPhone X, 8, and 8 Plus at higher speeds.

For a separate post on wireless charging options, we’ve been investigating third-party wireless chargers, and it’s looking like there may be a restriction put in place by Apple to limit 7.5W charging to approved manufacturers. As an example, on the Amazon page for this charger from Choetech, which says it is 7.5W, there is this message:

We get notice from Apple engineer that current IOS only support 5w qi wireless charging currently, 7.5w wireless charging is encrypted and never released to 3rd party manufacturer.

We’ve heard similar information from other manufacturers, but it’s all very nebulous and not something Apple has clearly outlined at this point. For that reason, if you want confirmed 7.5W wireless charging, go with the Belkin, the Mophie, or another charger that specifically states that it’s compatible with Apple’s 7.5W charging.

Choetech’s 5W wireless charger
Just because a wireless charger offers more than 5W, it’s not necessarily going to offer 7.5W charging speeds when used with an iPhone. If you’re using wireless charging on the night stand or when sitting at a desk for long periods of time, 5W is perfectly adequate, and the third-party chargers are much more affordable than the Belkin and Mophie chargers.

On the subject of wireless charging, I also tested to see if case thickness impacts charging speed. I tested with a naked iPhone X, an iPhone X in Apple’s Silicone case, and an iPhone X with one of the thickest backs I could find, the glitter-filled iPhone X case from Casetify. Charging speeds were almost identical in all three tests, and while the Casetify case was maybe about 2 percent slower, that can perhaps be chalked up to margin of error. There was zero difference with the thinner Apple case.

If your case works with wireless charging at all (and most do, with the exception of those that have rear magnets or are made from aluminum), it’s going to charge at the same speed or nearly the same speed as a naked iPhone.

Conclusion

To get fast charging on iPhone X, iPhone 8, and iPhone 8 Plus, you don’t need anything over 18W, and you don’t need a USB-C power adapter that’s from Apple. The third-party options work just as well, but you will probably want to pick up Apple’s USB-C to Lightning cable over the alternatives.

Fast charging is going to get you the best charging times, but for less money, you can get the 12W iPad charger and use it with a standard Lightning cable to charge your iPhone almost as fast as you can charge it with fast charging. There’s only about a 10 percent difference between the 12W iPad charger and USB-C charging.


It’s not really worth it using the 5W charger that the iPhone ships with if you can help it, because it’s incredibly slow.

Wireless charging is also a comparatively slow charging method, but it’s convenient to be able to set your iPhone right next to you on a wireless charger and pick it up when necessary without the need to hassle with a cord.

iPhone X Charging Speeds Compared: The Fastest and Easiest Ways to Charge Your iPhone

With the addition of both fast charging and wireless charging to Apple’s 2017 iPhone lineup, there are more ways than ever to charge your iPhone. Every method is different — some are faster and more expensive, while others are slower but more convenient.

We tested several charging accessories from both Apple and third-party manufacturers with the iPhone X to see how charging speeds compare across different charging methods. These tests also apply to the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus, which share many of the same features available in the iPhone X.

Accessories Tested

Apple’s default 5W iPhone charger (Free with iPhone, $19 alone)
5W wireless charger from Choetech ($16)
7.5W Belkin Boost Up Wireless Charging Pad from Apple ($59.95) (Tested at 5W and 7.5W)
Apple’s default 12W iPad charger (Free with iPad, $19 alone)
18W USB-C power adapter from Choetech ($17.99)
29W USB-C power adapter from Apple (Free with 12-inch MacBook, $49 alone)
30W USB-C power adapter from Anker ($30)
87W USB-C power adapter from Apple (Free with 15-inch MacBook, $79 alone)

The 5W and 12W chargers from Apple were paired with a standard Lightning cable from Apple, priced starting at $19. All USB-C charging accessories were paired with a USB-C to Lightning cable from Apple, priced starting at $25.

Methodology

We used the same iPhone X for all tests, plugged into the same outlet. Between tests, the battery was drained to one percent, and then battery percent was checked at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 60 minutes while charging.

For all tests, the iPhone X was placed into Airplane mode with no apps running. The display was deactivated except for the four time checks. Tests were conducted without a case on the iPhone X.

Results

The absolute fastest way to charge an iPhone 8, iPhone X, or iPhone 8 Plus is with a USB-C power adapter and an accompanying USB-C to Lightning cable. Charging with USB-C activates a “fast-charge” feature that’s designed to charge the iPhone to around 50% in 30 minutes, and I saw about that level of charge in all of my USB-C tests.

5W wireless charging and 5W wired charging with the standard iPhone adapter were the slowest methods that I tested. 7.5W wireless testing was faster than 5W wireless charging, but not by much.

Click to enlarge
Charging at 12W with the iPad adapter wasn’t ultimately too far off of the fast charging results at the end of an hour, making this one of the better compromises between cost and speed.

USB-C

I tested both Apple’s 29W and 87W USB-C chargers that come with the 12-inch MacBook and the 15-inch MacBook Pro, respectively, along with much cheaper 18W and 30W chargers from Choetech and Anker. I saw little difference in charging speeds between 18W and 87W.

Click to enlarge
At the 30 minute mark in all tests, my phone was charged to between 45 and 49%, and at 60 minutes, I reached 77 to 79% battery life. The slowest charger was the Anker 30W, but the overall difference was so small that I think it can be chalked up to random variance. My charts are using 1 charging result, but I did test many of these chargers multiple times with the same general results.

Apple’s 29W MacBook charger costs $49 and the USB-C to Lightning cable costs $25, so you’re looking at about $75 for this charging method, but luckily, third party USB-C power adapters work the same way and are more affordable. That 18W Choetech charger I tested, for example, is just $18, while the one from Anker is $30.

Apple’s 29W USB-C power adapter and USB-C to Lightning cable
There are cheaper non-official USB-C to Lightning cables on Amazon, but given the problems we’ve seen with some third-party USB-C cables, it may be best to stick with verified Apple hardware as far as the cable goes. I didn’t test third-party Lightning to USB-C cables, but I wouldn’t expect to see major speed differences.

Choetech’s 18W USB-C power adapter and Anker’s 30W USB-C power adapter
If you go with Apple’s cable and something like the 18W Choetech charger, you can get a fast charge setup for just over $40. If you want to try your luck with a non-official cable, you can get fast charging for under $30.

Standard iPad and iPhone Chargers

All of Apple’s iPhones ship with a standard 5W power adapter and USB-A to Lightning cable, and charging with the standard setup is excruciatingly slow comparative to other charging methods. It’s not faster than 7.5W wireless charging and it can’t compare to charging with power adapters that put out more juice. At 30 minutes, for example, it had only charged my iPhone to 21 percent, and I only made it to 39 percent after 60 minutes.

Apple’s 5W iPhone charger and 12W iPad charger
Apple’s 12W iPad charger is much quicker, though, and it’s affordable at $19. With the 12W iPad charger and a standard Lightning cable, I saw charging speeds that weren’t too far off of what I got when charging with a USB-C power adapter. At the 30 minute mark, my iPhone charged to 39 percent, and at the 60 minute mark, I hit 72 percent.

That’s not too bad for a setup that’s one of the most affordable I found, and there are a lot of 12W equivalent third-party charging options on the market, including several with multiple ports and other conveniences.

Wireless Chargers

In general, wireless charging is slower than wired charging, but it’s undeniably convenient, and if you’re charging for a lengthy period of time, say at your desk at work or overnight on the night stand, the slower charging doesn’t matter.

That said, 7.5W wireless charging, which was activated in iOS 11.2, was faster than the standard 5W wired charging method in my testing. There’s also a noticeable but slight speed difference between 5W wireless charging and 7.5W wireless charging.

Click to enlarge
I tested this difference using the 7.5W wireless charger from Belkin, which Apple sells, on both iOS 11.2 and iOS 11.1.2, which limited iPhone charging to 5W. The Belkin 5W charging result on iOS 11.1.2 is the result included in my graph.

I also tested a Choetech 5W charger that was much slower than the Belkin at 5W, so much so that I wasn’t sure it was an accurate representation of 5W charging. From 1%:

– 15 minutes: 9%
– 30 minutes: 19%
– 45 minutes: 27%
– 60 minutes: 35%

There wasn’t a huge difference between 5W and 7.5W charging in my experience, but 7.5W is faster. If you’re buying a wireless charger, it’s worthwhile to get a 7.5W+ charger that offers faster charging for the iPhone, but which chargers are compatible with 7.5W wireless charging remains something of a mystery.

The Mophie and Belkin wireless charging docks
We know the Belkin and Mophie chargers that Apple sells offer the faster wireless charging option, but it’s not entirely clear if other higher-watt chargers from third-party manufacturers are able to charge the iPhone X, 8, and 8 Plus at higher speeds.

For a separate post on wireless charging options, we’ve been investigating third-party wireless chargers, and it’s looking like there may be a restriction put in place by Apple to limit 7.5W charging to approved manufacturers. As an example, on the Amazon page for this charger from Choetech, which says it is 7.5W, there is this message:

We get notice from Apple engineer that current IOS only support 5w qi wireless charging currently, 7.5w wireless charging is encrypted and never released to 3rd party manufacturer.

We’ve heard similar information from other manufacturers, but it’s all very nebulous and not something Apple has clearly outlined at this point. For that reason, if you want confirmed 7.5W wireless charging, go with the Belkin, the Mophie, or another charger that specifically states that it’s compatible with Apple’s 7.5W charging.

Choetech’s 5W wireless charger
Just because a wireless charger offers more than 5W, it’s not necessarily going to offer 7.5W charging speeds when used with an iPhone. If you’re using wireless charging on the night stand or when sitting at a desk for long periods of time, 5W is perfectly adequate, and the third-party chargers are much more affordable than the Belkin and Mophie chargers.

On the subject of wireless charging, I also tested to see if case thickness impacts charging speed. I tested with a naked iPhone X, an iPhone X in Apple’s Silicone case, and an iPhone X with one of the thickest backs I could find, the glitter-filled iPhone X case from Casetify. Charging speeds were almost identical in all three tests, and while the Casetify case was maybe about 2 percent slower, that can perhaps be chalked up to margin of error. There was zero difference with the thinner Apple case.

If your case works with wireless charging at all (and most do, with the exception of those that have rear magnets or are made from aluminum), it’s going to charge at the same speed or nearly the same speed as a naked iPhone.

Conclusion

To get fast charging on iPhone X, iPhone 8, and iPhone 8 Plus, you don’t need anything over 18W, and you don’t need a USB-C power adapter that’s from Apple. The third-party options work just as well, but you will probably want to pick up Apple’s USB-C to Lightning cable over the alternatives.

Fast charging is going to get you the best charging times, but for less money, you can get the 12W iPad charger and use it with a standard Lightning cable to charge your iPhone almost as fast as you can charge it with fast charging. There’s only about a 10 percent difference between the 12W iPad charger and USB-C charging.


It’s not really worth it using the 5W charger that the iPhone ships with if you can help it, because it’s incredibly slow.

Wireless charging is also a comparatively slow charging method, but it’s convenient to be able to set your iPhone right next to you on a wireless charger and pick it up when necessary without the need to hassle with a cord.

The fastest and slowest versions of Linux – MyBroadband

To see which version of Linux is the quickest, Phoronix has conducted a set of benchmarks measuring the total boot time of 11 Linux distributions.

The tests also measured the boot time of separate components, such as the loader and kernel of each distribution.

Systemd benchmark, part of Phoronix Test Suite 7.4.0, was used to benchmark the boot time of the distributions, and the results were published on OpenBenchmarking.org.

The tests show that the boot time of Linux distributions can vary substantially, with some systems taking over twice as long to boot up as others.

The quickest boot time result was delivered by Solus 3, which offered the best times across loader, firmware, and userspace tests.

CentOS Linux 7 offered the best time score in the kernel test, but came last in overall score.

The benchmark results for the Linux distributions in the comparison are detailed below.


Total Boot Time

8a4b3_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux - MyBroadband


Kernel

8a4b3_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux - MyBroadband


Loader

8a4b3_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux - MyBroadband


Firmware

8a4b3_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux - MyBroadband


Userspace

8a4b3_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux - MyBroadband


Now read: Munich ditches Linux

The fastest and slowest versions of Linux

To see which version of Linux is the quickest, Phoronix has conducted a set of benchmarks measuring the total boot time of 11 Linux distributions.

The tests also measured the boot time of separate components, such as the loader and kernel of each distribution.

Systemd benchmark, part of Phoronix Test Suite 7.4.0, was used to benchmark the boot time of the distributions, and the results were published on OpenBenchmarking.org.

The tests show that the boot time of Linux distributions can vary substantially, with some systems taking over twice as long to boot up as others.

The quickest boot time result was delivered by Solus 3, which offered the best times across loader, firmware, and userspace tests.

CentOS Linux 7 offered the best time score in the kernel test, but came last in overall score.

The benchmark results for the Linux distributions in the comparison are detailed below.


Total Boot Time

a93ef_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux


Kernel

a93ef_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux


Loader

a93ef_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux


Firmware

a93ef_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux


Userspace

a93ef_Systemd-Total-boot-time The fastest and slowest versions of Linux


Now read: Munich ditches Linux

IBM And Nvidia Team Up To Build The World’s Fastest Computer

US to regain supercomputing supremacy with Summit

Source: Tom’s Hardware

There is an arms race in computing, which has implications in international relations and geopolitics as significant as any conventional arms race. This is the race to build the world’s fastest supercomputer. Having the fastest supercomputer is a matter of national pride, but it also confers real economic, political, and military benefits. Supercomputers are used for everything from long-range weather forecasting to the modeling and design of nuclear weapons.

Currently, the fastest supercomputer in the world is China’s Sunway TaihuLight, capable of 93 PetaFLOPS, or 93 x 10^15 floating point operations per second. In 2018, the US plans to overtake Sunway with a new supercomputer now under construction at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee. This computer, called Summit, will be capable of about 200 PetaFLOPS. A sister computer, Sierra, which is similar in design to Summit, is also being built at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

Summit consists of about 4600 “nodes”, which are basically rack-mounted servers. Although Summit will be 5-10 times more powerful than its predecessor, it will have only ¼ of the nodes and use substantially less power.

It’s what’s inside these nodes that makes them so special. Each node consists of a specialized HPC server designed by IBM. The node contains two IBM Power9 processors and six Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) Tesla V100 SXM2 GPU accelerators. The entire box is water cooled, as shown in the hardware photo at the top of the article. The hardware was on display at the recent Super Computing 17 Conference.

What is unique about the IBM system is that each Power9 processor communicates directly with the Nvidia GPU via Nvidia’s proprietary high-speed NVLink digital interface. This built-in capability is unique to Power9 and provides it with 100 GB/sec of throughput via NVLink 2.0.

The system architecture makes extensive use of NVLink both to connect the GPUs to the Power9 processor and to each other, as shown in this diagram from Tom’s Hardware.

In effect, the Power9 processors coordinate the computational flow in each node, while the Tesla V100s do the heavy lifting. IBM’s decision to incorporate NVLink 2 interfaces on chip shows that the company understood where things were going in high performance computing. Rather than fight the trend towards the use of GPU computing, IBM wisely chose to co-opt it.

IBM finally begins shipping its unique Power9 processors

Each Power9 processor is a powerful computer in its own right that packs up to 24 processing cores executing four threads in parallel, for a total of 96 threads. Each Power9 also supports 48 PCIE 4.0 lanes and eight memory channels.

IBM’s Power processor family is based on the PowerPC RISC architecture the company developed and sold for some time in Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) Mac computers. After Apple switched to Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) for Mac, IBM focused the architecture on the server market.

Customers have had a long wait for Power9, which was announced last year with the expectation that the company would start to ship it in late 2017. And it is being done for Sierra and Summit, but there’s been no announcement yet from IBM regarding general availability, which is now thought to begin in early 2018.

Power9 is a massive chip, and that may be what’s taking so long. Power9 is now being fabricated by GlobalFoundries on its 14 nm process. This is probably the largest chip that GloFo has tried to fabricate on the 14 nm node, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the yields are not up to IBM’s expectations. Also impacting yield is the fact that Power9 is a large, complex, high-performance chip.

Nvidia’s Volta GPU to be the workhorse of Summit and Sierra

Both Summit and Sierra will feature similar IBM HPC computers with dual Power9 processors. The main difference is that Sierra will only have four Tesla V100 GPUs per node. However, this actually allows for faster NVLink 2 communication of 150 GB/sec between the CPU and GPU, which should improve throughput.

Each GV100 GPU in the Tesla V100 is itself even more massive than the Power9. The 300 watts that each V100 draws drives the water cooling solution. The combined power draw of the completed Summit system is expected to be 13 megawatts, and Sierra, with 4000-5000 nodes, is expected to require 11 megawatts, according to a recent article in The Next Platform. The article assumes, as I have, that for all practical purposes, the computing capability of Summit and Sierra is limited by the capability of the Tesla V100 GPUs.

These two US supercomputers illustrate the magnitude of the opportunity for Nvidia’s V100. The two systems combined will use over 45,000 V100 GPUs. At a price of around $8000 per GPU, this comes to over $360 million in sales for the Tesla V100 just from one customer, the US Department of Energy.

And IBM and Nvidia could well become supercomputing arms dealers to the world, benefiting from the never-ending race for faster computers.

Nvidia is part of the Rethink Technology Portfolio and is a recommended Buy.

Disclosure: I am/we are long NVDA, AAPL.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

China Continues to Rule HPC With the World’s Fastest …

If supercomputing was a game, there would be two winners at present: China and Linux. In the latest biannually released Top500 list of the world’s fastest supercomputers, China not only has the world’s fastest supercomputer, it has now passed the US as the country with the most supercomputers, while Linux has reached the milestone of becoming the operating system running all supercomputers on the list.

In June, when the last list was released, the US had the most supercomputers with 169, followed by China with 160. On the new list, China counts 202, with the US in second place with 143. This represents the highest number ever for China and the lowest for the US.

China also passed the US in aggregate performance, with 35.4 percent of the TOP500 flops. The puts the US in second place with 29.6 percent.

Although supercomputers aren’t on the public radar as much as conventional computers, they play an important role in areas such as quantum mechanics, national defense, weapon design, weather forecasting, oil and gas exploration, and climate research. Since being introduced in the 1960s, the US has dominated the field, until now.

China already had the fastest supercomputer in the world, Sunway TaihuLight, developed by the country’s National Research Center of Parallel Computer Engineering and Technology. It remains number-one, weighing in with a High Performance Linpack (HPL) mark of 93.01 petaflops. In case you’re wondering, a petaflop is a quadrillion floating-point operations per second.

Here are the five fastest supercomputers in the world, according to the latest edition of Top500:

The second fastest system, which also belongs to the Chinese, doesn’t even come close to the winner, running at 33.86 petaflops. That’s Tianhe-2 (Milky Way-2), a system developed by China’s National University of Defense Technology.

The largest system in the US is a five-year-old Cray XK7 system called Titan that ranks fifth at 17.59 petaflops. Titan is installed at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and until July had been the third highest performing supercomputer on the planet.

Six months ago Titan was knocked down a peg after the Swiss upgraded Piz Daint, a Cray XC50 system located in Lugano, Switzerland. On the new list it went down again, due to an upgrade of Gyoukou, a ZettaScaler-2.2 system deployed at Japan’s Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology which clocks at 19.14 petaflops and employs a record high 19,860,000 cores.

China added another feather to its supercomputing cap with an announcement on Thursday that the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the world’s largest scientific and educational computing society, has given a 12-member Chinese team the 2017 ACM Gordon Bell Prize. The prize has been awarded each year since 1987 to recognize outstanding achievement in high-performance computing applications and includes a cash reward that since 2011 has been set at $10,000.

This year’s prize winners were responsible for a project involving Sunway TaihuLight, in which they developed software that processed 18.9 Pflops of data to create 3D visualizations related to a major earthquake that occurred in Tangshan, China, in 1976. The team’s software included innovations that achieved greater efficiency than had been previously attained running similar programs on the Titan and TaihuLight supercomputers.

With this week’s Top500 list we also witness the last two supercomputers not running Linux (both were Chinese systems running IBM’s AIX) dropping away to make Linux the only operating system being used on any top 500 system. Linux first entered the Top500 list in 1998, five years after the list began, and surpassed Unix as the most used OS in 2004. Now it’s the last man standing.

Of the 10 fastest supercomputers in the world, four are located in the US, three in Japan, two in China and one in Switzerland.

Internet usage growing fastest among older Canadians: StatsCan

Older Canadians represent the fastest-growing segments of internet users nationwide, according to new data from Statistics Canada.

The survey titled Canadians at Work and Home found online activity among those aged 65 to 74 climbed 16 percentage points between 2013 and 2016. Participants were asked if they used the internet “at least a few times during the month preceding the survey.”

That growth was closely followed among people aged 75 and older, whose internet use jumped 15 percentage points over the same three-year period.

Younger people still form the bulk of Canadians active online, according to the survey, leaving less room for growth. Statistics Canada said usage among the 15-to-44 demographic is generally well over 90 per cent.

Albertans were the most prolific internet users, with 94 per cent saying they were active online in 2016. Newfoundland and Labrador was the lowest at 88 per cent.

More than three-quarters (76 per cent) of Canadians own a smartphone, according to Statistics Canada.

While older Canadians are seeing more robust representation online, a significant age gap is still evident when it comes to mobile. The survey found an overwhelming majority (94 per cent) of 15-to-94 year olds own a connected device, compared 69 per cent among those 55 to 64, and just 18 per cent for those over 75.

The survey examined how the increasingly ubiquitous internet impacts various facets of Canadian life, including work-life balance and job satisfaction. It also attempted to weigh the benefits of our more connected world against online irritants like cyberbullying and social media harassment.

StatsCan found the majority of Canadians believe their lives are better as a result of technology. Nearly three-in-five Canadians (59 per cent) aged 15 and older reported improvements. However, the perception of progress slid from an average of 61 per cent among those aged 15-to-64, to 38 per cent for Canadians aged 75 years and older.

Improved communication and time savings were among the most widely-touted benefits, reported by 77 per cent and 66 per cent of respondents respectively. Fifty-two per cent said technology allows them to make more informed decisions. Improved creativity was posited by 36 per cent.

Overall, 14 per cent of Canadians felt that technology often interfered with other areas of life.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most prolific users were found to experience more negatively associated consequences. Among those reporting technological interference, 20 per cent were between 15 and 24 years old. That figure plunged to just three per cent for those 75 and older.

Amid internet speed complaints, Cox rolls out ‘fastest service yet’

9dbca_DSC9930-e1509910950799 Amid internet speed complaints, Cox rolls out 'fastest service yet'
Cox is required by a 2011 agreement with James City County to have a storefront within five miles of the county border to provide customer service. (Steve Roberts, Jr./WYDaily)

James City County resident William Horwatt Jr. is paying top dollar for his Internet service, but he says he is getting anything but. Horwatt Jr. is a customer of Cox Communications. In 2015 he filed a complaint with James City County saying he is paying $69.99 a month for high speed connection but isn’t getting it.

“It never gets to that speed,” Horwatt Jr. said in the complaint. “They cannot consistently deliver any type of Internet connection speed but they charge for a speed that they cannot deliver,” he said.

But according to Cox, faster service is on the way in the Historic Triangle at a premium price.

Customers often deride the largest Internet service provider in the Historic Triangle’s slower than promised Internet speeds, or unreliable connections.

Since January 2015 there have been about 43 complaints to the county about Cox’s services. The county’s website recommends customers contact Cox directly for customer service issues.

County Working on Internet Changes

James City County officials say internet services are important to businesses and residents alike but, despite complaints, Cox has remained king.

Bringing better Internet to James City County residents is something County Administrator Bryan Hill said he’s been working on, but it’s been an uphill battle.

“Cox is our provider and we have made attempts to solicit others to come to James City County,” Hill wrote in an email. “Our growth and development does not provide a good business model for companies to invest in the needed infrastructure to make a profit.”

The county’s job, according to Hill, is to not “inject themselves into the free market economy.”

A lack of options for Internet service is reflective on companies not wanting to invest the money in the area, according to Hill.

Telecommunications companies like Cox ask permission to operate in an area, and it’s the decision of the locality on whether or not they can accept a company’s terms.

An extension of James City County’s agreement with Cox is up for negotiation by as late as December 2018, according to the franchising agreement.

Before those negotiations are set to begin, Cox says it’s in the process of investing $10 billion over five years nationally in its services, some of that investment is right here in Greater Williamsburg, according to Cox Communications spokeswoman Jessica Dawley.

9dbca_DSC9930-e1509910950799 Amid internet speed complaints, Cox rolls out 'fastest service yet'
Cox has said their new G1GABLAST service will offer customers throughout the Historic Triangle faster service. (Steve Roberts, Jr./WYDaily)

A new faster service

Consumer complaints against Cox Communications’ tiered internet service structure have mounted, but the company says customers looking for faster internet have been able to sign up since mid-October for the company’s fastest service yet.

“We have recently expanded our internet service in your area to include our G1GABLAST service, meaning customers in Williamsburg and James City County can now enjoy one Gigabit per second download speeds,” Dawley said in an email.

The premium service offers download speeds as fast as a Gigabit or 125 Megabytes per second, according to Cox. However, the premium service will come at the premium price tag of $119.99 per month, according to Cox.

Cox Comparison

In 2016, the Federal Communications Commission issued a report that indicated Cox Communications popular Internet packages had high connection reliability compared to other companies.

The study found Cox’s Internet connection speeds rarely fell below about 90 percent of the advertised download speed for study participants.

While several residents have submitted complaints either directly to Cox or to local government, Cox has said it’s doing the best it can to make residents’ happy with the service they pay for.

“We always appreciate feedback from customers and respond to service issues on an individual basis to make sure we are addressing customers’ concerns to their satisfaction,” Dawley said.

For Horwatt, there was no action to back up Cox’s words. He said no matter how many times he contacted Cox his problems weren’t solved.

“It’s like buying a new car that supposedly has a top speed of 50 miles per hour,” Horwatt said in his complaint to the county. “But your [sic] only going to hit 50 mph if your [sic] going down a steep hill with a loaded trailer attached to it. Generally your only going to be able to drive at 15 or 20 miles per hour.”

To be sure, Internet service providers face regulations from the local to the federal level, and expensive costs to install the infrastructure consumers want.

Cox says its newest service will provide fast internet to residents throughout the Historic Triangle.

“We continue to invest in our network to make our service as reliable as possible,” Dawley said.

We want to hear from you

Have you upgraded to the new service Cox has to offer? If so, have you experienced improvements with your internet service? If you haven’t upgraded, why not? Email your responses to info@wydailly.com.

Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Kate Jay did not return multiple requests for comment.

Always be informed. Click here to get the latest news and information delivered to your inbox

9dbca_DSC9930-e1509910950799 Amid internet speed complaints, Cox rolls out 'fastest service yet'

Here’s The Fastest Way To Preorder The iPhone X

At the debut of Apple’s massive new Chicago store, CEO Tim Cook and head of retail Angela Ahrendts sat down with BuzzFeed News to talk Trump, the future of Apple retail, and the upcoming launch of the iPhone X, or what the company describes as “the future of the smartphone.”

Reports of iPhone X supply shortages, however, have customers wondering just how long wait times for the much-anticipated, $1,000 phone will be. According to Ahrendts, the fastest way to preorder the device on Friday October 27 is via the Apple Store app at 12:01 a.m. She also noted that when the iPhone X officially goes on sale on November 3 “there [will be] some in stores.” In a press release, Apple said, “walk-in customers are encouraged to arrive early.”

The iPhone 8 And iPhone X Really Are The World’s Fastest Phones

f70cd_apple_iphone_x_1 The iPhone 8 And iPhone X Really Are The World's Fastest Phones

The numbers don’t lie: when it comes to raw performance, the new iPhone’s A11 Bionic chip — designed in-house by Apple, just like previous barnstomers like the A10X Fusion — beats all competitors. No Android phone can come close, and even Apple’s own MacBook Pro doesn’t have the chops of the iPhone when it comes to bursts of pure speed.

Geekbench 4 tests from Tom’s Guide show the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus outperforming every Android phone in synthetic test performance, and even beating out the 13-inch MacBook Pro, which uses a much more energy-intensive Core i5 processor.

You might want to take that with a massive grain of salt, but even Geekbench’s founder John Poole told Tom’s that the test is broadly comparable across platforms: “the short is answer is yes that the scores are comparable across platforms, so if an iPhone 8 scores higher than an i5, then the iPhone 8 is faster than the i5.”

Geekbench tests burst performance over short periods of time, though, and Poole makes the point that laptops are better suited to longer periods of sustained full-power usage. Put simply, even the best smartphone processor can only run for so long — they don’t have the large batteries and superior cooling of a physically much larger laptop.

Phone versus phone, though, the iPhone obliterates any Android — in the 3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited benchmark for mobile devices, the iPhone’s results nearly double that of the closest two Android devices, the Samsung Galaxy Note8 and OnePlus 5. [Tom’s Guide]




Advertise here