Pros: + Inexpensive compared to most other DDR4 3600 memory rated at CAS 16, RAS to CAS 19, RAS Precharge 19, tRAS 39, tRC 58 @ 1.35v.

Cons: - Does not actually hit the rated speed with stability. At 1.35v, my system experienced random application crashes for a few minutes, then a BSOD (0x1000007e (0xffffffffc0000005, 0xfffff8077052bab0, 0xffffa10ad46de0c8, 0xffffa10ad46dd910). This suggest that the memory is being sold at the very bleeding edge of its capability, is minimally overclockable, and is a bit of a gamble as to whether it works as listed. To be fair, this memory is not QVL for this board, but I have never had an issue with that in the past, especially with Asus ROG boards.

Overall Review: - Asus ROG Crosshair VII Hero with X470 chipset and latest BIOS as of April 2, 2020 - Ryzen 7 3700X, not overclocked, 83.29°C core temperature running Prime 95 with AVX, FMA enabled (using stock cooler until my Noctua adapter arrives) - Seasonic Prime 750W Platinum PSU - Windows 10, latest The memory has survived for 20 minutes so far at 1.36v.

Pros: - The "Blackout" series takes the term to heart. Every panel, every fan, even every screw is completely blacked out. Fractal Design provides screws for everything, including those things that usually come with their own (e.g. the power supply). - Every edge is rounded, every surface is coated. Almost every cable pass-through is rubber-lined (one is not, but it uses smooth, folded metal, so I do not expect any chaffing). - Every screw lines up absolutely perfectly. There is no need to, for example, push the motherboard this way or that to get everything to line up. It "just fits immediately". - The front panel looks like an imposing monolith. - The feet look and feel very, very solid. I have had problems with this in other cases. They are metal, rather than just a rubber sticker, and lift the case enough to allow good underside airflow. - I really like the location and number of USB ports. The USB-C port is a nice addition. - The visible "Designed in Sweden" stamp in the metal adds a bit of class. I don't know about other areas of the world, but in the U.S., Sweden is a very well-regarded country.

Cons: - Cable management is good -- not fantastic. There are several rubber-lined cable passthroughs that are not at spots near cable connections in some of the most popular higher-end motherboards (those that would likely be purchased with an upper-tier case such as this), such as Asus ROG Hero series. There are also no cable routes above the motherboard so that cables can plug downward into the board rather than up-and-loop-around. This is not an actual problem, but might be an opportunity for future design consideration. - Many of the motherboard cables are routed along the top and back of the case, but are not long enough to reach the motherboard if that routing is used. This is not much of a problem because the cables can be pulled out of the twist ties that temporarily hold them, then routed straight to the motherboard, but it seems a bit unintuitive. - The mechanism for release of the top cover is a bit "plasticky". The release runs plastic sliders along the length of the case. These sliders have a surprising amount of resistance and do not appear to be lubricated. The plastic is not thin, but it does not look like it could handle much force. For comparison, say, the Lian Li PC-V2000 case has similar releases that run the length of the case, but they are solid aluminum. Granted, that case costed more than 2x what this case costs. The top lid seems to have difficulty "locking in", at times with one corner sticking up. - The glass side window "feels fragile", not due to a quality issue, but due to the sheer size of the glass panel and lack of structural support. This is a necessary evil. On my Lian-Li, the glass side was about 50% the size of the panel, and was riveted into the large aluminum structure. The Fractal Design panel is nearly all glass, which looks fantastic, but may not be the best idea if you have toddlers in the house, if you move your PC often, or if you keep it on the floor near your feet. - While most of the screws are hand-removable, I feel like to really elevate this case, they should use screws that stay in the case even when unscrewed like Lian-Li does in their higher-end units. Because these screws are a specific eggshell black look, it would be tricky to find replacements without ordering from the vendor, should they become lost. - The pre-drilled holes for power supply ventilation look like they block more air than they could. Less metal/more hole may be an improvement. Note that, to my knowledge, this has never caused a real problem.

Overall Review: The Fractal Design Define R6 USB-C is a very solid, well-designed, upper-mid-range case. It has good cable management, plenty of expandability, and is among the best-reviewed cases available today. It is not a super-premium case, but it is priced well for what you get. Having always used top-end cases for the last 20 years of builds, I can say that I do not regret my decision, and that this purchase was the result of more than 10 hours of recent case research.

Pros: This is an inexpensive SSD. Not quite as cheap as the Silicon Image S55 or Crucial BX100, but still slower than high-end SSDs. That said, most people want "affordable and still really good". Today's SSDs are *so much faster* than traditional hard drives that fretting over their differences is like worrying about which Ferrari use for your commute: The F12 Berlinetta may be the fastest, but they are all overkill. Corsair Force LE features: - Uses TLC flash (see below for what this means), like most cheap SSDs. - Includes a fast SLC (see below) cache to improve performance. This doesn't help much for large file copies, but it is a huge help for day to day tasks like starting programs, saving documents, rebooting. - The most important factor in an SSD's performance is the controller -- the processor that handles reading, writing and bookkeeping. This SSD uses a Phison PS3110-S10, which is a faster and higher-end controller than the PS3108-S8 used in the Kingston SM2280S3, the Silicon Power S55, and the MyDigitalSSD BP3. BUYING TIP: There is rarely much difference between SSDs that use the same controller. Once you know this, you simply look for the cheapest SSD with that controller to get the best deal. In the case of Corsair specifically, they tend to use higher-quality parts and offer other value-add features such as custom high-performance firmware and configuration software. I have not often been impressed with their software, but it is far better than anything from the low-end manufacturers. PERFORMANCE WITH SMALL TRANSFERS: (Note that all my benchmarks use a queue depth of 1 because that is the most common for non-server systems) This drive reads random small pieces of data (4KB) at 33.3MB/sec. This may sound slow, but it is faster than many inexpensive drives including the Crucial MX200, BX100, and the OCZ Vector 180, and it is about 45 times faster than an average hard drive, which often can't even handle a single megabyte per second. Phison controllers are still not known for their speed with small file transfers, but this is among the best Phison TLS SSDs. Still, choose a different drive if small IOs are important to your workload (for example, software development). It writes 4K random data about twice as fast as it reads (147MB/sec), which is about twice as fast as most TLC SSDs based on the Phison PS3108 controller (mentioned above). PERFORMANCE WITH LARGE TRANSFERS: Almost all SSDs today, even cheap ones, get around 500MB/sec for large transfers (546 in the case of this SSD). This is because the SATA port is the mitigating factor, not the SSD. Note that large transfer performance does not happen much in the real world other than when copying large files. Nothing to see here. MIXED READ/WRITE PERFORMANCE: Heavy daily computing tasks are mostly reads with occasional writes, for example, to save a configuration file or overwrite a document. When most of the reads and writes are small (under 4K) and random (not isolated to a subset of files), the Force LE doesn't do very well compared to some competitors, averaging about 40MB/sec compared to almost 80MB/sec from the Crucial MX200 and 75 from the 850 EVO. This When those transfers are larger, around 128KB, the performance changes drastically: The Force LE can manage 340MB/sec, which is faster than the Samsung EVO (255 MB/sec), OCZ Vector 180 (301MB/sec), and the Sandisk Extreme Pro (261MB/sec). The Force LE seems to be marketed towards those looking for an upper-end affordable SSD. Its use of TLC memory makes it inexpensive but slower than MLC SSDs, but its higher-end Phison controller and SLC cache make it perform better than many, but not all, TLC SSDs. While this drive is more expensive than the Silicon Power S55s that I recently reviewed, it also blows them away in terms of performance.

Cons: Normally in a Corsair review I would mention how the Corsair name comes with a price tag and how you can get similar hardware for cheaper from companies that don't have such an established name if you are willing to let go of Corsair's SSD software, but I looked for similar SSDs (SSDs that use the same Phison controller and use TLC flash memory) but they are all the same or slightly more expensive except for the Toshiba, which has awful reviews. Corsair has priced this thing *really* aggressively. Specifically, I looked at the OCZ Trion 150, the Toshiba Q300, and the PNY CS1311. Note that the prices may have changed since this review was a written, so it never hurts to look.

Overall Review: First: If you are building a PC, you should use an SSD and not a hard drive. Hard drives are useful only when you need to store terabytes of data cheaply (and slowly). Many benchmarks show the read speed of hard drives vs SSDs only for large file transfers (over 256KB). SSDs outperform hard drives by several times, but this does not reveal how important an SSD is to the system. SSDs can make your PC tens of times faster. How? Most real-world file access involves many reads/writes of very small amounts of data (under 8KB). For these, the Corsair Force LE is *more than 110 times faster* than a modern hard drive (specifically the Seagate 8TB Barracude Pro). TLC/SLC flash definition: TLC stands for "three level cell. Each flash memory cell stores three voltages instead of one (SLC) or two (MLC). This makes the cell slower because it has to read and write three values, and makes it wear faster because as it ages, it becomes more difficult to distinguish so many voltage levels, but it *triples* the SSD's capacity vs. SLC (or increases it 50% vs MLC). This means the SSD is more affordable and still fast enough for most users. I wouldn't suggest most TLC SSDs for servers, but for home computers they are just fine. Power users know that a high-end SSD like an Intel 750 is faster and will last longer, but this is an SSD for your friend's computer, your dad's computer, or your computer when you don't have unlimited cash. My credentials: I helped edit articles for StorageReview.com for years and was their first moderator. I have a degree in computer science and work as a senior engineer for a multi-billion dollar semiconductor manufacturer. My company does not make any SSD-related products and I have no investment in any PC hardware manufacturer.

Pros: This is an inexpensive SSD. Yes it is a bit slower than a high-end SSD, but most people want "affordable and still really good". Today's SSDs are *so much faster* than traditional hard drives that fretting over their differences is like worrying about which Ferrari use for your commute: The F12 Berlinetta may be the fastest, but they are all overkill. Because this SSD is only 240GB, I suggest using it only for a system drive -- that's your "C:" drive in Windows, the drive that Windows is installed on. You may need second SSD or a larger one if you store a lot of photos, videos, music, or games. I have also reviewed the 480GB version of this unit and found it to be nearly identical (but twice the size). Silicon Image S55's features: - Uses TLC flash (see below for what this means), like most cheap SSDs. - Includes a fast SLC (see below) cache to improve performance. This doesn't help much for large file copies, but it is a huge help for day to day tasks like starting programs, saving documents, rebooting. - The most important factor in an SSD's performance is the controller -- the processor that handles reading, writing and bookkeeping. This SSD uses a Phison PS3108-S8. BUYING TIP: There is rarely much difference between SSDs that use the same controller. Once you know this, you simply look for the cheapest SSD with that controller to get the best deal. Other models with this Phison controller include the Kingston SM2280S3, the Corsair Force LS, and the MyDigitalSSD BP3, all of which are more expensive as of this writing, making the Silicon Power S55 the best deal. PERFORMANCE WITH SMALL TRANSFERS: This drive reads random small pieces of data (4KB) at 33MB/sec. This may sound slow, but it is faster than most, including the more expensive Samsung 845 EVO (by about 5MB/sec), and it is about 44 times faster than an average hard drive, which often can't even handle a single megabyte per second. It writes 4K random data about twice as fast as it reads (60MB/sec) Note that compared to the 480GB model, this smaller SSD reads slightly faster and writes slightly slower. See my review of the 480GB model for details. PERFORMANCE WITH LARGE TRANSFERS: Almost all SSDs today get around 500MB/sec for large transfers. This is because the SATA port is the mitigating factor, not the SSD. The same goes for this SSD. Nothing to see here. REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE: It is difficult to *properly* benchmark real-world performance myself without special software, so I'll summarize results from the most technically competent hardware review website: Anandtech.com. Note they benchmark an SSD with the same controller and firmware, but it isn't the exact same SSD and the size is smaller, so these numbers are just a good ballpark figure. Google "anandtech MyDigitalSSD bp3" for details: Light workload (most users): 242 MB/sec: 66% of the performance of the fastest SSD, 5x the performance of the slowest. Heavy workload (Photoshop, gaming, installing, etc.): 166MB/sec: 60% of the performance of the fastest SSD, 4.4x the performance of the slowest. Overall the Silicon Power S55's performance is average, not extremely far from the top performers and far above the low performers. This is good news since the drive is so affordable.

Cons: Silicon Power has been criticized for changing the controller on some models of their SSD (not this one). For example, the S60 SSD can have either a Sandforce or Phison controller. Having multiple suppliers helps ensure that no supplier can suddenly jack up the price, and it is not evil as long as the company doesn't promise a specific controller. Still, Silicon Image should have made it very clear that the performance of some of their drives can differ -- there aren't many bigger changes that you can make to an SSD design than changing the controller it uses!

Overall Review: First: If you are building a PC, you should use an SSD and not a hard drive. Hard drives are useful only when you need to store terabytes of data cheaply (and slowly). Many benchmarks show the read speed of hard drives vs SSDs only for large file transfers (over 256KB). SSDs outperform hard drives by several times, but this does not reveal how important an SSD is to the system. SSDs can make your PC tens of times faster. How? Most real-world file access involves many reads/writes of very small amounts of data (under 8KB). For these, the Silicon Power S55 is *more than 100 times faster* than a modern hard drive (specifically the Seagate 8TB Barracude Pro). TLC/SLC flash definition: TLC stands for "three level cell. Each flash memory cell stores three voltages instead of one (SLC) or two (MLC). This makes the cell slower because it has to read and write three values, and makes it wear faster because as it ages, it becomes more difficult to distinguish so many voltage levels, but it *triples* the SSD's capacity vs. SLC (or increases it 50% vs MLC). This means the SSD is more affordable and still fast enough for most users. I wouldn't suggest most TLC SSDs for servers, but for home computers they are just fine. Power users know that a high-end SSD like an Intel 750 is faster and will last longer, but this is an SSD for your friend's computer, your dad's computer, or your computer when you don't have unlimited cash. My credentials: I helped edit articles for StorageReview.com for years and was their first moderator. I have a degree in computer science and work as a senior engineer for a multi-billion dollar semiconductor manufacturer. My company does not make any SSD-related products and I have no investment in any PC hardware manufacturer. I use an Intel 730 480GB SSD in my personal desktop computer, which I built from parts ordered from Newegg, because they are the only big online seller that knows technology and makes it easy to research between PC parts.

Pros: This is an inexpensive SSD. Yes it is a bit slower than a high-end SSD, but most people want "affordable and still really good". Today's SSDs are *so much faster* than traditional hard drives that fretting over their differences is like worrying about which Ferrari use for your commute: The F12 Berlinetta may be the fastest, but they are all overkill. Silicon Image S55's features: - Uses TLC flash (see below for what this means), like most cheap SSDs. - Includes a fast SLC (see below) cache to improve performance. This doesn't help much for large file copies, but it is a huge help for day to day tasks like starting programs, saving documents, rebooting. - The most important factor in an SSD's performance is the controller -- the processor that handles reading, writing and bookkeeping. This SSD uses a Phison PS3108-S8. BUYING TIP: There is rarely much difference between SSDs that use the same controller. Once you know this, you simply look for the cheapest SSD with that controller to get the best deal. Other models with this Phison controller include the Kingston SM2280S3, the Corsair Force LS, and the MyDigitalSSD BP3, all of which are more expensive as of this writing, making the Silicon Power S55 the best deal. PERFORMANCE WITH SMALL TRANSFERS: This drive reads random small pieces of data (4KB) at 29MB/sec. This may sound slow, but it is faster than most, including the more expensive Samsung 845 EVO (by about 2MB/sec), and it is about 40 times faster than an average hard drive, which often can't even handle a single megabyte per second. It writes 4K random data about twice as fast as it reads (71MB/sec) PERFORMANCE WITH LARGE TRANSFERS: Almost all SSDs today get around 500MB/sec for large transfers. This is because the SATA port is the mitigating factor, not the SSD. The same goes for this SSD. Nothing to see here. REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE: It is difficult to *properly* benchmark real-world performance myself without special software, so I'll summarize results from the most technically competent hardware review website: Anandtech.com. Note they benchmark an SSD with the same controller and firmware, but it isn't the exact same SSD and the size is smaller, so these numbers are just a good ballpark figure. Google "anandtech MyDigitalSSD bp3" for details: Light workload (most users): 242 MB/sec: 66% of the performance of the fastest SSD, 5x the performance of the slowest. Heavy workload (Photoshop, gaming, installing, etc.): 166MB/sec: 60% of the performance of the fastest SSD, 4.4x the performance of the slowest. Overall the Silicon Power S55's performance is average, not extremely far from the top performers and far above the low performers. This is good news since the drive is so affordable.

Cons: Silicon Power has been criticized for changing the controller on some models of their SSD (not this one). For example, the S60 SSD can have either a Sandforce or Phison controller. Having multiple suppliers helps ensure that no supplier can suddenly jack up the price, and it is not evil as long as the company doesn't promise a specific controller. Still, Silicon Image should have made it very clear that the performance of some of their drives can differ -- there aren't many bigger changes that you can make to an SSD design than changing the controller it uses!

Overall Review: First: If you are building a PC, you should use an SSD and not a hard drive. Hard drives are useful only when you need to store terabytes of data cheaply (and slowly). Many benchmarks show the read speed of hard drives vs SSDs only for large file transfers (over 256KB). SSDs outperform hard drives by several times, but this does not reveal how important an SSD is to the system. SSDs can make your PC tens of times faster. How? Most real-world file access involves many reads/writes of very small amounts of data (under 8KB). For these, the Silicon Power S55 is *more than 100 times faster* than a modern hard drive (specifically the Seagate 8TB Barracude Pro). TLC/SLC flash definition: TLC stands for "three level cell. Each flash memory cell stores three voltages instead of one (SLC) or two (MLC). This makes the cell slower because it has to read and write three values, and makes it wear faster because as it ages, it becomes more difficult to distinguish so many voltage levels, but it *triples* the SSD's capacity vs. SLC (or increases it 50% vs MLC). This means the SSD is more affordable and still fast enough for most users. I wouldn't suggest most TLC SSDs for servers, but for home computers they are just fine. Power users know that a high-end SSD like an Intel 750 is faster and will last longer, but this is an SSD for your friend's computer, your dad's computer, or your computer when you don't have unlimited cash. My credentials: I helped edit articles for StorageReview.com for years and was their first moderator. I have a degree in computer science and work as a senior engineer for a multi-billion dollar semiconductor manufacturer. My company does not make any SSD-related products and I have no investment in any PC hardware manufacturer. I use an Intel 730 480GB SSD in my personal desktop computer.

Pros: I have been testing this item very thoroughly for quite a while and believe I have an excellent review for my NewEgg friends. I compare with the Logitech G930, a competitor which is available for the exact same price as I write this, against the Sennheiser HD650 for sound quality reference. I am a heavy gamer and have very significant experience in high-end audio and wireless communication. First, the + likes: QUALITY FEEL AND CONSTRUCTION: +The The Corsair headphones feel well-made and solid, almost like something you'd expect to see on a Star Trek comms officer. The headphone has a solid "intentional" feel when moving up and down. To contrast, the Logitech feels creaky and plasticky; cheap if you will. With every movement it feels like sheets of plastic rubbing up against each-other. As I note below, the Logitech does have the better volume control, which is important to me. Overall a CLEAR win for the Corsair. EAR CUPS: + Corsair ear cups are *real cloth* rather than the cheap vinyl used by Logitech. Vinyl tends to crack over time and makes skin feel clammy and sweaty. Logitech's cloth is connected by a strip of vinyl, though not on a part that flexes, so it should last if it is as high quality as I'd expect from Corsair. See note about the ear cups in "cons" below. CONTROLS: I feel Corsair's control layout is slightly better than Logitech's. I can tell from feel more easily which button is which, however, both can use improvement. The Corsair doesn't present an "obvious hand position" from which to press buttons by feel. The Logitech has more buttons because it is programmable, but its buttons are harder to tell apart by feel. +I prefer the Logitech's "roller bar" volume control, similar to the one used on Corsair's K70 RGB keyboard but strangely not their headset. Corsair's volume control is still good though -- rather than using buttons, which I don't like because they offer little control and can easily be confused with non-volume buttons when busy with a battle, the VOID uses a momentary switch, which you move back or forward, then it returns to home position. AUDIO QUALITY + Who cares? Seriously, these are gaming headphones, not DJ headphones. With that said, I did a quality comparison with a set of high-end headphones on a quality DAC. Please note that audio quality is very hard to review and is largely subjective. Both Corsair and Logitech sounded clearly worse than the Sennheisers, and both are closed headphones so hard to compare with the open Sennheisers. The Logitech seem better are reproducing bass, but the Corsair overall sounds closer to the Sennheiser reference, especially in treble. This is a win for Corsair. NICE TOUCHES: I like how the Corsair VOID plays a beep to let you know when it has turned off or on. The Logitech just blinks the light a few times, but I have to stop and make sure every time. Neither plays a beep to let you know about the volume during silent scenes. That would be kind if nice. Any takers?

Cons: Now, the downsides (compared to Logitech): SOFTWARE: - In my opinion as a senior software engineer and designer, Corsair's software for the VOID is *much* harder to use than Logitech's. I wish I could show screen shots, but it's obvious from the first glance. For example, Corsair's software has an icon for the K70 and for the VOID in a corner, and I can click on each, but this doesn't seem to do anything. If I click on the "Profiles" or "Lighting" tab, then I click on "VOID WIRELESS", I expect to see those settings for the VOID WIRELESS, yet everything I do affects only the keyboard. Furthermore, it's surprisingly unintuitive in Corsair's software to find such basic info as "What is my battery level at?" There appear to be some weird translation errors, too. When I mouseover the icons for either, I get the text, "Works normally", where they probably meant "Working normally" or similar. In design terms, I'd call the Corsair software "Not discoverable" (hard to intuitively figure it out by just exploring) whereas Logitech's is very clear and simple and uses large graphics to show exactly what is going on. That said, Corsair took over a year to support Windows 10 properly, so their software support staff seems a little too small (but oh-so-good at UI design). EAR CUPS: - The Corsair VOID is not as comfortable to large ears for long sessions. Logitech keeps the transducers farther from my fairly large ears. Because of this, my ears are not pressed down. I find the Corsair headphones get uncomfortable after 3-4 hours whereas the Logitech stays comfortable for about 6-8. The Logitech cup is also "more ear shaped". This is likely not a problem unless you have fairly large ears. - About 25% of the time when I go out of transmitter range and then return, the Corsair headset does not reconnect until I unplug / replug the USB transceiver. The Logitech has never had this issue. LIGHTS: - I have a Corsair K70-RGB keyboard and was surprised to learn that I cannot synchronize the headset and keyboard lights (not that doing so is important). This may be due to the fact that the K70 supports complex animations and, in a way, is like a low-res full RGB monitor; the VOID has but one set of LEDs on each side, so simply cannot support the same features. The Logitech has no programmable lights at all.

Overall Review: = Please note that the Logitech G930 I use to compare is NOT Logitech's latest model. Their latest is the G933, but it costs about twice as much on Newegg, so I felt it an unfair comparison. Note that the G930 was Logitech's highest-end model, so even though it is less expensive now due to its age, you can expect it to have more features than the Corsair since they targeted different markets. = Logitech supports their headset even after the warranty is over with replacement parts. For example, I can buy a new battery rather than a whole new headset. Corsair also sells replacement parts for some products, but at this time their website sells no parts for the Corsair Void. This may be due to the product's newness -- all of them are still under warranty, thus parts may be available in the future. Both headsets have their ups and downs. Overall, I prefer the Logitech, though

Pros: - Works with CableOne (ISP) and CableOne Business, which tops out at 200Mbit service. - Easy setup - TP-Link is becoming known as a brand which represents "good but not expensive" - Pays for itself in under a year compared to renting the modem!

Cons: - Extremely light weight plus narrow base means that it easily falls over when the attached cables have any tension or torsion. - Limited to a bit under 340Mbit service. This is not a problem for most, but if your ISP has faster-than-350Mbit service, keep in mind that you cannot reach it with this unit. I could not test this unit at above 200Mb/s: This limit is based on the documented limits. My ISP's highest-end package doesn't even come close to that.

Overall Review: I have many friends which rent their cable modems for $6-$20/month depending on the ISP. Even at the lower-end ($6per month), this unit will pay for itself in less than a year, even considering time value of money. Typically, a purchase is considered a good investment if it makes back its cost in 3 years or less, so it makes absolutely no sense to continue renting unless your rental fee is extremely low (under $1.50/month).

Pros: I reviewed one of these (the 12TB version, though the only difference is the space available) as an EggXpert and since got another one and recommend them to my friends and colleagues. This my favorite NAS of all time, though I also really like Synology or NetApp when money is no object (See Other Thoughts for business features). The WD MyCloud is much more than just a networked set of hard drives. Here are a few of the cool things it can do: - Auto-update its own firmware, so you don't need to deal with it. The firmware seems so well designed, I trust WD to get this right, and they do. - Turn itself off to save power at night (or on whatever shedule you want) - Use 2 network connections in case one fails (link aggregation). Note: In certain cases this could improve performance too, but probably not with only two hard drives. - Monitor a battery backup (UPS) and tell other computers to shut down safely when the battery is low. - Send an email or SMS message if a problem occurs (like disk full or if a drive fails) - Auto-backup your computers, camera, or USB drive. - Graphically monitor usage and network activity - Supports not just RAID1 and 0 but also spanning and apparently a "separate drives managed separately" option that they call JBOD. The distinguishing characteristic, however, is how easy and clean WD made the user interface. It so so simple and intuitive to get things done. I wish I could share screen captures to show you what I mean.

Cons: The firmware incorrectly presents JBOD as "The use of one or more drives not in a RAID configuration but managed as separate logical volumes." and spanning as "Combination of drives in a linear fashion to create one large logical volume." In every context I have ever seen, JBOD and spanning are the same thing. JBOD arrays are not presented as individual drives, despite the acronym.

Overall Review: The EX2100 is one of the higher-end WD NAS units and as such has a number of features useful to businesses: - Microsoft ActiveDirectory authentication - Advanced link aggregation/trunking (AKA teaming, bonding, etc.) including load balancing, 802.3ad, and others. - LLTD (quality of service diagnostics and network topology) - Share aggregation (Show shares from several NAS units as one) - Max SMB version settings (limit to SMB 1, 2, or 3) - Configurable NTP (time server) - One WD NAS can backup another WD NAS in a remote location - SSH server, NFS server, WebDAV, and FTP. I can set one of these up and have it usefully on the network in about 6-8 minutes.

Pros: As an engineer at a major semiconductor manufacturer, I was in an unusually good position to test this power supply's quality in detail. A key mark of a good power supply is steady voltage as load changes. We measured power with a very advanced oscilloscope capable of 5x the bandwidth required by the ATX specification and calibrated just 2 weeks earlier. For each voltage, we took 2500 samples using a running PC as a real-world load. We ran a low load since many power supplies have a hard time not going over voltage specs. Short version: The power supply design is very good. *Every* sample was within within +/- 5% of the base voltage. There wasn't a single spike in over 17,000 measurements! See "Other thoughts" for more detailed data. ----------------- During the test, the power supply was cool to the touch and entirely silent the whole time. The fan never turned on because it wasn't needed. During an informal test on my own system -- a 6-core DDR4 machine overclocked to 4.3GHz, the fan activated at load but was too quiet to hear from 3ft away. I can use this to replace my fanless Rosewill Silent Night without increasing system noise significantly.

Cons: Being a fully modular power supply (even the 24 pin motherboard connector, odd as that seems), the fit inside some cases is a little tight,. The plastic connectors stick out more than 1/2" past the power supply. In a cramped space, assume at least 1" of room past the power supply is needed when you add cable bend. As with many high-end power supplies, this one ships with a fancy velvet carrying case. How often do you carry your power supply around at a party? It seems a silly trend and I hope it adds no more than 2 cents to the unit's cost.

Overall Review: +3.4v: Standard Deviation: 0.024329617 Max Voltage: 3.44 Min Voltage: 3.3 +5v: Standard Deviation: 0.029969411 Max Voltage: 5.24 Min Voltage: 5 -12v (note that ATX allows +/- 10%, but this unit was still within 5%): Standard Deviation: 0.057962843 Max Voltage: -12.16 Min Voltage: -12.56 +12v: Standard Deviation: 0.033915673 Max Voltage: 12.48 Min Voltage: 12.16 Difference from ground (FYI): Standard Deviation: 0.018717451 Max Voltage: 0.112 Min Voltage: -0.088 Full data and oscilloscope screen captures available upon request. I can run a full analysis in JMP, but as you can see the voltage is very stable across all voltages.

Pros: + Push-button setup + A light helps find a good spot to plug in + Major performance boost far from the router + Looks good Plug in, press button on router, press button on repeater, 2.4GHz network is done. (This needs to be repeated, no pun intended, to add the 5.5GHz networks) Most repeaters support WPS (push-button setup), but the other 3 I've tried have all needed extra configuration. This is the first that really has "just worked." After the above, just plug the repeater into different power outlets until the unit shows a green light ("strong signal") on one close enough to your dead spots. MEASUREMENTS Avg 1GB file copy from far corner of the house on 5.5GHz network. Download: 310.5 MB/minute on router, 487.9 MB/minute on repeater Time: 3 minutes 9 seconds vs 2 minutes 57% faster on repeater Upload: 111.6 MB/minute on router, 294.2 MB/minute on repeater Time: 8 minutes 46 seconds vs 3 minutes 19 seconds. 263% faster on repeater More importantly, the Toshiba tablet no longer pauses every few minutes when playing video.

Cons: - Like most home repeaters, the RE6400 sets up networks with completely different network names, which on many devices you must manually switch between depending on whether you are closer to the router or the repeater. Fortunately, just check a box (one for 2.4Ghz; one for 5.5) to use the same name for the repeater. This should allow devices to automatically switch. Once this is done, I was no longer able to access the user interface using "extender.linksys.com", but the repeater supports DLNA so I can access it from my PC or tablet easily. - As of firmware 1.1.00.010, I cannot turn off the light. This may be annoying at night when used in a bedroom. At least the light doesn't blink during use. - Strangely, I get 3 "bars" for both the repeater network and the router network, despite the repeater network being much faster. Bars are a fairly imprecise and arbitrary metric though -- what matters is how it works.

Overall Review: This is my fourth repeater from various brands. I've used a hard-wired repeater and two routers in repeater mode, and ALL of them (not this one yet!) worked for only a short time (a week or two) before needing to be restarted. I find it very irritating to have to reset the repeater almost weekly. The Linksys RE6400 repeater has so far worked without needing a reset, but I have not had it for long. If you are reading this now, I have still not had a problem. I will update this review if that changes.

Pros: - Setup was so easy, your grandmother could teach my grandmother how to do it. Seriously, you can get this for a non-techie and they won't need your help. I don't know if I've ever said that about a NAS before. - The web interface is really slick and extremely well-designed. The only better I have seen is on much more expensive Synology NAS units, however the Western Digital's is simpler. As an experienced software developer myself, I am not easily impressed -- and I'd like to nominate WD's web interface team for a medal. - You don't need to attach any annoying rails or special screws to each hard drive. - The unit feels solidly build, is very quiet, and appears to use good quality components including WD's own Red line of hard drives, of which I have purchased dozens for various projects. I took internal photos showing WD uses solid-state capacitors (which last much longer and handle higher temperature than ordinary capacitors), but I cannot yet post images to a review. - Link aggregation (use of two network ports for reliability) works with my HP ProCurve switch. I can unplug either cable and the unit works fine.

Cons: - Doesn't support 2.5" (laptop-sized) hard drives without an adapter. - Only comes in black.

Overall Review: The initial review unit was damaged, but true to form, Western Digital took care of it. I've used and configured many dozens of WD Red drives over the years and have experienced exactly zero failures. With two hard drives, you have the choice between 6TB of storage space with full protection against a hard drive failure, or 12TB of storage space with no protection against a failure. For most tasks I think the 12TB mode is just fine. Hard drives are very reliable these days. If your data is really important, you need to make backups -- the 6TB mode cannot protect against accidental deletion, fires, etc..

Pros: I've used or reviewed numerous wireless storage products and most give you an unstable connection or flat-out don't work except as an expensive wired USB drive. After my experience with Samsung's attempt (See N82E16822152423), I didn't expect much from this unit because they and Seagate are wireless drive partners (and Seagate bought Samsung's storage division), but it turns out that Seagate knows how to get it right. + It actually works! Every single time! + I was able to stream a high-definition episode of Big Bang theory to my old Samsung GS3 phone without the slightest problem. + I was even able to steam a video from the drive while simultaneously copying it to the phone! It was a little jumpy, though. + Seagate's software is very easy to use and hasn't been frustrating so far. + The Seagate app does not silently eat battery in the background when not in use. I know this shouldn't be a big deal, but so many Android apps (even some from Google) eat battery in the background and can but battery life in half. Seagate's app seems to have been written by developers that know what they are doing! + The software is smart enough to know that an MKV file is video. A lot of software refuses to play or even acknowledge MKV files. It even bins them in the right folder (Video).

Cons: I took notes on some minor gotchas that you should know about: 1. My biggest complaint is that you can't enable wireless while plugged into USB, even just a USB charger. This is my biggest use case: Use the drive as wireless storage for a tablet while the drive is plugged in so that I don't have to worry about the battery running out. Why?? Fortunately you can work around this by powering on the drive, waiting for it to go wireless, and THEN connecting to USB. Please fix this, Seagate! 2. (See above) You cannot use both USB and wireless storage at the same time. When wireless, the drive isn't detected on USB. When you start as a USB drive, it won't enable wireless. See #1. 3. Establishing a wireless network isn't slow, but it isn't super fast. It takes about 20-30 seconds. 4. Data copied to the wireless drive from a mobile device is hidden from Windows/Mac. You can still get to it by showing hidden files and then looking in the hidden GoFlexData and .GoFlexData_thumbs folders, The directory contents seem well organized, at least. 5. The app seems to cache a list of files and not refresh that list, even when you totally disconnect and reconnect the wireless drive. For example, I disconnected the drive, plugged it into USB, copied a video to the drive, disconnected USB (see #2) and re-enabled wireless, but the Seagate app did not see the file until I tapped "refresh". Doing so is hardly a big deal, and it works perfectly every time, but isn't very intuitive.

Overall Review: Through wireless, I was able to copy data to my phone at 3-5 megabytes/sec (24-40 megaBITS/sec). That's plenty for most streaming but could be faster for large file copies. Please keep in mind that the drive may transfer faster to newer phones. Mine is about 2 years old. When you copy files from the wireless from the wireless drive to your mobile device, those files appear under the "SeagateMedia" folder. (This isn't obvious at first)

Pros: I planned to killed my review unit before posting so I could discuss its durability. The dang thing wouldn't die! I've been writing and deleting music to it for months with a batch file. Besides a few reboots and forgetting to restart the script a few times, it's been writing all day and night. I didn't install OCZ's "SSD Guru" just in case it enables read-only mode on well-worn drives, so I don't have an exact endurance number. However, I estimate I've written 25,000 - 30,000 GB to the drive, well past its rated endurance. Performance: Choosing a modern SSD based on performance today is a little like choosing which jet fighter to use for your grocery store run. They are all vastly (50x+) faster than conventional hard drives (analogous to sedans), so I doubt it matters to most people. The ARC 100 "feels" par with my main system drive: An Intel 730 480GB. In tests, the ARC100 is about 20% slower writing random data and 50% slower reading. This sounds like quite a bit, but SSDs are rarely the bottleneck in system performance. I noticed the difference only when copying large files to a very fast drive array. The ARC 100 as be an affordable drive for people that want SSD performance but don't want to pay a premium. Its performance is lower than more expensive drives, and its long-term durability is rated lower by OCZ, but for practical buyers that want a blazing fast application load time and boot time, the OCZ ARC 100 will fit the bill without a large bill.

Cons: OCZ released a firmware fix that indicates the early OCZ ARC 100 firmware had some problems. I never used the old firmware since I always update to the latest as soon as I get a new piece of hardware. These notes sounds scary, but no scarier than the massive problems that Samsung and other manufacturers have had with their early firmwares: The notes (Source: http://ocz.com/consumer/download ): Fixed a corner case issue with DDR corruption on 480GB capacity drives Improved robustness of uncorrectable error handling Improved read retry on bad block list Numerous stability and reliability improvements

Overall Review: Did you know that some models of OCZ SSD like the Octane and Petrol had more than a 40% failure rate? Compare that to Intel SSDs at less than half a percent. OCZ went super cheap and their reputation was harmed. Lesson: Update your SSD firmware, no matter the brand!

Pros: +Very fast sustained transfer rates: 121MB/sec reading, 117MB/sec writing (this is on an Intel X99 chipset). +Could work as a wireless streaming hard drive once the bugs are worked out.

Cons: The reason to buy this hard drive over a conventional 1.5TB drive is the wireless streaming capabilities to your phone. Using the latest firmware software as of this review date, I could not get streaming to work, and I am using a Samsung phone! - The software takes a long time (60+ seconds) to connect and asks for the password more than once per connection. - Once the Samsung Wireless software connects, it tells you the battery charge level. Submenus you can also find available disk space, renamed the device, etc.. - Actually listing files seems to be out of reach. 20 minutes now and the software still hasn't listed a single thing. (I had previously copied a bunch of MKV movies and JPG images to the drive). - Even when using the Samsung Wireless software, the phone kept switching to a different wireless network than the hard drive, which forced me to login (entering the password several times) again. - Loses its wireless capabilities when plugged into a USB port. - Samsung Wireless software reports a full battery at first, then changes its mind. After 20 minutes of charging, it is at 34%. After another 4 hours of charging, it is at ... 34%. - You need to hold the power button for an awkwardly long amount of time to start the unit, and just tapping the power button briefly illuminates a blue light, implying the drive is on when it is not. - The manual is very basic and poorly translated. Examples: "Standardized data cable This may increase the wrong operation and may cause a malfunction" "Samsung Wireless has a network password from factory to restrict access. The initial password is 10 times '0' (0000000000)" (ten times zero is just zero...)

Overall Review: Good idea, but the product was released long before it was ready.

Pros: - Stable overclocked no matter what I threw at it -- Prime95, MemTest86, FurMark, SuperPi, and running 2 overclocked weeks straight with 10 concurrent x264 transcodes and not one glitch. - FITS IN A STANDARD ATX CASE. Yes, even though this case is E-ATX, I was able to easily fit it in my ATX LianLi PC-V1000. The board is very slightly longer towards the SATA ports than ATX, but most cases provide enough tolerance that you shouldn't have a problem. Note this is not even Gigabyte's smallest X99 motherboard. - Solid-state capacitors. Some manufacturers say this is a gimmick. I say I have had too many electronics die over time due to cheap electrolytic capacitors. - Lighting is decorative yet tactful - LED display showing status during boot. This was useful in diagnosing the board's flaky BIOS. - Upgradable (or so it looks), fast WiFi with cool-looking though low-gain antenna. - "CPU upgrade" feature makes overclocking dead simple. Simply specify what your CPU is (of 3 choices, it's easy) and what you want it to be. For example, I told it I wanted to run all cores at 4GHz and it took care of the rest. _EASIEST OVERCLOCK EVER_. - Well priced

Cons: The BIOS is as stable as a Jell-O skyscraper. - The BIOS setup screen would regularly freeze (lock the entire system) after a few minutes, even when doing nothing. - The system fails to boot every 10 or so reboots, requiring I cycle power. I can't press CTRL-ALT-DEL because it's *that* frozen. The fact that the booted system will pass any stress test indicates that this is certainly not the fault of the hardware. - The BIOS setup has three different user interfaces which, while a possibly good idea, aren't well implemented. Some UIs are either missing menus I need that are available in other UIs; that or said menus are so hard to find that the UI needs a makeover. - Motherboard manual strongly recommends (requires, even) that if you have only one GPU like most of the world, that it occupy only the PCI-E slot closest to the CPU. Has Gigabyte ever used a large heatsink and a GPU with a protective backplate? I suspect not because my Noctua NH-D15 cooler puts a lot of upwards force against my EVGA Geforce 780 w\backplate.

Overall Review: I waited as long as I could to give Gigabyte a chance to release a stable BIOS before writing this review. As of now, the same two "beta" releases available when I got the board have not yet been released as stable, nor to their notes mention fixes for the stability problems. Unlike other reviewers, I have absolutely NO USB PROBLEMS even though I use all sorts of weird USB devices (joystick, pedals, throttle, head tracking system, USB audio, wireless headphones)

Pros: + Inexpensive + Supports easy antenna upgrades + Performs well when it works + Supports WPA2 with AES encryption -- the best available home wireless security.

Cons: - WPS (Wifi Protected Setup) does not work! - Doesn't encrypt/hash passwords internally. This only matters if someone logs into the admin interface where they can read easily your password. - Manual setup is awkward and clunky.

Overall Review: This review is a re-post because my previous one seemed to go missing, but it's a good thing since I have had more time to test the unit. - My unit loses its connection more than once a week, which leads me to suspect that my unit is defective. That's understandable -- every product has a certain defect percentage. I have to manually re-configure the network (with the same details it already has stored) to reconnect. The unit reports no problems when it loses connection -- devices simply cannot talk to it until reset. Power cycling does not help. - The manual highly recommends using WPS, which allows setup with just 2 button presses, but as other reviewers noted it doesn't _fully_ work. WPS _DID_ get my unit on the network and got it an IP address, but I had to manually configure the network name, security key, and other details. This is annoying, but you only do it once unless you got a bad unit like

Pros: If you are looking for a PCI-Express wireless adapter for your PC that "just works" and isn't too expensive, this is a good place to start. The technical details have been covered in other reviews, but I wanted to rave about the single most impressive feature of this card: Reliability. I live in a 2-floor, 2100 square foot house. I've reviewed many wireless-N devices before, so I was expecting about the same performance as those. I was wrong. The most unexpected thing about the TP-Link was the 54% signal strength from the other side of the house, on a different floor, through a ventilation duct, metal bed frame, and 5 walls. To put it in perspective, even the expensive 802.11AC devices such as the DWA-182, which cost several times as much (though are different classes of device), had unreliable connections at best. I could view images and check email, but not stream movies without losing connection every few minutes. To contrast, the TP-Link N600 never lost connection when copying over 230GB of files. Other notes I made: + Supports 5GHz networking. Why should you care? The more common (and also supported) 2.4GHz frequency can be very flaky and unpredictable. Microwaves, bluetooth devices, and even garage door openers can interfere with your network. 5GHz networks generally do not have this problem. Which should you choose? It depends on your situation. this card supports both, so try both! See what works best for you! + Supports low-profile cases with the included adapter. + Warranty is 2 years -- twice as long as most other adapters. Really, twice as long as most other computer products of any kind.

Cons: - The drivers come in a mini-CD. This is fine for most computers, but many CD-ROM drives, especially older ones, do not work well with them. - Ships with old drivers. Any geek, however, should know to always get the latest drivers from the website. - Signal was much weaker when passing through my aluminum computer case, Easy enough to fix: Move the computer. - As a PCI-Express card, obviously this product is not mobile. Moving my computer across the house to test was a little awkward.

Overall Review: I installed high-gain antennas and saw almost zero difference at any range. The included antennas appear to be very good.

Pros: "Quality is not an act, it is a habit." --Aristotle Short version: + Very grippy sides and mouse wheel + Adjustable tracking speed buttons on mouse + 2 extra buttons -- Not too many, not too few + Fantastically responsive wheel + Possibly the best layout of any mouse. + Overkill specs Detail: GRIP: When your hands get sweaty, common mice get slippery and you know what that does in combat -- If you didn't, you wouldn't be reading about a gaming mouse. Let me make a bold statement: Corsair solved the grip problem. To do an extreme test, I coated my hand in olive oil. Even then, no matter how fast I moved, I never lost mouse precision or grip. Unfortunately now my mouse is all oily. Maybe Corsair will be kind and send a new one in exchange for the noble sacrifice I made for this review. ;) DPI: esreality.com has a technical analysis of mouse marketing and how useful gaming mice features really are. To summarize: High sensitivity players, those that make subtle mouse movements rather than large ones, need about ONE DPI per pixel of screen width. At 1080p (1920x1080), you need at most 1920 DPI. 5,000 DPI is enough for gaming with 2 or 3 monitors, and it's more than enough for 4K screens, but if you don't have such a setup then it's overkill. TRACKING SPEED: Low DPI optical mice can get confused with fast movements. I was physically unable to move the Raptor M45 quickly enough to lose tracking quality. UPDATE SPEED: The Corsair Raptor's reports mouse position 1,000 times per second, or about 8 times faster than a standard Microsoft optical mouse (125Hz). @ 60FPS, each frame takes 1000/60=16.7ms. At 1000Hz, there's a 1 in 16.7 chance a movement will be missed until the next frame. @ 120FPS, the chance is ~ 1 in 8. Network / monitor lag is a MUCH much bigger factor, and some research shows input lag is only distracting at around 200ms, but the extreme speed doesn't hurt and may make the difference in the most evenly matched combat. BUTTONS: In addition to the standard buttons, two thumb buttons are included. Corsair paid attention to detail with the layout. With my average-size hands, I don't even need to move my thumb to use both buttons in natural thumb position. Some gamers like more buttons, but I've found that it's too easy to press the wrong one in the heat of battle. If you do like more buttons though, look elsewhere.

Cons: LASER SENSITIVITY ON POOR SURFACES: A disadvantage of optical mice vs. old ball mice is that the sensor needs to "see" features in the mousing surface to detect movement. Some mice can track even on mirrors, while others require a matte surface. While you should use a mouse on a proper mouse pad, sometimes that isn't an option. I tested the Corsair Raptor M45 in a variety of surfaces. Here is its report card: A+ Cloth mouse pad A+ Semi-glossy laminate desk C- Glossy cardboard box (Slightly erratic) A+ Highly polished solid wood table F- Wood with high-gloss oil-based paint (No tracking possible) F- Blank silicon semiconductor wafer -- This is one of the most perfectly flat surfaces in the world, so it's an unfair test. Still, it failed. (No tracking possible) The Corsair mouse is about average on non-ideal mousing surfaces. BUTTON PRESSURE: - Requires a little too much force to click the middle button. This may have been by design to prevent accidental middle-clicking while selecting weapons (or other mouse wheel actions) in-game, but this was never a problem for me. Out of game I middle-click on links to open new browser tabs, and it feels a little awkward on the Corsair mouse. It's as if I'm saying, "No, I REALLY want you to middle click." Minor complaint, though. HAND POSITION: Natural right-hand wrist position is angled clockwise 30-60 degrees. The Raptor M45 is almost completely flat, so keeps your hand in the same slightly unnatural position that most mice do. I find Evoluent "vertical mice" more comfortable, but then they aren't very good for gaming, so this may be by design. LEFT-HANDERS: I am right-handed, but I tried using the mouse left-handed to the best of my ability. It worked well, but the two additional buttons are positioned near the ring finger. I found it very difficult to distinguish the buttons with that finger, but left-handed folks would probably fare much better than I.

Overall Review: Corsair's Vengeance case, water cooling, and now this mouse -- Corsair is on a role lately.

Pros: Power supply temperature is lukewarm running OCCT (a load testing application) and Assassin's Creed IV on an overclocked i7, an overclocked nVidia 780 GTX, 4 blu-ray drives, 2 hard drives, and two SSDs. I've used fanless PSUs for years and wrote some of the first articles on how to build a "real" PC without moving parts. I've built high-end custom workstations since the mid-90's. So when I say this is the best power supply I have ever used by any metric (except max power output and price), you've got to appreciate how good a job the designers did.

Cons: As with any fanless and/or Platinum-rated power supply, the cost per watt is higher than lesser quality power supplies.

Overall Review: This is the KINGWIN STR-500, manufactured by SuperFlower. Reading the reviews, this power supply is one of the two or three best ever manufactured for quality voltage regulation, ripple, load response, and can actually output 600W (not just 500). Some reviewers measured results which were merely excellent rather than top-3-ever, though that may be due to test equipment variation. This is a highest-end power supply, to join the ranks of Seasonic and PCPower&Cooling's top-of-the-line. If you want the absolute best, and don't use more than two video cards in SLI, this is it.

Pros: Very nice packaging. Hybrid mode: Fan stays off until heavy power draw

Cons: Does not boot the system with a GTX780 video card! Boots perfectly fine with an old 9600GT. I'm a professional engineer and have built over 70 systems so I am sure I have everything connected properly and that the video card works perfectly in this system with other power supplies.

Pros: I've built numerous NAS devices. My most recent was a 24TB system for a geology company. I chose WD Red drives (3TB in that case) for that build because I know what I am doing, and so does Western Digital. I used a Synology NAS and was extremely happy with it. + Key feature: These drives work *properly* in RAID arrays. (!)See note below. + Very low power usage and thus heat. The drive added about 6W in heavy use, 4W idle, including power supply overhead. This is even lower than some SSDs! + Faster than 3TB version. About 22% for random 4K writes. + Usually cheaper than the Seagate NAS 4TB (a competing drive). + Surprisingly fast transfer rate of 139MB/sec (including overhead). Note: DO NOT rate hard drives based on their transfer rate unless you mostly move large files to/from other drives! transfer rate has little to do with file server performance or even application load time performance! + Capacity per dollar is very high for a server drive. (!) Note from above: Technically any drive can be used in a RAID, but don't. Hard drives regularly grow or find bad sectors. Ordinary drives take so long recovering the sector that they are dropped from the array and must be manually restored which can take days -- time in which a second failure will destroy your array (at least for RAID5). WD Red drives feature TLER (which is less of a feature than a change to a timer in the firmware -- long ago even consumer-grade drives supported this) which prevents minor drive errors from leading to array failure. It used to be that only WD's RE-series of drives were appropriate for RAID, or expensive SCSI or SAS drives which cost much more per megabyte. WD Red drives don't cost much more than a standard WD Green drive, so there's little reason to take the risk on consumer-grade drives.

Cons: - If you are not build a RAID, there is *no reason* to get this or any WD Red drive. Get the Western Digital Green or one of its competitors. - This drive can sustain about 150 random IOPS. In other words, this drive is fairly slow for RANDOM I/O (many reads of small pieces of data from all locations on the drive) so is absolutely not a good idea for database servers, heavily-used file servers, email servers with many users, or heavy VM hosts. For those, you want at least 15K drives, but preferably enterprise SSDs such as Intel's DC3700 or a real file volume solution like one from NetApp. + I was unable to test performance in a real RAID with only one drive, but StorageReview.com clocked a 5-drive Synology array at 216 IOPS read, 531 write (4K). That's similar to competing drives but fairly awful in terms of server performance. It's comparable to just a single Seagate Cheetah 15K.7 drive, but the WD Red series is intended to be large, reliable, and cheap -- not blazing fast. (Note: If you need high IOPS and are on a budget, configure your drives as a series of RAID1 arrays. You will get near-linear scaling and will quickly outperform even expensive 15K SAS drive arrays. The downside is that you will have more than one file system, and will need to divide contents among them).

Overall Review: Credentials: I was a technical editor with StorageReview.com for many years. I was their first moderator, and I have a lot of exposure to hard drive performance metrics. I do NAS and storage consulting. I have a Computer Science degree and work for a major semiconductor company. Other notes: RAID5 is terrible for performance with any drives. It's good only if you need redundancy and lots of disk space. RAID0 does not increase desktop performance significantly. It's great for large file copies, though. If you want top desktop performance, ditch RAID and get an SSD. The difference is staggering. Don't bother making an SSD RAID array. If you are building something for your company, consider buying a commercial SAN. Yes, they are overpriced, but the added cost provides good CYA. Credentials: I was a technical editor with StorageReview.com for many years. I was their first moderator, and I have a lot of exposure to hard drive performance metrics. I do NAS and storage consulting. I have a Computer Science degree and work for a major semiconductor company. Brief notes for desktop users unfamiliar with RAID: RAID5 is terrible for performance with these or any drives. It's good only if you need redundancy (1 drive can die with no data loss) and lots of disk space. RAID0 does not increase desktop performance significantly. It's great for large file copies, though. I never suggest RAID0. If you want top desktop performance, ditch RAID and get an SSD. The difference is staggering. Don't bother making an SSD RAID array. If you are building something for your company, consider buying a commercial SAN. Yes, they are overpriced, but the added cost provides good CYA.

Pros: When I started the research for this review, I didn't expect much difference vs my D-Link AC1750 router. I was wrong: D-Link AC1750 --------------------------------- 45ms - No load 115ms - Heavy load D-Link Gaming Router (this router): --------------------------------- 45ms - No load. 61ms - Heavy load, gaming system prioritized. 66ms - Heavy load, gaming system NOT prioritized. To put that in perspective, the gaming router cut my ping times in half at heavy load. And that's compared to the AC1750, D-Link's top-of-the-line home wireless router. General: + Very fast. See the benchmark results in the "Other Thoughts" section. + No external antennas to break off, position badly, etc. + Allows you to access files from connected USB storage. + Admin interface has a lot of intelligence built in. For example, when I changed the router's IP address, the IP range that it gives out (using DHCP) also automatically changed. + Admin interface is very nice looking, very easy to use, and very well-organized. This is in contrast to D-Link's own AC1750 router that I tested against, whose firmware looks like it was written in 1998. + The firmware has a really cool graphical network map that shows all of your connected devices and how much bandwidth they are using in real-time. Bandwidth is only accurate for devices directly connected to the router, so the bandwidth part itself is useless if you use an additional switch. + Virtual Server setup is super-easy and has quick links to set your home server up for HTTP, FTP, Remote Desktop, etc. Very useful if you have a home server that you want to be able to access from the internet. + Requires Internet Explorer 7 or higher, Firefox, or Chrome. Some reviewers listed this as a disadvantage. If you are still using IE6, you are doing it wrong. Security: + Router's admin screen allows an optional "captcha", to help prevent internet bots from trying to break into your router. Not that they could because: + Router has a secure default password, shown on a sticker on the wrapper and on a permanent sticker on the bottom. + Router defaults to WPA-2 Personal, which is very secure. It uses both TKIP and AES though. TKIP has been simplified (not broken), so I'd prefer it default to using just AES. Documentation: + The Quick Install Guide is clearly written and has useful pictures.

Cons: - Costs a fortune. As of this writing, costs even more than the faster but less game-friendly D-Link AC1750. - Not wall-mountable. The D-Link AC1750 has a very similar design to this router and has wall-mount holes on the bottom. I wonder why this gaming router doesn't come with those? - Documentation is woefully incomplete. For a router with so many features, you'd expect it to have documentation on how to use them. While the quick-setup guide helps you get setup, the packaging comes with NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION. The quick-setup guide claims that documentation is available at http://www.dlink.com/DGL-5500L but that link does not work. Try it for yourself. Incidentally if you search D-Link's website, there is a full manual available online. Too bad the link that came with the router is broken. Sloppy work, D-Link. Fortunately, they can fix it by putting a redirect on their website. Let's see how long it takes them to read this review and fix the problem. - Less range/lower speed at long range than the cheaper AC1750 router.

Overall Review: Test details - Latency: For high-load tests, my home server was set to download and share 10 torrents (40 connections total) and to upload a large file to a fast remote server to make sure that ALL upload bandwidth was in use. I tested average ping times to Google.com over at least 1 minute, using one ping per second. ---------------------------------------------------------- I tested performance from three locations in a 2200Sq Ft 2-floor house. These should duplicate common usage scenarios. I tested the 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks separately in each location. I used a Lenovo Thinkpad T510 corporate laptop with DWA-182 802.11ac adapter. I tested by copying a large file in Windows to and from a powerful enterprise-grade server. There's a lot of protocol overhead in file transfers, so these numbers are not for comparison with the router's rated speed. They are "real-world" transfer speeds. Three locations were tested, using both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz network: a. "In the other room": Separated by a bookshelf and a wall, about 15 feet away. b. "Several rooms away": One floor up, separated by 2 or 3 walls. c. "Opposite end of house": One floor up, through 5 walls, a king bed, and two metal ventilation shafts. Results for 2.4GHz network: "In the other room": 11.9 MB/sec down, 19.7 up "Several rooms away": 21.5 MB/sec down, 23.2 up "Opposite end of house": 9.0 MB/sec down, 9.9 up Results for 5GHz network: "In the other room": 28.8 MB/sec down, 23.6 up "Several rooms away": 32.6 MB/sec down, 24.6 up "Opposite end of house": 5.4 down, 3.3 up. At close range, the gaming router outperforms even D-Link's top-end AC1750, and unlike the AC1750, it was able to connect from clear across the house. At longer ranges, its performance is far lower. For actual comparison numbers, see my AC1750 review here on Newegg

Pros: Review summary: This is a great little router with a very slick, refined, polished setup process and equally high-quality admin tool. It's priced well, but its wireless and wired performance lags more expensive 802.11ac routers. List of pros: + Great administration tool. Great setup tool. Netgear has some very talented people working on their software. Every part of setup is clear, easy, and lacks that awkwardness and "welcome to 1998 feel" found in many competing routers. I'm talking to you, D-Link. + The setup process amounted to plugging it in and clicking "Yes, auto-setup my network" in a web browser. I'd recommend this router for your non-techie friends and family. + Allows you to easily share/access files on a connected USB storage device (hard drive, thumb drive, etc.) + Small. It's a littler narrower than a DVD case on its side, about 1.5" taller, and about 2" deep. + Looks attractive. "Wife approved". + No external antennas to break off, position badly, etc. + Allows spaces in the wireless password. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but I like using phrases from songs or books that I can remember easily, but that are still very secure. Some competing routers ban spaces for no good reason. + routerlogin.com is intercepted by the router and brings you to the router's admin screen. It's a simple, clever idea so you don't have to remember the IP address. + Decently secure and easy-to-remember default password (two English words and 3 numbers, like "perfecttree123"). A determined hacker might be able to break it with hybrid brute-force attacks and a lot of time, but most of us don't have that one for e neighbor. + Router defaults to most secure settings: WPA2-Personal with AES encryption. TKIP has already been weakened, but not broken. + Documentation and quick-start manual are super simple and have helpful pictures. + LED lights are subtle and look high-tech. No light show to keep you awake at night (if you sleep near your router). + The smart firmware told me "Please do ipconfig /release and ipconfig /renew then enter the new IP" when I changed the router's IP address. A novice wouldn't understand the message, but a novice wouldn't be changing the router IP. I appreciate the reminder (though it applies only to Windows). + Includes a nice ethernet cable with expensive-looking metal connectors. It's just cat5e, but that's plenty for a broadband connection.

Cons: Please keep in mind the cost of the router while reading the cons, and keep in mind that most cons listed are minor. List of cons: - It's slow. At least, slower than other 802.11ac router's I've tested. It's still worlds faster than 802.11a/b/g. See "Other thoughts" for benchmarks. - No gigabit LAN. Just four 10/100MBit ports and another port for "Internet". - Not wall-mountable. - Can't add 3rd party high-gain antennas. - Rebooting or changing certain settings takes a weirdly long while. 2-3 minutes each time. Some firmwares delayed that long just to ensure the router had plenty of time, but the delays could be skipped. Not so with this router. That said, how often do you really reboot your router? - Minor bug as of this writing: Even after upgrading firmware, it detects a new update: "Current GUI language version: V1.0.0.158 New GUI language version: V1.0.0.161" It downloads and "updates", but has the old version when done, no matter how many times I repeat. - Unlike on some routers, the lights do not indicate that a firmware update or other special procedure is taking place. This is usually done by blinking the power light or similar. Scarcely worth mentioning.

Overall Review: Other Thoughts: I tested 2.4GHz and 5GHz performance from three locations in a 2200Sq Ft 2-floor house. These should duplicate common usage. I used a Lenovo Thinkpad T510 corporate laptop with DWA-182 802.11ac adapter. Test Locations: a. "In the other room": Separated by a bookshelf and a wall, about 15 feet away. b. "Several rooms away": One floor up, separated by 2 or 3 walls. c. "Opposite end of house": One floor up, through 5 walls, a king bed, and two metal ventilation shafts. I tested by copying a large file in Windows to and from a powerful enterprise-grade server. Note that Windows file shares, Windows itself, and the protocols used to do all this networking stuff have some overhead, so these numbers are not supposed to be the same as those claimed by Netgear. Still, the router doesn't get very close to its "up to" numbers. How fast is it?: In the other room =================== 5GHz: Down: 11.3MB/sec Up: 10.5MB/sec 2.4GHz: Down: 9.26MB/sec Up: 9.14MB/sec Several rooms away =================== 5GHz: Down: 11.3MB/sec Up: 10.5MB/sec 2.4GHz: Down: 8.86MB/sec Up: 5.7MB/sec NOTE: The upload transfer stopped for ~5 seconds then continued. May have lost connection. Opposite end of house =================== 5GHz: Down: 7.66MB/sec Up: 6.81MB/sec NOTE: The speed seemed hugely affected by going through the bed/frame. When I moved the laptop 8 inches forward, just off the bed, it did much better: Down: 10.7 Up: 8.2 2.4GHz: Down: 10.4MB/sec Up: 10.9MB/sec NOTE: It's strange that 2.4GHz outperformed 5GHz in this test. This was not true of other 802.11ac routers. CONCLUSION: The 10MB/sec transfer rate I averaged is more than fast enough to stream top-quality 1080p video or several Netflix streams at the same time, but it's much slower than some admittedly pricier competing routers. Network performance seemed relatively unaffected by distance, so some other factor seems to cap speeds at around 11MB/sec. I'm sure it wasn't interference. In my last router review, the numbers I got from the same test setup were 2-3x faster than the Netgear, though the router was also 50% more expensive. I wouldn't recommend this router if you plan on frequently copying large files over wireless. Note: I sent this review to Netgear's provided EggExpert contact email address to get their feedback before posting, but it was bounced by their server.

Pros: This is a good little adapter. I've used this to test two 802.11ac routers now. (802.11ac is the latest, fastest standard for wireless networking, if you didn't know). Under the hood, it's very similar to devices from other manufacturers like Netgear (see "Other Thoughts" below). Keep this in mind as you read reviews. I tested performance from three locations in a 2200Sq Ft 2-floor house and tested some common wireless usage situations. The 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks were tested separately in each location. a. "In the other room": Separated by a bookshelf and a wall, about 15 feet away. b. "Several rooms away": One floor up, separated by 2 or 3 walls. c. "Opposite end of house": One floor up, through 5 walls, a king bed, two metal ventilation shafts, and a steel bed frame. Very challenging for any wireless network. Results for 2.4GHz network: "In the other room": 23.3 MB/sec down, 16.0 up "Several rooms away": 23.4 MB/sec down, 17.1 up "Opposite end of house": **Could not connect** Results for 5GHz network: "In the other room": 30.1 MB/sec down, 23.8 up "Several rooms away": 33.0 MB/sec down, 23.1 up "Opposite end of house": 26.1 down, 6.35 up. Notice that the 5GHz network did fine from the opposite corner of the house, though with somewhat slower but still fast uploads, yet the 2.4GHz network could not even connect. This was a challenging test, so I'm pleasantly surprised that even one network performed. I also tested from inside a neighbor's house. Unfortunately, even though the router and I were at the closest walls, I couldn't reliably connect. This is probably because both our houses use aluminum siding which acts as a Faraday Cage. Even just outside the router's wall outdoors (through the aluminum siding), I got no better than 350KB down, 87KB up. Note that the D-Link DWA-182 adapter I tested with is a USB 2.0 device, so is limited to roughly 35MB/sec. This isn't a problem in practice since USB2's max speed was approached only when very close to the router.

Cons: - You know how USB ports are often closely packed together? This unit is so wide that it would prevent use of the ports above, below, and to either side. D-Link kindly provides an extension cable with a pretty slick stand which resolves this entirely, but if you are on a laptop, it's inconvenient to have to carry 2 things instead of 1. - Build quality. I wouldn't say that it feels flimsy or badly made, but it's light and plasticky. I suspect that the unit would break if you were walking down the hall with a laptop, the AC1200 sticking out, and accidentally banged it into the wall. I didn't care to test this, so don't worry about it too much. - Cap isn't integrated or tethered so is easily lost. - D-Link provides only a Windows driver. No Linux, Mac or BSD support. - Gets pretty warm when used. That's probably a reason for the size -- room for vents and a larger air pocket. - The included software works well, but it feels very old and clunky, much like D-Link's router admin tools. It looks like it would be more at home on Windows 98. Aesthetics of the software aren't really a big deal though, but it hurts the presentation.

Overall Review: Did you know wireless companies rarely make all their own hardware? D-Link's device uses exactly the same core hardware as several other wifi products from other makers: ... Buffalo WI-U2-866D ... Netgear A6200 ... Belkin F9L1106 (version 1) They all use two Skyworks SKY85803 802.11a/b/g/n/ac Front-End Modules. Performance differences between these units are due to antenna design and maybe drivers, but the "core" hardware is the same.

Pros: First let's clarify what this device does. It shares files on your phone as if your phone were connected as a USB drive. This means you can also copy files TO the phone from, say, a PC. It can't start, pause, or skip movies or video. Your TV or stereo must be able to do that. If you want to do so using your phone, you must do so through a different app (running simultaneously with Jak). Also note that just having a USB port does not necessarily mean that your device can play media through Jak. Some TVs, for example, have a USB port purely for firmware upgrades. Pros: + Quick and easy setup. No technical knowledge required for most functionality. You run the software, select the JAK to connect with (each has a different name), and the software automatically creates a "Music", "Video", and "Pictures" playlist. If you want to share other files, you can easily add a new playlist, but you are required to select their location from the file system, which can be confusing for non-geeks on Android. Changing playlists simulates disconnecting the "USB drive" and connecting a different one. + The Android app is very polished and simple to use. Some reviews reported flakiness, but I wonder if for an older version. I was unable to make the software crash or behave in a strange manner. Note that the iOS software is very new -- it will take time to catch up with the Android software. + Walls and distance are no problem for Jak (within reason). See Other Thoughts. + Fast enough to stream a near Blu-ray quality movie, lossless (perfect) music, medium-sized files quickly. See Other Thoughts for performance tests. + File transfer is safely encrypted (AES). + It's just super easy to plug the Jak into any PC or Smart TV and start playing media. The downside is that you have to have the Jak, which you are honestly not going to be carrying with you everywhere you take your phone/tablet. + Unlike Bluetooth audio, playing music over Jak is lossless. + More devices (that you may want to share media or files with) support USB, needed for Jak, than Bluetooth.

Cons: - Not fast enough to copy large files quickly. Streaming them is fine, moving them is not. See Other Thoughts for performance tests. - During testing, lost connection once. See Other Thoughts. Note that I did a lot of testing with many different systems and experienced only one disconnection. - Doesn't do anything that you can't already do with a USB cable. You can plug your phone directly into any device Jak supports. The benefit Jak gives you is that it's wireless. - LED blinks even when no mobile device is connected. Even when connection, this can be slightly annoying when watching a movie in a dark room. A "Disable LED" option in the software would be nice, but a piece of tape works just as well. - No Windows Phone or Blackberry support.

Overall Review: I tested the transfer rates between a Galaxy S3 (using the phone's built-in FLASH) and a fast PC. Some may have worse results than I measured, possibly because they transferred to their a slow class-1 or class-2 MicroSD card. Your phone/tablet's processor has NOTHING to do with the performance of the Jak. I tested from three distances with various obstructions. --------------------------------------------------------- 2 feet away: ~3.1MB/sec sending data TO phone. ~4.7MB/sec reading data FROM phone. --------------------------------------------------------- 25 ft away, separated by 2 walls: (same as above) --------------------------------------------------------- 35 ft away, separated by 5 (!) walls. ~3MB/sec sending data TO phone. ~3MB/sec reading data FROM phone. Even from this distance, it is possible to stream a properly-encoded, high-quality 1080P movie with lossless audio. Reviews which indicate a shorter range or unreliable connections may have been from reviewers experiencing interference from their own wireless network. Fortunately, that can be alleviated by using different wifi channels. --------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: During testing at 35 ft distance, the connection dropped one time. The connection was automatically reestablished within 15 seconds. This was enough to cancel the file transfer, and would kill any music/movie playing. NOTE2: For some reason, the transfer rate moved up to 17MB/sec for about 6 seconds, then dropped back down. This implies the device may be capable of higher data rates, but was met with interference. It may also be a glitch. NOTE3: In order to disconnect, I had to walk about 50 feet away, outdoors, separated from the TV by 1 wall with aluminum siding.