or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Hattig

Oh wow, pick an aspect of the phones that differs wildly, and use that to make a massive argument about performance, and then wild claims about Samsung buying the article with so proof or evidence. The logical conclusion, that Toms is just a bit crap at this stuff, is ignored. Back to that aspect you've picked to argue about graphical performance - Native Resolution Gaming - the S6 has a far far higher density screen (2560x1440, versus 1920x1080 or even 1344x750), and...
The production split decision might have been last minute, but designing the A9 for TSMC's 16FF would have been in process for many months, just in case Apple needed/wanted to use TSMC alongside/insteadof Samsung. You can't just take a chip designed for one process and use that design on a different process. If Apple hasn't dual-designed the A9 for both processes, then only one process will be used. As for the paranoid worriers about Samsung - Samsung would not gain a...
Yeah, it's not all the way into the watch's slot. Either not pushed in enough, or it's working its way free.
I wonder if that plug is BS1363 compliant...
Except the article is mostly incorrect. The Samsung SoC's GPU is actually slightly more powerful, it just has more pixels to drive, but games will target a performance target and upscale as needed, so it's a non-issue.
Contrary to the article's headline and content, the Galaxy S6 is more powerful in offscreen rendering at the same resolution (1478 vs 1189 and 2636 vs 2391). This article concentrates on the on-screen performance, but that isn't necessarily going to be relevant in the real world. The issue is that the S6 has a higher resolution display, so it has more pixels to render if the game renders at the full native resolution. However it is likely that games will render at a...
 USB 3 contains separate input and output data pairs, if that's what you are talking about. I believe it also dumps the old hub USB hub "broadcast to all devices on the bus" mechanism in favour of active USB switches or similar that route more intelligently.
Note that USB 3.1 comes in two forms. USB 3.1 Rev 1, which is the old 5 mbps USB 3.0 rebranded. USB 3.2 Rev 2, which is the new 10 mbps standard that we think of when we hear "USB 3.1". You can guess which revision is used on the MacBook and the new Chromebook. In addition, I think that two Type C ports would have been a no-brainer, for the flexibility that it gives.
 You know that he is talking about percentage rate, not absolute figures. The absolute figures are meaningless here - Apple is a massive company, they are expected to pay more taxes as a result. It's the percentage rate that is at issue. 6.5% is ludicrously low, compared to the corporation tax rate that Apple would pay on profits made in the US. My offer would have been "Corporation Tax rate minus Tax Rate already paid on that money". I.e., if Apple earned £1B profit in...
6.5% is a lot lot lower that 35%! Maybe 35% is stupidly high, but why 6.5%? That's not even trying to haggle. Why not start off at 20%? 15%? When you reduce certain companies' taxation requirements, you give them an unfair advantage over their competition, whilst depriving the country of needed taxation income. Of course every major multinational is using tax havens and not repatriating money, so something needs to be done about it - killing the tax havens seems to be a...
New Posts  All Forums: