Review - Page 43 of 153

Supermicro 1023US-TR4 Review: Powerful Performance in a Slim 1U Package

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Supermicro’s 1023US-TR4 is a slim 1U dual-socket server designed for high-density compute environments in high-end cloud computing, virtualization, and enterprise applications. With support for AMD’s EPYC 7001 and 7002 processors, this high-end server packs up to two 64-core Eypc Rome processors, allowing it to cram 128 cores and 256 threads into one slim chassis.

We’re on the cusp of Intel’s Ice Lake and AMD’s EPYC Milan launches, which promise to reignite the fierce competition between the long-time x86 rivals. In preparation for the new launches, we’ve been working on a new set of benchmarks for our server testing, and that’s given us a pretty good look at the state of the server market as it stands today.

We used the Supermicro 1023US-TR4 server for EPYC Rome testing, and we’ll focus on examining the platform in this article. Naturally, we’ll add in Ice Lake and EPYC Milan testing as soon as those chips are available. In the meantime, here’s a look at some of our new benchmarks and the current state of the data center CPU performance hierarchy in several hotly-contested price ranges.

Inside the Supermicro 1023US-TR4 Server

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Supermicro 1023US-TR4 server comes in the slim 1U form factor. And despite its slim stature, it can host an incredible amount of compute horsepower under the hood. The server supports AMD’s EPYC 7001 and 7002 series chips, with the latter series topping out at 64 cores apiece, which translates to 128 cores and 256 threads spread across the dual sockets.

Support for the 7002 series chips requires a 2.x board revision, and the server can accommodate CPU cTDP’s up to 280W. That means it can accommodate the beefiest of EPYC chips, which currently comes in the form of the 280W 64-core EPYC 7H12 with a 280W TDP.

The server has a tool-less rail mounting system that eases installation into server racks and the CSE-819UTS-R1K02P-T chassis measures 1.7 x 17.2 x 29 inches, ensuring broad compatibility with standard 19-inch server racks.

The front panel comes with standard indicator lights, like a unit identification (UID) light that helps with locating the server in a rack, along with drive activity, power, status light (to indicate fan failures or system overheating), and two LAN activity LEDs. Power and reset buttons are also present at the upper right of the front panel.

By default, the system comes with four tool-less 3.5-inch hot-swap SATA 3 drive bays, but you can configure the server to accept four NVMe drives on the front panel, and an additional two M.2 drives internally. You can also add an optional SAS card to enable support for SAS storage devices. The front of the system also houses a slide-out service/asset tag identifier card to the upper left.

Image 1 of 7

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 7

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 7

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 7

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 7

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 7

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 7

(Image credit: Supermicro)

Popping the top off the chassis reveals two shrouds that direct air from the two rows of hot-swappable fans. A total of eight fan housings feed air to the system, and each housing includes two counter-rotating 4cm fans for maximum static pressure and reduced vibration. As expected with servers intended for 24/7 operation, the system can continue to function in the event of a fan failure. However, the remainder of the fans will automatically run at full speed if the system detects a failure. Naturally, these fans are loud, but that’s not a concern for a server environment.

Two fan housings are assigned to cool each CPU, and a simple black plastic shroud directs air to the heatsinks underneath. Dual SP3 sockets house both processors, and they’re covered by standard heatsinks that are optimized for linear airflow.

A total of 16 memory slots flank each processor, for a total of 32 memory slots that support up to 4TB of registered ECC DDR4-2666 with EPYC 7001 processors, or an incredible 8TB of ECC DDR4-3200 memory (via 256GB DIMMs) with the 7002 models, easily outstripping the memory capacity available with competing Intel platforms.

We tested the EPYC processors with 16x 32GB DDR4-3200 Samsung modules for a total memory capacity of 512GB. In contrast, we loaded down the Xeon comparison platform with 12x 32GB Sk hynix DDR4-2933 modules, for a total capacity of 384GB of memory.

The H11DSU-iN motherboard’s expansion slots consist of two full-height 9.5-inch PCIe 3.0 slots and one low-profile PCIe 3.0 x8 slot, all mounted on riser cards. An additional internal PCIe 3.0 x8 slot is also available, but this slot only accepts proprietary Supermicro RAID cards. All told, the system exposes a total of 64 lanes (16 via NVMe storage devices) to the user.

As one would imagine, Supermicro has other server offerings that expose more of EPYCs available 128 lanes to the user and also come with the faster PCIe 4.0 interface.

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The rear I/O panel includes four gigabit RJ45 LAN ports powered by an Intel i350-AM4 controller, along with a dedicated IPMI port for management. Here we find the only USB ports on the machine, which come in the form of two USB 3.0 headers, along with a COM and VGA port.

Two 1000W Titanium-Level (96%+) redundant power supplies provide power to the server, with automatic failover in the event of a failure, as well as hot-swapability for easy servicing.

The BIOS is easy to access and use, while the IPMI web interface provides a wealth of monitoring capabilities and easy remote management that matches the type of functionality available with Xeon platforms. Among many options, you can update the BIOS, use the KVM-over-LAN remote console, monitor power consumption, access health event logs, monitor and adjust fan speeds, and monitor the CPU, DIMM, and chipset temperatures and voltages. Supermicro’s remote management suite is polished and easy to use, which stands in contrast to other platforms we’ve tested.

Test Setup

	Cores/Threads	1K Unit Price	Base / Boost (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	TDP (W)
AMD EPYC 7742	64 / 128	$6,950	2.25 / 3.4	256	225W
Intel Xeon Platinum 8280	28 / 56	$10,009	2.7 / 4.0	38.5	205W
Intel Xeon Gold 6258R	28 / 56	$3,651	2.7 / 4.0	38.5	205W
AMD EPYC 7F72	24 / 48	$2,450	3.2 / ~3.7	192	240W
Intel Xeon Gold 5220R	24 / 48	$1,555	2.2 / 4.0	35.75	150W
AMD EPYC 7F52	16 / 32	$3,100	3.5 / ~3.9	256	240W
Intel Xeon Gold 6226R	16 / 32	$1,300	2.9 / 3.9	22	150W
Intel Xeon Gold 5218	16 / 32	$1,280	2.3 / 3.9	22	125W
AMD EPYC 7F32	8 / 16	$2,100	3.7 / ~3.9	128	180W
Intel Xeon Gold 6250	8 / 16	$3,400	3.9 / 4.5	35.75	185W

Here we can see the selection of processors we’ve tested for this review, though we use the Xeon Platinum Gold 8280 as a stand-in for the less expensive Xeon Gold 6258R. These two chips are identical and provide the same level of performance, with the difference boiling down to the more expensive 8280 coming with support for quad-socket servers, while the Xeon Gold 6258R tops out at dual-socket support.

	Memory	Tested Processors
Supermicro AS-1023US-TR4	16x 32GB Samsung ECC DDR4-3200	EPYC 7742, 7F72, 7F52, 7F32
Dell/EMC PowerEdge R460	12x 32GB SK Hynix DDR4-2933	Intel Xeon 8280, 6258R, 5220R, 6226R, 6250

To assess performance with a range of different potential configurations, we used the Supermicro 1024US-TR4 server with four different EPYC Rome configurations. We outfitted this server with 16x 32GB Samsung ECC DDR4-3200 memory modules, ensuring that both chips had all eight memory channels populated.

We used a Dell/EMC PowerEdge R460 server to test the Xeon processors in our test group, giving us a good sense of performance with competing Intel systems. We equipped this server with 12x 32GB Sk hynix DDR4-2933 modules, again ensuring that each Xeon chip’s six memory channels were populated. These configurations give the AMD-powered platform a memory capacity advantage, but come as an unavoidable side effect of the capabilities of each platform. As such, bear in mind that memory capacity disparities may impact the results below.

We used the Phoronix Test Suite for testing. This automated test suite simplifies running complex benchmarks in the Linux environment. The test suite is maintained by Phoronix, and it installs all needed dependencies and the test library includes 450 benchmarks and 100 test suites (and counting). Phoronix also maintains openbenchmarking.org, which is an online repository for uploading test results into a centralized database. We used Ubuntu 20.04 LTS and the default Phoronix test configurations with the GCC compiler for all tests below. We also tested both platforms with all available security mitigations.

Linux Kernel and LLVM Compilation Benchmarks

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

We used the 1023US-TR4 for testing with all of the EPYC processors in the chart, and here we see the expected scaling in the timed Linux kernel compile test with the AMD EPYC processors taking the lead over the Xeon chips at any given core count. The dual EPYC 7742 processors complete the benchmark, which builds the Linux kernel at default settings, in 21 seconds. The dual 24-core EPYC 7F72 configuration is impressive in its own right — it chewed through the test in 25 seconds, edging past the dual-processor Xeon 8280 platform.

AMD’s EPYC delivers even stronger performance in the timed LLVM compilation benchmark — the dual 16-core 7F72’s even beat the dual 28-core 8280’s. Performance scaling is somewhat muted between the flagship 64-core 7742 and the 24-core 7F72, largely due to the strength of the latter’s much higher base and boost frequencies. That impressive performance comes at the cost of a 240W TDP rating, but the Supermicro server handles the increased thermal output easily.

Molecular Dynamics and Parallel Compute Benchmarks

Image 1 of 6

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 6

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 6

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 6

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 6

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 6

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

NAMD is a parallel molecular dynamics code designed to scale well with additional compute resources; it scales up to 500,000 cores and is one of the premier benchmarks used to quantify performance with simulation code. The EPYC processors are obviously well-suited for these types of highly-parallelized workloads due to their prodigious core counts, with the dual 7742 configuration completing the workload 28% faster than the dual Xeon 8280 setup.

Stockfish is a chess engine designed for the utmost in scalability across increased core counts — it can scale up to 512 threads. Here we can see that this massively parallel code scales well with EPYC’s leading core counts. But, as evidenced by the dual 24-core 7F72’s effectively tying the 28-core Xeon 8280’s, the benchmark also generally responds well to the EPYC processors. The dual 16-core 7F52 configuration also beat out both of the 16-core Intel comparables. Intel does pull off a win as the eight-core 6250 processors beat the 7F32’s, though.

We see similarly impressive performance in other molecular dynamics workloads, like the Gromacs water benchmark that simulates Newtonian equations of motion with hundreds of millions of particles and the NAS Parallel Benchmarks (NPB) suite. NPB characterizes Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) applications, and NASA designed it to measure performance from smaller CFD applications up to “embarrassingly parallel” operations. The BT.C test measures Block Tri-Diagonal solver performance, while the LU.C test measures performance with a lower-upper Gauss-Seidel solver.

Regardless of the workload, the EPYC processors deliver a brutal level of performance in highly-parallelized applications, and the Supermicro server handled the heat output without issue.

Rendering Benchmarks

Image 1 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Turning to more standard fare, provided you can keep the cores fed with data, most modern rendering applications also take full advantage of the compute resources. Given the well-known strengths of EPYC’s core-heavy approach, it isn’t surprising to see the 64-core EPYC 7742 processors carve out a commanding lead in the C-Ray and Blender benchmarks. Still, it is impressive to see the 7Fx2 models beat the competing Xeon processors with similar core counts nearly across the board.

The performance picture changes somewhat with the Embree benchmarks, which test high-performance ray tracing libraries developed at Intel Labs. Naturally, the Xeon processors take the lead in the Asian Dragon renders, but the crown renders show that AMD’s EPYC can offer leading performance even with code that is heavily optimized for Xeon processors.

Encoding Benchmarks

Image 1 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Encoders tend to present a different type of challenge: As we can see with the VP9 libvpx benchmark, they often don’t scale well with increased core counts. Instead, they often benefit from per-core performance and other factors, like cache capacity.

However, newer encoders, like Intel’s SVT-AV1, are designed to leverage multi-threading more fully to extract faster performance for live encoding/transcoding video applications. Again, we can see the impact of EPYC’s increased core counts paired with its strong per-core performance as the EPYC 7742 and 7F72 post impressive wins.

Python and Sysbench Benchmarks

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Pybench and Numpy benchmarks are used as a general litmus test of Python performance, and as we can see, these tests don’t scale well with increased core counts. That allows the Xeon 6250, which has the highest boost frequency of the test pool at 4.5 GHz, to take the lead.

Compression and Security

Image 1 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Compression workloads also come in many flavors. The 7-Zip (p7zip) benchmark exposes the heights of theoretical compression performance because it runs directly from main memory, allowing both memory throughput and core counts to impact performance heavily. As we can see, this benefits the EPYC 7742 tremendously, but it is noteworthy that the 28-core Xeon 8280 offers far more performance than the 24-core 7F72 if we normalize throughput based on core counts. In contrast, the gzip benchmark, which compresses two copies of the Linux 4.13 kernel source tree, responds well to speedy clock rates, giving the eight-core Xeon 6250 the lead due to its 4.5 GHz boost clock.

The open-source OpenSSL toolkit uses SSL and TLS protocols to measure RSA 4096-bit performance. As we can see, this test favors the EPYC processors due to its parallelized nature, but offloading this type of workload to dedicated accelerators is becoming more common for environments with heavy requirements.

SPEC CPU 2017 Estimated Scores

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

We used the GCC compiler and the default Phoronix test settings for these SPEC CPU 2017 test results. SPEC results are highly contested and can be impacted heavily with various compilers and flags, so we’re sticking with a bog-standard configuration to provide as level of a playing field as possible. It’s noteworthy that these results haven’t been submitted to the SPEC committee for verification, so they aren’t official. Instead, view the above tests as estimates, based on our testing.

The multi-threaded portion of the SPEC CPU 2107 suite is of most interest for the purpose of our tests, which is to gauge the ability of the Supermicro platform to handle heavy extended loads. As expected, the EPYC processors post commanding leads in both the intrate and fprate subtests. And close monitoring of the platform didn’t find any thermal throttling during these extended duration tests. The Xeon 6250 and 8280 processors take the lead in the single-threaded intrate tests, while the AMD EPYC processors post impressively-strong single-core measurements in the fprate tests.

Conclusion

AMD has enjoyed a slow but steadily-increasing portion of the data center market, and much of its continued growth hinges on increasing adoption beyond hyperscale cloud providers to more standard enterprise applications. That requires a dual-pronged approach of not only offering a tangible performance advantage, particularly in workloads that are sensitive to per-core performance, but also having an ecosystem of fully-validated OEM platforms readily available on the market.

The Supermicro 1023US-TR4 server slots into AMD’s expanding constellation of OEM EPYC systems and also allows discerning customers to upgrade from the standard 7002 series processors to the high-frequency H- and F-series models as well. It also supports up to 8TB of ECC memory, which is an incredible amount of available capacity for memory-intensive workloads. Notably, the system comes with the PCIe 3.0 interface while the second-gen EPYC processors support PCIe 4.0, but this arrangement allows customers that don’t plan to use PCIe 4.0 devices to procure systems at a lower price point. As one would imagine, Supermicro has other offerings that support the faster interface.

Overall we found the platform to be robust, and out-of-the-box installation was simple with a tool-less rail kit and an easily-accessible IPMI interface that offers a cornucopia of management and monitoring capabilities. Our only minor complaints are that the front panel could use a few USB ports for easier physical connectivity. The addition of a faster embedded networking interface would also free up an additional PCIe slot. Naturally, higher-end Supermicro platforms come with these features.

As seen throughout our testing, the Supermicro 1023US-TR4 server performed admirably and didn’t suffer from any thermal throttling issues regardless of the EPYC processors we used, which is an important consideration. Overall, the Supermicro 1023US-TR4 server packs quite the punch in a small form factor that enables incredibly powerful and dense compute deployments in cloud, virtualization, and enterprise applications.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: CPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Google TV to add kids profiles and more parental controls

(Image credit: Google)

Google TV is becoming a little safer for children. The streaming platform will add kids profiles in the US this month, letting you lock access to certain apps, set time limits on screen time, and stop little ones stumbling across unsuitable content.

If your child already has a Google Account, you can add it as a kid profile. But they don’t need a Google Account – you can simply set them up by entering their name and age.

The feature was much requested by users, Google says.

The interface for kids profiles looks much the same as normal Google TV. Adults can also share content they’re purchased with a kid’s profile using the Google Play Family Library.

As well as setting daily watch limits, you can enter a designated bedtime after which no more content will be available. The kids will see three countdown warning signs before the final ‘Time is up’ screen appears. Though you can add some extra time if needed.

You don’t need to be in front of the TV to keep tabs on their viewing. Using the Google Family Link app, you can see from your smartphone how much time the kids spend in certain apps, and block/unblock access to them.

Kids profiles will be limited to the US only for now but will roll out globally over the next few months. Google TV is available on the Google Chromecast with Google TV device, a streaming dongle that earned five stars in our review, and that recently gained access to the Amazon Music app. Kids profiles will be just another string to its bow.

MORE:

Read the full Google Chromecast with Google TV review

Read our guide to the best video streamers

Read our Amazon Fire TV 4K review

Oppo Reno 4 Pro 5G review: Classy mid-ranger

(Pocket-lint) – If you’ve looked at Oppo’s Reno family over the years, confused at exactly where it fits, which devices are in it, and if they’re even available where you live, then fear not – you’re not alone.

Since the first Reno phone (which was released in 2019), Oppo has expanded the range considerably. Among that product family is where you’ll find a particular gem: the Reno 4 Pro.

It’s a sleek, attractive and well-proportioned, but for a mid-range device it’s arguably a little pricey. Does that affect the overall proposition? Read on…

Design

Dimensions: 159.6 x 72.5 x 7.6mm / Weight: 172g
Monogrammed design on Space Black model
All glass front and back design

When 5G first hit the scenes – and just like when 4G became a thing – phones were pretty large. Not only did phones need an extra external chip to act as the modem, but space was required for cooling, while larger batteries were required to ensure longevity.

In 2020, however, thanks to the advancement of processors that have built-in 5G modems, that changed. Samsung showed it with the S20. And Oppo – having first shown it with the Find X2 Neo – does it again with the Reno 4 Pro. It’s impressively slim and sleek for a 5G-capable device.

In fact, it’s very similar to the Find X2 Neo in terms of size, shape and build. It’s got the glass on the front and back that curves towards the edges, making it look and feel really slim. It’s narrow, too, and has really skinny bezels on the front – ensuring the screen takes up the majority of the space (around 94 per cent of it, says the spec).

Where it differs is in the styling and finish of that rear panel. There’s a new Arctic Blue model that features a frosted glass finish, but unlike most other frosted glass phones, this has been created with an Oppo-designed technique using microscopic laser etchings along the surface. This way the finished product resists scratches and fingerprint smudges.

We were sent the Space Black model which has a much more traditional black, glossy look. However, even that’s unique. There’s a rainbow effect that appears when you angle it towards light, as well as a pattern of repeating monograms spelling out ‘OP’. Because, er, Oppo. The company says this is to make the phone something of a fashion statement. We feel you’ll either love it or hate it. Opinions are definitely mixed here at Pocket-lint.

The camera housing is among one of the most attractive we’ve seen on a smartphone. It’s a simple, glossy rectangle with rounded corners that protrudes from the back with three identically sized camera rings in a neat row. It’s compact, and pleasant to look at.

To pick up and hold the phone in the hand, the Pro is just a delight. Some of the rough edges we found between the glass and metal on the Find X2 Neo aren’t an issue here. This is one slim, smooth and sumptuous mid-ranger.

Those curved edges and the slim nature of the phone do mean there’s a tendency to accidentally touch the display though. We’ve often accidentally tapped an icon in the bottom corner of the display when it pressed into the base of our thumb. Similarly, with navigation gestures enabled, we’ve also often found ourselves trying to swipe away notifications only for it to launch the ‘back’ gesture instead.

Display

6.5-inch AMOLED display, 90Hz refresh rate
FHD+ resolution (1080 x 2400 pixels)
Punch-hole selfie camera

The screen on Oppo’s top mid-range phone is AMOLED, meaning you get plenty of benefits. It’s bright (at about 500 nits peak brightness), and features deep inky blacks and vibrant colours.

It also has the added bonus of a 90Hz refresh rate, which means animations stay smoother. When you’re switching between areas in the user interface or scrolling up and down menus it helps everything seem all that much more fluid.

Heading into 2021, the Quad HD resolution display seems to be on the way out in smaller devices for the sake of battery life. And so Full HD sharpness on the Reno 4 Pro is perfectly fine – and as much as expected. It’s still virtually impossible to see any individual pixels.

For the most part this is a bright and vivid panel. We put it side-by-side with the Samsung Galaxy S21, for instance, and – set to vivid mode – the Oppo more than pulls its weight for things like Netflix watching, general interface appearance, and photo viewing. Where it struggles a little is with games, but we’ll get more into that in the performance section.

It’s not quite perfect though. The curves in the corners, for instance, don’t quite match the more square corners of the phone, while the top and bottom bezels are noticeably thicker than the sides. Both combined makes for a slightly uneven look.

Performance

Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G processor, 12GB RAM
4,000mAh battery, 65W Super VOOC 2.0 charging
256GB storage, no microSD expansion
5G connectivity

Look at the current mid-range market and you’ll see Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 700-series is the most popular. Here, it’s the same 765G chip that’s inside the OnePlus Nord and a handful of other powerful mid-rangers.

Joining it, there’s a generous 12GB RAM and 256GB storage (in the UK variant), which is more than enough to keep the most demanding apps running smoothly and ensure you have enough space to store all of your photos, music and video for entertainment on the go.

Like the Nord, we’ve not had any issues with performance. In fact, for most tasks, the Pro will feel pretty much as good as any flagship would. It’s fast and responsive, partly down to the fluidity of the display, partly down to the 765G platform being plenty powerful enough.

Loading up games isn’t quite as quick as some of the more recent top-tier phones, but the difference isn’t remarkable. Where you do notice the difference is in the graphics quality. Details that might be smooth and sharp on higher-end phones seem a little rough around the edges. Lines look a bit jagged, almost like the game won’t run at its full resolution. At least, that’s what we found while playing Mario Kart Tour.

The 4,000mAh battery on board is about standard in terms of capacity these days. But what’s not standard is Oppo’s Super VOOC 2.0 flash charging technology. This particular flavour is the 65W variant – which we’ve seen on top-tier phones like the Find X2 Pro. With an empty battery, it’ll charge from 0-66 per cent in just 15 minutes and finish its charge completely in 35 minutes. Now that’s fast!

What we’ve found in the past with phones using this tech is that it changes your charging behaviour. You no longer have to charge it overnight. You can wait until it runs almost flat, plug it in, and even 10-15 minutes is enough to get through the rest of the day.

Oppo seems to have done something rather magical with battery life too. Its standby performance is pretty remarkable. If you’re someone who isn’t glued to your phone constantly then you shouldn’t have too much trouble making the Reno 4 Pro last two days between charges. We’ve left it overnight on many an occasion, in standby, and woken to find it only having lost five per cent of its charge. Impressive.

Cameras

Triple rear camera system:
- Main: 48-megapixel, f/1.7 aperture
- Wide/macro: 12MP, f/2.2
- Zoom (2x): 13MP, f/2.4
32MP selfie camera
4K video at 30fps

The Oppo Reno 4 Pro’s 48-megapixel main camera is joined by a 12-megapixel ultra-wide camera and a 13-megapixel 2x zoom lens. What’s interesting here is that the 12-megapixel ultra-wide is also being branded as a ‘night’ camera. A lot of that is down to the fact that Oppo has boosted its night performance, especially when shooting video.

Pocket-lint

: Macro modeMacro mode

That ultra-wide doubles (triples?) as a macro camera, too, and that means not having to rely on a dedicated low resolution sensor for close-up shots – as is so prevalent in many rivals. And you can tell: the macro shots are actually decent, retaining good colour and depth, while avoiding suffering from that nauseating swirling bokeh effect we’ve seen from some of the poorer macro solutions.

As for that third lens, that’s a 5x hybrid zoom camera, so while it’s not quite as impressive as the high-end periscope-like lenses that go up to twice that, it’s still a very versatile system. At 2x optical zoom, images retain colour, sharpness and depth, but as soon as you push it up to 5x – which is where it’s using digital zoom – things can look a little ropey. Images lose sharpness as they tend to once you switch into digital zoom.

Transitioning between the four main focal lengths is easy enough though. There’s an icon on the screen that you can tap to quickly switch between 0.6x, 1x, 2x and 5x. Or you can tap, hold and drag it to use the smoother zooming interface – as it turns into a wheel on the screen.

Pocket-lint

: Ultrawide cameraUltrawide camera

What impressed us was that – while sometimes the images came out with slightly over-exposed highlights – the balance of colour and light between the three cameras was pretty uniform. Greens and purples look the same in all three in the collection above. While they all have a little over-sharpening in the darker areas, that evenness isn’t something you typically see when using three unique sensors.

Best smartphones 2021 rated: The top mobile phones available to buy today

By Chris Hall
·
9 March 2021

Laser detection autofocus ensures that the camera focuses quickly and reliably even when the light levels aren’t optimal. Indoors in dim conditions we found it to focus fast, which made it quick and easy to grab the shot we were after without repeatedly tapping the screen in frustration trying to get the camera to lock on.

There are plenty of shooting modes too. Open up the More tab in the camera app and you can shoot with stickers, shoot in ‘Pro’ mode to get fine-tuned control, shoot slow-mo, time-lapse, and even scan text or use Google Lens to assess the scene for text and everyday items. It doesn’t feel overly busy with options thankfully, and the main collection of shooting modes is where most people will spend their time.

Verdict

The Oppo Reno 4 Pro’s spec sheet may make it seem like a mid-range phone at a near-flagship price, but its performance and everyday reliability makes this one genuinely good phone – regardless of the price.

The camera system is strong and consistent, offering versatility without falling into the same traps as other mid-range phones with multiple cameras on the back. This has three cameras and all of them useful and actually decent.

A perceived lack of power could put off the smartphone enthusiasts when compared to similarly priced devices, but we’ve enjoyed almost everything that the Oppo phone has to offer. The only minor criticism is graphical performance compromises when it comes to gaming.

While the Oppo is considerably more expensive than the OnePlus Nord or Google Pixel 4a, for that extra money you get a more premium design, a more versatile and powerful camera, and a stupendously fast-charging battery. The Reno 4 Pro is an impressively slim and sleek device that still has all the functionality you’d expect from a top-tier phone.

Alternatives to consider

Oppo Find X2 Neo

squirrel_widget_261263

It’s not exactly the same, but it features similar build and performance. The only compromises you make, really, are a poorer camera system and slower charging speeds. But it’ll save you some money as a result.

Read our review

Samsung Galaxy S20 FE

squirrel_widget_2682132

Samsung hit all the right notes with the ‘Fan Edition’ of the S20. It’s got all the top features that matter – like a 120Hz display, flagship-spec processor, and a solid camera system. The price isn’t that much higher considering the spec bump either.

Read our review

Writing by Cam Bunton. Editing by Mike Lowe.

Marsback M1 Keyboard Review – Custom Switches, Custom Keycaps

Introduction

Marsback is a rather new company, the one behind that weird Zephyr mouse with an integrated fan we took a look at last year. Established in 2018, the company is young also with an average employee age of 26. They aim to bring to market gaming products which appeal to the younger audience as such, and currently sell the Zephyr mouse and a few accessories. It is now early 2021, and the company decided the time is right for their first keyboard. As with the Zephyr, the Marsback M1 keyboard launches through crowdfunding on Kickstarter, and the campaign is still running as we speak. In order to help get the word out, Marsback approached us about doing a review, so here we are!

As mentioned above, the Marsback M1 is currently in the crowdfunding stage. As of the time of writing, the campaign is already past its goal, and it is strange to see people committing to purchasing a keyboard from a brand-new company without any other keyboards in their portfolio. Perhaps it is marketing at work, but either way, I would be remiss if I did not have a detailed review in time to help you make an informed purchasing decision. There are several variants of the Marsback M1 as far as keycaps and switches go, but all share a common DNA in that see-through case. We will explore this and more in this review that begins with a look at the specifications in the table below.

Specifications

Marsback M1 Keyboard
Layout:	75% form factor in a modified US ANSI layout
Material:	Polycarbonate case, ABS or PBT plastic keycaps
Macro Support:	Yes
Weight (total):	0.95 kg/2.1 lbs.
Wrist Rest:	No
Anti-ghosting:	Full N-Key rollover USB, six key rollover Bluetooth
Media Keys:	Available as a layered function
Dimensions:	131 (L) x 321 (W) x 43 (H) mm
Cable Length:	6 ft/1.8 m
Software:	Yes
Switch Type:	Choice of three Marsback-branded linear mechanical RGB switches
Backlighting:	Per-key 16.8 M RGB backlighting and side/bottom lighting
Interface:	USB or Bluetooth 5.1
Warranty:	One year

Marsback M1 Keyboard Review – Custom Switches, Custom Keycaps

Introduction

Specifications

Marsback M1 Keyboard
Layout:	75% form factor in a modified US ANSI layout
Material:	Polycarbonate case, ABS or PBT plastic keycaps
Macro Support:	Yes
Weight (total):	0.95 kg/2.1 lbs.
Wrist Rest:	No
Anti-ghosting:	Full N-Key rollover USB, six key rollover Bluetooth
Media Keys:	Available as a layered function
Dimensions:	131 (L) x 321 (W) x 43 (H) mm
Cable Length:	6 ft/1.8 m
Software:	Yes
Switch Type:	Choice of three Marsback-branded linear mechanical RGB switches
Backlighting:	Per-key 16.8 M RGB backlighting and side/bottom lighting
Interface:	USB or Bluetooth 5.1
Warranty:	One year

This RTX 3060 Uses a Massive 3080 Cooler, With Impressive Results

(Image credit: YouTube)

MSI’s new RTX 3060 Gaming X Trio is one of the coolest, yet strangest, Nvidia graphics cards we’ve ever seen. As discussed by YouTube channel BPS Customs, the card comes equipped with an RTX 3080 cooler. That allows this RTX 3060 to reach the lowest temperatures we’ve seen out of any factory-built Nvidia GPU in a very long time.

Guru3D reports that the Gaming X Trio features a 1320Mhz Base Clock and a 1852MHz Boost frequency. (The base clock appears incorrect, as that’s the reference base clock, but perhaps Nvidia changed the way it handles base clocks.) The more important boost clock nets you an additional 72MHz overclock relative to the reference card, which still seems tame when looking at the Gaming X Trio cooler. By way of comparison, the Asus ROG Strix OC variant features a 1882MHz boost clock, plus a higher power limit.

There are benefits to going with modest specs and a massive cooler, of course.

(Image credit: YouTube)

With its beefy triple-fan cooler, BPS Customs reports a peak temperature of just 47C with the 3060 Gaming X Trio, and a fan speed of just 48%, all while running Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K resolution for over an hour. Even if other games or settings reach slightly higher temperatures, that’s still a phenomenal result.

With GPU Boost 4.0 working in the background, average clock speeds hovered in the 1900Mhz range. Meanwhile, average power consumption was just 166W. That does raise the question of why MSI bothered to include dual 8-pin power connectors, which like the cooler seem like extreme overkill. This RTX 3060 looks like it could really use a much higher power limit like its Asus competitor.

Unfortunately, BPS Customs did not test any overclocking on the card whatsoever. Modern Nvidia GPUs scale very well when you keep temps very low, so we’d expect very good overclocking performance out of this card. That’s assuming the restrictive power limit doesn’t get in the way.

(Image credit: YouTube)

Regarding actual performance, BPS Customs compared the Gaming X Trio to the older RTX 2060 Super and RTX 1650 Super. On average the RTX 2060 Super was just 3-4% slower than the MSI RTX 3060. That’s similar to what we saw in our RTX 3060 review, and suggests relatively unimpressive stock performance. But those thermals make up for some of that. But then there’s the price.

At $519 MSRP (yeah that’s right: MSRP), the RTX 3060 Gaming X Trio is absurdly expensive. We’ll have to see what actual street prices look like, and whether you can find one available for purchase. We all know that GPU prices are fantasy land right now, but that MSRP seems impossible to recommend under any normal circumstances.

According to MSI, the MSRP was supposed to be much lower, but due to issues relating to tariffs in the United States, MSI wasn’t able to price it lower than $519. That’s a bit strange considering plenty of other AIB partners have RTX 3060’s theoretically priced right next to Nvidia’s reference $329 price point.

Obviously, the significantly larger than normal cooler and fans are part of the cost. We’ve seen retailers selling RTX 3060 12GB cards for over $600 as well — and selling out at those prices. But RTX 3060 Ti cards easily beat RTX 3060 in performance, due to the latter’s big deficits in bandwidth and GPU core counts. You’re far better off getting one of those.

Again, these pricing shenanigans don’t really matter when nothing’s in stock and graphics card prices are way overinflated anyway. We’re used to seeing diminishing returns on factory overclocked cards as well. Sadly, overkill cooling can’t compensate for excessive pricing, and we’d look for a better balance between price and performance — even if that means waiting many months for prices to come down and availability to improve.

ASUS ROG Keris Wireless Review

Introduction

ASUS is a Taiwan-based computer hardware and electronics company founded in 1989. With the right-handed ergonomic Keris Wireless, ASUS continues to expand its wireless mice range. Much like the Chakram and Pugio II, the Keris Wireless comes with triple connectivity: wired, low-latency 2.4 GHz, and long-endurance Bluetooth. ASUS promises a battery life of up to 78 hours without RGB and up to 56 hours with RGB illumination. Proprietary ROG Micro Switches with a rated lifetime of 70 M clicks are used for the main buttons, and similarly to previous ASUS mice, the main button switches are hot-swappable, allowing one to extend the lifespan of the mouse. Additionally, instead of the usual ABS plastic, PBT polymer is used for the main-button pieces, which provides better longevity. The side-button covers can be changed for ones with a different color. The sensor is PixArt’s PAW3335 capable of up to 16,000 CPI, and an internal honeycomb structure is used to achieve a weight of just 79 g. The charging cable is a particularly flexible, paracord-like braided type, and the mouse feet are made out of 100% PTFE. Lastly, full RGB lighting is included, and the usual customization options are available within Armoury Crate.

Specifications

ASUS ROG Keris Wireless
Size:	118 mm x 62 mm x 39 mm
Size (inches):	4.65″ x 2.44″ x 1.54″
Ambidextrous:	No
Weight:	79 g
Number of Buttons:	7 (including wheel click)
Main Switches:	ROG Micro Switch (70 M)
Wheel Encoder:	Mechanical
Sensor:	PixArt PAW3335
Resolution:	100–16,000 CPI
Polling Rate:	125/250/500/1000 Hz
Cable:	2 m, braided
Software:	Yes
Price:	$99.99
Warranty:	2 years

PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 2x8GB Review: The Safe Bet

Our Verdict

PNY’s XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 memory kit is a good partner for contemporary AMD and Intel processors that natively support DDR4-3200 memory.

For

Acceptable performance
RGB lighting doesn’t require proprietary software

Against

Too expensive
Limited overclocking potential

Nowadays, it feels like the norm that every computer hardware company has a dedicated gaming sub-brand. For PNY, that would be XLR8 Gaming that currently competes in three major hardware markets: memory, gaming graphics cards, and SSDs. In terms of memory, the XLR8 Gaming branding is still a bit wet behind the ears, but the company has started to solidify its lineups. The Epic-X RGB series, in particular, is one of XLR8 Gaming’s latest additions to its memory portfolio.

Image 1 of 3

PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 3

PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 3

PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Epic-X RGB memory modules come with a black PCB and a matching aluminum heat spreader. The design is as simple as it gets, and that’s not a bad thing. The heat spreaders feature a few diagonal lines and the XLR8 logo in the middle. An RGB lightbar is positioned on top of the memory module to provide some flair. The memory measures 47mm (1.85 inches) tall, so it might get in the way of some CPU air coolers.

PNY didn’t develop a proprietary program to control the Epic-X RGB’s lighting, which will favor users who don’t want to install another piece of software on their system. Instead, PNY is handing the responsibility over to the motherboard. Fear not, because the Epic-X RGB has all its bases covered. The memory’s illumination is compatible with Asus Aura Sync, Gigabyte RGB Fusion, MSI Mystic Light Sync, and ASRock Polychrome Sync.

PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Epic-X RGB memory kit is comprised of two 8GB DDR4 memory modules. They’re built on a 10-layer PCB and feature a single-rank design. Thaiphoon Burner was unable to identify the integrated circuits (ICs) inside the Epic-X RGB. However, given the primary timings, the memory is likely using Hynix C-die chips.

Predictably, the Epic-X RGB runs at DDR4-2133 with 15-15-15-36 timings by default. There’s a single XMP profile that brings the memory up to speed. In this case, it sets the memory modules to DDR4-3200 and the timings to 16-18-18-38. At this frequency, the memory draws 1.35V. For more on timings and frequency considerations, see our PC Memory 101 feature, as well as our How to Shop for RAM story.

Comparison Hardware

Memory Kit	Part Number	Capacity	Data Rate	Primary Timings	Voltage	Warranty
Team Group T-Force Xtreem ARGB	TF10D416G3600HC14CDC01	2 x 8GB	DDR4-3600 (XMP)	14-15-15-35 (2T)	1.45 Volts	Lifetime
Gigabyte Aorus RGB Memory	GP-AR36C18S8K2HU416R	2 x 8GB	DDR4-3600 (XMP)	18-19-19-39 (2T)	1.35 Volts	Lifetime
PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB	MD16GK2D4320016XRGB	2 x 8GB	DDR4-3200 (XMP)	16-18-18-38 (2T)	1.35 Volts	Lifetime
Lexar DDR4-2666	LD4AU008G-R2666U x 2	2 x 8GB	DDR4-2666	19-19-19-43 (2T)	1.20 Volts	Lifetime

Our Intel test system consists of an Intel Core i9-10900K and Asus ROG Maximus XII Apex on 0901 firmware. On the opposite side, the AMD testbed leverages an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and ASRock B550 Taichi with 1.30 firmware. The MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming Trio handles the graphical duties on both platforms.

Intel Performance

Image 1 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 9 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 10 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 11 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 12 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 13 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 14 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 15 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 16 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 17 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 18 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 19 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Predictably, the Epic-X RGB didn’t beat the faster memory kits in our RAM benchmarks. Performance was consistent, with the Epic-X kit placing third overall on the application and gaming charts.

AMD Performance

Image 1 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 9 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 10 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 11 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 12 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 13 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 14 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 15 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 16 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 17 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 18 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 19 of 19

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Things didn’t change on the AMD platform, either. However, the Epic-X RGB did earn some merits since the memory kit was the fastest in the Cinebench R20 and HandBrake x264 conversion tests. The margin of victory was slim, though, at less than 1%.

Overclocking and Latency Tuning

Image 1 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 3

PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 3

PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Epic-X RGB isn’t the best overclocker that we’ve had in the labs. Nevertheless, we squeezed an extra 400 MHz out of the kit. We could hit DDR4-3600 at 1.45V after we relaxed the timings to 20-20-20-40.

Lowest Stable Timings

Memory Kit	DDR4-2666 (1.45V)	DDR4-3200 (1.45V)	DDR4-3600 (1.45V)	DDR4-3900 (1.45V)	DDR4-4200 (1.45V)
Team Group T-Force Xtreem ARGB	N/A	N/A	13-14-14-35 (2T)	N/A	19-19-19-39 (2T)
Gigabyte Aorus RGB Memory	N/A	N/A	16-19-19-39 (2T)	20-20-20-40 (2T)	N/A
PNY XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB	N/A	15-18-18-38 (2T)	20-20-20-40 (2T)	N/A	N/A
Lexar DDR4-2666	16-21-21-41 (2T)	N/A	N/A	17-22-22-42 (2T)	N/A

Sadly, we didn’t have the same level of luck optimizing the Epic-X RGB at DDR4-3200. Even with a 1.45V DRAM voltage, we could only get the CAS Latency down from 15 to 16 clocks. The other timings wouldn’t yield.

Bottom Line

In this day and age, enthusiasts are pursuing faster and faster memory kits. However, there’s always space for a standard memory kit, and the XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 kit could very well find its place with users that want to stick to a processor’s official supported memory frequency. Today’s modern processors, such as AMD’s Zen 2 and Zen 3 processors and Intel’s looming Rocket Lake processors, support DDR4-3200 memory right out of the box. The XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 would fit nicely in this situation since you can just enable XMP and never look back.

The XLR8 Gaming Epic-X RGB DDR4-3200 C16 only has a tiny flaw, and that’s pricing. The memory kit retails for $94.99 when the typical DDR4-3200 C16 kit starts at $74.99. Even the faster DDR4-3600 C18 memory kits sell for as low as $79.99. In PNY’s defense, the Epic-X RGB memory modules do look nice with the RGB lighting and whatnot, so we can probably chalk the extra cost up to the RGB tax.

Sennheiser HD 560S

Our Verdict

The Sennheisers offer an even and analytical listen, they’re just missing an extra ounce of energy and fun

For

Expansive, detailed presentation
Comfortable design
Solid build and finish

Against

Beaten for verve and energy

There’s an old Chinese proverb, attributed to zen master Hsi-Tang Chih Tsang in 800AD, that reads: “Although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes it obstructs your vision.” Back then, he wouldn’t have had access to the Sennheiser HD 560S open-back headphones, but his summation reminds us that items deemed highly desirable can produce the greatest disdain, should we find them disappointing.

In hi-fi circles, any product boldly claiming to have been “crafted for the analytical audio enthusiast” but carrying a price tag of less than £200 ($200) will probably either turn out to be exceptionally good value or a huge disappointment. So, has Sennheiser struck a rich seam of gold with the HD 560S, or is it about to rub the dust in our eye?

Comfort

(Image credit: Sennheiser)

Sonically, Sennheiser is pushing these cans as the closest option to its thrice-the-price HD 660S, but in terms of comfort the company likens them to the reputable HD 599.

Thanks to the velour earpads and ample padding on the headband, they are really rather comfortable. And at 240g without the cable, their relative lightness belies the size of those large earcups, which really do fit around the ear.

Although Sennheiser’s claimed ‘barely there’ feel is optimistic – the clamping force of the plastic headband is stronger than the What Hi-Fi? Award-winning Grado SR325e, for example – they’re an easy wear thanks to the padding, light design and slightly forward-angled earcups. Owing to their open-back design, the HD 560S feel ventilated and cool to wear, too.

Sennheiser HD 560S tech specs

(Image credit: Sennheiser)

Type Open-back, over-ear

Impedance 120ohms

Frequency response 6Hz – 38kHz

Output 6.3mm jack (with 3.5mm adapter)

Cable length 3m

Weight 240g

The headband is plastic and the sliding mechanism clicks when adjusting them to fit, but it isn’t noisy during use. The earcups are anchored low enough to permit just enough movement, in or out from the headband itself, for an optimal fit. The cups are also designed to swivel just enough to ensure they will cover your ear properly.

These wired headphones come with a rubberised and relatively slender 3m cable, with the 6.3mm plug designed to connect to hi-fi sources, such as headphone amps and audio interfaces, bearing that connection. The bundled 3.5mm adaptor, meanwhile, will hook you up to digital audio players, tablets and smartphones that have a 3.5mm headphone jack. The Sennheiser HD 560S’ cable is detachable and connected to the left earcup only.

Build

(Image credit: Sennheiser)

Under the hood, Sennheiser’s all-new 120ohm drive unit with a specialised polymer-blend diaphragm and high-strength magnet aims to reproduce deep bass notes and treble with both clarity and control.

Sennheiser says its Ergonomic Acoustic Refinement (EAR) angled driver alignment recreates the optimal triangular listening position you’d find in hi-fi loudspeaker setups and high-end recording studios, too.

Although this is an open-back headphone and susceptible to ‘leaking’ sound by design, we find the Sennheisers actually bleed audio far less loudly than the aforementioned Grado SR325e. That said, if you’re conscious of not upsetting your housemates with your musical choices, take heed.

Sound

(Image credit: Sennheiser)

We cue up Sean Paul’s reggae/dancehall classic, Dutty Rock, and the Tidal Master album comes through with an unusually healthy dollop of spaciousness at this level. The initial chord intro to I’m Still In Love With You snakes between our left and right ears with a greater analytical accuracy than through most competing headphones at this level.

Sasha’s vocal is well handled through the easy treble next to Paul’s deeper registers within a cohesive and layered mix. Instruments such as horns, which can often feel muddied in this track, are celebrated with a good amount of three-dimensional brassiness through the midrange, too.

As the album continues to Bubble, the presentation is even, clear and spacious. The bass is agile, although there is a little extra bass weight available in the pricier Grado SR325e. Roughly struck key chords through the treble are also marginally more impactful and edgier through the Grados, but even accounting for the price difference we feel the Sennheisers don’t convey the full degree of verve and zeal which we know to be part of the recording.

We switch to Melissa Etheridge’s Come To My Window and a shaker is beautifully placed at the top of our right ear. Etheridge’s rhythm guitar joins a cohesive mix where every passage is noteworthy and musically pleasing, alongside an unusually detailed vocal for the category. Our playlist continues to Angels Would Fall and, again, there’s separation and layering, from the initial riff in our left ear to the eventual central, textured vocal.

Over the course of our testing, we find much to celebrate when listening to classical music – stream Ravel’s Jeux d’eaux played by Monique Haas, and the keys are emotive, clear and refined – but we find ourselves wanting just a little bit more energy, punch and excitement from the HD 560S when listening to our heavier, funkier reference tracks.

Verdict

Sennheiser’s extensive back-catalogue of five-star and Award-winning headphones spans more than five decades. This wired set of open-back over-ears is a valid addition, offering a perfectly acceptable and sonically detailed budget-conscious option.

Those looking for audiophile-grade sound quality – as is the company’s claim – will, however, find them just a shade undercooked for punch, zeal and enthusiasm.

SCORES

Sound 4
Comfort 5
Build 5

MORE:

Read our guide to the best over-ear headphones

Read our Grado SR325e review

Our Verdict

The X3 ATR Mgmt from X-Chair offers loads of customizability to best suit your body and budget, as well as excellent lumbar support and an optional heat and massage feature. If you work and game from home, it’s a worthy investment for your comfort and your spine. But starting at over $900, “investment” is definitely the word for it.

For

Extremely customizable and adjustable
Dynamic lumbar support
Heat and massage option

Against

Expensive
Warranty not as robust as some competitors

We’ve said it before, but the best gaming chair might not be a gaming chair at all–especially these days when so many of us are both gaming and working from home. Do you want to broadcast a loud gamer aesthetic to your colleagues in every office Zoom call? And is a one-size-fits-all race car-like bucket seat the best thing for your spine to be sitting on 12-plus hours a day?

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

If you think the answer to those questions is no — or even if you don’t but your lower back hurts as you progress through the day — it’s worth considering a fully adjustable chair like the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt that I’m sitting at as I type this. Unlike most gaming chairs and many low-cost computer chairs, it’s fully adjustable, configurable to best fit your frame, and has dynamic lumbar support that I’ve found far more comfortable than any cushion or pillow placed against my lower back. The optional heat and massage helps melt away tension, although that bit isn’t all that powerful; Its placement in the lower back area won’t help those whose pain and tightness gathers closer to their shoulders.

There is the small (OK, totally not small) matter of price. The X3 chair starts at $930, and as tested with the heat and massage feature ($100), headrest ($105) and rollerblade-like X-Wheels ($50), it sells for $1,185. While that’s more than most people are used to paying for a gaming chair or a cheap computer chair from Staples or Costco, it’s considerably less than the Herman Miller X Logitech G Embody Gaming Chair, which is mostly just a high-end office chair like the X-Chair with some tweaks. The X-chair’s warranty is also longer than most budget office or gaming chairs, at five years for all materials and moving parts, plus an extra 10 years for all non-moving metal parts.

If you’re going to be spending your foreseeable future mostly working from home, you might want to consider spending high-end GPU money on your work and gaming throne. Because while it’s easy enough to swap in a new graphics card when the frame rates get too low, installing a new spine involves a lot more than popping off a side panel, removing a couple of screws and disconnecting the PCIe cables.

Specs of the X-Chair X-3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Upholstery	Advanced Tensile Recovery (ATR) fabric (multi-layered knit polymer mesh)
Total Height (with headrest)	45 – 54 inches / 114.3 – 137.16 cm
Seat Height	18.5 – 23 inches / 46.99 – 58.42 cm
Seating Area Depth (total)	19.5 – 21.5 inches / 49.53 – 54.61 cm
Armrest Adjustments	3.5 inches (8.89 cm) vertical, 2 inches (5.08 cm) forward/back, 2 inch (5.08 cm) pivot
Maximum Weight	340 pounds / 154.22 kg
Warranty	5 years (materials and moving parts), 15 years (non-moving metal parts)

Assembly of the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt Chair

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The hardest part of getting the X3 ATR Mgmt Chair ready to sit in might be getting the 89-pound box into your room of choice. My office is up two flights of stairs, but I managed. Before you start assembly, make sure you have a fair bit of space, because the parts and packaging can quickly occupy a room once you start taking things out of the box.

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

That said, assembly is surprisingly easy. The wheels pop into the base, much like any other chair (which is to say requiring a fair bit of force). Then the gas lift goes into the wheelbase and the seat slides onto the lift via a hole. This is all fairly standard for any office chair assembly, but note that the seat base is easily the heaviest part, with its generous use of solid metal.

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Sit on the seat a few times to make sure the gas piston is securely wedged into the seat section, and then it’s time to attach the arm rests. This is simple, as the straight arm sections slide into sockets built into the seat section, and get secured with one bolt each. The company includes a nice handled driver for the hex key bolts, but I sped things up a bit by using a cordless screwdriver and matching bit. Place the other armrest in its socket and add another screw and we’re getting close to the finish line.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The chair back and its two metal support arms also slide into sockets on the back of the chair, and four more hex bolts hold it in place. Unless you want to lay or sit on the floor turning screws, you may want to flip the chair over for this part and flip it back over when the four screws are tight. Last up is the head rest, if you opted for one.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

A plastic piece covers the mounting holes at the top of the back of the chair. Pop it off with a screwdriver or knife and the headrest attaches with the last two hex screws. A smaller plastic screw cover hides your handiwork — or at least it should. I either misplaced mine in the excitement of the assembly process, or one wasn’t included in the box. I’m going to guess the former, based on my personal history of losing small parts when setting up new tech or furniture. Regardless, that’s the entire assembly process done.

Not counting removing the parts from the box, assembly took me about 30 minutes. As someone who has spent hours trying to put gaming chairs together (with help from coworkers) in the past, the fact that I managed this myself in under half an hour is truly impressive. As I said, the hardest part was getting the box inside and up the stairs. You’ll also need some muscle to maneuver some of the larger parts. This is one hefty chair, but it’s also rated to handle humans up to 340 pounds. That’s 40 pounds more than the Herman Miller Embody is rated for. And although my go-to office chair of the moment (

the Baderbräu Task Chair from Wayfair

) is rated to up to 331 pounds, the X-Chair feels much sturdier handling my sub-200-pound form.

Design of the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

While the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt chair is attractive enough, it’s not particularly visually striking. It looks like a high-end office chair, made of mesh, silver metal and plastic–because that’s what it is. Still, the mesh fabric (more on that shortly) comes in four colors for this model: black, grey, blue and glacier (a light blueish grey). Other models in the X-Chair lineup have other color options, with the top-end X4 Leather Exec Chair (starting at $1,149) offering eight color choices.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Speaking of the fabric, the company calls it Advanced Tensile Recovery (ATR), and says it’s a “multi-layered knit polymer mesh.” While I’m no materials scientist, the fabric feels durable but giving, conforming pleasantly to the contours of my back and backside. The company says it is also spill and stain resistant, designed to hold up well over the years. And remember, if it doesn’t, there’s a 5-year warranty on the fabric and moving parts. I chose this model over the leather model because of its breathability and because I’ve had nothing but bad experiences with leather furniture over the years. After weeks of sitting in the X-3 chair, I still think I made the best choice–especially since the leather model costs more.

In a perfect world, my elbows would have liked for the same ATR fabric to be present on the adjustable arm rests as well, rather than the rubber-like padding the company uses, which has some give but could both look and feel better. But as anyone who’s used a chair for years knows, the armrests tend to get dirty and worn faster than the rest of the chair. So I can see why X-Chair chose the easily cleaned, presumably wear-resistant black material here.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

There’s also a somewhat unsightly seam on the back of the chair, above and around the X-Chair logo where the cover for the metal core of the backrest and its height-adjustable ratcheting mechanism meets the upper portion of the back. For most, this will be a minor thing. But considering the cost of the chair, it feels like a design issue that should be improved.

Configuration Options of the X-Chair X-3 ATR Mgmt Chair

X-Chair sells a number of models, including an X1, X2, X3 and X4, with the price and features getting more premium as you head up the stack. There’s also an X-Basic model that starts at $525. I’ll be focusing just on the X3, as there’s more than enough configuration options to talk about just within this chair line.

The base configuration of the X3 starts at $930 for the standard office chair, or $100 extra for the massage chair option, which includes heat. Next is your choice of fabric/mesh color, which was covered above. You can go with no headrest, or add the headrest and the attachment arm for $105. I feel like I could live without this, in part because I’m only 5-foot-7 and I don’t tend to lean my head back often. But if you’re taller or you like to rest your neck as the day progresses, you may want to consider the headrest. The good news is you can buy it separately after the fact. So if you’re on the fence, go without it and buy it later if neck support seems lacking.

The seat width is 20.5 inches as standard, but if you’re the big and tall type you can get a 22-inch wide extended-width seat for $75 extra. I’m far from skinny, but again, as a person with a somewhat small frame, the standard width was plenty for me.

I went with the standard seat foam, which feels comfortable and supportive, like a firm mattress. After sitting on the standard foam for dozens of hours, it’s fine for me. But if you like things a bit softer, you may want to consider the memory foam seat, which is another $100 add-on.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The standard wheels are about what you would expect and should be fine for most people. But I went with the add-on X-Wheels, which are essentially swiveling rollerblade wheels for the chair. I’ve had these types of wheels on an office chair before and found them easier to roll around on. X-Chair says they’re also gentler on surfaces, and since I’m currently using the X-Chair on a rug without a chair mat, hopefully they won’t wear out my precious octopus anytime soon.

The X-Wheels start at $50 for the clear wheels (which are what I tested), step up to $55 for black wheels, and top out at $75 for locking wheels. The latter could be handy if you’re on a hardwood floor or a smooth chair mat, as these wheels can make the chair surprisingly easy to move. The company also sells (and sent) a $40 swiveling footrest, which can be good for circulation and comfort when sitting for several hours at a time. But I didn’t use it much because I also have a standing treadmill desk. So when sitting starts to become uncomfortable, I tend to hop back on the treadmill to get my work on.

As stated up top, the X3 chair starts at $930, and as tested with the massage feature, headrest and X-Wheels, it sells for $1,185. Personally, I could skip the headrest and the wheel upgrades. And I don’t have serious lower back issues, so I could live without the heat and massage functionality (more on this in the next section), but there’s no denying it adds another level of comfort.

Comfort and Adjustments on the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Here’s the thing about computer chairs (whether they be specifically for gaming or more general-purpose): The comfort difference between a great chair and one that’s just OK (or even borderline awful) doesn’t always leap out at you at first. Unless you have persistent back problems, anything with a base, a back, and some padding is going to feel OK when you first plunk down. But sit there for hours, and the pain points (sometimes literally) become clear. Is there not enough padding on the bottom? Is the back not the right shape to support your spine? Is the lumbar support too pronounced (as I’ve often found with gaming chairs with bulky back pillows), or not pronounced enough (often the case when you remove said pillow)?

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

While everyone’s body shape, spine health, posture and preferences are different, I can say that I personally had no issues staying comfortable in the X3 ATR Mgmt Chair. As noted earlier, I would have preferred the arm rests be a bit softer. But they’re so adjustable, it’s easy to switch things up throughout the day so that your arms and elbows don’t get fatigued. Buttons on the outside of each arm let you raise and lower the armrests 3.5 inches. And you can move them forward and back 2 inches, as well as twist them in or out several degrees. And there’s a ratcheting action for each type of movement, so it’s easy to shift things a little or a lot.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

There’s a similar mechanism for adjusting the back of the chair (2.25 inches) and the headrest (2.5 inches), although I found the headrest mechanism very stiff, making it hard to land in the middle rather than all the way up or down. The seat can slide forward or back two inches (seat depth is 19.5 – 21.5 inches) via one of the two levers on the left side, under the seat. The other lever adjusts seat height between 18.5 and 23 inches.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

A lever on the right side adjusts the company’s “SciFloat infinite recline,” which is less than infinite as it is 40 degrees max. But you can also lock the recline at any angle between upright and max. I found most of the time while working, I prefered to keep the chair locked upright. But tipping the chair back a bit and locking it, giving me a slightly upward angle at my monitor, was more relaxing and enjoyable for long gaming sessions.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

I haven’t even touched on two of the X3’s primary comfort features yet. First, there’s the Dynamic Variable Lumbar (DVL) support, which is subtle at first but (for me at least) one of the chair’s best features. The part of the chair that meets your lower back is mounted on a tension mechanism. So when you sit down, it moves back just enough to make room for the size and shape of your lower back, while still pressing comfortably against it. In short, it offers very good support to your lower vertebrae, without feeling like you have a chunky stuffed raccoon jammed in between the chair and your spine — which is what lumbar pillows usually feel like to me.

As someone who has lower back pain (usually in the mornings), the DVL feature is a major selling point. I don’t know that it would make me go out and buy a $1,000 chair, but the $525 X-Basic has DVL as well. And if I spent 10-plus hours a day sitting in the same chair, I’d say DVL is worth a few hundred dollars all on its own.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

And then there’s the heat and massage feature, which I’m not entirely sure is worth the $100 add-on price, at least for most people. First the good bit: X-Chair ships two cables for the module, one that’s connected to a power brick and plugs into a wall, while the other has a barrel connector at one end and a USB-A connector on the other. So you can power the heat and massage via your PC or, more conveniently, a small battery pack. I plugged the chair and USB cable into a 10,000 mAh Anker battery pack, wrapped the cable around the pack and stuffed them both behind an elastic strap on the back of the chair.

This effectively gave me a wireless heat and massage chair. And after using both for hours, the battery pack was only about a third drained. This made me wish X-Chair would change at least one of two things: Make the power input a standard USB port so that there’s no proprietary cable to lose or break, or just build a small removable battery pack into the chair itself, which would look much better than my wrapped cable and battery combo. But at least I never actually had to plug the chair into the wall. No one wants a chair that needs to be plugged into a power outlet, and there’s no way you wouldn’t roll over the cable and damage it at some point.

All that said, while there’s no denying that the massage and heat feels good on my lower back, it’s not as strong as I’ve seen with other standalone products, and it’s confined just to the lower back. Plenty of people have tension and pain further up the spine. For not much more than $100, there are all kinds of standalone massagers, designed to be placed on a chair, that will massage and heat the entire length of your back and neck. What’s in the X-Chair, while nicely integrated, feels more like a basic budget massager rather than what you’d expect in a $1,000 device. The controls are also inconveniently placed at the back of the chair as well, which makes using them while sitting kind of awkward.

Bottom Line

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Look, there’s no doubt many people will balk at spending around $1,000 or more on an office chair. And if you only spend a few hours a day in that chair, that’s completely understandable. But if you used to work in an office and you now work from home (hi there, me), and you also like to play games or work on other things late into the night (also me), spending most of your waking day sitting in the same chair, you should probably consider upgrading to something that’s actually built to house your backside for several hours a day.

There’s a reason offices usually spend hundreds or thousands on high-end office chairs, and not all of it has to do with regulations. Aside from long-term comfort and support, these kinds of chairs also tend to last much longer than your average $89 Staples chair. And with 5 years of coverage for moving parts and an extra 10 years on the metal bits, you can rest assured that the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt will either hold up well, or you’ll be able to replace what wears out in that time frame. So what seems like a cheaper chair in the short-term may not be that if you have to replace it a few times over several years. That said, if it’s a long warranty you’re after, the Herman Miller X Embody chair seems to offer a better overall 12-year warranty that covers ” casters, pneumatic cylinders, tilts, and all moving mechanisms.”

Speaking of that chair, it offers a BackFit feature with a knob that lets you adjust the chair to the curve of your spine. That’s an improvement over most gaming and cheap office chairs, but I really liked the dynamic variable lumbar support on the X-Chair, which delivered seemingly the perfect amount of support for my lower spine, without having to fiddle with any knobs or levers. And that feature ships on most of the company’s X-Chairs, including the

X-Basic DVL Task Chair

, which starts at ‘just’ $525. Sure, that’s still a lot for a chair, but it’s a far cry from the $1,500 Herman Miller/Logitech collaboration, as is the $1,185 configuration of the X3 ATR Mgmt Chair I tested.

Skip the heat/massage, headrest, and X-Wheel addons and you still have a very comfortable, solid chair that should serve you well for several years, for about $930. That’s still a lot of money, but it’s probably more affordable than doctor visits and pain pills over the years from spending large parts of your life in chairs that aren’t designed to support your spine several hours a day.

Frequency Response Range	20 Hz – 20 KHz
Sample / Bitrate	48 kHz / 16-bit
Polar Patterns	Stereo, omnidirectional, cardioid, bidirectional
Headphone Amplifier Impedance	32 Ohms
Dimensions (extended in stand, LxWxH)	4 x 4 x 9.5 inches
Weight (microphone only)	Microphone: 0.6lbs (254g)
Extra	Removable stand, shock mount, RGB lighting, headphone monitoring

Inside the Supermicro 1023US-TR4 Server

Test Setup

Linux Kernel and LLVM Compilation Benchmarks

Molecular Dynamics and Parallel Compute Benchmarks

Rendering Benchmarks

Encoding Benchmarks

Python and Sysbench Benchmarks

Compression and Security

SPEC CPU 2017 Estimated Scores

Conclusion

Design

Display

Performance

Cameras

Alternatives to consider

Oppo Find X2 Neo

Samsung Galaxy S20 FE

Introduction

Specifications

Introduction

Specifications

Introduction

Specifications

Our Verdict

For

Against

Comparison Hardware

Intel Performance

AMD Performance

Overclocking and Latency Tuning

Lowest Stable Timings

Bottom Line

Our Verdict

For

Against

Comfort

Build

Sound

Verdict

1. Atacama Moseco 6

Reasons to Buy

2. Soundstyle Z2

Reasons to Buy

Reasons to Avoid

3. Q Acoustics Concept 20 Speaker Stands

Reasons to Buy

4. Custom Design FS104 Signature

Reasons to Buy

5. Atacama HMS2

Reasons to Buy

Reasons to Avoid

Our Verdict

For

Against

HyperX Quadcast S Specs

Design

Sound Quality

Features and Software

Bottom Line

TicWatch Pro 3 review

Fossil Gen 5 LTE review

Our Verdict

For

Against

Specs of the X-Chair X-3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Assembly of the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Design of the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Configuration Options of the X-Chair X-3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Comfort and Adjustments on the X-Chair X3 ATR Mgmt Chair

Bottom Line

Design and build

Wear and comfort

Functions and connections

Performance and battery life

Also consider

Polar H10

Wahoo Tickr Fit