For the first time, during the CES 2006 NVIDIA has unveiled the GeForce 7 Go range before the desktop versions except for the GeForce 7800 of course. The reason is probably because NVIDIA already has a strong position on the desktop market and that the introduction of new GPUs wouldn't be of much interest. The mobile market is however strongly dominated by ATI. The GeForce Go 7800 GTX, Go 7800, Go 7600, Go 7400 and Go 7300 are released. They all support the same technologies, Shader 3.0, FP16 filtering and blending required for some of the HDR modes. NVIDIA hasn't been very specific about the characteristics, so we had to deduct the specifications from several raw figures. The GeForce Go 7800 GTX would be very much similar to the desktop GeForce 7800 GTX except for slightly lower frequencies: 400 MHz core instead of 430/470 (PS/VS) and 550 MHz memory instead of 600 MHz. The GeForce Go 7800 would have a lower amount of calculation units, 16 pixel shader pipelines and 6 vertex shader but would have the same frequencies than the high end model. The GeForce Go is the one that raises the most doubts. It is a new chip, probably a 90 nm G73. We were expecting higher frequencies and a greater number of pixel shading pipelines, but NVIDIA's figures contradict our forecast. As they are possibly inaccurate, the information published in this news, 8 pixel shader pipelines and 5 vertex shader need to be taken carefully. If it is verified in the end, the GeForce 7600 wouldn't be a great evolution compared to the GeForce 6600. It would only be cheaper to produce and have lower power consumption. We already spoke of the GeForce Go 7300 in 2005, because it has been announced in advance by Asus. The GeForce Go 7400 is similar but has increased core and 64 bits memory frequencies from 350 to 450 MHz. These two GPUs support TurboCache, but using is apparently optional. Some of the manufacturer won't possibly follow these specifications and include for example 32 bits embedded memory + TurboCache. All GPUs support of course PureVideo but NVIDIA hasn't communicated any additional information for the moment. It is probably because they don't provide the same level of performances, a little bit like ATI with the X1800 which is the only one to decode H.264 in 1080. MPEG and WMV HD will however certainly be supported.

	It has been a long time since we haven't published aftersales figures. We obtained this hard drives return rate from a major French online sales shop. Last time, Seagate finished first followed by Western Digital, Maxtor and finally IBM (Hitachi now). Hard drives included here were sold during the first half 2005. They have been in use for 6 months to one year and returned to the shop after sale services. Sometime the merchandise is directly returned to the manufacturer but it only represents a minority of return during the first year of warranty. There is also statistically no reason why a manufacturer should be more concerned than another. Here are the so much awaited results: - Western Digital : 1.02% - Hitachi : 1.16% - Maxtor : 1.44% - Seagate : 1.57% The big surprise is that Seagate moved from the first to the last place. The 5 year warranty isn't a proof of a better reliability at least on short term. Western Digital has beneficiated from these changes whereas Hitachi remained in good position.

	Today, after the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 release at the end of 2005, Intel has officially unveiled the 65nm processor range and has consequently updated its price list. Here are the new Pentium D LGA775 processors prices: - Pentium D 950 (2x2 MB cache, 3.4 GHz) : 637$ - Pentium D 940 (2x2 MB cache, 3.2 GHz) : 423$ - Pentium D 930 (2x2 MB cache, 3.0 GHz) : 316$ - Pentium D 920 (2x2 MB cache, 2.8 GHz) : 241$ The good news is that these processors are clearly less expensive than the previous generation at equivalent frequencies even if they provide slightly higher performances and have lower power consumption. Here is to refresh your memory the current price list: - Pentium D 840 (2x1 MB cache, 3.2 GHz) : 530$ - Pentium D 830 (2x1 MB cache, 3.0 GHz) : 316$ - Pentium D 820 (2x1 MB cache, 2.8 GHz) : 241$ And now the Pentium 4 : - Pentium 4 661 (2 MB cache, 3.6 GHz) : 401$ - Pentium 4 651 (2 MB cache, 3.4 GHz) : 273$ - Pentium 4 641 (2 MB cache, 3.2 GHz) : 218$ - Pentium 4 631 (2 MB cache, 3.0 GHz) : 178$ This time the pricing is equivalent to the Pentium 4 660/650/640/630 at equivalent frequencies. It is interesting to point out the absence of Pentium 4 671 even if this frequency exist in 90 nm version. It is maybe because of low yields at this frequency for 65 nm production. Intel has also unveiled Intel Core Duo and Solo prices, the successors of the Pentium M in dual and monocore version: - Core Duo T2600 (2 MB cache, 2.16 GHz) : 637$ - Core Duo T2500 (2 MB cache, 2.00 GHz) : 423$ - Core Duo T2400 (2 MB cache, 1.83 GHz) : 294$ - Core Duo T2300 (2 MB cache, 1.66 GHz) : 241$ - Core Solo T1300 (2 MB cache, 1.66 GHz) : 209$ At $209, the T1300 is at the same price level as a Pentium M 740 clocked at 1.73 GHz, with on top several optimisations and the FSB667. The T2300, 2400, 2500 and 2600 are respectively at the same price as the Pentium M 750, 760, 770 and 780 clocked at 1.86, 2, 2.13 et 2.26 GHz : the 130 to 200 MHz reduction isn't really a problem as it includes a second core.