Operating System - Page 6 of 40

Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G review: Chic and unique

(Pocket-lint) – The Xiaomi Mi 11 range spans a significant spectrum from top-tier flagship, in the Mi 11 Ultra, to the standard Mi 11, down to the more entry level – which is where this, the Mi 11 Lite 5G, finds itself.

Despite plonking ‘Lite’ into its name, however, the Mi 11 Lite 5G really is not a low-power phone by any means. It’s just not as crazy-powerful as the upper echelons in the range. The second clue to that regard is the ‘5G’ aspect of the name – because, yes, there’s also speedy connectivity.

So if you’re not looking to spend a fortune on a phone, want 5G connectivity, and having a slimmer and easier-to-manage handset is high up your list of appeals, the Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G ticks a lot of boxes. But then so do a bunch of competitors. So can this entry-level 5Ger deliver?

Design & Display

Display: 6.55-inch AMOLED panel, 90Hz refresh, 1080 x 2400 resolution
Finish options: Truffle Black, Mint Green, Citrus Yellow
Dimensions: 160.5 x 75.7 x 6.8mm / Weight: 157g
Side-mounted fingerprint scanner
No 3.5mm jack

Upon pulling the Mi 11 Lite 5G from its box we let out a rare gasp. Because, shown here in its apparent ‘Mint Green’ finish – it looks more ‘Bubblegum’ to us, which is the name for the non-5G variant – this handset looks really fresh and standout. Very dapper indeed.

That’s partly because Xiaomi has redesigned the range, so the Mi 11 Lite looks way more evolved than the previous 10T Lite version. Look at those side-by-side and the older model looks rather dated – it’s quite a stark difference. Yet there’s mere months between them in terms of release cycle.

That said, the Mi 11 Lite 5G is only a little like other Mi 11 handsets in terms of design. The cameras are far different to the Ultra’s “megabump”, arranged in a really neat format that, although similar to the Mi 11, doesn’t protrude to the same degree from the rear.

The rear finish is good at resisting fingerprints too, which is a breath of fresh air (minty fresh, eh!), while the branding is subtle and nicely integrated.

Motorola’s new Moto G9 Plus is a stunner of a phone – find out why, right here

By Pocket-lint Promotion
·
27 April 2021

But above all else, it’s the Mi 11 Lite 5G’s thickness that’s its biggest take-away point. By which we mean thinness: because this handset is far slimmer than, well, pretty much anything we’ve used for months and months. We can’t think of a slimmer 5G smartphone. That, for us, has bags of appeal – it’s been really refreshing not carting a brick around in the pocket for the couple of weeks we’ve been using this phone.

Such a svelte design means the 3.5mm headphone jack has been binned, though, so it’s wireless connectivity only in that regard. But we can take that – it makes the design look more enclosed and complete anyway. There’s also no under-display fingerprint scanner here, with a side-mounted one in the power button a perfectly acceptable alternative – that operates speedily and we’ve got very much used to using it.

The display, at 6.55-inches, is still large despite the phone’s overall trim frame. It’s flat, with the phone body curving gently at the edges to make it really comfortable to hold. And there’s no teardrop notch to cry about this time around either – it’s a single punch-hole one to the upper corner, which is fairly inconspicuous.

That screen, an AMOLED panel, delivers on colour, brightness and verve, while a 90Hz refresh rate can deliver a little added smoothness to proceedings. There’s not a 120Hz option here – kind-of odd, as the 10T Lite did have that – but, really, most eyes aren’t going to tell the difference. We’d take the battery life gains every time instead, thanks.

Performance & Battery

Processor: Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G, 8GB RAM
Software: MIUI 12 over Google Android 11 OS
Battery: 4250mAh, 33W fast-charging
Storage: 128GB/256GB, microSD

Speaking of battery, that’s the first thing we assumed would be poor in the Mi 11 Lite 5G – because of how slim it is. But how wrong we were. For starters the 4,250mAh capacity cell is pretty capacious – and in our hands was easily able to deliver 16 hours a day with around 25 per cent battery or more remaining.

That’s been irrelevant of what we’ve asked the phone to do in a given day. Strava tracking for an hour and an hour of gaming in the evening, in addition to hours of screen time, calls and so forth. It’s no problem for this device. Note, however, that we’ve been unable to locate a 5G signal area during testing – lockdown and all that – so whether that would adversely affect battery life is for debate. What we do see in the settings, however, is a 5G option to toggle the connectivity off when it’s not needed, to further extend battery life.

However, while battery life ticks along just fine, part of the reason is down to the rather hardcore software approach. Xiaomi’s MIUI 12 – skinned over the top of Google’s Android 11 operating system – by default has a lot of “off” switches selected. Seriously, MIUI is hell-bent on ensuring battery lasts and lasts – sometimes to the detriment of the experience and use of apps.

As such, you’ll need to investigate individual apps within the settings and permit them to self wake as and when they need, removing any automated battery restrictions from the important ones that you have and would, say, expect push notifications from. In the past we’ve had MIUI cause delays with notifications in other Xiaomi phones. In the Mi 11 Lite 5G, however, that’s been no problem whatsoever – perhaps because we’re so used to it and in setting the software in how we want to conduct our business; or, perhaps, because Xiaomi has sorted that issue out in an incremental update!

Otherwise the software is pretty robust. There are some oddities, such as an additional Xiaomi store as an addition to Google Play, but the two hardly interfere too much. And having copied over a bumper crop of apps, it’s clear to see that there are Xiaomi pre-install favourites and various not-needed staples – browsers, calendars, that kind of stuff – that just clogs up the home screen to start with, but is easily replaced with Chrome and your other favourites.

Regarding the phone’s innards, there’s a Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G platform handling proceedings, putting the Mi 11 Lite 5G one step down from the top-tier 800 series platform. Does that really matter? We’ve not found it to at all. From general user interface use, to app opening time, fluidity has been high throughout.

Besides, a 700 series chipset is more than good enough to run your more demanding favourites too. We’ve been plugging away at South Park: Phone Destroyer and PUBG: Mobile without hindrance, showing just how good the balance of power and battery life can be in devices such as this.

Cameras

Triple rear cameras:
- Main: 64-megapixel, f/1.8 aperture, 0.7µm pixel size, phase detection autofocus (PDAF)
- Wide-angle (0.5x): 8MP, f/2.2, 1.12µm, 119-degree angle of view
- Macro: 5MP, f/2.4
Single front-facing punch-hole selfie camera: 20MP, f/2.2

Buy a ‘Lite’ phone and you’re never going to expect too much from the cameras, right? However, Xiaomi has done a reasonable job here of balancing things out. For starters all three lenses are actually useful – there’s not a lens here for the sake of number count, like with so much of the competition.

The main 64-megapixel sensor uses four-in-one processing to output 16-megapixel shots as standard, which hold enough colour and detail. Even in low-light conditions we’ve found the quality to hold up fairly well, too, so this sensor delivers the goods.

It’s a shame that there’s no optical stabilisation on the main lens, because holding it steady – especially when shooting Night Mode shots – is tricky and can result in a little softeness in dim conditions if you’re not careful.

Pocket-lint

: Wide-angle – full shotWide-angle – full shot

The wide-angle, however, is a weaker sensor. It’s just 8-megapixels in resolution, can’t deliver the fidelity of the main one by any means, and displays some blur to the edges. That’s pretty common for wide-angle cameras, sure, but there are better iterations around. Still, there’s practical use from a sensor such as this, so it’s a positive to have it rather than not.

Last up out of the trio is a macro sensor. Now, typically, these are throwaway afterthoughts. But, actually, the one on this Mi handset is acceptable – probably because it’s a 5-megapixel sensor, not the 2-megapixel type that too many other budget handsets opt for. That means images are of a usable scale, and you’ll get a little extra something out of super close-up shots from this sensor. We doubt you’ll use it a lot, though, as it’s hardly a practical everydayer, plus its activation is tucked away in settings – but there’s fun to be had from it nonetheless.

What we like about the Mi 11 Lite 5G’s camera setup is that it’s not trying to oversell you a bunch of pointless lenses. It doesn’t protrude five miles from the back of the phone, either, delivering a neat-looking handset that, while hardly reaching for the stars in what it can do, is perfectly capable. And, compared to the likes of the Moto G100, for example, the Xiaomi actually has the upper hand in its image quality delivery.

Verdict

Although the Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G looks and feels different to the rest of the Mi 11 family, there’s something refreshing about its design. It’s really slim, light, and that colour finish looks super. We can’t think of a slimmer, tidier-looking 5G handset – which makes this something of a unique proposition.

Despite being called a ‘Lite’ phone, it shouldn’t be seen entirely in that regard either. With the Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G handling everything, there’s ample power to keep that 90Hz AMOLED screen ticking along, for battery life to last surprisingly long – we didn’t expect it, given the trim design – and software that, if you tend to it with a bit of pruning from the off, has been more robust here than many other Xiaomi handsets we’ve seen in the recent past.

However, forego the 5G need, and there are lots of cheaper competitors that might also appeal, such as the Redmi Note 10 Pro. Similar grade handsets, such as the Moto G100, may also appeal – but, as far as we understand it, the Xiaomi undercuts that device’s price point, asserting its position as one of the top dogs in the affordable 5G market.

Also consider

Moto G100

A near-ish comparison in that there’s 5G and gaming-capable power for less than a flagship price. We prefer the Moto’s software, but the Xiaomi’s design has the upper hand in our view.

Read our review

squirrel_widget_4340899

Writing by Mike Lowe.

Microsoft Admits to Game Performance Issues

(Image credit: Microsoft)

Operating system updates are meant to improve features and performance, but sometimes they don’t. And that’s exactly what happened to Microsoft’s latest update for Windows 10, which degraded performance in games for many users, and even made Nvidia issue a comment encouraging GeForce users to roll back.

The updates in question are the KB5001330 and KB5000842, according to WindowsCentral. Microsoft apparently has acknowledged the problem and admitted that the update can indeed cause performance degradation.

“A small subset of users have reported lower than expected performance in games after installing this update,” a Microsoft statement reads. “Most users affected by this issue are running games full screen or borderless windowed modes and using two or more monitors.”

Thankfully, Microsoft’s Windows has a fairly new feature called Known Issue Rollback (KIR) that lets you remove or disable specific parts of a problematic update, rather than uninstalling the whole update, deleting all of its features, both good and bad.

A more substantive solution will no doubt arrive at some point. But for the time being, gamers frustrated with a sudden drop in their frame rates should investigate KIR for a short-term solution while we await a patch that delivers both up-to-date Windows code and expected gaming performance.

How to Use a Minidump File to Fix Your Windows BSOD

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

It finally happened. Out of the blue, you’re enjoying a game, watching a movie, or just reading on the internet, when your operating system decides it doesn’t want to cooperate and suddenly you’re facing down a BSOD or Blue Screen of Death. A BSOD is something that no Windows user wants to see, because it means that your system has crashed, costing you time and perhaps even resulting in data loss.

Perhaps the worst thing about getting a Blue Screen of Death is that it could be the result of any number of issues, from a faulty piece of hardware to a driver error to having a page fault in a non-paged area (a result of a file not being found in memory). However, all isn’t lost and we’re going to show you how to enable and use a minidump log file to diagnose the problem.

Why You Need a Minidump File to Diagnose Your BSOD

In earlier versions of Windows, the BSOD showed you some error codes that were at least a little bit helpful. However, in Windows 10, the screen gives you a stop code you can write down and research and a QR code you can use with your phone. However, this only sends you to the Microsoft website and provides a description of certain error codes.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

What we find useful is configuring Windows to save a file that contains lots of information regarding the BSOD and how we can go about fixing the error. This is called a minidump file.

How to Configure Windows to Save a Minidump File.

By default, the option to create a minidump file is not enabled so you’ll need to turn it on. Do this now, even if you don’t have a BSOD problem, because otherwise you won’t have a log when the crash happens.

1. Navigate to the System Properties Control Panel menu. You can get there by typing “sysdm.cpl” into the Windows search box. Or by going to Settings->System->About and clicking Advanced system settings.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

2. Select the Advanced tab.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

3. Enable the following options:

● Write an event to the system log

● Automatically restart

● Writing debugging information -> Small memory dump (256kb).

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

With this enabled, whenever Windows crashes, the minidump file will be created under “%SystemRoot%Minidump”. You can also change this location if you choose to. However, if you do, keep in mind that most programs to troubleshoot the minidump logs are set to look for this location by default. So it’s best to leave it as it is. This also translates to C:WindowsMinidump.

How to Read the Minidump, See What Caused Your BSOD

Now that the minidump is configured, you’ll need to download an application that can read the file and provide useful information. A tool called BlueScreenView comes recommended for doing just this.

You can download BlueScreenView by going to the official website and selecting either the 32-bit or 64-bit version of the application.

After downloading the tool, you’ll need to extract it to a location, so it can be run.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Once the tool is extracted to a directory, double click the “BlueScreenView” icon to get started. BlueScreenView will then look at the default minidump location and will look through the current logs that have been created. If you’ve experienced a number of issues or haven’t removed older minidump files, you’ll need to be mindful of the dates associated with the logs.

Using BlueScreenView to Understand Minidump Files

When you first use BlueScreenView, it will provide you with several pieces of information and at first, it may seem confusing. However, the format is straightforward and it does highlight the important information to get you started.

The files or applications that caused the crash will be highlighted in red, giving you a good idea of where to start correcting the issue.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

In this screenshot, we can see that on this specific minidump, there was an issue detected that affected three files; dxgmms2.sys, ntoskrnl.exe and watchdog.sys.

Further on the upper panel, we can see in the right column that there’s a section that tells us what caused the crash. In this image, we can see that the watchdog.sys caused the problem. This is a good starting point as you can now check Google or Bing, to see how this could become a problem and possible solutions.

We know that watchdog.sys is the potential cause, but what about dxgmms2.sys and ntoskrnel.exe? As those were the affected files, we need to find out what those are as well. So those will also need to be looked into. Doing a quick check on Google, we can see that dxgmms2.sys is related to the Windows DirectX drivers, while ntoskrnl.exe is the operating system kernel executable – responsible for keeping the operating system running.

Using this view of the Windows minidump file, we can deduce that the BSOD was likely caused by a graphics driver issue, which can typically be corrected by installing a newer version of the driver or reinstalling the current driver.

What If The Minidump File Shows A Hardware Error?

While driver issues are usually easily fixed, a BSOD that is a result of failed hardware is a different story. Such an example is the FAULTY_HARDWARE_CORRUPTED_PAGE error. Here, you would still use an application such as BlueSceenWindow to find the cause of the error. However, when a hardware error occurs, there’s not a magical fix that will correct this. For this specific error, we’re going to say that the result of this error was due to an installed memory module.

To figure out if this is the actual cause, we’d have to test the memory. There are several ways to do this; using a hardware memory checker or an application. Seeing how most people don’t have access to a physical memory checker, we’ll opt for the application route. Thankfully, Microsoft has included a memory diagnostics tool that has been included dating back to Windows 7. To use this, open up a run prompt and type “mdsched”.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

You’ll have two options to choose from; Restart Now or Check for problems the next time you start my computer. If you choose the first option, be sure to save your work as Windows will close out.

Once your computer restarts, the memory checker will load and start checking your memory. Depending on how much memory you have installed, the process can take a while. While the test is running, you’ll see a progress bar and an overall status. Any errors that may be encountered will be displayed under the status section.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Once the test is completed, the memory test will boot into Windows. If there are no errors, you can conclude that your memory is not at fault.

Lenovo Flex 3 Chromebook review: good price, bad screen

If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

Lenovo’s Ideapad Flex 3 Chromebook is one of the tiniest Chromebooks I’ve ever used. It’s also one of the cheapest, retailing for just $349.99.

Any laptop that costs that little is going to have some serious drawbacks — and the Flex 3 certainly does. On the other hand, if you’re the sort of shopper who’s willing to set those aside, this little IdeaPad also has a number of pleasant surprises up its sleeve. There are even a few areas (in particular, the battery life) where it gives significantly more expensive devices a run for their money.

I’ll start with the pleasant surprises. The Flex 3 offers a more modern port selection than I’d expect at its price point — there are two USB 3.1 Type-C Gen 1 ports and two USB 3.1 Type-A Gen 1 ports (one on each side, which is really handy for charging and connecting accessories), as well as a microSD reader, an audio combo jack, and a lock slot. There’s a 720p webcam that works decently well if you’re not in low light. And the touchpad is surprisingly sturdy — I often find that touchpads in this price range feel plasticky. The Flex even comes with a Google Security H1 chip, which encrypts sensitive on-device data.

There’s a power button on the side, as well as a volume rocker.

There are two features that really impressed me (in addition to the battery life, which I’ll discuss later on). First, I can’t stop talking about the keyboard. It’s great, with tons of travel and a satisfying click. The keys have a slightly rough texture that really grew on me. I got one of the highest scores I’ve ever gotten on my usual typing test, with almost no errors. The only note is that it lacks backlighting, a feature you’ll find on more expensive devices like Acer’s Chromebook Spin 713 (our current top Chromebook pick) and Lenovo’s Flex 5 Chromebook.

God, I love a good keyboard.

Second, audio. The balance and volume that these 2W stereo speakers deliver are on par with those of any number of more expensive Chromebooks. They easily beat the Spin 713, which sounds tinny and thin. There are caveats, of course: There’s very little bass, percussion is weak, I heard a bit of distortion at max volume, and you’ll want an external speaker for any crowded setting. But the Flex is great for video conferences and regular music-listening, and certainly beats what I’ve heard from all kinds of Windows laptops that are over $1,000.

Now, for the major drawbacks. First, this thing is a clunker. It’s not too heavy, at 2.65 pounds, but it’s 0.7 inches thick, and it’s not too far from the size of many modern 13-inch laptops despite having just an 11-inch screen. My main turnoff, though, is the bezels. Good lord, the bezels are enormous. When I’m using the Flex 3, I feel like I’m looking at a small window of screen floating in an abyss of black. It looks like a device you’d have bought in 2014.

I wish Lenovo had sprung for a better screen.

I do like some things about the chassis, though. It doesn’t feel at all flimsy, with an aluminum cover and a non-plasticky finish. The display and keyboard are free of flex (despite the laptop’s name). And the 360 hinge is sturdy, with very little wobble.

Speaking of the display, though: That’s the second major drawback here. It’s cramped — I often use two windows side-by-side and I’ve been squinting at tiny text in order to make that work on the Flex 3. Moreover, it’s dim (maxing out at 250 nits), kicks back a ton of glare even indoors, and is quite low-resolution (1366 x 768). I’m gonna be real: It’s pixel-y to look at. I’ve been using the Flex 3 as my primary driver for a week, and while I will miss the keyboard and audio when I send it back, I can’t wait never to have to look at this terrible screen again.

That’s the lowdown on the chassis — let’s look inside. This Ideapad Flex 3 Chromebook configuration is powered by Intel’s dual-core Celeron N4020. That’s the bottom of the barrel as Intel processors go, and it comes with just 4GB of memory (LPDDR4-2400, soldered) and 64GB of eMMC 5.1 storage.

On a Windows machine, these specs would be a hard pass. But Chrome OS is a lighter load, and I can vouch that the Flex 3’s screen is a bigger limit on multitasking than its horsepower is. I was able to use the laptop for a substantial workload, jumping between dozens of Chrome tabs and some apps, but the experience was cramped enough that I wouldn’t recommend it.

The color is called “almond”.

Scrolling got a bit sluggish when I tried to work on top of a Spotify or YouTube stream, and the transitions between laptop and tablet mode were a bit slower than I would’ve liked. The only task where I ran into real trouble, though, was sorting through a batch of shots in Google Photos (with a couple other apps running on the side). The Flex 3 did get the job done, but it was quite slow. The one Zoom meeting I tried (on top of some other tabs I needed) was also a bad experience — audio randomly cut out a couple times, and video was stuttery throughout.

Overall, this device is best if you’re looking to do basic office or school tasks, and don’t think you’ll need to have more than a few things open at a time. (And in case this doesn’t go without saying, you’ll want to stay far away from this thing if you plan on doing anything fancy with Linux.)

The flipside of the weak processor is that the Flex 3 has excellent battery life. I averaged eight hours and 45 minutes to a charge with brightness at 50 percent — and I was pushing the thing harder than most people probably will be, as noted above. You can expect that this thing will last all day, and certainly longer than many more powerful Chromebooks. The 45W charger is acceptably quick, juicing the device up to 60 percent in 52 minutes.

Six rows of keys.

The Flex 3 runs Chrome OS, which means it can run Android apps natively. Some of these have improved since the last time I used this operating system — Messenger is now functional and no longer a complete disaster that bricks the machine, for example. But most of the services I use daily (Slack, Twitter, Gmail, Reddit, etc.) are just better experiences in a browser, so I didn’t use the dedicated app functionality all that often. There’s also still a double-notification problem — every time I got a Slack message, I got a notification both from the Slack Android app and my browser.

The Flex 3 also supports Chrome OS’s tablet mode, which has gotten quite good. It supports Android-esque gesture controls, which should help flatten the learning curve for new Chromebook users (though they were a bit sluggish on this device).

Deciding whether to buy a $350 Chromebook comes down to understanding what the big drawbacks are. In this case, there are two: The screen is cramped, and the processor is weak. So the question to ask is: Given those caveats, can you get your stuff done?

If you’re just using this device to pay bills, email people, and run some YouTube videos, I would say you can. It’ll be a little cramped, but you can. And if you can stomach that, the Flex 3 does deliver some great benefits in other areas, from the great keyboard and convenient ports to the outstanding battery life and respectable audio. In these categories, it rivals or surpasses our top Chromebook pick (the Spin 713). If you’re okay with its flaws, you’ll find that the Flex 3 offers quite a bit for its budget price.

Photography by Monica Chin / The Verge

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 foldable phone with virtual buttons

The Samsung Z Flip 3 foldable smartphone will be greatly improved. With larger cover display, a 120Hz flexible screen, a triple camera and stereo speakers.

After the introduction of the Galaxy S21 series in mid-January this year, we now have to wait for the successor to the Galaxy Z Flip. This clamshell smartphone was announced simultaneously with the S20 series. The Galaxy Z Flip 3 is expected to be released in the summer of 2021. As time goes by, more and more details are known about the new folding phone from Samsung. In this publication, we take a closer look at the expected specifications and improvements over its predecessor.

To start with the name, it remains unknown for the time being under which name the successor to the Z Flip will be marketed. LetsGoDigital has recently learned from several sources that Samsung does not opt for the model name Galaxy Z Flip 2, but for Galaxy Z Flip 3. This is in line with previous rumors on the internet.

This allows the company to align the names of the Z Fold and Z Flip devices. The Galaxy Z Fold 3 is also expected in the second half of the year – both foldable phones will probably be announced simultaneously. The Z Flip 5G, which was introduced a few months after the 4G model, can then go down in history as the “Z Flip 2”.

Samsung Z Flip 3 foldable smartphone

Based on all the information already available about the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3, in-house graphic designer Giuseppe Spinelli, aka Snoreyn, has created a series of digital product images showing the possible design of Samsung’s new clamshell smartphone.

The most important changes from its predecessor are the larger cover display and the triple camera. The hinge will also be renewed and the bezels will be further reduced. Over time, several media have reported about these improvements, Samsung was also awarded a patent for such a Galaxy Z Flip design with triple camera at the end of 2020.

This patent does not stand alone, however, because recently – on March 11, 2021 – Samsung Electronics was awarded a patent for a “Foldable electronic device and control method therof”. It is a clamshell phone, comparable to the Galaxy Z Flip. This time, however, Samsung has integrated a significantly larger cover display. Giuseppe’s renders are based on this patent.

In addition, Samsung seems to want to pay extra attention to the thickness of the device. Making the device thinner improves portability. However, there is also a downside, because the frame becomes so narrow that operating the physical buttons also becomes more difficult, Samsung describes in the in-depth documentation. The South Korean manufacturer has come up with the following solution.

Samsung seems to want to significantly increase the touch-sensitive area around the buttons, making it easier to use the buttons – regardless of whether you’re using the phone open or closed.

The physical buttons are placed on one frame part. In the folded position, Samsung wants to enlarge the touch area exactly opposite the buttons, so that the user does not have to work very accurately during operation. Even in the unfolded position, this enlarged touch area remains usable – as illustrated in the image above.

The question remains whether this technology will already be applied to the Z Flip 3. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see what Samsung’s spearheads are for future folding models.

In any case, Samsung seems to intend to revise the smartphone frame. Last week, LetsGoDigital discovered that Samsung has registered a trademark for the name ‘Armor Frame‘, which seems to indicate that the Z Flip 3 and / or the Z Fold 3 will feature a renewed and sturdier frame – which may also be thinner and lighter.

This does not seem to be the only point on which Samsung wants to improve sustainability. SamMobile recently announced that Samsung will provide its upcoming foldable smartphones with an IP rating for the first time. In other words, the Z Flip 3 is likely to be dust and water resistant. It is still unknown whether it is an IP68 rating. The folding devices may not be completely waterproof, but only splash-proof. Last year, Samsung was already awarded a patent for a waterproof Galaxy Fold.

Larger cover display, new hinge and smaller bezels

There is still some uncertainty about the size of the cover screen. Many hope for a screen size similar to that of the Motorola Razr – as Samsung has also patented several times. However, according to the latest information, the cover display is becoming significantly smaller than hoped and expected. It would be a 1.83-inch display.

“The Z Flip 2 will have a 6.7-inch main display and a 1.83-inch cover display,” display analyst Ross Young reported on Twitter earlier this month. Shortly before, Chun reported on the same social media platform that the new Z Flip will feature a 1.9″ cover display and a 6.8″ main screen.

Although the cover screen appears to be significantly larger than the current 1.1 ”display, a 1.83” display is still quite limited. For comparison, the Motorola Razr features a 2.7-inch front display. You can undoubtedly use the cover screen to see the time, answer calls and view incoming notifications. For other things you will probably be forced to open the device, after which a 6.7-inch screen unfolds.

The 6.7” format corresponds in size to the flexible screen of the current Z Flip. Nevertheless, Samsung seems to make some changes to the main screen. Some time ago Ice Universe reported via Weibo that the refresh rate will be increased to 120 Hertz. This is also the case with the Galaxy Z Fold 2, which makes it very likely that this information is correct.

Samsung also intends to reduce the bezels. In addition, the new model would be marketed more cheaply. However, no price indication was issued – we will get back to this later.

Rumors have been circulating for some time that Samsung will also renew the hinge. Based on the design of the current Flip, this also seems to be necessary to be able to reduce the bezels, and thus to align the design more with regular smartphone models in 2021. Perhaps the renewed hinge will also make it possible to close the device completely – without a gap, where dust and dirt can accumulate.

Samsung will probably also make the hinge available in different colors. For example, with the Z Fold 2 you can choose from four color variants: silver, gold, blue and red. These special editions are only available via Samsung’s website. For the time being, this personalization option is not available for the Z Flip, but it is in line with expectations that Samsung will also make additional color variants available for the Z Flip 3 exclusively through its website.

Speaking of colors, the Samsung Z Flip 3 is expected to be released in four colors at launch: black, beige, green and violet purple. These are the colors that we have reflected in the product renders. The beige and green variant are completely new, the black and purple colorways are also available for the original Z Flip – presumably Samsung will add a little twist to this and link it to a new name. In addition, the Galaxy Z Fold 3 is expected to appear in the same new colors: beige and green – besides a black variant.

Hardware & Software

Naturally, Samsung will also install a new chipset. The Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 chipset will probably be placed under the hood. Presumably two memory variants will be made available this time: 128GB and 256GB.

Its predecessor was only available with 256GB of memory. By also offering a 128GB variant, Samsung can lower the entry-level price to make the foldable smartphone accessible to a wider audience. Samsung is expected to release both a Galaxy Z Flip 3 5G and 4G model.

Naturally, the new Galaxy Z-series smartphone will run on the Android operating system. Android 11, in combination with the One UI 3.5 interface. This is an updated user interface compared to the One UI 3.1, with which the S21 series debuted.

Renewed camera

Much remains unclear about the camera. Various patents have shown that Samsung is considering implementing a triple camera. Thus, the camera system would also be more in line with that of regular smartphones. The Z Flip has a 12 megapixel wide angle and a 12 megapixel ultra wide angle camera. A telephoto zoom camera may be added.

In addition, an extra camera is available when you use the device in open position. Handy for taking selfies or making a video call. The punch-hole camera will most likely also be retained in the new model. Presumably the same 10 megapixel image sensor is used – which is also used in the S21 / S21 +. As an alternative, Samsung could also opt for a dual punch-hole camera – the manufacturer recently filed a patent for this.

Another point Samsung is likely to improve is audio quality. The Samsung Z Flip 3 will probably be equipped with a stereo speaker, which would be a good step forward. Its predecessor was equipped with a single speaker – which is very minimal for a high-end phone. It seems that this is about to change with the new generation.

Battery and charging options

With regard to the battery, last year Samsung opted for a dual battery with a total capacity of 3,300 mAh. Two recent certifications from Safety Korea and Dekra Certification have shown that the Z Flip 3 also comes with two batteries, with the total battery capacity remaining unchanged. It concerns a 2,300 mAh battery (EB-BF711ABY) and a smaller 903 mAh battery (EB-BF712ABY).

It is expected that the larger battery will be placed in the bottom half of the device, the smaller battery will be integrated in the top part to drive the cover display. Many hoped that Samsung would increase the battery capacity, as the battery performance of the Z Flip was rated as “poor” in many expert reviews. However, increasing the battery capacity would also contribute to making the device thicker, it seems that Samsung is simply not willing to make this concession.

Regarding the charging options, just like its predecessor, the Z Flip 3 is expected to be able to be charged wired and wirelessly. Reverse wireless charging will also be supported. The smartphone can probably be charged faster than its predecessor, with a max. charging power of 25W – instead of 15W. Wireless charging will likely be supported up to 15W.

Price & Availability

Samsung will most likely host a Galaxy Unpacked event in July. During that event the Z Flip 3 5G will be introduced – one year after the introduction of the Z Flip 5G. Pre-order will likely start directly after the event. The clamshell phone will then be released approx. two weeks later, on a Friday.

There are increasing signs that the Z Fold 3 will be announced simultaneously with the Galaxy Z Flip 3. Around the same period, the Galaxy S21 FE is also expected, as the cheapest member of the S21 line-up. Unfortunately a Galaxy Note 21 is no longer expected this year.

With the Galaxy Z Flip, Samsung is targeting a different audience than with the Z Fold. The prices of both folding devices also differ considerably. Samsung is expected to maintain this differentiation. The Z Flip will remain the cheap model, meant for those who want a compact device. While the Z Fold is aimed at people who want to work extra productively, on an extra large screen.

While the Z Flip 3 will feature the same powerful chipset and latest software as the Z Fold 3, Samsung will most likely make concessions in terms of camera, memory and battery.

Last year, the Galaxy Z Flip got a suggested retail price of € 1500. The Z Flip 5G, introduced a few months later, went on sale for the same price. Although it is still unclear what the Z Flip 3 will cost exactly, several sources have indicated that the new model will be marketed more cheaply than its predecessor. This may result in a starting price of approx € 1350 – This would close the gap between regular and foldable smartphones. However, there is one more possibility …

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 Lite

In the meantime, the thought has arisen on the internet that Samsung is working on an extra cheap model. A kind of “Galaxy Z Flip 3 Lite”, which may be marketed as “Galaxy Z Flip 3 FE”.

However, it remains unknown whether this device will be introduced at the same time. Details about this model are still very scarce, which suggests that this model will not be released until a later date. Perhaps the chip shortage, caused by the corona crisis, is the cause of this.

Initially, it was thought that a Galaxy Z Fold 3 Lite is also in development, but this model seems to have been canceled. Instead, Samsung first wants to release a cheap version of the Z Flip. The clamshell is of course about € 500 cheaper than the Z Fold variant. By releasing a Lite model of this device, Samsung can make the foldable smartphone accessible to a wider audience. Moreover, the competition is not standing still either…

Alternative choices for Samsung foldable smartphones

Last year, the Motorola Razr was the main competitor of the Z Flip. However, more and more Chinese manufacturers are now also preparing for the introduction of one or more foldable phones.

Earlier this year, the Huawei Mate X2 was announced for the Chinese market, last month the Xiaomi Mi Mix Fold was also released. Both are competitors to the Z Fold. In all likelihood, Oppo and Vivo will soon be added to the list.

Chances are that it will not stay with one model, Xiaomi seems to want to release three foldable models this year, including a clamshell phone. A clamshell model is also expected from Oppo this year.

All in all, Samsung cannot afford to sit back, the South Korean manufacturer is in the lead and will certainly try to maintain this position in the future. Therefore, we are already looking forward to the Galaxy Unpacked 2021 Summer event!

Here you can take a look at the patent documentation of the Samsung Z Flip including additional images.

Note to editors : The product images in this publication are created by in-house graphic designer Giuseppe Spinelli (aka Snoreyn). The presented concept renders are for illustrative purposes only. The images are copyright protected. Feel free to use the pictures on your own website, please be so respectful to include a source link into your publication.

Raspberry Pi Pico Powered Keypad Has All the Shortcuts You Need

(Image credit: Katie Dumont, Element14)

Keyboard shortcuts should make life easier, not more complicated—that’s why we love Katie Dumont’s Raspberry Pi Pico Macro Keypad project! This custom-made Pico keypad not only stores macros but also helps you keep track of different keyboard shortcut profiles for multiple applications.

The device was designed entirely from scratch by Dumont. It features a matrix of 12 keys spanning three rows down and four columns across. The best Raspberry Pi projects have a professional touch and, in this case, each key is using Cherry MX switches for a professional click. A rotary encoder is used to cycle between the shortcut profiles.

When I mentioned that Dumont designed everything from scratch, I meant it. She developed a case just for the occasion using OpenSCAD and this was fabricated using a 3D printer. The end result is a sleek, custom shell that snugly houses each component. Rubber feet are used to keep the base from sliding around while it’s in use.

Programmed using CircuitPython, a version of MicroPython from Adafruit, Dumont’s project was written using Mu an IDE aimed squarely at beginners that is compatible with Python, MicroPython, CircuitPython on devices such as Adafruit’s boards, Raspberry Pi and micro:bit.

When plugged into a computer it is recognized as a keypad device, no matter what operating system it is used with. A built-in LCD screen is used to see which application profile is currently active and this can be changed to another pre-programmed layout using the rotary encoder.

If you want to recreate this Pico shortcut keypad, check out the project thread at Element14 for more details and resources to get started.

Xiaomi Mi Watch Lite review: Fitness tracking on a budget

(Pocket-lint) – The Xiaomi Mi Watch Lite joins the Mi Watch as a part of a duo that wants to put smarts on your wrist for significantly less money than an Apple Watch or a Samsung smartwatch.

If the Mi Watch is considered affordable, then the Mi Watch Lite is proper cheap, going toe-to-toe with a raft of Amazfit Bip watches available around this price – and other budget options you should probably steer clear of.

For that cut price, the Mi Watch Lite offers a mix of smartwatch and fitness tracking features and battery life that can make it through a week. You’ll inevitably have to live with some shortcomings, but it feels like ones that don’t detract from what is a decent budget smartwatch.

Design & Display

Measures: 41 x 35 x 11.9mm / Weighs: 35g
1.39-inch display, 320 x 320 resolution
Size options: 41mm
5ATM waterproof

Like the first Mi Watch – the one that never made it out of China – the Mi Watch Lite is a square affair, featuring a 41mm case made from plastic.

Pocket-lint

It weighs in at 35g, so it’s by no means a heavy watch, and it’s paired up with a TPU strap that’s removable. It just takes a bit of time to get it off and get something else on there.

There’s your pick of black, ivory or navy blue case colours, or the choice of five ‘fashionable’ Morandi colours including olive, pink and ivory.

On the wrist, the Mi Watch Lite doesn’t look hugely different from other budget square smartwatches out there and the colour options are nice – but it would be stretch to say it gives them a more stylish look. It’s pleasant enough looking, but the larger Xiaomi Mi Watch is visually more appealing.

The Lite offers a single physical button on the side of the case that’ll wake the screen up and launch the app menu screen. That screen is the touchscreen kind of course. It’s a 1.4-inch TFT LCD type, so not the AMOLED kind you get on the more expensive Mi Watch.

It’s a good quality screen for the price and certainly doesn’t have that washed-out look you sometimes find on smartwatches this cheap. The backlight offers 350 nits of brightness, so it’s not one you’re going to struggle to see at night or during the day. It still offers good colours and it’s generally a nice screen to glance down at.

What’s more problematic is the controls: tapping is prioritised over swiping through screens. You can scroll through some screens, but it’s slow moving when you do it. It’s generally less of a problem if you’re checking a notification or looking at one of the widgets, but when the sweat comes during exercise, it’s more problematic and frustrating to handle.

Like the round Mi Watch, Xiaomi has made the Lite suitable for swimming and showering by slapping it with a 5ATM water resistance rating, which means it’s good at depths up to 50 metres.

Software & Performance

Works with Android and iOS
No third-party app support

Xiaomi uses its own in-house operating system for the on-watch software experience and it has Xiaomi Wear (Android) and Xiaomi Wear Lite (Apple) apps for that time spent away from the watch itself.

Pocket-lint

Our screen control frustrations aside, it’s a very easy watch software to get to grips with. Swipe left and right to see widgets showing off data like heart rate and weather forecasts. The main menu screen is a mere button press away.

Like the Mi Watch, that main menu screen doesn’t include any text, so it’s up to you to quickly establish what launches what here. There’s some simple settings you can tinker with on the watch like screen brightness, watch faces, do not disturb mode, idle alerts, and setting up a password for security.

The companion Xiaomi Wear app is broken up into three sections letting you dig into your health and fitness stats, track workouts from and adjust settings. There’s no third-party app support here, so if you’re thinking of connecting it to the likes of Apple Health or Google Fit, you’re out of luck.

Pocket-lint

The app itself – much like Zepp Health’s Amazfit and Mobvoi’s TicWatch – doesn’t feel the most polished or slick, but it does make it easy to adjust watch settings and delve deeper into your data if you want.

Sports & Fitness Tracking

GPS and GLONASS
Built-in heart rate monitor
24/7 fitness tracking and sleep monitoring

Like the Mi Watch, the Lite is one that’s built to track your fitness and health – and has the key sensors on board to deliver that.

Pocket-lint

There’s built-in GPS and GLONASS satellite support to map outdoor activities. There’s accelerometer and gyroscope motion sensors for indoor tracking. And there’s 11 sports modes in total, including running (indoors and outdoor), cycling, trekking, swimming (pool and open water) and freestyle modes for those activities it doesn’t cover.

What you’re missing out from the Mi Watch are the Firstbeat-powered training features, stress tracking, the ability to take blood oxygen measurements, automatic exercise recognitio, and wider satellite support.

As a stripped-back sports and health monitoring watch, the Lite performs pretty well. GPS accuracy during our testing was reliable in comparison to a Garmin running watch. For indoor workouts, heart rate data was usually closely in-line with a chest strap monitor for HIIT and indoor rowing sessions – although we didn’t have to raise the intensity too high outside to see some odd spikes in heart rate.

If you’re less concerned about smashing out burpees and nailing 5K PBs, the Lite’s core fitness tracker features work well without really offering ways to make improvements or motivate you to move more.

Pocket-lint

Step counts during our testing were within acceptable range of the Fitbit Sense, and it’ll capture distance covered and calories burned. It offered similar accuracy to the bigger Mi Watch for sleep monitoring, though doesn’t capture REM sleep stages or offer any kind of insight or advice to improve sleep.

If you choose to continuously monitor your heart rate, then based on our experience, resting and average heart rate data seemed high compared to the data captured on a chest strap and a heart rate monitoring pulse oximeter. While there’s no stress monitoring here, you do still get guided breathing exercises, though there’s nothing groundbreaking on that front in terms of how it’s delivered.

Smartwatch Features

Over 120 watch faces
View notifications
Music controls

For this low price you’re obviously not going to get an Apple Watch equivalent here, so you won’t be able to make payments, put music on it, or even download apps.

Pocket-lint

What you can do is view notifications from a paired Android or iPhone, control music playing on your phone from native and third-party apps, check weather forecasts and set alarms.

Notifications can only be displayed and not acted on and some messages can look a little messy at times in the manner they’re displayed. Music playback controls work well and dedicated screens to show-off weather data work without issue, so there’s definitely some nice elements here.

You do get a nice array of watch faces too, with the ability to store multiple faces on the watch itself and download more from the watch store, which you can find in the companion app. There’s a good mix of analogue and digital faces and additional ones if you want to pack it with data or keep things simple.

Pocket-lint

That’s really your lot though. Aside from some timer and alarm features, Xiaomi keeps it basic, which some will be satisfied with and others possibly not so much.

Battery Life

Up to 9 days in typical use
10 hours GPS battery life

The Mi Watch Lite comes packing a 230mAh capacity battery, which Xiaomi says will get you up to 9 days in typical use. That typical use is based on lab tests where heart rate monitoring was set to be the biggest interval option, 100 notifications were received by the watch, and it tracked one 35-minute outdoor exercise session a week.

Pocket-lint

The likelihood is that most people are probably going to be working out more than once a week or wanting to monitor heart rate with more detail. Our testing time didn’t reflect Xiaomi’s lab testing conditions. We had continuous heart rate monitoring on at 5 minute intervals, had notifications turned on and tracked five outdoor and indoor workouts a week. It ended up lasting about 5 days in our testing time, which is short by 4 days of that claimed 9 days life per charge.

Those GPS battery life numbers seem to add up as well, offering the kind of drop off in 30 minute and 1 hour outdoor runs that suggest it could reach to those 10 hours when you want that hit of mapping data.

Best fitness trackers 2021: Top activity bands to buy today

By Britta O’Boyle
·
2 March 2021

Our guide to the top fitness trackers available, helping you count steps, track calories, monitor your heart rate, sleep patterns and more.

When it comes to charging, there’s a large cradle that clips around the back of the watch and you’ll have no concerns it’s going to budge or fall out when it’s charging. It’s pretty well locked in place.

Verdict

The Xiaomi Watch Lite is a cheap smartwatch that is surprisingly nice to live with once you accept the compromises you have to make with it.

You’re not going to get that same high-quality display or some of the richer health and fitness features and insights you’ll get on the Mi Watch, but what remains offers a familiar and good experience.

It’s a solid albeit basic fitness tracker, competent smartwatch, and doesn’t do too badly as a budget sportswatch all considered. Compared to smartwatches in and around it at this price, the Mi Watch Lite stands out for the right reasons.

Also consider

Pocket-lint

Amazfit GTS 2

If you can stretch to spend more, the GTS 2 will get you a more impressive hardware and richer fitness tracking and smartwatch features.

Read our review

squirrel_widget_4082870

Writing by Michael Sawh. Editing by Mike Lowe.

Windows 10’s Store May Open Up to More Games and Software Soon

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Finding software via the Microsoft Store app for Windows 10 might be less painful soon. Windows Central today reported that Microsoft is redesigning the app to offer a better experience for developers and consumers alike with a variety of changes.

Microsoft started distributing software via the Windows Store for Windows 10 in 2015. Then in 2017, it rebranded the platform to the Microsoft Store, and that version of the storefront hasn’t changed much in the four years since its introduction.

But that could be about to change. Windows Central said that Microsoft plans to change the Microsoft Store’s user interface to better appeal to Windows 10 users while simultaneously introducing new policies to be more developer-friendly.

Both aspects of that redesign will prove vital. Windows 10 users have little incentive to find apps on the Microsoft Store because it isn’t comprehensive and, in many cases, it isn’t much more convenient than simply downloading an “.exe” directly.

This contributes to a vicious cycle where consumers aren’t driven to the Microsoft Store because it doesn’t have all the apps they want, and as long as they’re willing to find programs elsewhere, developers aren’t going to flock to the storefront.

Windows Central reported that Microsoft plans to incentivize software distribution via the Microsoft Store with three policy changes that would:

Allow developers to submit unpackaged Win32 apps to the Store
Allow developers to host apps and updates on their own content delivery network (CDN)
Alllow developers to use third-party commerce platforms in apps

The storefront is also expected to be “reinvigorated with new layouts, WinUI designs, iconography, and fluid animations” as part of the Sun Valley update to Windows 10 that’s expected to make sweeping changes to the operating system later this year.

Microsoft will always struggle to make the Microsoft Store as popular on Windows 10 as, say, the App Store is on iOS by the platform’s very nature. It’s easy to make a distribution channel popular when it’s literally the only way to install apps on a platform; it’s much harder to do the same for an optional distribution channel.

At least there’s hope for people who don’t want to go search the web every time they want to install a particular app. Being an optional part of the Windows 10 experience doesn’t make the Microsoft Store’s ease of use or developer policies less important.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware, Shutterstock)

The Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X rivalry is a heated battle for supremacy right in the heart of the mid-range CPU market. AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors took the lead in the desktop PC from Intel’s competing Comet Lake processors last year, upsetting our Best CPU for gaming recommendations and our CPU Benchmarks hierarchy. Intel’s response comes in the form of its Rocket Lake processors, which dial up the power to extreme levels and bring the new Cypress Cove architecture to the company’s 14nm process as Intel looks to upset AMD’s powerful Zen 3-powered Ryzen 5000 chips.

Intel has pushed its 14nm silicon to the limits as it attempts to unseat the AMD competition, and that has paid off in the mid-range where Intel’s six-core Core i5-11600K weighs in with surprisingly good performance given its $232 to $262 price point.

Intel’s aggressive pricing, and the fact that the potent Ryzen 5 5600X remains perpetually out of stock and price-gouged, has shifted the conversation entirely. For Intel, all it has to do is serve up solid pricing, have competitive performance, and make sure it has enough chips at retail to snatch away the win.

We put the Core i5-11600K up against the Ryzen 5 5600X in a six-round faceoff to see which chip takes the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. Let’s see how the chips stack up.

Features and Specifications of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K

Rocket Lake Core i5-11600K vs AMD Zen 3 Ryzen 5 5600X Specifications and Pricing
	Suggested Price	Cores / Threads	Base (GHz)	Peak Boost (Dual/All Core)	TDP	iGPU	L3
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X	$299 (and much higher)	6 / 12	3.7	4.6	65W	None	32MB (1×32)
Intel Core i5-11600K (KF)	$262 (K) – $237 (KF)	6 / 12	3.9	4.6 / 4.9 (TB2)	125W	UHD Graphics 750 Xe 32EU	12MB

The 7nm Ryzen 5 5600X set a new bar for the mid-range with six Zen 3 cores and twelve threads that operate at a 3.7-GHz base and 4.6-GHz boost frequency. Despite AMD’s decision to hike gen-on-gen pricing, the 5600X delivered class-leading performance at its launch, not to mention a solid price-to-performance ratio. Things have changed since then, though, due to overwhelming demand coupled with pandemic-spurred supply chain disruptions, both of which have combined to make finding the Ryzen 5 5600X a rarity at retail, let alone at the suggested $299 pricing.

Intel’s Core i5-11600K also comes with six cores and twelve threads, but Team Blue’s chips come with the new Cypress Cove architecture paired with the aging 14nm process. Intel has tuned this chip for performance; it weighs in with a 3.9-GHz base, 4.9-GHz Turbo Boost 2.0, and 4.6-GHz all-core clock rates. All of these things come at the expense of power consumption and heat generation.

Intel specs the 14nm 11600K at a 125W TDP rating, but that jumps to 182W under heavy loads, while AMD’s denser and more efficient 7nm process grants the 5600X a much-friendlier 65W TDP rating that coincides with a peak of 88W. We’ll dive deeper into power consumption a bit later, but this is important because the Core i5-11600K comes without a cooler. You’ll need a capable cooler, preferably a 280mm liquid AIO or equivalent air cooler, to unlock the best of the 11600K.

Meanwhile, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X comes with a bundled cooler that is sufficient for most users, though you would definitely need to upgrade to a better cooler if you plan on overclocking. Additionally, a more robust cooler will unlock slightly higher performance in heavy work, like rendering or encoding. Still, you’d need to do that type of work quite regularly to see a worthwhile benefit, so most users will be fine with the bundled cooler.

Both the Core i5-11600K and Ryzen 5 5600X support PCIe 4.0, though it is noteworthy that Intel’s chipset doesn’t support the speedier interface. Instead, devices connected to Intel’s chipset operate at PCIe 3.0 speeds. That means you’ll only have support for one PCIe 4.0 m.2 SSD port on your motherboard, whereas AMD’s chipset is fully enabled for PCIe 4.0, giving you more options for a plethora of faster devices.

Both chips also support two channels of DDR4-3200 memory, but Intel’s new Gear memory feature takes a bit of the shine off Intel’s memory support. At stock settings, the 11600K supports DDR4-2933 in Gear 1 mode, which provides the best latency and performance for most tasks, like gaming. You’ll have to operate the chip in Gear 2 mode for warrantied DDR4-3200 support, but that results in performance penalties in some latency-sensitive apps, like gaming, which you can read about here.

For some users, the 11600K does have a big insurmountable advantage over the Ryzen 5 5600X: The chip comes with the new UHD Graphics 750 comes armed with 32 EUs based on the Xe graphics engine, while all Ryzen 5000 processors come without integrated graphics. That means Intel wins by default if you don’t plan on using a discrete GPU.

Notably, you could also buy Intel’s i5-11600KF, which comes with a disabled graphics engine, for $25 less. At $237, the 11600KF looks incredibly tempting, which we’ll get to a bit later.

Winner: AMD

The Ryzen 5 5600X and the Core i5-11600K are close with six cores and twelve threads (and each of those cores has comparable performance), but the 5600X gets the nod here due to its bundled cooler and native support for DDR4-3200 memory. Meanwhile, the Core i5-11600K comes without a cooler, and you’ll have to operate the memory in sub-optimal Gear 2 mode to access DDR4-3200 speeds, at least if you want to stay within the warranty.

The Core i5-11600K comes with integrated graphics, so it wins by default if you don’t plan on using a discrete GPU. Conversely, you can sacrifice the graphics for a lower price point. AMD has no high-end chips that come with integrated graphics, though that will change by the end of the year when the Ryzen 5000 Cezanne APUs arrive.

Gaming Performance on AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i9-11600K

The Ryzen 5 and Core i5 families tend to be the most popular gaming chips, and given the big architectural advances we’ve seen with both the Zen 3 and Cypress Cove architectures, these mid-range processors can push fast GPUs along quite nicely.

That said, as per usual, we’re testing with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 to reduce GPU-imposed bottlenecks as much as possible, and differences between test subjects will shrink with lesser cards, which you’ll see most often with this class of chip, or higher resolutions. Below you can see the geometric mean of our gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p, with each resolution split into its own chart. PBO indicates an overclocked Ryzen configuration. You can find our test system details here.

Image 1 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 9 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 10 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 11 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 12 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 13 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 14 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 15 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 16 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 17 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 18 of 18

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

At stock settings at 1080p, the Core i5-11600K notches an impressive boost over its predecessor, the 10600K, but the Ryzen 5 5600X is 7.8% faster over the full span of our test suite. Overclocking the 11600K brings it up to snuff with the stock Ryzen 5 5600X, but the overclocked 5600X configuration is still 3.6% faster.

As you would expect, those deltas will shrink tremendously with lesser graphics cards or with higher resolutions. At 1440p, the stock 5600X is 3.3% faster than the 11600K, and the two tie after overclocking.

Flipping through the individual games shows that the leader can change quite dramatically, with different titles responding better to either Intel or AMD. Our geometric mean of the entire test suite helps smooth that out to one digestible number, but bear in mind – the faster chip will vary based on the game you play.

Notably, the 11600K is 14% less expensive than the 5600X, and that’s if (a huge if) you can find the 5600X at recommended pricing. You could also opt for the graphics-less 11600KF model and pay 26% less than the 5600X, again, if you can find the 5600X at recommended pricing.

Winner: AMDOverall, the Ryzen 5 5600X is the faster gaming chip throughout our test suite, but be aware that performance will vary based on the title you play. This class of chips is often paired with lesser graphics cards, and most serious gamers play at higher resolutions. In both of those situations, you could be hard-pressed to notice the difference between the processors. However, it’s rational to expect that the Ryzen 5 5600X will leave a bit more gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades.

Pricing is the wild card, though, and the Core i5-11600K wins that category easily — even if you could find the Ryzen 5 5600X at suggested pricing. We’ll dive into that in the pricing section.

Application Performance of Intel Core i5-11600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X

Image 1 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 9 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 10 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 11 of 11

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

We can boil down productivity application performance into two broad categories: single- and multi-threaded. The first slide in the above album has a geometric mean of performance in several of our single-threaded tests, but as with all cumulative measurements, use this as a general guide and be aware that performance will vary based on workload.

The Core i5-11600K takes the lead, at both stock and overclocked settings, by 3.8% and 1%, respectively. These are rather slim deltas, but it’s clear that the Rocket Lake chip holds the edge in lightly threaded work, particularly in our browser tests, which are a good indicator of general snappiness in a standard desktop PC operating system. We also see a bruising performance advantage in the single-threaded AVX-512-enabled y-cruncher.

The Core i5-11600K is impressive in single-threaded work, but the Ryzen 5 5600X isn’t far behind. It’s too bad that the 11600K’s lead in these types of tests doesn’t equate to leading performance in gaming, which has historically been the case with processors that excel at single-threaded tasks.

Image 1 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 9 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 10 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 11 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 12 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 13 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 14 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 15 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 16 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 17 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 18 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 19 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 20 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 21 of 21

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Here we take a closer look at performance in heavily-threaded applications, which has long been the stomping grounds of AMD’s core-heavy Ryzen processors. Surprisingly, in our cumulative measurement, the Core i5-11600K is actually 2.5% faster than the 5600X at stock settings and is 1.8% faster after we overclocked both chips.

These are, again, slim deltas, and the difference between the chips will vary based on workload. However, the Core i5-11600K is very competitive in threaded work against the 5600X, which is an accomplishment in its own right. The substantially lower pricing is even more impressive.

Winner: Intel

Based on our cumulative measurement, Intel’s Core i5-11600K comes out on top in both single- and multi-threaded workloads, but by slim margins in both categories of workloads, and that can vary based on the application. However, given that the Core i5-11600K has significantly lower pricing and pulls out a few hard-earned wins on the application front, this category of the Core i5-11600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X competition goes to Intel.

Overclocking of Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i5-11600K

We have reached the land of diminishing returns for overclocking the highest-end chips from both AMD and Intel, largely because both companies are engaged in a heated dogfight for performance superiority. As a result, much of the overclocking frequency headroom is rolled into standard stock performance, leaving little room for tuners, making memory and fabric overclocking all the more important. There’s still plenty of advantages with overclocking the midrange models though in today’s Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i5-11600K battle, but be aware that your mileage may vary.

Intel benefits from higher attainable clock rates, especially if you focus on overclocking a few cores instead of the standard all-core overclock, and exposes a wealth of tunable parameters with its Rocket Lake chips. That includes separate AVX offsets for all three flavors of AVX, and the ability to set voltage guardbands. Intel also added an option to completely disable AVX, though that feature is primarily geared for professional overclockers. Rocket also supports per-core frequency and hyper-threading control (enable/disable) to help eke out more overclocking headroom.

The Core i5-11600K supports real-time memory frequency adjustments, though motherboard support will vary. For example, this feature allows you to shift from DDR4-2933 to DDR4-3200 from within Windows 10 without rebooting (or any other attainable memory frequency). Intel also supports live memory timing adjustments from within the operating system.

Intel has long locked overclocking to its pricey K-series models, while AMD freely allows overclocking with all SKUs on almost any platform. However, we see signs of some improvement here from Intel, as it has now enabled memory overclocking on its B560 and H570 chipsets across the board. That said, Intel’s new paradigm of Gear 1 and Gear 2 modes does reduce the value of memory overclocking, which you can read more about in our review.

AMD’s Ryzen 5000 chips come with innovative boost technology that largely consumes most of the available frequency headroom, so there is precious little room for bleeding-edge all-core overclocks. In fact, all-core overclocking with AMD’s chips is lackluster; you’re often better off using its auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) feature that boosts multi-threaded performance. AMD also has plenty of Curve Optimization features that leverage undervolting to increase boost activity.

Much of the benefit of the Ryzen 500 series0 comes from its improved fabric overclocking, which then allows you to tune in higher memory overclocks. We hit a 1900-MHz fabric on our chip, allowing us to run the memory in a 1:1 mode at a higher DDR4-3800 memory speed than we could pull off with the 11600K with the same 1:1 ratio. It also isn’t uncommon to see enthusiasts hit DDR4-4000 in 1:1 mode with Ryzen 5000 processors. There’s no doubt that Intel’s new Gear 1 and 2 memory setup isn’t that refined — you can adjust the 5600X’s fabric ratio to expand the 1:1 window to higher frequencies, while Intel does not have a comparable adjustable parameter.

Winner: Tie

Both the Ryzen 5 5600X and the Core i5-11600K have a bit more overclocking headroom than their higher-end counterparts, meaning that there is still some room for gains in the mid-range. Both platforms have their respective overclocking advantages and a suite of both auto-overclocking and software utilities, meaning this contest will often boil down to personal preference.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling of Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Image 1 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 9 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 10 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 11 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 12 of 12

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Core i5-11600K comes with the same 125W TDP rating as its predecessor, but that rating is a rough approximation of power consumption during long-duration workloads. To improve performance in shorter-term workloads, Intel increased the PL2 rating (boost) to 251W, a whopping 69W increase over the previous-gen 10600K that also came with six cores.

Power consumption and heat go hand in hand, so you’ll have to accommodate that power consumption with a robust cooler. We didn’t have any issues with the Core i5-11600K and a 280mm liquid cooler (you could get away with less), but we did log up to 176W of power consumption at stock settings during our Handbrake benchmark.

In contrast, the Ryzen 5 5600X sips power, reaching a maximum of 76W at stock settings during a Blender benchmark. In fact, a quick look at the renders-per-day charts reveals that AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X is in another league in terms of power efficiency — you get far more performance per watt consumed, which results in lower power consumption and heat generation.

The 5600X’s refined power consumption comes via TSMC’s 7nm process, while Intel’s 14nm process has obviously reached the end of the road in terms of absolute performance and efficiency.

Winner: AMD

AMD wins this round easily with lower power consumption, higher efficiency, and less thermal output. Intel has turned the power up to the extreme to stay competitive with AMD’s 7nm Ryzen 5000 chips, and as a result, the Core i5-11600K pulls more power and generates more heat than the Ryzen 5 5600X. Additionally, the Core i5-11600K doesn’t come with a bundled cooler, so you’ll need to budget in a capable model to unlock the best the chip has to offer, while the Ryzen 5 5600X comes with a bundled cooler that is good enough for the majority of users.

Pricing and Value of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K

AMD was already riding the pricing line with the Ryzen 5 5600X’s suggested $299 price tag, but supply of this chip is volatile as of the time of writing, to put it lightly, leading to price gouging. This high pricing comes as a byproduct of a combination of unprecedented demand and pandemic-spurred supply chain issues, but it certainly destroys the value proposition of the Ryzen 5 5600X, at least for now.

The Ryzen 5 5600X currently retails for $370 at Microcenter, which is usually the most price-friendly vendor, a $69 markup over suggested pricing. The 5600X is also $450 from Amazon (not a third-party seller). Be aware that the pricing and availability of these chips can change drastically in very short periods of time, and they go in and out of stock frequently, reducing the accuracy of many price tracking tools.

In contrast, the Core i5-11600K can be found for $264 at Amazon, and $260 at Microcenter, which is surprisingly close to the $262 suggested tray pricing. Additionally, you could opt for the graphics-less Core i5-11600KF if you don’t need a discrete GPU. That chip is a bit harder to find than the widely-available 11600K, but we did find it for $240 at Adorama (near suggested pricing).

Here’s the breakdown (naturally, this will vary):

	Suggested Price	Current (volatile for 5600X)	Price Per Core
Core i5-11600K	$262	$262 to $264	~$32.75
Ryzen 5 5600X	$299	$370 to $450	~$46.25 to $56.25
Core i5-11600KF	$237	$240 (spotty availability)	~$29.65

The Core i5-11600K doesn’t come with a cooler, so you’ll have to budget that into your purchasing decision.

Winner: Intel

Even at recommended pricing for both chips, Intel’s aggressive pricing makes the Core i5-11600K a tempting proposition, but the company wins this stage of the battle convincingly based on one almost insurmountable advantage: You can actually find the chip readily available at retail for very close to its suggested tray pricing. With much cheaper pricing both on a per-core and absolute basis, the Core i5-11600K is the better buy, and if you’re looking for an even lower cost of entry, the Core i5-11600KF is plenty attractive if you don’t need integrated graphics.

AMD’s premium pricing for the Ryzen 5 5600X was a bit of a disappointment for AMD fans at launch, but the chip did offer enough advantages to justify the price tag. However, the arrival of the Core i5-11600K with its disruptive pricing and good-enough performance would probably merit a slight pricing adjustment from AMD, or the release of a non-X model, if these were normal times. These aren’t normal times, though, and instead of improving its value proposition, AMD is facing crippling supply challenges.

Bottom Line

	Intel Core i5-11600K	AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Features and Specifications		X
Gaming		X
Application Performance	X
Overclocking	X	X
Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling		X
Pricing and Value Proposition	X
Total	3	4

Here’s the tale of the tape: AMD wins this Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K battle with a tie in one category and a win in three others, marking a four to three victory in favor of Team Red. Overall, the Ryzen 5 5600X offers up a superior blend of gaming performance, power consumption and efficiency, and a bundled cooler to help offset the higher suggested retail pricing, remaining our go-to chip recommendation for the mid-range. That is if you can find it at or near suggested pricing.

Unfortunately, in these times of almost unimaginably bad chip shortages, the chip that you can actually buy, or even find anywhere even near recommended pricing, is going to win the war at the checkout lane. For now, Intel appears to be winning the supply battle, though that could change in the coming months. As a result, the six-core twelve-thread Core i5-11600K lands with a friendly $262 price point, making it much more competitive with AMD’s $300 Ryzen 5 5600X that currently sells far over suggested pricing due to shortages.

The Core i5-11600K has a very competitive price-to-performance ratio compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X in a broad swath of games and applications. The 11600K serves up quite a bit of performance for a ~$262 chip, and the graphics-less 11600KF is an absolute steal if you can find it near the $237 tray pricing. If you don’t need an integrated GPU, the KF model is your chip.

Even if we compare the chips at AMD’s and Intel’s standard pricing, the Core i5-11600K is a potent challenger with a solid value proposition due to its incredibly aggressive pricing. While the Core i5-11600K might not claim absolute supremacy, its mixture of price and performance makes it a solid buy if you’re willing to overlook the higher power consumption.

Most gamers would be hard-pressed to notice the difference when you pair these chips with lesser GPUs or play at higher resolutions, though the Ryzen 5 5600X will potentially leave you with more gas in the tank for future GPU upgrades. The Ryzen 5 5600X is the absolute winner, though, provided you can find it anywhere close to the suggested retail price.

Test:	Ubuntu Score	Windows 10 Score
WebP Image Encode 1.1: Encode Time	15.21	13.37
Zstd Compression 1.4.9: Decompression Speed	4784.2	4422.9
Crafty 25.2: Nodes Per Seccond	9976038	11303083
Blender 2.92: BMW: Render Time	132.49	155.59
NeatBench 5: FPS	17.4	18.2
IndigoBench 4.4	4.737	4.911
Selenium: StyleBench Chrome: Runs Per Minute	46.02	50.25
Selenium: Speedometer Chrome: Runs Per minute	186.8	174.7

Design & Display

Performance & Battery

Cameras

Also consider

Moto G100

Why You Need a Minidump File to Diagnose Your BSOD

How to Configure Windows to Save a Minidump File.

How to Read the Minidump, See What Caused Your BSOD

Using BlueScreenView to Understand Minidump Files

What If The Minidump File Shows A Hardware Error?

The Samsung Z Flip 3 foldable smartphone will be greatly improved. With larger cover display, a 120Hz flexible screen, a triple camera and stereo speakers.

Samsung Z Flip 3 foldable smartphone

Larger cover display, new hinge and smaller bezels

Hardware & Software

Renewed camera

Battery and charging options

Price & Availability

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3 Lite

Alternative choices for Samsung foldable smartphones

Design & Display

Software & Performance

Sports & Fitness Tracking

Smartwatch Features

Battery Life

Also consider

Amazfit GTS 2

Check Also

Acer planning a 49-inch Mini LED monitor to rival Samsung Odyssey G9

Check Also

Xbox controller ‘stick drift’ lawsuit will not go to trial

Features and Specifications of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K

Gaming Performance on AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i9-11600K

Application Performance of Intel Core i5-11600K vs Ryzen 5 5600X

Overclocking of Ryzen 5 5600X vs Core i5-11600K

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling of Intel Core i5-11600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Pricing and Value of AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Intel Core i5-11600K

Bottom Line

OnePlus Watch software

OnePlus Watch fitness tracking

OnePlus Watch hardware and design