Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Showing Results: Most Recent
Pros: This printer is very fast for an inkjet, reasonably quiet, and has a full-featured touchscreen as well as ample networking features. Following the setup process even allows you to secure a dedicated e-mail address for the printer, allowing you to send documents via e-mail directly to the printer!
While the big selling point of this huge printer is the ability to print 11"x17" documents, I particularly like the ability to scan such documents, because it allows you to scan both pages of many books in a single pass and share the scan as a single one-page document..
Cons: There are three major issues I've identified with the printer:
(1) I could not get the device to scan from its automatic document feeder. This is despite the fact that the ADF would grab the sheets, the screen would indicate that documents were loaded, and the ADF worked just fine if I selected copy. Every time I selected scan from the touchscreen, it would attempt to scan from the flatbed, which of course was empty. Perhaps this was just a glitch in my sample, but I consider it a pretty big problem.
(2) photo printing is well below average for an inkjet. I've tested a number of much less expensive inkjets from Canon and Epson, and their photo quality was much better than this model's. Now, I realize this isn't being marketed as a photo printer, but it is an expensive inkjet, and buyers will probably expect that it can top photo inkjets at half the price. It cannot. And to be clear, I tested the printer with HP's most expensive premium photo printer paper.
(3) Despite its enormous size, which you can see for yourself from the specifications, this printer has no internal paper output tray. I was shocked that I needed to use a flimsy flip-out tray to keep printed pages from shooting right out onto the floor. You really need to add another 6" of depth to position the printer on a table such that you won't risk walking into those extended trays.
Other Thoughts: I've owned a lot of inkjets, and none of them have impressed me all that much. There are a number of reasons for this: (1) They are slow to start up, often needing to clean their spray heads for minutes at a time before printing a single page; (2) they are slow to print, especially anything with color; (3) they are loud, especially when they shake back and forth during printing; and (4) ink dries up fast when not in use, and is expensive to replace. The Officejet Pro 7740 is a lot better in some regards, including startup time, noise, and the ability to print without shaking its foundation. But it's also bigger than most laser printers, even some color laser printers, and it costs quite a bit given its output quality.READ FULL REVIEW
Pros: Decent price given the capacity - just slightly more than most standard 2TB laptop drives (typically $100). Basically no premium jumping up to this drive. Very slim at 7mm.
For repeated tasks, like launching the same game several times, this drive is slow the first time, but very good in subsequent runs. Launching DOOM 2016 took 87 seconds the first time, but 38 seconds each subsequent time, even after launching another game (Fallout 4) in the interim. This is actually much faster than most true SSDs can manage. The SLC cache used by this drive is very, very fast. It's just a shame there isn't more of it...
Cons: Performance is incredibly slow when data isn't cached. In back-to-back tests against a true 1TB SSD and Seagate's original 1TB SSHD released in 2013, this new drive was a disappointment. For example, the first launch of DOOM 2016 took 87 seconds on this drive, 84 seconds on the older Seagate SSHD, and just 52 seconds on an SSD. In subsequent launches, it tied the older Seagate SSHD at 38 seconds, but did not beat it, suggesting the caching algorithm is identical. If you routinely launch a number of different applications, you'll quickly lose the benefit of the limited cache on this drive, and it will perform like the very slow hard drive that it is.
In another test, I used Steam to allocate disk space for a game install. With the true SSD, this took 50 seconds. With the 2013 Seagate SSHD, it took 104 seconds. With the brand-new FireCuda 2TB drive, this took 168s. That proves that the underlying hard drive is far slower than the drive used in the 2013 model. This allocation of disk space is entirely write based, and cannot use the SLC cache. Furthermore, it's a task you would not repeat, so even if it were read-based, the cache could not help.
Other Thoughts: I tested the original Seagate ST1000LM014 1TB Laptop SSHD way back in April 2013, and after 3.5 years time, I would have expected this product to be more of an improvement. In fact, it only has two advantages: it's cheaper per GB, and it's thinner. But the reason it's cheaper is that it uses an inferior recording technique (shingled magnetic recording or SMR), versus the PMR method on the older Seagate SSHD. So it's actually a downgrade versus the original in non-cached tasks, and given how much time has passed since that drive was released, this just isn't acceptable. A slower hard drive mechanism, same cache, and a slightly lower price do not make this a winner in 2016 and beyond.READ FULL REVIEW
Pros: Low profile, heatsink only extends about 1mm above the PCB, making it ideal for use with CPU coolers that overhang the RAM slots.
Cons: Not stable at DDR4-3000. I had doubts that a second-tier vendor could actually come in and provide a DDR4-3000, 15-15-15-35 kit for much lower cost than the first-tier competition, and indeed, this kit just isn't stable at DDR4-3000 CAS 15. I previously used a G.Skill kit with the same speed and timings in my Asus Z170 board and it worked perfectly.
Other Thoughts: Currently running at DDR4-2800 CAS15 on 1.35V, after weeks of struggling to keep it stable at DDR4-3000. Only reason I'm sticking with this RAM is that the competitors' high-speed RAM won't fit under my CPU cooler.READ FULL REVIEW