Apple iPhone 2G (1st Generation) and 3G (2nd Generation) Compared

Design and Dimensions

Even though there aren’t too many differences in the exterior of the models, we are going to point them out before we get to the hardware. The screen size is exactly the same at 3.5" on both models, which provides for an ultra-clear 480×320 screen resolution. The rear of the original iPhone has a smooth metal finish with a black strip at the bottom. The front of it has a shiny metal piece that surroun

ds the side of the phone and

ends behind the screen. The iPhone 3G has a smooth piano black or white finish. It also has the shiny metal piece around the outside of the screen. The iPhone 3G features buttons that are made from a shiny metal, excluding the home button. This gives them a sturdier feel compared to its predecessor. The shape of the 3G phone is a major difference as the original iPhone is a little thicker and completely flat when set down. The 3

G has more of a round feel to it that flattens out slightly around the edges. It has been said that the screen of the 3G heats to a warmer temperature than that of the original iPhone.

Features & Technical Specifications

Once we get under the hood, we begin to see where the 3G separates itself from it’s older brother. The iPhone 2G only supported W

iFi, GSM, and Bluetooth. This means its speed surfing the Internet were quite limited. The iPhone 3G introduced 3G speeds to Apple’s fl

agship model, and it also supports WiFi, GSM, and Bluetooth. This makes for a better experience surfing, watching Youtube videos, and downloading data onto the phone from the Internet. The first generation iPhone supported the following frequencies: GSM and Quad-Band (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz). The iPhone 3G supports all of those frequencies, but added to the list quite a few more to enable running at 3G speeds, including UMTS/HSDPA (850, 1900, 2100 MHz). The iPhone 3G also supports GPS, which was not included in the original iPhone.

Both phones have a 2MP camera, but do not feature a video recorder. The iPhone 3G weighs 4.7 ounces compared to the 2G’s weight of 4.8 ounces (not a notable difference). The only downside to 3G capabilities is that it eats into battery life. The iPhone 2G beats out the newer version in that regard by providing up to 8 hours of talk-time compared to 5 hours with the 3G.

AMD 785G: The Venerable 780G, Evolved : Introduction

AMD 785G: The Venerable 780G, Evolved : Introduction

Since the beginning of last year, integrated graphics processors (IGPs) have become a lot more exciting. Consumers now have solid options from all of the major players, including AMD’s 780G/790GX, Intel’s G45, and Nvidia’s 8200/9300/9400. All of these components have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but compared to past offerings, these chipsets are light-years ahead.

Now, AMD is bringing a new product to the table, and the fresh 785G chipset is an evolution of the 780G; certainly not revolutionary. It was created to address some of the features that the 780G lacked, such as eight-channel LPCM audio over HDMI, picture-in-picture video acceleration, ATI Stream technology support, DirectX 10.1, and Windows 7 compatibility. In addition, AMD promises lower power usage with the 785G. None of these features represent a "killer app" for the company, especially since the competition already offers most of these capabilities in their existing products. But taken as a whole, the 785G is a very positive step in the right direction. That is, of course, assuming it can deliver the goods, which our testing will flesh out.

The State of IGP

While Intel's G45 for Socket 775 is over most of its teething problems and can playback a Blu-ray disc in a competent fashion, it isn't very impressive in the graphics department. Nvidia's 8200 for Socket AM2+ isn't much better when it comes to 3D horsepower, but Nvidia has addressed that weakness with its GeForce 9300/9400 chipsets for Socket 775. As far as AMD’s portfolio goes, the 780G is a fantastic low-budget chipset, and the 790GX is a solid midrange offering. With these products leading the IGP segment when it comes to price/performance superiority, why change the 780G now?

Perhaps AMD's best reason to introduce the 785G chipset isn't the chipset itself, but its new Phenom II-based processors that can be used with it, including the Athlon II. While the original Phenom was somewhat anemic compared to Intel's Core 2 offerings (and was stigmatized early on for its TLB issue), the Phenom II sports a more refined architecture that has returned AMD to price/performance leadership with some of its parts.

With this in mind, there probably isn't a better time to re-introduce the improved 785G as an alternative to Nvidia's 9300/9400, and to highlight the 785G's strengths over Intel's G45.