3월 29일 (금) 오후 6:58
랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다
>

logo

  • head
  • news
  • product
  • mobile
  • benchmark
  • analysis
  • computing
  • multimedia

"SAN"은 "Storage Area Network"...
웹 애플리케이션에서의 버퍼 오버...
XSS(크로스 사이트 스크립팅) 취...

IMGP3588_678x452.jpg


상위 모델인 960PRO에 이어 메인스트림급 신형 960EVO SSD 성능 확인


Samsung 960 EVO Specifications Comparison
 960 EVO
1TB
960 EVO 500GB960 EVO 250GB950 PRO
512GB
950 PRO
256GB
Form Factorsingle-sided
M.2 2280
single-sided
M.2 2280
ControllerSamsung PolarisSamsung UBX
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4
NANDSamsung 48-layer
256Gb TLC V-NAND
Samsung 32-layer
128Gbit MLC V-NAND
SLC Cache Size42GB22 GB13GBN/A
Sequential Read3200 MB/s3200 MB/s3200 MB/s2500 MB/s2200 MB/s
Sequential Write (SLC Cache)1900 MB/s1800 MB/s1500 MB/s1500 MB/s900 MB/s
Sequential Write (sustained)1200 MB/s600 MB/s300 MB/sN/AN/A
4KB Random Read (QD32)380k IOPS330k IOPS330k IOPS300k IOPS270k IOPS
4KB Random Write (QD32)360k IOPS330k IOPS300k IOPS110k IOPS85k IOPS
Power5.7W
(average)
5.4W
(average)
5.3W
(average)
7.0W (burst)
5.7W (average)
1.7W (idle)
6.4W (burst)
5.1 (average)
1.7W (idle)
Endurance400TB200TB100TB400TB200TB
Warranty3 Year5 Year
Launch MSRP$479.99$249.99$129.88$350$200


- 삼성 960 EVO SSD 스펙

폼팩터 : single-sided M.2 2280

컨트롤러 : 삼성 폴라리스

인터페이스 : PCIe 3.0 x4

낸드 : 48층 256Gb TLC V-NAND

캐시 : 13GB ~ 42GB

시퀀셜 읽기 : 3200 MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 1500 MB/s ~ 1900 MB/s

랜덤 읽기 : 330k IOPS ~ 380k IOPS

랜덤 쓰기 : 300k IOPS ~ 360k IOPS

전력소모 : 5.3W ~ 5.7W

보증기간 : 3년




스티커 쪽에 히트 스프레더 기능


- 테스트 시스템


AnandTech 2015 SSD Test System
CPUIntel Core i7-4770K running at 3.5GHz
(Turbo & EIST enabled, C-states disabled)
MotherboardASUS Z97 Pro (BIOS 2701)
ChipsetIntel Z97
MemoryCorsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2x8GB (9-10-9-27 2T)
GraphicsIntel HD Graphics 4600
Desktop Resolution1920 x 1200
OSWindows 8.1 x64



Steady-State 4KB Random Write Performance

The 960 EVO's steady state random write speed is not quite as fast as the 960 Pro, but it's in the same league and much faster than most consumer SSDs.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Consistency

The 960 EVO sets a new record for combining high performance with consistency. It's a bit slower than the 960 Pro, but less variable.

IOPS over time
DefaultSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TBIntel SSD 750 1.2TB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - NVMe)Samsung SM951 512GB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - AHCI)Samsung XP941 512GB (PCIe 2.0 x4 - AHCI)
25% Over-ProvisioningSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

Highly consistent performance is a good thing, but it makes for a boring graph. The transitions from peak to sustained performance modes look the same for both the 960 Pro and the 960 EVO.

Steady-State IOPS over time
DefaultSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TBIntel SSD 750 1.2TB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - NVMe)Samsung SM951 512GB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - AHCI)Samsung XP941 512GB (PCIe 2.0 x4 - AHCI)
25% Over-ProvisioningSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The 960 EVO responds to extra overprovisioning with even more consistent (and high) performance.



AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The 960 EVO is substantially slower than both the 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but the 960 EVO is faster than the flagship SSDs from Toshiba and Intel.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The 960 EVO delivers average service times on par with other high-end PCIe SSDs, and is still slightly faster than any non-Samsung drive.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

In the frequency of high-latency outliers, the 960 EVO is surpassed only by Samsung's 950 Pro and 960 Pro.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Despite using TLC NAND, the 960 EVO manages comparable power efficiency to the 960 Pro, putting it ahead of the fastest SATA drives but still drawing substantially more power than the most efficient SATA SSDs.



AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The 960 EVO's average data rates on the Heavy test are slower than the 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but on par with the OCZ RD400 and faster than the Intel 750.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The 960 EVO takes third place for average service times, providing lower latency than the smallest 950 Pro despite slower overall data rates. In comparison to SATA SSDs, the latency differences are all pretty minor.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Like the 960 Pro, the 960 EVO oddly has slightly fewer high-latency outliers when this test is run on a full drive instead of a freshly-erased drive. In spite of this quirk of the drive's garbage collection routines, both drives have well-controlled latency.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The 960 EVO's power efficiency on the Heavy test is virtually the same as the 960 Pro and the 950 Pro, and not significantly worse than the fastest SATA drives.



AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

As with the previous ATSB tests, the 960 EVO can't quite keep pace with Samsung's MLC-based 950 Pro and 960 Pro SSDs, but it is slightly faster than the OCZ RD400. On this test the 960 EVO suffers relatively more from a full drive, where it falls behind the RD400.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

Average service times are slightly slower for the 960 EVO than Samsung's other PCIe SSDs, and the competing PCIe SSDs are a step further behind.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The 960 EVO is tied for first place with minimal high-latency outliers, but all of the PCIe SSDs are much better than the SATA drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

Once again the 960 EVO's power efficiency is about the same as Samsung's other drives, showing that its higher instantaneous power draw than SATA drives is compensated by it completing the test quicker.



Iometer - 4KB Random Read

It is unsurprising to see that the TLC-based 960 EVO has slower random read speeds than the MLC-based 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but the 960 EVO still manages to be faster than all the non-Samsung drives.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read (Power)

The 960 EVO's power consumption is essentially the same as Samsung's other drives, which puts it at an efficiency disadvantage to their MLC PCIe SSDs but more efficient than all the lower-performing drives.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

As with Samsung's other SSDs, random read speed scales with queue depth until hitting a limit at QD16.

Random Write Performance

The random write test writes 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write

The Samsung 960 EVO's random write speed is essentially tied with the 960 Pro and the OCZ RD400A, while the Intel 750 holds on to a comfortable lead.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write (Power)

The 960 EVO is not as power efficient as the 960 Pro, but it is still far better than everything else.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The scaling behavior of the 960 EVO is essentially the same as the 960 Pro: full performance is reached at QD4, and there's no indication of any severe thermal throttling.



Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read

The 960 EVO provides slightly higher sustained sequential read speeds than the 960 Pro in a test where both are largely thermally limited. No other SSD comes close to offering this level of performance at low queue depths.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read (Power)

With power consumption slightly lower than the 960 Pro, the 960 EVO actually manages to set an efficiency record.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The competing drives that have large heatsinks can provide better performance at higher queue depths, but within the constraints of the M.2 form factor Samsung has a huge advantage.

Sequential Write Performance

The sequential write test writes 128kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, and the drive is filled before the test begins. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write

The sustained sequential write speed of the 960 EVO is far slower than the 960 Pro and several of the better-cooled competitors, but the 960 EVO is actually slightly faster than last year's 950 Pro.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write (Power)

The 960 EVO doesn't break any records for power efficiency, but only because the 960 Pro exists. The MLC-based competition is less efficient than the TLC-based 960 EVO.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

For almost all of the sequential write speed test, the 960 EVO is thermally limited, but it is clearly able to do much more within that limit than the 950 Pro or OCZ RD400 could.



Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write

The 960 EVO is essentially tied for second place with the OCZ RD400 and significantly behind the 960 Pro in overall performance on mixed random I/O.

Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write (Power)

The 960 EVO's power efficiency on this test is not great, but it is a big improvement over last year's 950 Pro.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The 960 EVO's high performance score comes primarily from its great performance in the pure write final phase of the test. Throughout the rest of the test, the 960 EVO is not as fast as the 950 Pro.

Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance

The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write

The 960 EVO's mixed sequential I/O performance is the second-fastest among M.2 SSDs and third place overall. Performance is modestly improved over the 950 Pro.

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write (Power)

The 960 EVO's power efficiency is better than most PCIe SSDs, but still well behind the 960 Pro.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The 960 EVO's performance in the pure read first phase of the test is great, but its performance with an 80/20 mix is much worse than the 950 Pro or OCZ RD400. The worst-case performance is also not as good as the RD400 or 960 Pro.


Incompressible Sequential Read Performance

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance

Both AS-SSD sequential tests show that the 960 EVO's peak performance really is second only to the 960 Pro, even if in longer tests some other models are able to outperform the 960 EVO.

Idle Power Consumption

Since the ATSB tests based on real-world usage cut idle times short to 25ms, their power consumption scores paint an inaccurate picture of the relative suitability of drives for mobile use. During real-world client use, a solid state drive will spend far more time idle than actively processing commands. Our testbed doesn't support the deepest DevSlp power saving mode that SATA drives can implement, but we can measure the power usage in the intermediate slumber state where both the host and device ends of the SATA link enter a low-power state and the drive is free to engage its internal power savings measures.

We also report the drive's idle power consumption while the SATA link is active and not in any power saving state. Drives are required to be able to wake from the slumber state in under 10 milliseconds, but that still leaves plenty of room for them to add latency to a burst of I/O. Because of this, many desktops default to either not using SATA Aggressive Link Power Management (ALPM) at all or to only enable it partially without making use of the device-initiated power management (DIPM) capability. Additionally, SATA Hot-Swap is incompatible with the use of DIPM, so our SSD testbed usually has DIPM turned off during performance testing.

Idle Power Consumption
Active Idle Power Consumption (No LPM)


출처 - http://www.anandtech.com






  1. HP EX920 M.2 SSD 리뷰 : Finding the Mainstream Sweet Spot

    HP 브랜드 EX920 M.2 SSD 스펙 컨트롤러 : 실리콘 모션 SM2262 낸드플래시 : 인텔 마이크론 64층 3D TLC 시퀀셜 읽기 : 3200MB/s - 3200MB/s - 3200MB/s 시퀀셜 쓰기 : 1200MB/s - 1600MB/s - 1800MB/s 랜덤 읽기 : 180k IOPS - 340k IOPS...
    Date2018.07.21 CategorySTR Reply0 Views2098
    Read More
  2. Xiaomi Mi MIX 2S 스마트폰 리뷰 : 판타스틱 오버롤 밸류

     Xiaomi Mi MIX 2SSoCQualcomm Snapdragon 845 4x Kryo 385 Gold @ up to 2.80 GHz 4x Kryo 385 Silver @ up to 1.77 GHz Adreno 630 @ up to 710 MHzDisplay5.99-inch 2160x1080 (18:9) IPS LCDDimensions150.9 x 74.9 x 8.1 mm 191 gramsRAM6GB / 8GB LP...
    Date2018.07.21 CategoryETC Reply0 Views8411
    Read More
  3. [8086 40주년 기념판] The Intel Core i7-8086K Review

    Intel Core i7 Coffee LakeAnandTechCoresTDPFreqL3vProDRAM DDR4iGPUiGPU TurboCore i7-8086K$4256 / 1295 W4.0 / 5.012 MBNo266624 EUs1200Core i7-8700K$3596 / 1295 W3.7 / 4.712 MBNo266624 EUs1200Core i7-8700$3036 / 1265 W3.2 / 4.612 ...
    Date2018.06.11 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views56451
    Read More
  4. AMD 라이젠 7 2700X 공식 리뷰 : 라이젠을 재정의

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X AMD Ryzen 7 1800X AMD Ryzen 7 2700 AMD Ryzen 5 1600X AMD Ryzen 5 2600X AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K Intel Core i7-8700 Intel Core i5-8600K Intel Core i5-8400 MSRP $329 $349 $299 $219 $229 $199 $359 $303 $257 $182 C...
    Date2018.04.21 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views11245
    Read More
  5. 2세대 라이젠, 피나클릿지 2700X, 2700, 2600X, 2600 벤치마크

    AMD Ryzen 2000-Series CPUss Ryzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600CPU Cores/Threads8 / 168 / 166 / 126 / 12Base CPU Frequency3.7 GHz3.2 GHz3.6 GHz3.4 GHzTurbo CPU Frequency4.3 GHz4.1 GHz4.2 GHz3.9 GHzTDP @ Base Frequency105 W65 W...
    Date2018.04.21 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views4357
    Read More
  6. 웨스턴디지털 WD Black 3D NAND SSD Review

    Western Digital WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO SpecificationsCapacity250 GB500 GB1 TBWD Black ModelWDS250G2X0CWDS500G2X0CWDS100T2X0CSanDisk Extreme PRO Model-SDSSDXPM2-500GSDSSDXPM2-1T00Form FactorM.2 2280 Single-SidedInterfaceNVMe PCI...
    Date2018.04.15 CategorySTR Reply0 Views12827
    Read More
  7. 인텔 하데스캐년 카비레이크-G Core i7-8809G 벤치마크

    인텔 하데스캐년 탑재 누크 The Intel NUC8i7HVK 벤치마크 Intel NUC8i7HVK (Hades Canyon) SpecificationsProcessorIntel Core i7-8809G Kaby Lake, 4C/8T, 3.1GHz (up to 4.2GHz), 14nm+, 8MB L2, 100W Package TDPMemoryKingston HyperX Im...
    Date2018.04.01 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views7917
    Read More
  8. AMD 피나클릿지) Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600 벤치마크

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600XCPU SpecificationsRyzen 2700X Pinnacle RidgeRyzen2 2600 Pinnacle Ridge  Ryzen 1700X Summit Ridge i7-6700K SkyLake Original comments by SiSoftwareMemory Speed (MHz) Max 2400 / 29332400 / 29332400 / 2666253...
    Date2018.03.17 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views3682
    Read More
  9. 삼성 갤럭시S9 스냅드래곤 845 / 엑시노스 9810 성능 확인

    Samsung Exynos SoCs SpecificationsSoCExynos 9810Exynos 8895CPU4x Exynos M3 One Core : 2.704 GHz Two Core: 2.314 GHz Four Core: 1.794 GHz 4x 512KB L2 4096KB L3 DSU4x Exynos M2 @ 2.314 GHz 2048KB L2 4x Cortex A55 @ 1.95 GHz No L2 512KB...
    Date2018.02.26 CategoryETC Reply4 Views3428
    Read More
  10. AMD 레이븐릿지, 라이젠5 2400G/라이젠3 2200G 벤치마크

    AMD가 새롭게 발표한 라이젠 CPU + 베가 GPU로 구성된 레이븐릿지 벤치마크 입니다. 라이젠5 2400G SocketAM4 CPU Cores / Threads4 / 8 CPU Base/Boost Frequency (GHz) 3.6 / 3.9 iGPU CUs11 (704 ALUs) 170달러 라이젠3 2200G SocketAM4 CPU ...
    Date2018.02.17 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views3239
    Read More
  11. 인텔 SSD 760p 512GB 리뷰 : Mainstream NVMe Done Right

      Intel SSD 760p SpecificationsCapacity128 GB256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TBForm FactorM.2 2280 single-sidedM.2 2280 double-sidedControllerIntel-customized Silicon Motion SM2262NANDIntel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLCSequential Read1640 MB/s3210 MB/s3230...
    Date2018.02.03 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1920
    Read More
  12. EVGA 지포스GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 리뷰 : iCX Brings the Lights and Sensors

    GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Specification Comparison EVGA GTX 1070 Ti FTW2NVIDIA GTX 1070 Ti Founders EditionEVGA GTX 1070 Ti SC Black Ed.CUDA Cores243224322432Texture Units152152152ROPs646464Core Clock1607+MHz1607MHz1607+MHzBoost Clock1683+MH...
    Date2018.02.03 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views1567
    Read More
  13. 삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 : Replacing A Legend

    삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 - https://www.anandtech.com Samsung 860 PRO SpecificationsCapacity256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TB4 TBForm Factor2.5" SATA 6 GbpsControllerSamsung MJXNANDSamsung 64-layer 3D MLC V-NANDLPDDR4 DRAM512 MB1 GB2...
    Date2018.02.03 CategorySTR Reply0 Views7322
    Read More
  14. 세계 1위 게임, 배틀그라운드를 통한 인텔 vs AMD CPU 성능 비교

    전 세계적으로 화제가 되고 있는 배틀 그라운드 게임을 통한 인텔 CPU와 AMD CPU의 성능 비교 벤치마크 입니다. 유튜브 채널 : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8iQa1hv7oV_Z8D35vVuSg 배틀 그라운드 게임에서 인텔과 AMD CPU...
    Date2017.12.30 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views58048
    Read More
  15. 인텔 옵테인 SSD 900p 480GB 리뷰 : Diving Deeper Into 3D XPoint

    인텔 옵테인 SSD 900p 480GB 스펙 컨트롤러 : 인텔 SLL3D 메모리 : 인텔 128Gb 3D XPoint 테크놀로지 인터페이스 : PCIe 3.0 x4 폼팩터 : HHHL Add-in card or 2.5" 15mm U.2 / HHHL Add-in card / HHHL Add-in car...
    Date2017.12.25 CategorySTR Reply0 Views75492
    Read More
  16. 삼성 PM981 SSD 리뷰 : Next Generation Controller And 3D NAND

    Samsung OEM Client PCIe SSD History ControllerNAND FlashNotesConsumer VariantXP941S4LN053X012D MLCPCIe 2.0, AHCI-SM951UBX2D MLCAHCI or NVMe950 PROPM9512D TLC -SM961Polaris2D & 3D MLC 960 PROPM9613D TLC 960 EVOPM971Photon3D TLCB...
    Date2017.12.25 CategorySTR Reply0 Views20286
    Read More
  17. 엔비디아 타이탄 V 리뷰 - Titanomachy: War of the Titans

    엔비디아의 인공지능 GPU - 타이탄 V 리뷰 NVIDIA GPU DirectX Graphics Feature Info Volta (Titan V)Pascal (Titan Xp)Direct3D Feature Level12_112_1Fast FP16 ShadersNoNoTiled ResourcesTier 3Tier 3Resource Bin...
    Date2017.12.23 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views2471
    Read More
  18. 애플 아이폰X vs 안드로이드 스마트폰 성능 대결.2

    아이폰X의 폰아레나(www.phonearena.com) 리뷰 입니다. 아이폰X 스펙 아이폰X 제스처 테스트 아이폰X 동영상 테스트 아이폰X, 아이폰8 CPU / GPU 성능 ...
    Date2017.11.18 CategoryETC Reply3 Views6175
    Read More
  19. 아이폰X vs 갤럭시 노트8 vs 픽셀2 성능 대결.1

    애플 아이폰X vs 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 vs 구글 픽셀2 스마트폰의 간단한 성능 비교 자료입니다. 2분짜리 4K 비디오 영상을 인코딩하며 CPU 성능 측정 결과 아이폰X는 42초에 완료, 픽셀2는 2분 55초, 삼성 갤럭시 노트8은 3분 3초가 소요...
    Date2017.11.11 CategoryETC Reply4 Views3055
    Read More
  20. 엔비디아 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 심층 리뷰 : 수상한 시대에__

    Brad Chacos | PCWorld 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 리뷰는 AMD의 라데온 베가 56이 없었더라면 하지 않았을 리뷰이다. 엔비디아의 GTX 10 시리즈는 2016년 5월, 그러니까 지금으로부터 1년 반쯤 전에 지포스 GTX 1070과 GTX 1080의 출시와 함께 첫선을 보였다. G...
    Date2017.11.06 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views3841
    Read More
  21. 커피레이크 i5 8600k, 8400, i3 8350K, 8100 vs AMD 라이젠 승부

    화제의 인텔 커피레이크 시리즈 벤치마크 입니다. 하단 게시물은 8700K 위주이기 때문에 i5 8600K, i5 8400, i3 8350K, i3 8100 성능이 포함된 자료를 링크해 드립니다. 벤치마크 출처 - https://www.computerbase.de 커피레이크와 AMD 라이젠 외형 ...
    Date2017.10.22 CategoryCPU Reply2 Views5045
    Read More
  22. 인텔 커피레이크 8700K 리뷰, 새로운 시대의 왕권 강화

    인텔이 마침내 프로세서 시장의 새로운 시대를 알리는 커피레이크 시리즈를 발표했다. 커피레이크는 물리 6코어를 i5 라인으로 투입함으로써 긴 시간동안 i5의 메인스트림이였던 4코어를 넘어선 본격적인 6코어 시대로 진입하는 중요한 이정표가 ...
    Date2017.10.06 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views9399
    Read More
  23. 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰, 안드로이드 최상급 스마트폰

    플레이웨어즈(http://playwares.com) 사이트에 V30 리뷰에 이어 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰가 업데이트가 되어 링크해 드립니다. 자세한 리뷰 내용은 아래 링크에서 확인하시기 바랍니다. 출처 - http://playwares.com/mobilereview/55266554 ---------...
    Date2017.09.30 CategoryETC Reply3 Views1549
    Read More
  24. 인텔 18코어 Core i9-7980X, 16코어 Core i9-7960X 성능 확인

    Gordon Mah Ung | PCWorld 인텔이 다시 시장을 강타했다. 인텔은 몇 개월 동안 자사 영역을 잠식한 AMD 라이젠 쓰레드리퍼(Threadripper)에 대항할 강력한 18코어 코어 i9-7980X와 16코어 코어 i8-7960X를 출시했다. 불의의 일격을 당한 ‘골리앗’ 인텔이 ...
    Date2017.09.29 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views2447
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26 Next
/ 26