Tired of Hook Up Apps, Try Spritzr the Matchmaking App

Are you getting sick of stupid “hook up” apps, that promise quick dates with people that match your preferences? You’re not alone. Millions of people are ditching this type of worthless dating app in favor of a new matchmaking app that taps into your own social network to find success. The results? Quality dates recommended by your friends, with you in mind. Not some randomly generated list of matches based on finding similar statements within your profiles. You don’t want a clone, you want a love interest. Why would you put the fate of your love life in the hands of a computer, when you have a better option?

Why You Should Try Spritzr

Spritzr calls on your friends to help you find compatible matches based on the opinions and experiences of others. Most people when creating profiles for a dating app or online dating website answer specific questions that are designed to link people with similar answers together. This results in more friends and far fewer dates.

When you use a matchmaking app, you don’t have to worry about whether or not the information you’re getting is real or not. It is based on what your friends have seen and experienced. This means you know exactly what you are getting into before you even agree to go on a date. Look at your past relationships, how many times have you shared details with your friends? How many times have you asked them for advice? They know you, your tendencies and what you like, better than you do.

Having your friends provide suggestions through the Spritzr matchmaker app gives you better results than some computer-generated list that doesn’t full understand you, or any other person for that matter. If you’re looking for a quick fling or just wanting to make a few new friends, then continue to use that old dating app of yours. If you are looking to find love and have an eye on the future, then Spritzr is exactly what the love doctor ordered.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 too expensive for you? Its affordable siblings will be here soon

Why it matters to you

Are AMD’s Ryzen 7-series processors too expensive for you? There’s good news. AMD plans to roll out Ryzen at all price points throughout 2017 in the form of Ryzen 5-series and 3-series processors.

AMD’s first Ryzen processors are now on their way to enthusiasts, but the Ryzen 7-series that just launched is only the beginning. The company plans to roll out Ryzen at all price points throughout 2017 in the form of Ryzen 5-series and 3-series processors.

In a presentation, AMD said that Ryzen 5 will target “innovation for the sub-$300 CPU market.” The processors in the family will serve up six cores, with 12 processing threads. That will indeed make for an interesting proposition. Intel only offers quad-core processors below $300, and many of them are Core i5 chips, which do not have hyper-threading. That could potentially pit quad-core, four-thread Intel hardware against AMD chips with 12 processing threads.

More: AMD’s Ryzen 5 processors set to launch in second quarter of 2017

Below are the details on the two Ryzen 5 processors officially disclosed by AMD during its Ryzen event in San Francisco. This is not the full stack, and indeed, various leaks have shown a wide variety of Ryzen 5 and 3 chips are planned. But only this pair is official, for now.

Processor
Core count
Thread count
Base clock
Precision Boost clock
Ryzen 5 1600X
6
12
3.6GHz
4GHz
Ryzen 5 1500X
4
8
3.5GHz
3.7GHz

The main difference between the two, obviously, is the core count. The Ryzen 5 1600X will offer six cores, while the 1500X will have “only” four cores. Both chips has the “X” suffix, so they offer XFR, a dynamic clock feature that can up the maximum clock past even the Precision Boost clock when paired with a high-quality cooling solution.

It’s also interesting to note that the Ryzen 5 1500X, despite its lower core count, does not beat the clock speed of the 1600X. We asked AMD about this, and the company told us that we should not generally expect Ryzen 5 and 3 processors to pair higher clocks with lower core counts, though it’s also not off the table. This is different from Intel’s approach, where chips with fewer cores often have a higher clock speed than similar chips with more cores.

What about performance? All we know comes straight from AMD, of course. The company says the Ryzen 5 1600X is up to 69 percent quicker than the Core i5-7600K in Cinebench nT. That’s a heavily multi-threaded benchmark, so it puts the AMD chip in ithe best light.

Ryzen 5 is slated to appear in the second quarter of 2017, and will be followed by Ryzen 3 in the latter half of the year. AMD hasn’t put out any official stats for Ryzen 3, but it’s obvious that it will consist of quad-core and possibly dual-core chips.

We also know the chips will be on the same AM4 platform as Ryzen 7, and AMD promises that platform will be kept relevant through 2020. If you’re looking for a budget AMD rig, then it’s a good idea to wait a bit longer. Ryzen is coming.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X review

Research Center:
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

It’s no secret that the battle between AMD and Intel has become more of a rout. Strapped for cash and forced to sell off its production facilities, AMD’s chips have fallen further behind with each passing year. The attempt to remain competitive through price cuts hasn’t worked, and new PCs powered by an AMD processor have become a rarity. The company has been in desperate need for a new chip, based on a new architecture.

Now, it has arrived.

Ryzen is the result of years of work, and is the cornerstone of AMD’s new strategy, which focuses on providing enthusiast-level hardware that cuts into price points where its opponents are weak. AMD did exactly that with the RX 460, 470, and 480, with some success. Now, Ryzen is using the same approach against Intel, striking at the Core chips that offer the least value.

More: Intel Core i7-7700K review

That said, the debut Ryzen chips – the 7 Series – are not the bargain hardware you might be used to seeing from AMD. They start at $329 for the Ryzen 7 1700, and run up to $500 for the 7 1800X. While that’s far less than Intel’s most expensive processor — the Core i7-6950X, which sells for $1,500 — it’s far more than most people are willing to spend on a CPU. That puts Intel’s fastest hardware square in AMD’s sights.

This is as classic an example of David vs. Goliath as you’ll find. So, is Ryzen the stone AMD uses to fell Intel? Or does David end up beaten to a pulp?

Starting with a clean sheet

Ryzen is the first iteration of Zen, a “clean sheet” architecture from AMD, which makes it immediately remarkable. AMD and Intel debut new architectures on a regular basis, but they are almost always tweaks of a previous design. Intel’s current Core processors, for example, trace their lineage back to at least 2006, and some might argue them a continuation of the architecture used by mid-90s Pentium processors.

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

Improving “instructions per clock” (IPC) performance is a focus of Zen. This is where AMD has tripped in the recent past, so the company has selected a larger instruction scheduler window and greater issue width. It’s also added a “micro-op cache” that lets the chip bypass the L2 and L3 cache when it needs to grab a frequently used operation. Further, Zen uses “neural network-based branch prediction” to more efficiently prepare operations. To put it more simply, the new architecture is designed to work smarter, not harder, by helping operations flow smoothly through the chip.

Zen targeted a 40 percent improvement in IPC over AMD’s previous chips, and the company says it beat that target, hitting a 52 percent gain. That’s massive, but it will be needed, given Intel’s major lead in this area.

Smarter execution is only half that battle. AMD has stressed the need to “feed the beast” by ensuring required data is available when called for. To achieve that, AMD’s new cache hierarchy includes 64KB of L1 instruction and data caches, 512KB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 8MB of L3 cache per four cores. This allows AMD to claim 20MB of cache for every Ryzen 7 processor, which is substantial. By contrast, an Intel Core i7-7700K has an 8MB cache, and the Intel Core i7-6800K has a 15MB cache. Only the Core i7-6950X has a larger cache, at 25MB.

Zen’s large cache means it can store a lot of relevant data inside the processor, which decreases the need to bring in data from RAM or hard disk, both of which are slow by comparison.

AM4 may give those who jump on Ryzen the chance to upgrade later without buying a new motherboard.

AMD sold off its foundry business several years ago, which meant it had to rely on other companies to produce its chips. That seemed likely to leave the company perpetually behind Intel, which builds its own fabrication plants, but recent stalls in Intel’s production process has left a window of opportunity. Zen presses that advantage, and is built on a 14nm FinFET process at Global Foundries. Intel’s chips are also built on a 14nm process.

A smaller production process tends to improve efficiency, and that’s certainly true with Zen. The company’s chips claim a thermal design power of 95 watts for the 1800X and 1700X, and 65 watts for the 1700, which means they will fit into the same systems that can host Intel’s Core i7-7700K. Yet the Ryzen chips have more cores. It’s hard to say exactly which chip is more efficient without extremely in-depth power consumption tests, but AMD has clearly closed the gap with, if not exceeded, Intel.

AM4: A new platform designed to stand the test of time

An all-new processor design also means the introduction of an all-new platform – AM4. It includes six chipsets, all of which are paired with Socket 1331, the new do-it-all socket that will be used by all AMD processors going forward. Here, AMD is targeting a weakness of Intel, which currently uses two separate sockets, one for its main line processors, and the other for is high-end chips that boast six to ten cores. Intel also has a reputation for refreshing its socket every couple of processor cycles, while AMD promises to use Socket 1331 through 2020. That may give enthusiasts who jump on Ryzen now the chance to upgrade in the future without also buying a new motherboard.

Though the AM4 platform is new, older FM2+ compatible coolers that use AMD’s clip attachment system will be compatible. AMD is also working with cooler manufacturers to provide retrofit kits for older AM3 and FM2+ coolers that don’t use the clip system, so check that out if you’re upgrading. It’s possible your existing cooler will work if you purchase new mounting hardware.

Here’s how the specifications of AMD’s new chipsets break down.

Segment
Chipset
USB (3.1G2+3.1G1+2.0)
SATA
SATAe
PCIe (GP Gen 2)
SATA RAID
Dual PCIe Slots
Overclocking
Enthusiast
X370
2+6+6
4
2 (or 4x SATA)
8 Lanes Gen 2
0,1,10
Yes
Unlocked
Mainstream
B350
2+2+6
2
2 (or 4x SATA)
6 Lanes Gen 2
0,1,10
No
Unlocked
Mainstream & Essential
A320
1+2+6
2
2 (or 4x SATA)
4 Lanes Gen 2
0,1,10
No
Locked
Enthusiast SFF
X300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0,1
Yes
Unlocked
Standard SFF
A/B300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0,1
No
Locked

Keen eyes will notice the figures above are missing some important features, like PCI Express Generation 3 support. This is because the chipsets take a combination approach, adding their own features to the built-in SoC features of the Ryzen processor. Every Ryzen processor natively supports four USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports, 16x lanes of PCI Express Gen3 bandwidth, 4x PCI Express Gen 3 for high-speed NVMe solid state drives, and 4x PCI Express Gen 3 for chipset communication.

Notably, the X300 and A/B300 chipsets, which target the ITX form factor, only use Ryzen’s built-in SoC features. They offer no additional connectivity of their own, though they do offer the features you’d expect from a motherboard, like secure boot and trusted platform module support. AMD hopes these simple chipsets will allow widespread adoption of low-cost ITX systems.

As for RAM, all the chipsets will support DDR4 memory with speeds up to 2,667MHz by default, though users can insert faster RAM if desired, and expect it to work. Speeds above 2,667MHz will be considered overclocked, so keep that in mind when purchasing. Also, those going for the usual Dual Channel memory configuration should note that AM4 only supports memory up to 2,400MHz in Dual Channel configuration without overclocking.

Targeting the prosumer, a gap in Intel’s armor

Ryzen is entering the market in an unusual position, as it’s both expensive, and looks like a great value. The most affordable version, the 7 1700 will be $329, while the 7 1800X we tested for this review is priced at $499. Most people spend quite a bit less than even $300 on a processor.

More: Upcoming AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU achieves new Cinebench world record

Yet these processors, which all have eight cores and 16 threads, are targeting Intel chips that sell for at least $410, for the Core i7-6800K, to as much as $1,500, for the Core i7-6950X. The most affordable octo-core chip from Intel is the Core i7-6900K, which sells for $1,049 from most online retailers.

Ryzen 7 1800X
Ryzen 7 1700X
Ryzen 7 1700
Cores
8
8
8
Threads
16
16
16
Base clock
3.6GHz
3.4GHz
3GHz
Boost clock
4GHz
3.8GHz
3.7GHz
TDP
95 watts
95 watts
65 watts
Price
$499
$399
$329

Enthusiasts have long complained that Intel processors with more than four cores are ludicrously priced, and Ryzen precisely targets that vulnerability, selling its flagship 7 1800 for just $80 more than Intel’s most “affordable” six-core, the Core i7-6800K.

It appears this advantage will be widened by chipset pricing. The Ryzen 7 processor will work with a variety of chipsets, including budget models, if you determine you don’t need the benefits of the flagship X370 motherboards. Intel’s six, eight, and ten-core processors require X99, Intel’s most premium chipset, which tends to be priced above $200.

There’s no doubt that AMD has, on paper, found a weakness in Intel’s product stack. Ryzen 7 undercuts Intel’s X99-based processors with ease, and the overall cost of the AMD Ryzen-based rig could be up to $1,000 less, if you’re comparing the AMD system to an Intel system running a Core i7-6900K and a high-end X99 motherboard.

But does this on-paper advantage translate to real-world performance? Let’s have a look.

Processor benchmarks

We tested the Ryzen 7 1800X against two other systems for this review, one powered by the Core i7-7700K, the other by a Core i7-6950X. Here are the full specifications of our test systems. All systems were equipped with solid state drives connected via PCI Express

This comparison pits the Ryzen 7 1800X against two of Intel’s best. The Core i7-7700K represents Intel’s fastest per-core performance with its base clock speed of 4.2GHz, and maximum Turbo Boost speed of 4.5GHz. The Core i7-6950X, meanwhile, represents the extreme cutting edge of Intel’s multi-core performance. It offers 10 cores, with 20 threads, and 25MB of cache.

Let’s get on to the benchmarks.

We tested a wider range of benchmarks here than we normally do, which can make it all a bit confusing. To break it down, we’ll talk first about single-core performance, then multi-core.

Three of the benchmarks provide good examples of single-core results. These are Geekbench 4 single-core, Octane, and Kraken. The latter two are browser benchmarks, and while they’re not strictly single-core in the same sense as Geekbench 4, they do tend to rely on stressing a single core above all others.

These results aren’t favorable for the Ryzen 7 1800X. Though it has many cores, its base clock is 3.6GHz, and its boost is 4GHz. That puts it behind the clock speed of the Core i7-7700K – and it also appears, based on the tests, that AMD has not quite matched the IPC capability of Intel. The Core i7-7700K is over 25 percent quicker in Geekbench 4 single-core, and over 35 percent quicker in Kraken. With that said, though, the Ryzen 7 1800X does beat the single-core performance of the Core i7-6950X, which has a base clock of 3.2GHz and maximum Turbo Boost of 3.7GHz.

But the eight-core, 16 thread Ryzen isn’t meant to be a single-core beast. The real focus is on multi-core performance, and there, it ranges from good to extremely impressive.

Let’s start with Geekbench 4 multi-core, which is among the least impressive results. There, the Ryzen 7 1800X manages a mere 15 percent victory over the Core i7-7700K. On the other hand, it’s also only 20 percent slower than the Core i7-6950X – which, remember, is a $1,500 chip.

Ryzen is most competitive in Cinebench. There, it scores 1,621, which is almost double the Core i7-7700K’s score of 816. The Core i7-6950X scores 1,850, which is just 15 percent quicker than AMD’s $500 competitor. The Ryzen 7 1800X also scores very well in 7-Zip and Handbrake.

In short, the performance story of Ryzen is essentially what we expected. It doesn’t beat the Core i7-7700K in workloads that don’t stress many cores, but it outpaces it or absolutely demolishes it in many-core workloads. At times, as in Cinebench and Handbrake, the 7 1800X gets close to the Core i7-6950X, despite Intel’s $1,000 premium over its competitor from AMD. Prosumers and workstation users are going to be very, very interested in what Ryzen offers.

Game benchmarks

AMD’s marketing of Ryzen has focused heavily on prosumer and workstation systems, but the company also showed several gaming demos coming up. However, the demos usually pit Ryzen against a Core i7-6800K or i7-6900K, neither of which are chips gamers buy. The Core i7-7700K is the flagship CPU for modern gamers. Can the Ryzen 7 1800X stand up to it, or exceed it?

In 3DMark, which includes some demanding processor tests, the Ryzen 7 1800X does beat the Core i7-7700K. But its victory ends there. We also tested the game in For Honor, which is rendered in DirectX 11, and Civilization VI with DirectX 12 turned on. In both cases, the Core i7-7700K was quicker.

The difference varied, based on the game and the settings. We saw no difference when testing For Honor at extreme detail and 1080p resolution, with a GTX 980 Ti installed. However, inserting an AMD Radeon RX 480 and testing at the same settings yielded an eight percent difference in favor of Intel. The greatest difference in favor of Intel came in Civilization VI at extreme detail, where the Core i7-7700K was up to 15 percent quicker.

This result may not be what’s expected, as pairing the AMD processor with the AMD card nets slightly worse performance than pairing with an Nvidia card. However, there’s nothing about the architecture of the RX 480 series that leads us to think it would work better with Ryzen than any other card, and our test results were consistent across multiple runs. Even at its very best, the Ryzen 7 1800X only matched the less expensive Intel Core i7-7700K, and Ryzen did not win in any game benchmark besides 3DMark Time Spy.

The focus is on multi-core performance, and there, Ryzen ranges from good to extremely impressive.

A difference of 15 percent is modest in any case, but it’s not insignificant. And remember that the Ryzen 7 1800X is quite a bit more expensive than the Core i7-7700K. The true competitor to the Intel quad-core is AMD’s Ryzen 7 1700, which has a base clock of 3GHz – 600MHz below the base clock of the 1800X. We are currently testing that processor.

Gamers, it seems, are likely to remain best served by an Intel Core i7-7700K, or some less expensive variant, like the Intel Core i5-7400. Superior IPC remains relevant to games, and it doesn’t appear AMD can beat Intel in that area. However, Ryzen is at least in the ballpark, which means those interested in the chip for its excellent multi-core performance won’t have to sacrifice their enjoyment of games. In fact, the Ryzen 7 1800X is very competitive with the Core i7-6950X in games, despite the price gap between them.

Overclocking

As mentioned, AMD quotes a base clock of 3.6GHz for the Ryzen 7 1800X, with a maximum “Precision Boost” clock of 4GHz. This, however, is only the short version of the story. Ryzen processors use a rather complex system, called SenseMI, which monitors chip’s power draw and temperature via numerous, interconnected sensors. The processor then runs this telemetry through “machine intelligence” algorithms, with the goal of maximizing clock speed based on workload and thermal headroom.

The maximum Precision Boost is not what’s guaranteed at all times. Instead, the processors bumps the maximum boost frequency up or down, in 25MHz increments, as it deems appropriate. Precision Boost can also exceed promised clock speed limitations if a high-efficiency cooling system makes it possible. AMD calls that capability XFR, and it’s only available in Ryzen chips with the “X” suffix.

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

Bill Roberson/Digital Trends

That sounds great, but it’s enabled by default, and enthusiasts will want more control. Thankfully, AMD provides that as well. Ryzen owners can change clock speed, voltage, memory speed, memory timings, and more, all within Windows, using the new Ryzen Master software. The utility will prove familiar to anyone with a Radeon video card, as the controls are similar to the Wattman utility AMD introduced for Radeon last year.

Ryzen Master lets users set clock speed at whatever is desired, powered by whatever voltage is desired. It’s even possible to disable cores to increase the clock speed of the chip, a task of limited purpose, but one that will call to certain enthusiasts looking to temporarily maximize single-core performance for specific situations. Ryzen Master is the easiest CPU overclocking utility we’ve seen yet, and changes take over as soon as you hit the “Apply” button.

It’s a shame, then, that Ryzen seems to have limited overclocking potential.

We had a hint of this going in. The warning signs came from AMD’s own Ryzen conference, where we were informed a clock speed of 4.1GHz across all cores would be considered respectable. Our own efforts weren’t as fortunate. After some tweaking, we landed at a maximum stable clock speed of 3,975MHz, with processor voltage increased from the default of 1.35v to 1.45v. That, you might note, is below the maximum Precision Boost clock. But boosting cores as necessary is quite a bit different, and more tasking, than overclocking all of them to run at a set clock speed in tandem.

Having increased the clock speed, we re-ran our test suite, and found mediocre results overall. While scores did improve slightly in some benchmarks, the gain was generally below 10 percent. By contrast, we’ve tested Core i7-7700K processors at speeds up to 5GHz. We’ve also witnessed Core i7-6950X processors overclocked up to 4.5GHz, a 1.5GHz increase above stock.

As always, any individual overclocking result should not be taken as gospel. Results can vary substantially from chip to chip. However, AMD said nothing that would lead us to believe that Ryzen’s expected to stray into the mid-4GHz range. It’s also worth noting that AMD sent us a Noctua air cooler for our review, which is certainly better than average. We reached out to AMD for comment on the results, and the company stated we may do better if a water cooler was used. That is likely true — but we’ve succesfully overclocked past Intel Core chips by up to 800MHz on air cooling.

Warranty information

AMD provides a three-year limited warranty for processors sold direct to retail. The warranty covers the usual defects, but doesn’t cover damage caused by improper installation, or overclocking. These terms are standard for the industry.

Our Take

Ryzen is finally here, and as hoped, it marks a return to competition for AMD. The Ryzen 7 1800X we tested for this review scored surprisingly close to the Core i7-6950X, a processor that sells for $1,000 more, and the chip easily beat the Core i7-7700K in multi-core tasks. While not affordable at $499, the 1800X is certainly attractive to prosumer and workstation users.

It’s not a clean sweep, however, and it’s not a complete upset. Intel still has an edge in other tasks, like gaming, due to high base clock speeds and aggressive Turbo Boost maximums. The advantage you see from Ryzen depends entirely on how often you run programs that can task up to 16 processing threads. Ryzen also showed poor results in overclocking, which is sure to disappoint enthusiasts.

Is there a better alternative?

The DT Accessory Pack

ASUS Prime X370-Pro AMD Ryzen AM4 motherboard

$160

ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero AMD Ryzen AM4 motherboard

$255

Corsair Hydro Series processor cooler

$124

The Ryzen 7 1800X is an excellent choice for anyone who needs a processor to tackle heavily multi-threaded work. It punches way above its weight, targeting the Core i7-6900K and Core i7-6950X. Ryzen also enjoys a slightly more affordable chipset and a more promising line-up of future upgrades, at least when compared to the Intel X99 chipset.

If you’re looking to play games, though, the Core i7-7700K is still king. Its excellent base clock speed and significant overclocking headroom help it retain that crown without issue.

How long will it last?

AMD’s Ryzen may be the most future-proof CPU in the business. Heavily threaded workloads are the future, and the new AM4 platform used by Ryzen should be relevant through 2020, unless AMD breaks its promise. A system built on Ryzen should last many years.

Should you buy it?

Yes, though only if you need a processor for multi-threaded work, or you want a processor on a platform that has a nice, long life ahead of it. Ryzen’s aim for the gap in Intel’s armor is true, but the market it targets is only a slice. Those who need the absolute fastest processor for multi-core tasks should still choose the Intel Core i7-6950X, and gamers should still pick a Core i7-7700K.

AMD vs Intel: Does Ryzen give Intel something to worry about?

When you decide to build a PC for the first time, or the first time in a long time, you are embarking on an epic journey into the unknown. There are hundreds, even thousands, of different components to choose from, but the first and most important question you should ask yourself is a simple one: AMD or Intel?

More: So what is the difference between 32 and 64-bit operating systems

One of these two companies, these two purveyors of finely-wafered silicon, will produce the beating heart of your new PC. Intel and AMD are just as different from one another as the products they produce, however, so let’s dig into the details to find out which one would be the best choice for your new PC.

Value

Okay, which company is going to give you the best bang for your buck? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Just looking at price, AMD’s chips are generally cheaper than comparable Intel chips. The least expensive AMD Sempron, Athlon, and A-series dual-core processors start at about $30, while Intel’s Celeron G1820 dual-core processor starts at about $45.

You’ll find similar pricing as you climb the performance ladder, with Intel’s offerings almost always coming in a little higher than AMD’s — and providing a bit of extra power.

So what about the new Ryzen chips? That’s where things get interesting — the typical Intel-AMD dynamic flips around. At the top-end of the AMD spectrum, the new Ryzen 7 1800X stands out. It’s an eight-core behemoth clocked at 3.6 GHz, and even for $500, it’s among the least expensive eight-core processors on the market today. The Ryzen 7 1700 is even more affordable, at $329.

By comparison, Intel’s octa-cores typically retail for upwards of $1,000, but the direct competition to the Ryzen lineup is Intel’s 7th-generation Core i7 lineup. The Intel Core i7-7700K is a quad-core processor clocked at 4.2 GHz, with a retail price of around $350. Nonetheless, it keeps up with the Ryzen 7 1800X in most of our tests.

Looking at single-core performance, the i7-7700K scored 5482 on Geekbench while the Ryzen 7 1800X scored 4289. Multi-core performance is a slightly different story, with the Ryzen 7 1800X scoring 20,385, to the i7-7700K’s 17,782.

What does that mean for you? In short, it means AMD and Intel are relatively competitive for the first time in several years, which is great news for users. Both companies are producing processors that are within striking distance of one another on nearly every front — price, power, and performance.

Overclocking

Speaking of performance, one of the first figures you might look at to compare one processor to another is its clock speed — 2.7GHz, 4.5GHz, etc. It’s a good metric to compare processors, but it’s important to keep in mind it’s not a fixed figure, especially given you can ramp up the clock speed on some chips if you have the right knowhow and cooling hardware.

Users looking to get more performance out of their CPU sometimes perform a tweak to the processor known as “overclocking,” which increases the CPU’s clock speed above the base rate.

Overclocking a processor is pretty straightforward, if tedious, but first you need a processor capable of being overclocked. Most CPUs ship with “locked” multipliers, which prevent users from overclocking them.

More: How to overclock your CPU without setting your computer on fire

Luckily, both Intel and AMD offer unlocked CPUs at a variety of price points, but AMD has a reputation for being more overclock-friendly. AMD offers more mid-range chips capable of being overclocked than Intel does, which reserves its unlocked chips for the higher-end of the price spectrum.

Here, again, Ryzen flips the typical Intel-AMD dynamic. In our tests, the Ryzen 7 1800X performed well after an overclock, but we weren’t able to squeeze too much extra power out of AMD’s latest octa-core processor.

Still, all Ryzen processors are unlocked. Those looking to overclock merely need to buy a enthusiast-grade X370 chipset. That provides a broader range of options for overclockers than you’ll find with Intel, even if it seems Ryzen chips have less overclocking headroom.

Is your iPhone frozen? Here’s how to do a ‘force restart’ to fix it

Even though we’ve spent years with the iPhone, and discovered countless tips and tricks to get the most out of it, it’s always good to remind ourselves of the phone’s basic functions and when it’s best to employ them. Something everyone needs to know is how to restart an iPhone. The steps needed to do so were exactly the same on every device up to until the iPhone 6S Plus, but things changed a little with the recent release of the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus.

More: Handy new iOS 10 tips and tricks to try out

If you upgraded from a previous iPhone model to the iPhone 7, but have never needed to restart it, you may be at a loss as to how to actually begin the process. It’s not radically different from how it was before, but if you’re used to the old way and have attempted to use it on the iPhone 7, you’ll quickly realize it doesn’t work. Don’t worry, we’re here to explain how to restart your iPhone, when you should restart it, and how to force a restart when your phone is not responding. We’ll also lay out the differences between a restart, or a soft reset, and a factory reset.

How to restart your iPhone (soft reset)

The easiest way to restart your iPhone is basically the inverse of turning it on. This method is often referred to as a “soft reset,” meaning you won’t lose any data and nothing will be deleted from your phone. The best time to perform a soft reset is when your phone is running a bit slower than usual, an app isn’t opening or working properly, or some other relatively small problem has occurred, but your iPhone is still responsive.

Press and hold the Sleep/Wake button until the “Slide to Power Off” slider appears. On the iPhone 6 and later models, you’ll find the Sleep/Wake button on the right side of the phone. On the iPhone SE, iPhone 5S, and earlier models, the Sleep/Wake button is found on the top.
Rest your finger on the slider, then swipe to the right.
Once there’s nothing on the screen and it goes black, press and hold the Sleep/Wake button again, until the Apple logo appears.

How to force restart your iPhone

Another way to restart your iPhone is to do what Apple officially calls a “Force Restart.” Once again, no important data will be lost. A force restart is recommended when your iPhone is completely unresponsive. Examples of this include times when your iPhone’s screen turns black (despite it being powered on), the screen freezes , or your iPhone encounters an issue during startup.

The exact way to perform a force restart differs between older iPhone models and the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. Instead of a traditional Home button, the newer iPhones have a Home/Touch ID sensor, which isn’t used to trigger a force restart.

On the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus:

• Press and hold the Sleep/Wake and Volume Down buttons until the Apple logo appears.

On the iPhone 6S and earlier:

• Press and hold the Sleep/Wake and Home buttons together until the Apple logo appears.

What’s the difference between a soft reset, a force restart, and a factory reset?

Restarting your iPhone using the software option, or a soft reset, will not result in the loss of any data. The same is true of a force restart, which allows you to use the hardware keys to restart your iPhone when the touchscreen isn’t responsive. A Factory Reset is a completely different beast, however. It essentially reverts your iPhone back to the way it was when it first came out of the box — it wipes all content, settings, and personal information from the device.

We often recommend factory resetting your iPhone as a last resort if you’re having issues that you can’t solve, but it can also be used when you’re trading your iPhone in, giving it to a friend, or if the phone has been lost or stolen. It’s not a permanent process, however, since a previous backup can be used to restore everything that was once on your phone. If you need to perform a factory reset, read our guide on how to factory reset an iPhone, which also includes a breakdown of the reset options found in Settings > General > Reset.

Best app deals of the day! 6 paid iPhone apps for free for a limited time

Everyone likes apps, but sometimes the best ones are a bit expensive. Now and then, developers make paid apps free for a limited time, but you have to snatch them up while you have the chance. Here are the latest and greatest apps on sale in the iOS App Store.

These apps normally cost money, and this sale lasts for a limited time only. If you go to the App Store and it says the app costs money, that means the deal has expired and you will be charged. 

More: 200 Awesome iPhone Apps | The best Android apps for almost any occasion

Battery Max Pro

Battery MAX Pro is a new-generation battery app that helps you to understand how to maximize your battery life, reduce battery drain, and use your iPhone, iPod, and iPad longer.

Available on:

iOS

Smiley Photo Editor

Create quick photo memories with friends and family, or make poster-worthy collages of your favorite bands and brands. Add awesome stickers, cool fonts, web images, and so on with this app.

Available on:

iOS

Trip Wallet

Trip Wallet helps you keep tabs on your spending whether you are traveling overseas, living in an RV, or in the comfort of your home.

Available on:

iOS

Remote Control

Turn your iPhone or iPad into the ultimate remote control for your Mac. Use your iOS device as a trackpad and keyboard, or launch any app from anywhere within your home.

Available on:

iOS

Epic 28

Alex Nicholas, owner and founder of EPIC Hybrid Training, brings his 30- to 45-minute workouts to your iPhone to help you lose weight, stay fit, or otherwise achieve your fitness goals.

Available on:

iOS

Rainbow

Bored of the classic grayish iPhone keyboard? Now is the time to add some rainbow color strokes to your keys with the new Rainbow keyboard.

Available on:

iOS

‘Snake’ isn’t the only game you can play on the nostalgia-heavy Nokia 3310

Why it matters to you

If you’re interested in the throwback Nokia 3310 but not sure if it’s for you, you may also be interested to know that more app support is reportedly on the way.

HMD’s Nokia 3310 may be the most popular phone at Mobile World Congress 2017, and a part of its nostalgic lure has been the modernized version of Snake that’s installed on the “dumb” phone.

If you missed the news, HMD Global, which is now a licensee of Nokia’s brand name, reintroduced a feature phone that originally debuted in 2000. The new Nokia 3310 runs on 2G networks, costs about $52, has a monthlong standby battery life, lets you make calls and text people as well as browse the internet via the Opera Mini browser. More importantly, you can play Snake.

More: Nokia 3310: Our first take

But Snake isn’t the only game available on the 3310 — in fact, we spotted four others that were on the device, and more were available for purchase via the phone’s app store. There’s Doodle Jump, Diamond Twister 2, Drag Racing, and Asphalt 6: Adrenaline.

The app store didn’t seem to have any other non-gaming apps other than what was preinstalled, but it did say more apps are on the way. It’s unclear if the Nokia 3310 will ever get support for apps like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger.

There were a decent amount of games, most of which cost money though. Again, this device isn’t meant to replace smartphones, but the Nokia 3310 seems like a great gadget to keep around — for its aesthetics or in case you want a backup or burner phone. It’s why we awarded it the Best Gadget at MWC 2017.

More: Digital Trends Top Tech of MWC 2017 award winners

If you want to play Snake but don’t want to wait for the 3310 to be released, you can challenge your friends to the game via Facebook Messenger.

If you want to see what Snake looks like on the Nokia 3310, check out our Facebook Live video below where Digital Trends’ mobile editor Malarie Gokey faces off against contributing editor Andy Boxall and myself.

Could Apple’s recent moves mean a refreshed iPhone SE is around the corner?

Why it matters to you

Apple has asked Target to return its iPhone SEs, which could herald big news for the 2016 phone … or none at all.

An Apple request has the rumor mill churning once again, and this time, it’s all about the iPhone SE. While some more exciting handsets have emerged from Apple since the SE’s debut last March, it was still a commendable phone. If you need a refresher, the SE was effectively an iPhone 5 on the outside, and an iPhone 6 on the inside. Of course, now that we’re on iPhone 7, nothing about that seems all that … new.

But according to MacRumors, Target has begun returning its remaining iPhone SE handsets to Apple this week at the tech company’s request, which may suggest some big things to come. As per a company memo obtained by MacRumors, “Target this week instructed its stores to return a number of iPhone SE models to Apple by … March 1,” including six unlocked 16GB and 64GB models in Gold, Silver, Rose Gold, and Space Gray, and two Sprint models.

More: Learn how to restart your iPhone and when to force restart

While it could just be a coincidence that Target is being asked to send back iPhone SEs, it could also be the case that Apple is planning some sort of revamp on its 2016 phone. After all, Apple is rumored to be hosting an event later this March where the firm could reveal the existence of a 128GB iPhone SE, which could feature other improvements like a better camera or Touch ID sensor. Or, Apple could be looking to sell iPhone SEs with improved memory across the board, replacing the company’s 16GB and 64GB models with 32GB and 128GB models.

But don’t get too excited too quickly. It’s also completely possible that Apple doesn’t want old SEs on the shelves anymore because they’re simply not selling well, and the company doesn’t want to make lack of demand too apparent. As KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo noted, a refresh of the iPhone is unlikely in the near future. Either way, we’ll be sure to keep you updated.

LG G6 vs. iPhone 7 Plus: How does the hottest new Android compare to Apple’s best?

LG has finally taken the wraps off of the G6, its long-anticipated and highly leaked flagship phone for 2017. The device boasts a number of great features, including a display with rounded corners, a dual-lens rear-facing camera, and more.

While it’s definitely one of the better Android phones currently available, the fact is that Android isn’t the only mobile operating system out there. Can the new G6 go up against Apple’s flagship phone, the iPhone 7 Plus? We put the two head to head to find out.

Specs and performance

LG G6

Apple iPhone 7 Plus

Size
148.9 x 71.9 x 7.9 millimeters (5.86 x 2.83 x 0.31 inches)
158.2 x 77.9 x 7.3 millimeters (6.23 x 3.07 x 0.29 inches)
Weight
5.75 ounces
6.63 ounces
Screen
5.7-inch IPS LCD
5.5-inch IPS LCD
Resolution
2,880 x 1,440
1,920×1,080
OS
Android 7.0 Nougat
iOS 10
Storage
32/64GB
32/128/256GB
SD Card Slot
Yes
No
NFC support
Yes
Yes (Apple Pay Only)
Processor
Qualcomm MSM8996 Snapdragon 821
Apple A10 Fusion
RAM
4GB
3GB
Connectivity
Wi-Fi, 4G LTE, HSPA
Wi-Fi, 4G LTE, HSPA
Camera
Front 5MP, Rear dual 13MP
Front 7MP, Rear dual 12MP
Video
2,160p 4K UHD
2,160p 4K UHD
Bluetooth
Yes, version 4.2
Yes, version 4.2
Fingerprint sensor
Yes
Yes
Water Resistant
Yes, IP68
Yes, IP67
Battery
3,300mAh
2,900mAh
Charger
USB-C
Lightning
Quick Charging
Yes
No
Wireless Charging
Yes, WPC and PMA
No
Marketplace
Google Play Store
Apple App Store
Color offerings
White, black, platinum
Rose Gold, Gold, Silver, Black, Jet Black
Availability
TBD
AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile
DT Review
First Take
4 out of 5 stars

When it comes to specs, it can sometimes be a little hard to compare iPhones and Android devices. That’s because of the fact that while Android phones generally use the same processors, Apple designs its own chips for use in the iPhone. Still, there are things that we can compare.

The LG G6 makes use of the Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 processor, which is only second to the upcoming Snapdragon 835 chip. To compare, Apple uses its self-built A10 Fusion chip, which has been hailed as one of the best smartphone chips ever built. In fact, when it comes to benchmarks, the Apple A10 Fusion puts anything else on the market to shame. In one AnTuTu benchmark test performed by Android Authority, the Apple A10 Fusion scored a hefty 150,000, while the Snapdragon 821 hit 141,092. On Geekbench S, however, the A10 Fusion scored a whopping 3,399, more than doubling the Snapdragon 821 score of 1,500.

Of course, things like the operating system will affect those scores, but the fact is this — the A10 Fusion chip is more powerful than the Snapdragon 821.

The RAM situation is a little different. On paper the LG G6 has 4GB while the iPhone 7 Plus only has 3GB. Still, those figures don’t really mean much if the iPhone performs better in the real world.

When it comes to storage, the LG G6 has the option of either 32GB or 64GB of storage. The iPhone has 32GB, 128GB, or 256GB, however the G6 also has a MicroSD card slot, so you can expand your storage if you so choose.

Android fans, brace yourselves: The iPhone 7 Plus is the winner in the performance department. The processor is faster, and while the G6 has an extra 1GB of RAM, the fact is that even in real-world tests the iPhone performs better. That could be due to operating system integration, or a range of other factors — but it doesn’t really matter what the reason is.

Winner: Apple iPhone 7 Plus

There are 32 million reasons why Verizon needs to step away from Yahoo!

With three Yahoo! data breaches revealed in just six months, it’s time for Verizon to just move on.

Yahoo, a company being snapped up by Verizon as soon as regulators give it the green light, has detailed yet another data breach and this time there are 32 million lucky winners. This is the third announcement of its kind we’ve heard from Yahoo in just six months, to wit: the September 2016 announcement where we learned that 500 million accounts had been breached from as far back as 2014, and the December 2016 announcement where we were told that one billion — that’s billion with a b — accounts were accessed going back to 2013. For anyone with more than a passing interest in information security, this is just horrifying.

Just as horrifying was what went down this time. 32 million is a lot of anything but well shy of the 500 million or one billion numbers we’ve seen from Yahoo. But Reuters tells us something that should make everyone who ever had a Yahoo account even more nervous:

“Based on the investigation, we believe an unauthorized third party accessed the company’s proprietary code to learn how to forge certain cookies,” Yahoo said in its latest annual filing.

These cookies have been invalidated so they cannot be used to access user accounts, the company said.

Forged cookies allow an intruder to access a user’s account without a password.

So we have a person or persons who was able to create valid cookies that allowed invalid access to user accounts because they got the code to make them from a Yahoo system. Yahoo changed something to make them invalid cookies, but that doesn’t address the two big elephants in the room: What else did they “learn” and how did they get access to materials that taught them what to do? More importantly, what else has happened or is still happening that hasn’t been caught or disclosed?

The method used to gain access to 32,000,000 accounts is even worse than the news they were breached.

The details are vague at best. Yahoo might tell us more now that the cat is out of the bag, but in any case, it’s time for Verizon to call off the deal currently in front of regulators. Cutting the price by $350 million like they did the last time Yahoo told the world accounts had been breached just isn’t enough. Nor is Mayer not getting her yearly cash bonus as “punishment” for 1,532,000,000 instances where someone had their privacy invaded under her watch. I can admire Yahoo coming clean while a corporate sale is pending but that doesn’t change anything about how or why this can happen. Right now, Yahoo would be little more than a brick tied to Verizon’s foot while they stand on the end of the pier.

There are a handful of reasons why this is bad for Verizon. They aren’t getting Alibaba and nothing else Yahoo currently has can make a dime, for starters. The biggest is that they will need to keep most of the current methods, infrastructure, and personnel to keep what they are buying up and running. And those are tainted beyond repair.

Current and future Verizon customers deserve better and should be confident that their private data is being properly safeguarded. While there will be little if any crossover of account records and information, do you feel good about a company with access to a mountain of your data hitching themselves to the hot mess that is Yahoo right now?

You shouldn’t. And Verizon shouldn’t expect you to feel good about it. It’s time to bail and spend your 4.5 billion elsewhere, Verizon.