Computing - Organizer

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra): the ultimate creative workstation

4:01 pm | March 11, 2025

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra): Two-minute review

Apple’s announcement of a new Mac Studio for 2025 took a lot of people by surprise. While many of us had assumed (correctly) that Apple was gearing up to announce new M4-powered MacBook Airs, few were expecting a new Mac Studio.

That’s understandable – by its very nature, the Mac Studio is a product that's aimed at a more niche market than a thin and light laptop. Mac Studio devices are powerful, professional-grade computers that offer a level of performance that was once only found in Mac Pro desktop PCs, but built into a stylish and compact body that looks like a super-sized (yet still small) Mac mini.

The latest Mac Studio continues that tradition. The design keeps the iconic (and technically impressive, considering the hardware) compact look of previous Mac Studios, with dimensions of 3.7 x 7.7 x 7.7 inches (9.5 x 19.7 x 19.7cm) and a weight starting at 6.1lbs / 2.74kg. It’s a device that would look at home in any modern office or studio, and its size means it can be easily installed, and moved, wherever and whenever you want.

You are, however, missing out on the modular and upgradable nature of desktop PCs. You won’t be able to swap out the GPU or increase the internal storage in a few year’s time – two upgrades which are relatively simple with traditional PCs.

That said, for many people one of the upsides of buying a Mac is that they don't need to fiddle around with internal components, and a lack of upgradability is a small price to pay for a compact device that's well-built and works dependably. And, depending on the configuration options you choose when buying your Mac Studio, it’s unlikely that you’ll need to upgrade for a long, long time.

The new Mac Studio comes with a choice of two chips – one that was expected, and one that has come as quite a surprise.

Mac Studio on a desk — (Image credit: Future)

The base model of the new Mac Studio features the M4 Max chip – the same chip that debuted late last year in the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pros. There’s no option to have the standard M4 or M4 Pro chips, which is in line with Apple’s pitching the Mac Studio at power users and professionals who need the very highest levels of performance. If your requirements (and budget – I’ll get to prices in a moment) are more modest, then the aforementioned MacBook Pros will be better picks; or if you want a desktop PC, then the brilliant Mac mini from last year will do the trick, and can be configured with either an M4 or M4 Pro chip.

According to Apple, the Mac Studio with M4 Max offers 1.6x faster image processing in Adobe Photoshop compared to the Mac Studio with M1 Max, and 2.1x faster code compilation in Xcode. Video transcoding in the Compressor app is claimed to be 1.2x faster, and video processing in Topaz Video AI 1.6x faster.

While any speed increase that makes workloads faster is welcome, those aren’t mind-blowing numbers, so most people using the now three-year-old Mac Studio (M1 Max) won’t feel any pressing need to upgrade to the M4 Max model, and that will be even more true for owners of the Mac Studio (M2 Max). Apple hasn’t supplied performance comparisons for that model, but you’d imagine the differences are even smaller. That said, you could argue that this speaks to the longevity of these devices, and the high price tag and lack of upgradability of the new Mac Studio becomes easier to swallow if it’s still going strong in 2028 and you have no need or desire to upgrade it.

As with previous M-class releases, the real leap in performance comes when comparing the Mac Studio with M4 Max to an Intel-based Mac, which Apple stopped producing in 2020 with the launch of the M1 chip.

Again according to Apple, you’re getting around 3x the performance with the Mac Studio M4 Max compared to a 27-inch iMac with an Intel Core i9 CPU, with Topaz Video AI processing seeing up to 5x faster video rendering. These are all vague performance promises by Apple, so take them with a grain of salt and refer instead to our benchmark tests below, where you'll be able to see just how well the new Mac Studio performs. Still, taking Apple’s claims as hints of the kind of performance the new Mac Studio is capable of suggests that people using Intel-based Macs will see the biggest benefit from upgrading.

Apple also surprised us by announcing an even more powerful Mac Studio, powered by the brand-new M3 Ultra chip. The reason why this is particularly surprising, and potentially confusing, is that the M3 Ultra is, as the name suggests, based on the previous generation M3 chip architecture, rather than the newer M4.

As with previous Ultra chips, the M3 Ultra is made up of two Max chips (in this case, two M3 Max chips), which are connected via an ultra-fast bridge to turn them into a single, extremely powerful, chip.

So, while you’re getting up to a 16-core CPU, 40-core GPU, 128GB unified memory, 546GB/s memory bandwidth, and 16-core Neural Engine with the M4 Max, the M3 Ultra offers up to a 32-core CPU, 80-core GPU, 512GB unified memory, 819GB/s memory bandwidth, and 32-core Neural Engine.

Essentially, even with previous-gen tech (the M3 Max was launched in October 2023), the M3 Ultra blows past the M4 Max. Apple hasn’t explained why it went with M3 rather than M4 as the base, though there have been suggestions that the M4 Max lacks the high-speed bridge (known as UltraFusion) needed to combine two of the chips into an M4 Ultra. However, we also heard similar rumors about the M3 Max, and that has been proven to be incorrect with the announcement of the M3 Ultra.

The M3 architecture has seen a few additions with the M3 Ultra, which makes it able to compete feature-wise with the M4 Max. The M3 Ultra now supports Thunderbolt 5 USB-C ports and speeds of up to 120Gbps, and supports up to 512GB of unified memory, both upgrades over the M3 Max.

So, currently, the most powerful Apple silicon is not an M4 chip, but an M3 chip, and that could be a bit confusing – as such, I’m pleased that Apple is being transparent about the M3 Ultra being based on M3 Max chips, rather than fudging the naming conventions to call it an M4 Ultra.

While the Mac Studio with M4 Max will offer performance that most people might not ever need, the M3 Ultra Mac Studio goes even further, promising to offer the kind of performance that will only be needed by large enterprises – think the likes of Pixar when it comes to 3D animation, rather than smaller businesses and individuals, for whom the M4 Max model will likely be more than enough.

Price will also be a factor here, as unsurprisingly these are expensive machines that are professional investments rather than something you’d buy on a whim. The Mac Studio with M4 Max starts at $1,999 / £2,099 / AU$3,499 while the Mac Studio with M3 Ultra starts at $3,999 / £4,199 / AU$6,999 – and these can all be configured to add more power (and cost).

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra): Price and availability

How much does it cost? M4 Max model starts at $1,999 / £2,099 / AU$3,499
What about the M3 Ultra? M3 Ultra model starts at $3,999 / £4,199 / AU$6,999
When is it available? Available to pre-order now, ships March 12, 2025

Apple announced the new Mac Studio on March 5, 2025, and opened preorders at the same time, with the compact PC going on sale on March 12, 2025 globally.

The base model of the new Mac Studio comes with an M4 Max chip featuring a 14-core CPU, 32-core GPU and 16-core Neural Engine, plus 36GB of unified memory and a 512GB SSD, and costs $1,999 / £2,099 / AU$3,499.

This is essentially the same starting price as the previous Apple Mac Studio (M2 Max, though there's a slight price increase for Australian buyers (the M2 Max model cost AU$3,299). It’s good to see launch prices remain the same in the US and UK, and the new Mac Studio remains a lot cheaper than the $6,999 / £7,199 / AU$11,999 Mac Pro, while offering a more compact design and similar, if not better, performance.

The more powerful M3 Ultra model of the new Mac Studio, meanwhile, starts at $3,999 / £4,199 / AU$6,999. That’s quite a leap, but the specs go some way to justify the high price (while also hopefully making it clear that this machine will be overkill for most people). You get the new M3 Ultra chip with a 28-core CPU, 60-core GPU, and 32-core Neural Engine, plus 96GB unified memory, and a 1TB SSD for storage.

As usual, you can configure the new Mac Studio before you buy, and considering that it’s basically impossible to upgrade the hardware within the machine, it’s important to make sure you take this opportunity to adjust the configuration to suit both your needs and your budget. Adding more powerful components does increase the price, sometimes considerably. The fully-maxed-out Mac Studio comes with an M3 Ultra chip with a 32-core CPU, 80-core GPU, and 32-core Neural Engine, 512GB unified memory and 16TB SSD – those are stunning specs, and they come with an equally stunning price tag of $14,099 / $14,299 / AU$22,149.

Of course, you don’t have to max out all of the specs, so you do have some flexibility; but make no mistake, any configuration of the Mac Studio is going to be extremely expensive. You need to see it as an investment for a business or creative professional. For individual users who want a great-performing compact PC, but don’t need nearly the power on offer with the Mac Studio, then I highly recommend the latest Mac mini, which comes with an M4 chip starting at $599 / £599 / AU$999, or with an M4 Pro starting at $1,399 / £1,399 / AU$2,199. In my view, the M4 Mac mini remains the best Mac Apple has ever made thanks its combination of price, performance, and an all-new design, but creative professionals looking for more power will likely need to choose between the Mac mini M4 Pro or the Mac Studio M4 Max, and in that case the price difference is smaller, though still substantial.

What about non-Mac alternatives? The fact is that there remains no real rival to the Mac Studio in the world of Windows PCs – no one else is making compact workstation PCs that offer professional-grade performance. However, if the size of the machine doesn’t matter, and you don’t mind doing a bit of tinkering, you could put together a workstation PC (or get someone to build it for you) that offers similar levels of performance for less money, although you'd miss out on the Mac Studio’s compact design and ease of use.

Price: 3.5 / 5

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra): Specs

Here are the specs for the Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) at a glance.

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra): Design

Looks the same as previous models on the outside
Now comes with Thunderbolt 5 ports
M3 Ultra model is slightly heavier

Perhaps the biggest selling point of every generation of Mac Studio has been its design, and while the new Mac Studio doesn’t feature any major changes, that remains true.

It’s a testament to Apple’s designers and engineers – and to the power efficiency of M-class chips like the M4 Max and M3 Ultra, which enables Apple to put powerful hardware into compact designs without them overheating.

The latest Mac Studio is unmistakably an Apple product. Its compact dimensions of 3.7 x 7.7 x 7.7 inches / 9.5 x 19.7 x 19.7cm, with a weight starting at 6.1lbs / 2.74kg means it’s easy to find space for it on a desk, and you can hide it behind a monitor if you want, and it also means it’s easy to pick up and move if needed.

The silver body (you don’t get any fun color choices with the Mac Studio, this is all about professionalism) is sleek and minimalist, with a black Apple logo on the top. On the front of the Mac Studio are two USB-C ports (which if you get the model with the M3 Ultra will be Thunderbolt 5), alongside an SDXC memory card slot (always welcome for professional photographers) and a small white LED power light.

The rear of the Mac Studio features four Thunderbolt 5 USB-C ports, a 10Gb Ethernet port, two USB-A ports for legacy peripherals, a HDMI port and a headphone jack. Much of the rear is a grille-like vent that's used to expel hot air.

The most recent Mac mini got a major design overhaul to make it look more like the Mac Studio, and for the most part the new look was a triumph. However, Apple’s decision to place the Mac mini's power button on the underside of the device did frustrate some people, as you have to lift up the Mac mini to turn it on or off.

The good news is that Apple hasn’t seen fit to move the Mac Studio's power button to the underside of the device to match the new Mac mini – it’s still located on the rear of the Mac Studio on the left.

As someone who likes using big, ugly desktop PCs I’ve never had a problem with having a power button on the front of a device for easy access, and some people might find having the button hidden at the rear makes it a little awkward to reach. It does mean, though, that the Mac Studio’s front looks clean and minimalist, which many Apple fans will appreciate, and at least you don’t have to lift up the Mac Studio to reach the button. If you have other Apple devices, particularly the Studio Display, then the new Mac Studio will fit in brilliantly.

The Mac Studio is made with 30% recycled content, according to Apple, with 100% recycled aluminum used for the case, and doesn’t contain mercury or PVC. The packaging is also entirely fiber-based, and is part of the Apple 2030 project, which aims to make the company’s entire carbon footprint neutral by the end of the decade.

Overall, while some people might be clamoring for a bold redesign, the reason why the latest Mac Studio still looks identical to the first one launched back in 2022 is because, frankly, Apple nailed the design first time. It looks modern, and more stylish than any Windows-based compact PC; and with the Mac mini having recently been redesigned to look more like the Mac Studio, I think this look is going to stick around for a long time.

The one major drawback with the design is that it’s essentially impossible to open up the Mac Studio and upgrade or repair components. This might not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Apple’s products, but it does impact the flexibility of the Mac Studio when compared to traditional tower desktop PCs, which are usually quite straightforward to upgrade. It also undermines Apple’s environmental credentials a little, though the company does offer an upgrade program whereby you can trade in your older Mac for money off the new model.

Also, despite the new Mac Studio coming with some of the latest and most powerful components on the market, Apple's designers have for some reason decided to stick with older wireless technology: Wi‑Fi 6E (802.11ax) and Bluetooth 5.3, which means you're missing out on the performance benefits of Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth 5.4.

While the wireless tech in a professional-grade workstation might not be at the top of most people's list of priorities (you'll likely be using an Ethernet cable for networking), it's still a bit of an odd omission considering the no-holds-barred design approach Apple has taken to the rest of the Mac Studio's design.

Design: 4.5 / 5

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra): Performance

The M3 Ultra is now the most powerful chip Apple has ever made
It's likely to be overkill for most people
The new Mac Studio remains quiet even when under load

When I learned that Apple was sending me the new Mac Studio with the M3 Ultra chip, I was both excited and apprehensive. Excited because I really wanted to see what such a powerful, even over-the-top, piece of silicon could do.

While the M4 Max chip is certainly no slouch, we’ve had the chance to see how it performs since the launch of last year’s MacBook Pros. However, the M3 Ultra, despite being based on the older M3 Max chip, is entirely uncharted territory, and has the potential to blow Apple's other chips out of the water when it comes to pure performance. The idea that I could play around with this ridiculously powerful hardware and try to push it as hard as possible got my nerd senses tingling.

So why was I also apprehensive? Mainly because how do you begin reviewing a hardware configuration that will be overkill for the needs of maybe 98% of our readers? No matter how good the M3 Ultra is (and I’ll get to just how good it is in a moment), for the vast majority of people I would still recommend they don’t buy it, and instead get the M4 Max model – and for most, the M4 Mac mini would be a much more sensible buy.

In some ways this is Apple’s problem – and it’s a good problem to have. Because its M-series chips have been so good, generational leaps can be less visible to mainstream customers. If you still use a Mac with an M1 or M2 chip there’s a good chance that it’ll still do almost everything you need it to. If not, then upgrading to an M4 Mac, such as the new MacBook Air or the Mac mini (sorry, I keep mentioning it, but I really love that little PC) is a much more affordable option that will keep you chugging along nicely. A smaller percentage of people who need more power for creative applications will find the M4 Max in the MacBook Pro or new Mac Studio more than enough; and if it isn’t enough power, then the M3 Ultra will be extremely welcome.

To be blunt, the number of people who will need the full power of the Mac Studio with M3 Ultra will be limited. But, if you do need an extremely powerful PC for rendering complex 3D models, animating feature-length films, or even developing and testing games, then the new Mac Studio with M3 Ultra will be a very attractive package indeed.

The Mac Studio Apple sent me to review comes with the highest-end M3 Ultra chip with a 32-core CPU (made up of 24 performance cores and eight efficiency ones), an 80-core GPU and a 32-core Neural Engine. It also has 256GB of unified memory, and a 4TB SSD. While it's not completely maxed out, this is an incredibly powerful bit of kit. The 256GB unified memory doesn’t just act like standard RAM in a PC, but is shared with the 80-core GPU, which means the Mac Studio I’m reviewing is an incredibly powerful device for graphic-intensive tasks. The fact that all this power is contained in a compact body that remains impressively quiet, even when under stress, is particularly impressive.

So it’ll come as no surprise to learn that for regular day-to-day tasks, the Mac Studio absolutely zips by, with macOS Sequoia and apps such as Photoshop running incredibly smoothly. Web browsing with Safari and Chrome, with multiple tabs open, certainly doesn't challenge the Mac Studio. Chrome might still be a memory hog, but with 256GB of the stuff you’re not going to miss a beat.

Even if you buy the Mac Studio in a less powerful configuration, the results will very likely be the same. Of course, you’re not buying an uber-powerful computer like the Mac Studio to browse the web and write up documents. The Mac Studio has been built to handle demanding creative tasks, and it’s here that it really excels.

Editing high-quality 4K footage in Adobe Premiere Pro was extremely quick and smooth, and I was able to scrub through the footage quickly to find points in the timeline, while previewing any changes I made instantly. The super-fast SSD meant that video files were loaded and complex projects saved very, very quickly (using the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test app, the SSD hit write speeds of 7,115.6 and read speeds of 5,799MB/s).

Even when working with large 4K video files and multi-scene projects (while browsing the web and writing up this review at the same time), I never felt like I was ever really pushing the Mac Studio (hence the apprehension I mentioned earlier), as I don’t have access to files and projects from professional movie studios, to pick a more demanding and likely use case for the new Mac Studio.

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) benchmarks

Here's how the Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra) performed in our suite of industry-standard benchmarks and game tests.

Geekbench 6:
Single - 3,240
Multi - 28,485
Blackmagic Disk Speed Test:
Read: 5,799MB/s
Write: 7,115.6MB/s
Cinebench:
Single-core - 150
Multi-core - 3,015
GPU - 19,663

What I could see, however, is that the real value of the new Mac Studio lies in its potential to speed up creative workflows. If you can create, code, compile and more, so much more quickly, it means projects can be completed more quickly. This could in turn reduce costs for large-scale businesses, and it also allows professionals to take on more clients. Even with the lowest memory configuration for the M3 Ultra model, 96GB, there's plenty of headroom to run multiple tasks simultaneously, which again potentially makes a huge difference to productivity.

Throughout all my testing with the Mac Studio it remained incredibly quiet – a welcome change from the desktop PCs I usually use, which have fans that like to whirr into life at the drop of a hat. During some particularly demanding benchmarks I did notice the top of the Mac Studio got quite hot to touch, but it certainly wasn't alarming – and the fans still remained all but silent. I also didn’t notice any instances of the M3 Ultra being throttled (a process whereby components are deliberately slowed down to avoid overheating, which impacts performance), though again I wasn't subjecting the Mac Studio to industry-level workloads – but I really can’t imagine too many scenarios where the Mac Studio’s performance wouldn't be enough.

This is of course great news for people who need that performance, but it also underscores why the Mac Studio won’t be for everyone, especially considering the price.

Performance: 5 / 5

Should you buy the Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra)?

Buy it if...

You want a compact productivity powerhouse
The small size combined with the incredible amount of power the M3 Ultra chip provides means the new Mac Studio really doesn’t have any competition.

You need professional-grade graphics power
The new Mac Studio, especially with the M3 Ultra chip, offers a level of performance that will seriously please demanding power users, particularly when it comes to graphics work.

You have an Intel-based Mac Pro or iMac Pro
The biggest gap in performance is between the new Mac Studio and Intel-based Macs, so if you’re still using a device with Intel hardware, now might be the perfect time to upgrade.

Don't buy it if...

You don’t need pro-grade performance
Even in the case of the M4 Max model, the level of performance the Mac Studio offers is beyond what most individual creatives will need.

You’re on a budget
The Mac Studio is an expensive bit of tech, and while the design and performance justify the asking price, if you’re on a tight budget you may be better off looking at more affordable options.

Upgradability is important
The compact chassis comes at a price: you’re not able to open up the Mac Studio and swap out components later on. If you want a computer that lets you upgrade and fix the hardware, then a traditional desktop PC will be a better choice.

Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra): Also consider

Mac mini (M4)
If you love the idea of a compact PC that's also powerful, but you don't need the raw performance of the Mac Studio, then the latest Mac mini is an absolutely fantastic choice, especially considering the price.

Read our full Mac mini (M4) review

MacBook Pro 16-inch (M4 Pro/M4 Max)
Want a powerful Mac that you can use while traveling? The 16-inch MacBook Pro is a great choice, and if you go for the M4 Max model you're going to get similar levels of performance to the M4 Max version of the Mac Studio.

Read our full MacBook Pro 16-inch M4 Max review

How I tested the Apple Mac Studio (M3 Ultra)

I used the new Mac Studio for five days
I ran multiple benchmarks
I used the Mac Studio for editing raw 4K footage and high-resolution photos, as well as other intensive tasks

I've been using the Mac Studio since our review sample came in, using it as my primary work computer. As well as writing this review on it, and using it to perform my regular day-to-day tasks, I used it for intensive workloads, including editing and exporting raw 4K video footage in Adobe Premiere Pro, and photos in Photoshop, with the Mac Studio connected to an Apple Studio Display monitor. I also ran our suite of synthetic benchmarks to help give me an overall view of the Mac Studio's performance. I've been reviewing Macs for TechRadar for the past decade, including the original Mac Studio, as well as a range of Windows-based creative workstations, and my experience has enabled me to thoroughly evaluate Apple's latest Mac Studio.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D: Two-minute review

So the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D has something of a high bar to clear given the strength of AMD's first Zen 5 3D V-Cache chip, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, but having spent a week testing this chip, I can say unequivocally that AMD has produced the best processor ever made for the consumer market.

Whether it's gaming, creating, or general productivity work, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D doesn't suffer from the same hang-ups that held its predecessor, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, from completely dominating its competition among the previous generation of processors.

Like its predecessor, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D will sell for $699 / £699 / AU$1,349 when it goes on sale on March 12, 2025. This makes it the most expensive consumer processor on the market, so definitely be prepared to invest quite a bit for this chip, especially if you're upgrading from an Intel or AMD AM4 system. As an AM5 chip, you'll need to upgrade some major components, including motherboard and possibly RAM.

Unlike nearly all other X3D chips besides the 9800X3D and 9900X3D, however, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is fully overclockable thanks to AMD rearchitecting the way the 3D V-cache sits on the compute die, so there's a lot more that this chip can do that other X3D chips can't.

That includes beating out the current champ for the best gaming CPU, the 9800X3D, in most games while also offering substantially better general and creative performance thanks to twice as many processing cores.

That doesn't mean that the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is flawless, as there are some things to caveat here (which I'll get into in more depth below), but as an overall package, you simply won't find a better CPU on the market right now that will let you do just about anything you want exceptionally well while still letting you run a more reasonable cooling solution. Just be prepared to pay a premium for all that performance.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D: Price & availability

An AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D leaning against its retail packaging — (Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

How much will it cost? US MSRP is $699 / £699 / AU$1,349
When is it available? It goes on sale on March 12, 2025
Where is it available? It will be available in the US, UK, and Australia at launch

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D goes on sale March 12, 2025, for a US MSRP of $699 / £699 / AU$1,349 in the US, UK, and Australia, respectively, making it the most expensive processor on the market.

It comes in at the same price as its predecessor, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D when it launched, and costs $100 more than the Ryzen 9 9900X3D that launches on the same day.

This is also just over $200 more expensive than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D which has nearly the same level of gaming performance (and in some cases surpasses the 9950X3D), so if you are strictly looking for a gaming CPU, the 9800X3D might be the better value.

Compared to Intel's latest flagship processor, meanwhile, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is just over $100 more expensive than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, though that chip requires a whole new motherboard chipset if you're coming from an Intel LGA 1700 chip like the Intel Core i9-12900K, so it might represent a much larger investment overall.

Value: 3.5 / 5

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D: Specs

128MB L3 Cache (96MB + 32MB)
Fully overclockable
Not all processing cores have access to 3D V-cache

Compared to the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, there don't seem to be too many changes spec wise, but there's a lot going on under the hood here.

First, the way the 3D V-cache is seated over the CCX for the 9950X3D differs considerably than with the 7950X3D, specifically that its seated underneath the processing die, rather than above it.

This means that the processing cores are now in 'direct' contact with the lid and cooling solution for the chip, allowing the 9950X3D to be fully overclocked, whereas the V-cache in the 7950X3D sat between the lid and the processing cores, making careful thermal design and limiting necessary and ruling out overclocking.

The 9950X3D does keep the same two-module split in its L3 cache as the 7950X3D, so that only one of the eight-core CCXs in the chip actually has access to the added V-cache (32MB + 64MB), while the other just has access to 32MB.

This had some benefit for more dedicated, directy access for individual cores in use more cache. In the last-gen, this honestly produced somewhat mixed results compared to the 7800X3D, which didn't split the V-cache up this way, leading ultimately to high levels of gaming performance for the 7800X3D.

Whatever issue there was with the 7950X3D looks to have been largely fixed with the 9950X3D, but some hiccups remains, which I'll get to in the performance section.

Beyond that, the 9950X3D has slightly higher base and boost clock speeds, as well as a 50W higher TDP, but its 170W TDP isn't completely unmanageable, especially next to Intel's competing chips.

Specs: 4.5 / 5

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D: Performance

An AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D in a motherboard — (Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Almost best-in-class gaming performance
Strong overall performance

While the Ryzen 7 7800X3D was indisputably a better gaming chip than the Ryzen 9 7950X3D by the numbers, I was very curious going into my testing how this chip would fare against the 9800X3D, but I'm happy to report that not only is it better on the whole when it comes to gaming, it's a powerhouse for general computing and creative work as well, making it the best all-around processor on the market right now.

On the synthetic side, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D goes toe-to-toe with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K in multi-core performance, coming within 2% of Intel's best on average, and chocking up a 10% stronger single-core result than the 285K.

Compared to its predecessor, the 7950X3D, the 9950X3D is about 15% faster in multi-core and single-core performance, while also barely edging out the Ryzen 9 9950X in multi-core performance.

Compared to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, the eight-core difference between the two really shows up in the results, with the 9950X3D posting a 61% better multi-core performance, and a roughly 5% better single core score compared to the 9800X3D.

On the creative front, the 9950X3D outclasses Intel's best and anything else in the AMD Ryzen lineup that I've tested overall (we'll see how it fares against the 9900X3D once I've had a chance to test that chip), though it is worth noting that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is still the better processor for video editing work.

The AMD Ryzen X3D line is all about gaming though, and here, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D posts the best gaming performance of all the chips tested, with one caveat.

In the Total War: Warhammer III Mirrors of Madness benchmark, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D only scores a few fps higher than the non-X3D Ryzen 9 9950X (331 fps to 318 fps, respectively), while also scoring substantially lower than the 9800X3D's 506 fps in that same benchmark. That's a roughly 35% slower showing for the 9950X3D, and given its roughly where the non-X3D chip scored, it's clear that Total War: Warhammer III was running on one of those cores that didn't have access to the extra V-cache.

This is an issue with the Windows process scheduler that might be fixed in time so that games are run on the right cores to leverage the extra cache available, but that's not a guarantee the way it is with the 9800X3D, which gives all cores access to its added V-cache so there aren't similar issues.

It might be a fairly rare occurence, but if your favorite game does take advantage of the extra cache that you're paying a lot of money for, that could be an issue, and it might not be something you'll ever know unless you have a non-X3D 9950X handy to test the way I do.

With that in mind, if all you want is a gaming processor, and you really don't care about any of these other performance categories, you're probably going to be better served by the 9800X3D, as you will get guaranteed gaming performance increases, even if you don't get the same boost in other areas.

While that's a large caveat, it can't take away from the overall performance profile of this chip, which is just astounding pretty much across the board.

If you want the best processor on the market overall, this is it, even with its occasional blips, especially since it runs much cooler than Intel's chips and its power draw is much more acceptable for midrange PCs to manage.

Performance: 4.5 / 5

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D?

A masculine hand holding an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D processor — (Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D if...

You want spectacular performance no matter the workload
While gamers will be especially interested in this chip, it's real strength is that it's strong everywhere.

You want the best gaming performance
When using 3D V-cache, this processor's gaming chops are unbeatable.

Don't buy it if...

You want consistent top-tier gaming performance
When games run on one of this chip's 3D V-cache cores, you're going to get the best performance possible, but Windows might not assign a game to those cores, so you might miss out on this chip's signature feature.

You're on a budget
This chip is crazy expensive, so only buy it if you're flush with cash.

Also consider

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
If you want consistent, top-tier gaming performance, the 9800X3D will get you performance nearly as good as this chip's, though more consistently.

Read the full AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D review

How I tested the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D

I spent several days with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D
I used the chip as my main workstation processor and used my updated battery of benchmarks to measure its performance
I used it for general productivity, creative, and gaming workloads

I spent about a week with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D as my main workstation CPU, where I ran basic computing workloads as well as extensive creative work, such as Adobe Photoshop.

I also spent as much time as I could gaming with the chip, including titles like Black Myth: Wukong and Civilization VII. I also used my updated suite of benchmark tools including industry standard utilities like Geekbench 6.2, Cyberpunk 2077, and PugetBench for Creators.

I've been reviewing components for TechRadar for three years now, including more than a dozen processor reviews in that time, so you can trust my testing process and recommendations if you're looking for the best processor for your needs and budget.

First reviewed March 2025

I spent several days with the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL, and while it’s a capable enough, it doesn’t best its rivals

12:42 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets Keyboards Peripherals & Accessories | Comments: Off

Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL: one-minute review

The Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL is a wireless mechanical gaming keyboard with low-profile keys and multiple connectivity options for added convenience.

For a gaming peripheral, it looks fairly restrained, although the RGB lighting, especially against the white variant, does help to make it more vibrant. The thin chassis with its rounded sides and brushed-metal effect adds an element of class too.

It’s also built quite well, feeling sturdy yet surprisingly light, although it’s perhaps not quite as premium as the best gaming keyboard constructions. In particular, the double-shot PBT keycaps feel cheaper than you might expect, with a texture that’s less satisfying compared to others I’ve experienced.

The very top row buttons feel better though, with their rubber finish and heavily-damped presses feeling satisfying to use. The volume wheel also operates very smoothly, yet still provides enough control.

The Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL can be customized using Logitech’s G HUB software, which offers plenty of remapping options, from system functions to custom key combinations. There’s also a macro creator and RGB tweaking, as you might expect from a gaming keyboard. While the software is stable enough and laid out well, navigation can be a little too laborious at times, and more explanations wouldn’t go amiss either.

When gaming, the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL performs reasonably well. The tactile switches are snappy, but offer a fair amount of resistance; fortunately, the actuation point is low enough that you don’t have to approach that point where you feel that weight. The texture of the keycaps doesn’t offer much in the way of grip though, which can make finger placements less than secure.

For typing, I found the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL less impressive. That cramped layout made things awkward for me, as did the lack of tilt provided by the feet. I did appreciate the low-profile keycaps, though, as I generally prefer these for typing.

I had no issue connecting to devices via Bluetooth or the 2.4GHz wireless dongle, and switching between the two is easy thanks to the dedicated buttons on the top row. However, it’s a shame there’s no hot-switching between multiple devices connected via Bluetooth.

The battery life of the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL is good, as after several days of use – during which time I used it for gaming and working, and switched frequently between 2.4GHz and Bluetooth modes – it dipped to just below 50%.

One of the main issues with the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL, though, is the price. It sits at the top-end of the market, competing with some of the best keyboards around. However, it can’t match their level of performance, especially those with analog switches, such as the Razer Huntsman V2 Analog, which isn’t much more expensive. There’s also the Razer Pro Type Ultra, which is a versatile keyboard for both gaming and work, and is available for even less.

Close-up of volume wheel on Logitech G915 X, on desk with pink background — (Image credit: Future)

Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL review: price and availability

$199.99 / £199.99 / AU$369.95
Available now in black and white colorways
Top-end of the market

The Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL costs $199.99 / £199.99 / AU$369.95 and is available now in two colorways: black and white. There are three different switch types to choose from: Tactile, Linear, and Clicky.

This places the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL at the higher end of the market, competing with other top-draw gaming keyboards. The best gaming keyboard in our view, the Razer Huntsman V2 Analog, is more expensive, but not by much. However, as the name suggests, this board has analog switches, which allow for greater speed, precision and customization than traditional mechanical switches. It also has a full-size layout.

The best keyboard with a premium feel, the Razer Pro Type Ultra, costs less, yet we found it to have excellent all-round performance, whether you’re gaming, working, or browsing.

Value: 3 / 5

Close-up of arrow keys on Logitech G915 X, with one keycap removed, exposing switch beneath — (Image credit: Future)

Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL review: specs

Close-up of USB-C port and feet on Logitech G915 X — (Image credit: Future)

Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL review: design and features

Smart, light, and thin
Keycaps don’t feel the best
Good customizations via G HUB

The Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL adopts a mild gaming aesthetic, with its muted appearance making it more formal than others in the sector. The white colorway certainly adds more vibrancy – and enhances the RGB lighting just that little bit more – yet it still retains a smart demeanour.

The floating keycaps are a nice touch, and so too is the brushed metal of the face plate and the rolled edges of the chassis. Fortunately, the build quality matches its premium appearance: the whole body feels sturdy, despite being very light and thin for a gaming keyboard.

However, the double-shot PBT keycaps let things down, as I found their texture a little too scratchy and not the most pleasant to touch. The shortcut buttons above the keys, though, feel much better, as they’re soft, rubberized, and damped very well. The volume wheel is very smooth and easy to operate, yet has controlled spins.

Close-up of right side of Logitech G915 X on desk — (Image credit: Future)

Like many modern keyboards, the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL has two-stage feet that offer different tilting angles. However, I found that even the highest setting was still a little too shallow, so those who like a steep rake might be disappointed.

Logitech’s G HUB software can be used to customize the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL, with the usual options available, such as RGB lighting adjustments and key remapping, the latter of which features assignments for mouse buttons and scrolls, key combinations involving modifiers, and macros. There are also various media playback controls available, including a function to cycle available audio inputs and outputs. However, other common system-level functions are absent, which is a shame. As well as multiple profile slots, FN and G Shift layers are available too.

While G HUB runs very smoothly for the most part, navigating it can take one too many clicks, and it lacks explanations for certain default shortcuts and how they work, such as those for profile switching.

Design & features: 3.5 / 5

Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL review: performance

Responsive yet heavy-feeling switches
Keycaps issues
Cramped for typing

The Tactile switches I had installed on the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL felt and sounded quite clicky. Despite having a snappy response, they offered more resistance than I expected when depressing fully, considering their low profile. However, the actuation point feels low, so I didn’t experience much fatigue when holding down keys for long periods.

Adopting the WASD position is comfortable enough, with all important keys, including the bottom row, being easy to reach and use; again this is thanks to that low profile, which is something I personally prefer in most cases.

However, despite the aforementioned texture of the keycaps, they offer very little grip, and it’s too easy to slide out of position – an issue made worse by shallow indentations, which of course isn’t ideal for more intense sessions.

Close-up of WASD keys lit up in pink on Logitech G915 X — (Image credit: Future)

For typing, I didn’t find the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL conducive to my style. Even though the low profile keycaps allowed me to glide around the board, I found the layout too cramped. I also couldn’t get the angle steep enough using the feet, which added to the discomfort I was feeling. What’s more, things can get quite loud when tapping away.

Connectivity over both 2.4GHz and Bluetooth is solid, and switching between them is easy with the top hotkeys. However, it’s a shame there’s no option to switch quickly between multiple devices connected via Bluetooth, as some of the best keyboards feature, including Logitech’s own models.

The battery life of the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL is quite good, as after several days of varied use, which included gaming, working, and browsing – as well as switching between Bluetooth and 2.4GHz modes regularly – it dipped to just below 50%.

Performance: 3.5 / 5

Should I buy the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL?

Buy it if…

You want thin keys
The low profile keycaps make it easy for gliding and hitting all the important keys when gaming, at least for me.

You want multiple connectivity options
Wired, 2.4GHz and Bluetooth are all welcome connectivity options – although it’s a shame you can only have one Bluetooth connection at a time.

Don’t buy it if…

You want the best typing experience
Despite the low profile keys, I found the layout a little too cramped, and the feet didn’t offer enough angle for me to type comfortably.

You want a hot-swappable keyboard
Although there are three switch types to choose from when you configure your Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL, they aren’t hot-swappable, so your choice is permanent.

Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL review: also consider

Razer Huntsman V2 Analog
The Razer Huntsman V2 Analog uses analog switches, which means plenty of tweaking options when it comes to actuation points, as well as various modes that take advantage of that graduated operation. It’s wired only and more expensive than the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL, but it’s full-size and we found the performance good enough to justify the price tag. Read our Razer Huntsman V2 Analog review.

Razer Pro Type Ultra
If you want a keyboard that’s equally capable of gaming and working, then the Razer Pro Type Ultra fits the bill. We found it performed brilliantly on both fronts, as well having great connectivity options and battery life. What’s more, it’s cheaper than the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL. If you don’t like a steep angle for your keys, though, this might not be for you. Read our Razer Pro Type Ultra review.

How I tested the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL

Tested for several days
Used for gaming, working, and browsing
Plentiful gaming keyboard experience

I tested the Logitech G915 X Lightspeed TKL for several days, during which time I used it for gaming, working, and general browsing.

I played games such as Counter-Strike 2, which is a good test for keyboards since it requires quick and accurate inputs.

I have been PC gaming for over a decade, and during that time I have experienced many keyboards. I have also reviewed a good number across a broad spectrum of brands, switch types, and price points.

First reviewed February 2025
Read more about how we test

After a month with Cricut Maker 4 I’ve pushed my crafting past its limit, and past the limit of the machine

12:00 pm | March 8, 2025

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets Peripherals & Accessories Printers & Scanners | Tags: USB | Comments: Off

Cricut Maker 4 review: One-minute review

Cricut Maker 4 is an excellent addition to the impressive lineup of crafting machines from Cricut. If you want to craft at home and produce professional-level results, the Maker 4 can help you create decorations, gifts, jewelry, clothing, keepsakes, and much more. It isn’t the easiest tool to use – Maker 4 will help your crafting reach new heights, but it won’t make things for you – yet with some patience and practice, the results can be truly astonishing.

Cricut Maker 4 is the most capable Cricut machine you can buy. There is a larger, commercial-strength Cricut Venture machine, but the Maker 4 can cut a wider variety of materials. Every Cricut cutting machine can cut paper, cardstock, vinyl, and similar materials, but only the Cricut Maker series can cut thick materials like wood and leather. It’s strong enough to engrave aluminum sheets, but delicate enough to cut fine details into felt.

You don’t need to upgrade to the new Cricut Maker 4 if you have an earlier Cricut Maker machine, unless you are turning out huge volumes of projects and you want a machine that is much faster. Maker 4 is up to twice as fast as Cricut Maker 3, but that’s the key difference. Otherwise, the capabilities and even the design are essentially unchanged.

If you don’t have a Cricut machine yet, the good news is that the new Cricut Maker 4 starts at a lower price than before, and bundles are available that give you everything you need to jump into crafting on day one.

Cricut Maker 4 cutting machine making projects with basswood and cardstock — Cricut Maker 4 has space for a blade (right) and a pen (left) (Image credit: Philip Berne / Future)

If you’re totally new to Cricut, your first question will be what exactly is a Cricut machine? Cricut hates when people call its machines a printer, and it’s closer to a laser cutter than a printer. So imagine a printer, but instead of spraying ink on paper, it uses a blade (or a variety of blades) to cut.

You can cut designs into permanent stickers made of vinyl, and then apply the design to your favorite mug, your walls, even your car. You can buy iron-on material or heat-transferable ink that will stick to a shirt or hat and make your own souvenirs. And I’m just getting started, this is only the tip of the Cricut iceberg.

As a long-time Cricut user I’ve made t-shirts and hats, mugs and travel tumblers, and decorations for my house and my classroom back when I was a high school teacher. I’ve made simple labels for spice jars and tea containers, and I’ve made complex, multi-layered shadowbox designs with paper, felt, and faux leather that I hang on my wall.

My years of Cricut experience have been with a Cricut Explore and recently a Cricut Joy Xtra that I got from Cricut when that smaller machine launched. Those machines are great for my decorative needs, but Cricut Maker 4 can handle thicker materials like wood, leather, and aluminum. However, significant caveats apply.

I was very excited to try cutting new materials. Cricut Explore can use special tools, like the scoring wheel to create precise folds in cardstock, but it can’t cut wood or leather.

Cricut was nice enough to send me samples of felt, basswood, faux leather, and aluminum to try, along with a selection of cutting blades and cutting tips, like the embossing tip for aluminum and the rotary cutting tool that slices up fabric like a fishing line through water.

The results were mostly spectacular, with one sad exception. Cricut Maker 4 easily cut through faux leather, creating an intricate and detailed design, then it handled a sheet of soft felt with the same finesse. It took some time, but it’s cool to watch the machine chug along.

Sadly, things came to a halt when I cut the basswood layer for my project. While Maker 4 can cut through wood, it requires 14 separate passes with the blade to cut all the way through. My Maker 4 failed during every attempt. It didn’t ruin the wood, it simply stopped cutting and gave me an error message. Cricut says there is a firmware fix coming that will fix the problem, and I’m excited to put Maker 4 to the test with tougher materials.

This brings me to my biggest complaint about Cricut Maker 4, and all of Cricut’s cutting machines. To use a Cricut machine, you must use Cricut Design Space on your desktop, phone or tablet. It works on Mac and PC, iPhone and Android. Unfortunately, it’s a bad piece of software, being buggy and difficult to use. The performance is so sluggish that I often wondered if it had registered my input at all. Options would appear and disappear, and it is hard to figure out how to make things work properly.

If you’ve used real design software like Photoshop or Illustrator, or even more basic layout tools like Apple Pages or Google Slides, you’ll be confounded by Cricut Design Space. Most of the problems I had in the month I’ve spent with Cricut Maker 4 came down to fighting the software and figuring out how to make it actually do what I assumed I’d asked it to do.

I’ve asked Cricut on numerous occasions if there is any major update coming and they have no plans for any big fix.

The good news is that it is easy to get help. There is a huge community of crafty people who share tips and offer advice. If you buy a Cricut machine, or if you’re even considering a Cricut, I would start watching YouTube video tutorials now. Read the Reddit subgroups, or join a group for Cricut beginners on Facebook. You’ll find help, and you’ll find people meeting the same obstacles.

Because Cricut Maker 4 is an amazing tool, and it makes precise and delicate cuts at an astonishing speed, resulting in a final product that looks professionally produced – if you know what you are doing. Maker 4 won’t make the projects for you.

This isn’t a turnkey solution where you insert materials at one end and out pops a completed project. This is a tool that will get you from point A through points B, C, and D with more precision than you imagined. But there is still plenty of work for you to do.

Cricut Maker 4 review: price and bundles

Starts at $399 / £399 / AU$699 with basic materials and tools
Cricut's bundle is better when you buy a month of Cricut Access

Cricut Maker 4 starts at $399.99 in the US, which is a bit less than the Maker 3’s $429.99 starting price; in Britain you'll pay £399 and AU$699 in Australia.

The Maker 4 comes with more accessories and tools than before, enough to actually start crafting a few projects and get the hang of the machine, but you’ll need a lot more once you really get into crafting with Cricut. There is an Everything bundle that includes many more necessary tools for $459 / £469.99, currently discounted for the launch of Maker 4.

Another cost to consider is Cricut Access, a monthly subscription service through the Cricut Design Space app. Cricut Access provides a massive supply of stock images and patterns that you can use, as well as a library of fonts. If you don’t subscribe, you can use your own system fonts, which are not designed to look good on crafts, and you can supply your own images.

When I’m feeling crafty, I usually subscribe for a couple of months and then cancel until I want to make stuff again. Cricut Access costs $9.99 per month or $95.88 for a full year (scroll down for UK and Australia bundle prices). With the subscription, you also get a discount on Cricut supplies and machines, and a discount if you buy licensed images and fonts from Cricut Design Space, like Star Wars characters or recognizable Disney-branded fonts.

Frankly, buying a Cricut machine opens a Pandora's box of buying. If you want to make hats, you’ll want a Cricut Hat Press. If you want to make mugs, the Cricut Mug Press is essential. If you are simply making shirts and or pressing vinyl only fabric, you’ll want a good hot press to use instead of a clothes iron. I’ve used all of these accessories from Cricut and they all work remarkably well, making the crafting process as easy as possible with app controls and timers.

You’ll also need materials like permanent vinyl sheets and iron-ons. I’ve purchased cheap brands from Amazon and also the good stuff from Cricut. Both options work, but Cricut-brand materials have a much higher success rate for me – and thankfully you can always find some Cricut material on sale either at Cricut.com or at stores like Michael’s in the States.

What comes with the Cricut Maker 4?

Cricut Maker 4 machine
Fine-Point Blade
Light Grip Mat (12 in x 12 in)
Fine Point Pen (0.4mm)
Mini Weeder tool
Materials for practice crafting

What more do you get with the Cricut Everything Bundle?

Card Mart (13 in x 16.25 in)
24 insert cards
Scoring Stylus
Scraper
Spatula
Weeder tool
Portable Trimmer
Fine Point Pen in Magenta
2 rolls + 6 sheets Smart Iron-On
2 rolls + 6 sheets Smart Vinyl - permanent
12 sheets printable vinyl
24 sheets cardstock
1 roll + 5 sheets transfer tape (for vinyl projects)
1 Tote Bag
Subscription to Cricut Access Standard (1 month included)

Cricut Maker 4 review: What can you make?

Image 1 of 6

A mug created with heat-infusible ink and a drawing of my dog

Image 2 of 6

A shadowbox using layers of cardstock paper cut precisely

Image 3 of 6

Faux leather cut into a pattern that still needs bits weeded away

Image 4 of 6

A layer of felt on top of a layer of faux leather

Image 5 of 6

A birthday card cut-out

Image 6 of 6

The basswood project is still going...

Cricut Maker 4 starts with a small blade attachment, so you can make anything that starts with cutting. You can also insert a pen to draw on your projects with the same precision. You can cut paper, vinyl stickers, iron-on vinyl (heat transfer vinyl), cardstock, and other thin materials to make interior decorations, small crafts, cards, and clothing decorations.

There are many different blades and attachments available separately for Cricut Maker 4 that extend its capabilities significantly. There are deep cutting blades for thicker materials, or rolling blades for soft materials and fine, continuous cuts. There are tools that score cardstock and paper for perfect folds and creases, tools for engraving in metal and debossing leather, and tools to create perforations to tear later. There are also a wide variety of pens you can use alongside the blades.

The variety of blades and tools available is what sets Cricut Maker 4 apart from Cricut Explore 4 and the other Cricut machines. For instance, you can use the rotary blade with Cricut Maker 4, but not with Explore. I tried cutting felt with the add-on rotary blade and with the included fine blade and the results were much better with the rotary blade. The pattern was cut perfectly and much easier to lift from the mat without tearing or weeding too much excess.

The real time you spend crafting will come after Cricut Maker 4 finishes its work. A Cricut machine almost never leaves you with the finished project. You’ll need to weed out all the scraps and bits you don’t want, and attach different pieces together. This requires time and patience, as well as proper tools for weeding and dealing with lots of sticky trash. Cricut Maker 4 comes with a very simple weeding tool – you’ll want to buy more tools before your first project.

The Cricut Design Space software offers a rotating set of suggested projects, with new ideas popping up as the seasons change. There is a community of contributors who post new ideas almost daily - from home decorations to drinkware to clothing to container labels and much more.

You could definitely use Cricut Maker 4 as the foundation for a small crafting business, like a souvenir shop or an Etsy store. My favorite use for my Cricut so far has been making t-shirts for inside jokes. When somebody makes a good joke one day, I’ll put it on a shirt that night and come to work the next day wearing what they said. I also love the quality of Cricut Mugs, but my cabinet is full so I’ll need to accidentally break some before I can make more.

Cricut Maker 4 review: Design

Wider than a printer and needs space in front and behind
Convenient storage for tools, pens, and blades

Cricut Maker 4 looks a lot like a very wide printer. It is a squat box that opens to reveal a headliner and a tray for your materials or a cutting mat. If you don’t use Cricut Smart Material rolls, you’ll need a cutting mat to hold your material while the Cricut blade slices. The machine comes with a light grip mat that is appropriate for paper and vinyl, but you’ll need a stronger grip for thicker materials.

Cricut Maker 4 needs plenty of room in front and behind when it's working, but it closes up to be much more compact. The machine can handle cutting mats up to 12 inches wide, and it can cut projects that are very long if it uses Smart Materials.

The machine has convenient storage space for some Cricut tools built in. I was able to store a number of extra cutting blades, as well as my weeding tools, all inside the Cricut’s storage compartment. It couldn’t hold everything – the brayer tool for pushing materials flat is too large, for instance – but it’s a convenient use of device space.

My Cricut Maker 4 sample came in the seashell color, which is a lovely, light pink. However, I was jealous to learn that Michael’s has an exclusive sage color available. The capabilities are the same, I just like exclusives.

Cricut Maker 4 can connect to your computer via Bluetooth, but it will need to connect via USB at least once for a firmware update and initial setup. It comes with a very long USB-C to USB-B cable, as well as a power adapter.

Cricut Maker 4 review: Setup and ease of use

Setup requires a USB connection (cable included)
Use requires Cricut Design Space app for desktop or mobile

Cricut Maker 4 is easy to set up with Cricut Design Space. It won’t work with any other software, but there is a Cricut app available for MacOS, Windows, Android and iOS, so whatever device you use, you’ll be covered, with the exception of Chromebooks. There is no web-based setup option.

For basic projects, Cricut Maker 4 can be very easy to use, but not without frustration or effort. Once your project is cut, weeding the scraps takes precision and patience, and this is where most of my projects failed when I accidentally ripped out something I wanted to keep. Having a good, bright light helps, as well as sharp eyesight. Cricut crafting is how I realized I needed to start wearing reading glasses.

The worst part of Cricut crafting by far is Cricut Design Space. The more I use the software, the more I hope that Cricut takes a sledgehammer to the current build and starts from scratch. It is simply a difficult, buggy, poorly designed piece of software, and unfortunately it's the gatekeeper for all Cricut crafting. You must use Design Space to use Cricut Maker 4.

Fear not, because help is available from the community. I have joined Cricut fans on Reddit and Facebook and found plenty of friendly help, and there are tons of YouTubers and bloggers who are crafting with Cricut and ready to offer instructions and advice.

Still, this isn't a do-it-all-for-you crafting machine. This is a precise tool that will elevate your crafts to a new level of precision and refinement. You’ll be able to create items that look as good as products you’d buy in a store, but you’ll need to spend more time than you expect getting it right. I failed many times on my complex crafting projects, and I’ve put some even more advanced projects aside while I practice my technique on easier crafts.

Cricut Maker 4 review: Should I buy Cricut Maker 4?

If you are patient, craft-centric and interested in making incredible projects that will impress, go ahead and buy Cricut Maker 4. The results are stunning, and once you get the hang of your favorite type of projects, you’ll be able to crank out new items with ease. After a dozen t-shirts or so, I could easily whip up a fresh design and have it ready to wear in a couple of hours or less.

If you’re a teacher, what are you waiting for?! Buy this now! or have your school buy one, or tell your friends on Facebook that they need to support their local teacher with a Cricut Maker 4. It’s an invaluable tool for educators – I was able to decorate every inch of my room, from the walls to the windows to the desks, at a tiny fraction of the normal cost.

Actually, forget the normal cost because I never decorated as thoroughly before I had my own Cricut machine. I redecorated for every new lesson unit. Once you get the hang of basic decorations, you’ll start using Cricut to create useful class materials, and then it will really prove its worth.

Do you need Cricut Maker 4 over Cricut Explore 4? Most people will probably be able to create everything they want with an Explore 4, though the flexibility and precision of Maker 4 is nice if you may someday want to incorporate felt or leather into your crafts. Cricut’s faux leather is an awesome material and it cuts beautifully into complex shapes.

On the other hand, if wood is your thing, I’d look elsewhere. Cricut hasn’t fixed the firmware issue that caused my basswood projects to fail, and besides, it takes hours and hours to cut a wood project. Woodcrafters might want to consider a laser cutter, even though they are twice as expensive as Cricut Maker 4 for even a basic machine.

I’d strongly recommend getting a Cricut bundle as well. The larger weeding tools and scraping tools are essential, and it’s nice to have a selection of materials on hand when you first get the new machine to try some projects before you settle into your creative groove.

Buy it if...

You’re a teacher who decorates often
You could spend hundreds every year on letters and shapes, holiday designs and more, or buy a Cricut and make it yourself for a fraction of the cost with exponentially more creativity.

You want to craft precisely but lack a steady hand
I can’t cut straight lines or draw neat figures, but Cricut Maker 4 produces laser-sharp results that make my crafts look artistic and professional.

Don't buy it if...

You want to cut complex materials like wood and metal
Cricut Maker 4 can cut wood and some metal, but if you craft with those materials often, a laser cutter will get the job done much faster and more reliably.

You don’t want to cut anything besides paper and decorations
Most of what I make is paper and vinyl, so a Cricut Explore or even a Cricut Joy Xtra would get the job done for most of my projects… until I decide to get fancy.

[First reviewed March 2025]

The Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini might be small, but few mice have impressed me this much

3:00 am |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets Mice Peripherals & Accessories | Comments: Off

Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini: two-minute review

The Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini doesn’t contain any new tech, but it does fulfil a sentiment among enthusiasts – what if Asus took its top-end sensors and switches and put them into a smaller pointer?

The company’s latest high-end mouse tech, including its ROG AimPoint Pro optical sensor (capable of an impressive 42,000-dpi) and its ROG 100M Optical Micro Switches, were previously exclusive to the ludicrously expensive Harpe Ace Extreme and the comparatively reasonably priced Keris II Ace – both aimed at competitive gamers with deep pockets.

The Harpe Ace Mini adopts the new tech, making it another top-end mouse in the Asus arsenal, putting it on par with the Ace Extreme at a price that’s not terrible – though still is out of reach of many gamers, even without the 8,000Hz Polling Rate Booster dongle that’s sold separately.

The Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini on a table — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

Without the additional dongle, the mouse is capable of a standard 1,000Hz polling rate, which is fairly average among performance mice. What’s not average is the low weight – at only 1.72oz (49g), it's a number I’ve only seen bested by a handful of rivals.

The aforementioned AimPoint Pro sensor and Asus' ROG SpeedNova 2.4Ghz tech makes the mouse satisfyingly precise, which the low weight no doubt helps with. Hitting my shots in shooting games and navigating programs with small icons was a breeze, and at no time did I notice it being any less reliable than other high-spec mice that I've reviewed.

The maximum acceleration of 50g is less than that of the Razer Deathadder V3 (70g), but it felt sufficiently up to scratch for a casual gamer or PC user who might, at most, want to quickly flick the mouse to hit their shots in a shooting game. Additionally, the mouse can track on almost any surface without the need for a mouse pad – I've used it on wood, plastic, glass and metallic surfaces and had no trouble (though I prefer the feeling of a mouse pad).

The RGB is minimalist, housed entirely within the scroll wheel. The Asus Armory Crate software allows you to tweak its animation, color and brightness to your liking, and the lights will pulse red when it’s at low battery. It’ll also pulse green when charging.

The Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini with its RGB lights set to blue — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

The battery life, which maxes out at 139 hours when RGB is disabled and Bluetooth is used, is impressive, as is the neutral design that I prefer my peripherals to have. You’ll likely be using the mouse with the 2.4GHz dongle for its greater performance, bringing maximum mouse battery life to 105 hours with lighting off and 79 hours with lighting on. Don’t get the wrong idea though – that’s still a fairly impressive number among RGB-touting rivals.

Flipping the mouse over, you’ll find a button that changes the DPI among your presets, cycling through them with every click, along with a pairing button. There’s also a slider that switches between wired (also ‘off’), Bluetooth and 2.4GHz dongle options.

There’s genuinely not a lot of bad things to say about the Harpe Ace Mini. It’s comfortable, it glides across a mousepad easily, and the only things I could even say critically about this pointer feel quite tepid.

The Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini being held in a hand — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

The high price is obviously a drawback, and the small size isn’t for everyone. The scroll wheel is a bit stiff, though this might be preferential for some users. The mouse is designed for right hands with its side buttons aligned on the left, though this would be a non-issue for many. The DPI switch is on the bottom, meaning you can’t quickly switch between presets, but this isn't unique to the Harpe Ace Mini and is the case on many high-end mice.

Asus’ Armory Crate software is a bit difficult to navigate, but is fine if you’re only going to make small tweaks here and there like I did (changing up the DPI, the actions of the side buttons and the mouse RGB).

There’s not much more I would have liked the mouse to have, given that it’s sporting much of the great tech found in the pricey ROG Harpe Extreme – though the carbon fiber shell from the Extreme would have been awesome (but understandably would have raised the price).

The ROG Harpe Ace Mini feels masterful. There’s very little room for improvement here, and it’s certainly a contender among the best gaming mice.

Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini review: price & availability

The Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini gaming mouse from the front — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

$129.99/£129.99/AU$229
Available in white and black
Polling Rate Booster dongle solder separately

Available now in black and white, the Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini comes with a set of mouse grip tape, replaceable mouse feet and a 2-meter USB-C cord, along with a 2.4GHz dongle and USB-C to USB-A converter. That dongle shouldn’t be confused with the Polling Rate Booster, which takes the report rate from 1,000Hz to a whopping 8,000Hz but is sold separately.

At this price, the ROG Harpe Ace Mini is competing with other high performance but fairly discreet mice, and is punching well above its price point. The now two-year-old Razer Deathadder V3 Pro is a considerable contender, as it launched three years ago and can often be found with attractive discounts. The same can be said for the impressive Logitech G Pro X Superlight 2.

These mice launched at higher prices than the ROG Harpe Ace Mini, which in my mind puts Asus’ tiny gaming mouse on the winning track, especially considering that it’s much smaller than either of these rivals. On size, we’d look to the Razer Cobra Pro as the closest contender, though it has a much lower DPI (30,000) and greater weight (77g).

Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini review: specs

Should I buy the Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini?

Buy it if…

You like small mice

The ROG Harpe Ace Mini’s bread and butter is high performance in a small package, so you should consider it if you dislike big mice.

You’ve already got a ROG-heavy setup

It’s good to cut down on accessory software on your computer, so you should consider the ROG Harpe Ace Mini if you’ve already got a setup taking advantage of Armory Crate.

Don’t buy it if…

It’s too expensive

The price of the ROG Harpe Ace Mini might be out of reach of many users.

You want more buttons

The ROG Harpe Ace Mini is a discreet mouse, and you’ll only get five programmable buttons included.

Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini: Also consider

Razer Deathadder V3 Pro

One of TechRadar’s highest-rated mice, this is arguably the best gaming mouse you can currently buy.

Read our Razer Deathadder V3 Pro review

Logitech G Pro X2 Superlight

Also notable for being discreet, the G Pro X2 Superlight offers a competitive feeling and is often discounted.

Read our Logitech G Pro X2 Superlight review

Razer Cobra Pro

The closest rival to the ROG Harpe Ace Mini, the Razer Cobra Pro is also notable for its small size, but is heavier with a lower maximum DPI.

Read out Razer Cobra Pro review

How I tested the Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini

Used primarily on a Windows 11 gaming PC
Multiple tweaks made in Armory Crate
Tested alongside other new Asus ROG products

I tested the Asus ROG Harpe Ace Mini over the course of a month, mostly using it to play games like Avowed, Marvel Rivals and The Headliners. I also used it regularly when browsing the internet and when writing things up at my home computer.

I made good use of Asus’ Armory Crate software, using it to tweak the RGB color and animation, along with changing my DPI presets and tweaking the actions of the side buttons. I used it primarily with the 2.4GHz dongle, but also over Bluetooth and while wired.

I also used the mouse alongside a slew of new Asus products to get the best unified experience, swapping out my all-Logitech setup for an all Asus arrangement.

AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT: Two-minute review

AMD had one job to do with the launch of its RDNA 4 graphics cards, spearheaded by the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, and that was to not get run over by Blackwell too badly this generation.

With the RX 9070 XT, not only did AMD manage to hold its own against the GeForce RTX monolith, it perfectly positions Team Red to take advantage of the growing discontent among gamers upset over Nvidia's latest GPUs with one of the best graphics cards I've ever tested.

The RX 9070 XT is without question the most powerful consumer graphics card AMD's put out, beating the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX overall and coming within inches of the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 in 4K and 1440p gaming performance.

It does so with an MSRP of just $599 (about £510 / AU$870), which is substantially lower than those two card's MSRP, much less their asking price online right now. This matters because AMD traditionally hasn't faced the kind of scalping and price inflation that Nvidia's GPUs experience (it does happen, obviously, but not nearly to the same extent as with Nvidia's RTX cards).

That means, ultimately, that gamers who look at the GPU market and find empty shelves, extremely distorted prices, and uninspiring performance for the price they're being asked to pay have an alternative that will likely stay within reach, even if price inflation keeps it above AMD's MSRP.

The RX 9070 XT's performance comes at a bit of a cost though, such as the 309W maximum power draw I saw during my testing, but at this tier of performance, this actually isn't that bad.

This card also isn't too great when it comes to non-raster creative performance and AI compute, but no one is looking to buy this card for its creative or AI performance, as Nvidia already has those categories on lock. No, this is a card for gamers out there, and for that, you just won't find a better one at this price. Even if the price does get hit with inflation, it'll still likely be way lower than what you'd have to pay for an RX 7900 XTX or RTX 4080 (assuming you can find them at this point) making the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT a gaming GPU that everyone can appreciate and maybe even buy.

AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT: Price & availability

An AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT made by Sapphire on a table with its retail packaging — (Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

How much is it? MSRP is $599 (about £510 / AU$870)
When can you get it? The RX 9070 XT goes on sale March 6, 2025
Where is it available? The RX 9070 XT will be available in the US, UK, and Australia at launch

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is available as of March 6, 2025, starting at $599 (about £510 / AU$870) for reference-spec third-party cards from manufacturers like Asus, Sapphire, Gigabyte, and others, with OC versions and those with added accoutrements like fancy cooling and RGB lighting likely selling for higher than MSRP.

At this price, the RX 9070 XT comes in about $150 cheaper than the RTX 5070 Ti, and about $50 more expensive than the RTX 5070 and the AMD Radeon RX 9070, which also launches alongside the RX 9070 XT. This price also puts the RX 9070 XT on par with the MSRP of the RTX 4070 Super, though this card is getting harder to find nowadays.

While I'll dig into performance in a bit, given the MSRP (and the reasonable hope that this card will be findable at MSRP in some capacity) the RX 9070 XT's value proposition is second only to the RTX 5070 Ti's, if you're going by its MSRP. Since price inflation on the RTX 5070 Ti will persist for some time at least, in many cases you'll likely find the RX 9070 XT offers better performance per price paid of any enthusiast card on the market right now.

Value: 5 / 5

AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT: Specs

PCIe 5.0, but still just GDDR6
Hefty power draw

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the first RDNA 4 card to hit the market, and so its worth digging into its architecture for a bit.

The new architecture is built on TSMC's N4P node, the same as Nvidia Blackwell, and in a move away from AMD's MCM push with the last generation, the RDNA 4 GPU is a monolithic die.

As there's no direct predecessor for this card (or for the RX 9070, for that matter), there's not much that we can apples-to-apples compare the RX 9070 XT against, but I'm going to try, putting the RX 9070 XT roughly between the RX 7800 XT and the RX 7900 GRE if it had a last-gen equivalent.

The Navi 48 GPU in the RX 9070 XT sports 64 compute units, breaking down into 64 ray accelerators, 128 AI accelerators, and 64MB of L3 cache. Its cores are clocked at 1,600MHz to start, but can run as fast as 2,970MHz, just shy of the 3GHz mark.

It uses the same GDDR6 memory as the last-gen AMD cards, with a 256-bit bus and a 644.6GB/s memory bandwidth, which is definitely helpful in pushing out 4K frames quickly.

The TGP of the RX 9070 XT is 304W, which is a good bit higher than the RX 7900 GRE, though for that extra power, you do get a commensurate bump up in performance.

Specs: 4 / 5

AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT: Design

No AMD reference card
High TGP means bigger coolers and more cables

There's no AMD reference card for the Radeon RX 9070 XT, but the unit I got to test was the Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 9070 XT, which I imagine is pretty indicative of what we can expect from the designs of the various third-party cards.

The 304W TGP all but ensures that any version of this card you find will be a triple-fan cooler over a pretty hefty heatsink, so it's not going to be a great option for small form factor cases.

Likewise, that TGP just puts it over the line where it needs a third 8-pin PCIe power connector, something that you may or may not have available in your rig, so keep that in mind. If you do have three spare power connectors, there's no question that cable management will almost certainly be a hassle as well.

After that, it's really just about aesthetics, as the RX 9070 XT (so far) doesn't have anything like the dual pass-through cooling solution of the RTX 5090 and RTX 5080, so it's really up to personal taste.

As for the card I reviewed, the Sapphire Pulse shroud and cooling setup on the RX 9070 XT was pretty plain, as far as desktop GPUs go, but if you're looking for a non-flashy look for your PC, it's a great-looking card.

Design: 4 / 5

AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT: Performance

An AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT in a test bench — (Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Near-RTX 4080 levels of gaming performance, even with ray tracing
Non-raster creative and AI performance lags behind Nvidia, as expected
Likely the best value you're going to find anywhere near this price point

A note on my data

The charts shown below offer the most recent data I have for the cards tested for this review. They may change over time as more card results are added and cards are retested. The 'average of all cards tested' includes cards not shown in these charts for readability purposes.

Simply put, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the gaming graphics card that we've been clamoring for this entire generation. While it shows some strong performance in synthetics and raster-heavy creative tasks, gaming is where this card really shines, managing to come within 7% overall of the RTX 4080 and getting within 4% of the RTX 4080's overall gaming performance. For a card launching at half the price of the RTX 4080's launch price, this is a fantastic showing.

The RX 9070 XT is squaring up against the RTX 5070 Ti, however, and here the RTX 5070 Ti does manage to pull well ahead of the RX 9070 XT, but it's much closer than I thought it would be starting out.

On the synthetics side, the RX 9070 XT excels at rasterization workloads like 3DMark Steel Nomad, while the RTX 5070 Ti wins out in ray-traced workloads like 3DMark Speed Way, as expected, but AMD's 3rd generation ray accelerators have definitely come a long way in catching up with Nvidia's more sophisticated hardware.

Also, as expected, when it comes to creative workloads, the RX 9070 XT performs very well in raster-based tasks like photo editing, and worse at 3D modeling in Blender, which is heavily reliant on Nvidia's CUDA instruction set, giving Nvidia an all but permanent advantage there.

In video editing, the RX 9070 XT likewise lags behind, though it's still close enough to Nvidia's RTX 5070 Ti that video editors won't notice much difference, even if the difference is there on paper.

Gaming performance is what we're on about though, and here the sub-$600 GPU holds its own against heavy hitters like the RTX 4080, RTX 5070 Ti, and Radeon RX 7900 XTX.

In 1440p gaming, the RX 9070 XT is about 8.4% faster than the RTX 4070 Ti and RX 7900 XTX, just under 4% slower than the RTX 4080, and about 7% slower than the RTX 5070 Ti.

This strong performance carries over into 4K gaming as well, thanks to the RX 9070 XT's 16GB VRAM. Here, it's about 15.5% faster than the RTX 4070 Ti and about 2.5% faster than the RX 7900 XTX. Against the RTX 4080, the RX 9070 XT is just 3.5% slower, while it comes within 8% of the RTX 5070 Ti's 4K gaming performance.

When all is said and done, the RX 9070 XT doesn't quite overpower one of the best Nvidia graphics cards of the last-gen (and definitely doesn't topple the RTX 5070 Ti), but given its performance class, it's power draw, its heat output (which wasn't nearly as bad as the power draw might indicate), and most of all, it's price, the RX 9070 XT is easily the best value of any graphics card playing at 4K.

And given Nvidia's position with gamers right now, AMD has a real chance to win over some converts with this graphics card, and anyone looking for an outstanding 4K GPU absolutely needs to consider it before making their next upgrade.

Performance: 5 / 5

Should you buy the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT?

Buy the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT if...

You want the best value proposition for a high-end graphics card
The performance of the RX 9070 XT punches way above its price point.

You don't want to pay inflated prices for an Nvidia GPU
Price inflation is wreaking havoc on the GPU market right now, but this card might fare better than Nvidia's RTX offerings.

Don't buy it if...

You're on a tight budget
If you don't have a lot of money to spend, this card is likely more than you need.

You need strong creative or AI performance
While AMD is getting better at creative and AI workloads, it still lags far behind Nvidia's competing offerings.

How I tested the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT

I spent about a week with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT
I used my complete GPU testing suite to analyze the card's performance
I tested the card in everyday, gaming, creative, and AI workload usage

Test System Specs

Here are the specs on the system I used for testing:

Motherboard: ASRock Z790i Lightning WiFi
CPU: Intel Core i9-14900K
CPU Cooler: Gigabyte Auros Waterforce II 360 ICE
RAM: Corsair Dominator DDR5-6600 (2 x 16GB)
SSD: Crucial T705
PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower PF3 1050W Platinum
Case: Praxis Wetbench

I spent about a week with the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT, which was spent benchmarking, using, and digging into the card's hardware to come to my assessment.

I used industry standard benchmark tools like 3DMark, Cyberpunk 2077, and Pugetbench for Creators to get comparable results with other competing graphics cards, all of while have been tested using the same testbench setup listed on the right.

I've reviewed more than 30 graphics cards in the last three years, and so I've got the experience and insight to help you find the best graphics card for your needs and budget.

Originally reviewed March 2025

I really wanted to like the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070, but it broke my heart and it shouldn’t have to break yours, too

5:00 pm | March 4, 2025

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Computing Components Gadgets | Tags: AI, FE, GPU, Indiana Jones, RTX | Comments: Off

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070: Two-minute review

A lot of promises were made about the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070, and in some narrow sense, those promises are fulfilled with Nvidia's mainstream GPU. But the gulf between what was expected and what the RTX 5070 actually delivers is simply too wide a gap to bridge for me and the legion of gamers and enthusiasts out there who won't be able to afford—or even find, frankly—Nvidia's best graphics cards from this generation.

Launching on March 5, 2025, at an MSRP of $549 / £549 / AU$1,109 in the US, UK, and Australia, respectively, this might be one of the few Nvidia Blackwell GPUs you'll find at MSRP (along with available stock), but only for lack of substantial demand. As the middle-tier GPU in Nvidia's lineup, the RTX 5070 is meant to have broader appeal and more accessible pricing and specs than the enthusiast-grade Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090, Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080, and Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, but of all the cards this generation, this is the one that seems to have the least to offer prospective buyers over what's already on the market at this price point.

That's not to say there is nothing to commend this card. The RTX 5070 does get up to native Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 performance in some games thanks to Nvidia Blackwell's exclusive Multi-Frame Generation (MFG) technology. And, to be fair, the RTX 5070 is a substantial improvement over the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070, so at least in direct gen-on-gen uplift, there is a roughly 20-25% performance gain.

But this card is a far, far cry from the promise of RTX 4090 performance that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang presented on stage at CES 2025, even with the qualifier that such an achievement would be "impossible without artificial intelligence," which implies a heavy reliance on DLSS 4 and MFG to get this card over the line.

If we're just talking framerates, then in some very narrow cases this card can do that, but at 4K with ray tracing and cranked-up settings, the input latency for the RTX 5070 with MFG can be noticeable depending on your settings, and it can become distracting. Nvidia Reflex helps, but if you take RTX 4090 performance to mean the same experience as the RTX 4090, you simply won't get that with MFG, even in the 80 or so games that support it currently.

An Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 — (Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

Add to all this the fact that the RTX 5070 barely outpaces the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super when you take MFG off the table (which will be the case for the vast majority of games played on this card) and you really don't have anything to show for the extra 30W of power this card pulls down over the RTX 4070 Super.

With the RTX 5070 coming in at less than four percent faster in gaming without MFG than the non-OC RTX 4070 Super, and roughly 5% faster overall, that means that the RTX 5070 is essentially a stock-overclocked RTX 4070 Super, performance-wise, with the added feature of MFG. An overclocked RTX 4070 Super might even match or exceed the RTX 5070's overall performance in all but a handful of games, and that doesn't even touch upon AMD's various offerings in this price range, like the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE or AMD's upcoming RX 9070 XT and RX 9070 cards.

Given that the RTX 4070 Super is still generally available on the market (at least for the time being) at a price where you're likely to find it for less than available RTX 5070 cards, and competing AMD cards are often available for less, easier to find, and offer roughly the same level of performance, I really struggle to find any reason to recommend this card, even without the questionable-at-best marketing for this card to sour my feelings about it.

I caught a lot of flack from enthusiasts for praising the RTX 5080 despite its 8-10% performance uplift over the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Super, but at the level of the RTX 5080, there is no real competition and you're still getting the third-best graphics card on the market with a noticeable performance boost over the RTX 4080 Super for the same MSRP. Was it what enthusiasts wanted? No, but it's still a fantastic card with few peers, and the base performance of the RTX 5080 was so good that the latency problem of MFG just wasn't an issue, making it a strong value-add for the card.

You just can't claim that for the RTX 5070. There are simply too many other options for gamers to consider at this price point, and MFG just isn't a strong enough selling point at this performance level to move the needle. If the RTX 5070 is the only card you have available to you for purchase and you need a great 1440p graphics card and can't wait for something better (and you're only paying MSRP), then you'll ultimately be happy with this card. But the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 could have and should have been so much better than it ultimately is.

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070: Price & availability

An Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 sitting on top of its retail packaging — (Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)

How much is it? MSRP/RRP starting at $549 / £549 / AU$1,109
When can you get it? The RTX 5070 goes on sale on March 5, 2025
Where is it available? The RTX 5070 will be available in the US, UK, and Australia at launch

The Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 is available starting March 5, 2025, with an MSRP of $549 / £549 / AU$1,109 in the US, UK, and Australia, respectively.

This puts it at the same price as the current RTX 4070 MSRP, and slightly less than that of the RTX 4070 Super. It's also the same MSRP as the AMD's RX 7900 GRE and upcoming RX 9070, and slightly cheaper than the AMD RX 9070 XT's MSRP.

The relatively low MSRP for the RTX 5070 is one of the bright spots for this card, as well as the existence of the RTX 5070 Founders Edition card, which Nvidia will sell directly at MSRP. This will at least put something of an anchor on the card's price in the face of scalping and general price inflation.

Value: 4 / 5

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070: Specs

GDDR7 VRAM and PCIe 5.0
Higher power consumption
Still just 12GB VRAM, and fewer compute units

The Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 is a mixed bag when it comes to specs. On the one hand, you have advanced technology like the new PCIe 5.0 interface and new GDDR7 VRAM, both of which appear great on paper.

On the other hand, it feels like every other spec was configured and tweaked to make sure that it compensated for any performance benefit these technologies would impart to keep the overall package more or less the same as the previous generation GPUs.

For instance, while the RTX 5070 sports faster GDDR7 memory, it doesn't expand the VRAM pool beyond 12GB, unlike its competitors. If Nvidia was hoping that the faster memory would make up for keeping the amount of VRAM the same, it only makes a modest increase in the number of compute units in the GPU (48 compared to the RTX 4070's 46), and a noticeable decrease from the RTX 4070 Super's (56).

Whatever performance gains the RTX 5070 makes with its faster memory, then, is completely neutralized by the larger number of compute units (along with the requisite number of CUDA cores, RT cores, and Tensor cores) in the RTX 4070 Super.

The base clock on the RTX 5070 is notably higher, but its boost clock is only slightly increased, which is ultimately where it counts while playing games or running intensive workloads.

Likewise, whatever gains the more advanced TSMC N4P node offers the RTX 5070's GPU over the TSMC N4 node of its predecessors seems to be eaten up by the cutting down of the die. If there was a power or cost reason for this, I have no idea, but I think that this decision is what ultimately sinks the RTX 5070.

It seems like every decision was made to keep things right where they are rather than move things forward. That would be acceptable, honestly, if there was some other major benefit like a greatly reduced power draw or much lower price (I've argued for both rather than pushing for more performance every gen), but somehow the RTX 5070 manages to pull down an extra 30W of power over the RTX 4070 Super and a full 50W over the RTX 4070, and the price is only slightly lower than the RTX 4070 was at launch.

Finally, this is a PCIe 5.0 x16 GPU, which means that if you have a motherboard with 16 PCIe lanes or less, and you're using a PCIe 5.0 SSD, one of these two components is going to get nerfed down to PCIe 4.0, and most motherboards default to prioritizing the GPU.

You might be able to set your PCIe 5.0 priority to your SSD in your motherboard's BIOS settings and put the RTX 5070 into PCIe 4.0, but I haven't tested how this would affect the performance of the RTX 5070, so be mindful that this might be an issue with this card.

Specs: 2.5 / 5

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070: Design

No dual-pass-through cooling
FE card is the same size as the RTX 4070 and RTX 4070 Super FE cards

The Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Founders Edition looks identical to the RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 that preceeded it, but with some very key differences, both inside and out.

One of the best things about the RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 FE cards was the innovative dual pass-through cooling solution on those cards, which improved thermals so much that Nvidia was able to shrink the size of those cards from the gargantuan bricks of the last generation to something far more manageable and practical.

It would have been nice to see what such a solution could have done for the RTX 5070, but maybe it just wasn't possible to engineer it so it made any sense. Regardless, it's unfortunate that it wasn't an option here, even though the RTX 5070 is hardly unwieldy (at least for the Founders Edition card).

Otherwise, it sports the same 16-pin power connector placement as the RTX 5090 and RTX 5080, so 90-degree power connectors won't fit the Founders Edition, though you will have better luck with most, if not all, AIB partner cards which will likely stick to the same power connector placement of the RTX 40 series.

The RTX 5070 FE will easily fit inside even a SFF case with ease, and its lighter power draw means that even if you have to rely on the included two-to-one cable adapter to plug in two free 8-pin cables from your power supply, it will still be a fairly manageable affair.

Lastly, like all the Founders Edition cards before it, the RTX 5070 has no RGB, with only the white backlight GeForce RTX logo on the top edge of the card to provide any 'flair' of that sort.

Design: 3.5 / 5

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070: Performance

Almost no difference in performance over the RTX 4070 Super without MFG
Using MFG can get you native RTX 4090 framerates in some games
Significantly faster performance over the RTX 4070

A note on my data

Boy howdy, here we go.

The best thing I can say about the performance of this card is that it is just barely the best 1440p graphics card on the market as of this review, and that DLSS 4's Multi Frame Generation can deliver the kind of framerates Nvidia promises in those games where the technology is available, either natively or through the Nvidia App's DLSS override feature.

Both of those statements come with a lot of caveats, though, and the RTX 5070 doesn't make enough progress from the last gen to make a compelling case for itself performance-wise, especially since its signature feature is only available in a smattering of games at the moment.

On the synthetic side of things, the RTX 5070 looks strong against the card it's replacing, the RTX 4070, and generally offers about 25% better performance on synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark Steel Nomad or Speed Way. It also has higher compute performance in Geekbench 6 than its direct predecessor, though not be as drastic a margin (about 10% better).

Compared to the RTX 4070 Super, however, the RTX 5070's performance is only about 6% better overall, and only about 12% better than the AMD RX 7900 GRE's overall synthetic performance.

Again, a win is a win, but it's much closer than it should be gen-on-gen.

The RTX 5070 runs into similar issues on the creative side, where it only outperforms the RTX 4070 Super by about 3% overall, with its best performance coming in PugetBench for Creators' Adobe Premiere benchmark (~13% better than the RTX 4070 Super), but faltering somewhat with Blender Benchmark 4.3.0.

This isn't too surprising, as the RTX 5070 hasn't been released yet and GPUs tend to perform better in Blender several weeks or months after the card's release when the devs can better optimize things for new releases.

All in all, for this class of cards, the RTX 5070 is a solid choice for those who might want to dabble in creative work without much of a financial commitment, but real pros are better off with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti if you're looking to upgrade without spending a fortune.

It's with gaming, though, where the real heartbreak comes with this card.

Technically, with just 12GB VRAM, this isn't a 4K graphics card, but both the RTX 4070 Super and RTX 5070 are strong enough cards that you can get playable native 4K in pretty much every game so long as you never, ever touch ray tracing, global illumination, or the like. Unfortunately, both cards perform roughly the same under these conditions at 4K, with the RTX 5070 pulling into a slight >5 fps lead in a few games like Returnal and Dying Light 2.

However, in some titles like F1 2024, the RTX 4070 Super actually outperforms the RTX 5070 when ray tracing is turned on, or when DLSS is set to balanced and without any Frame Generation. Overall and across different setting configurations, the RTX 5070 only musters a roughly 4.5% better average FPS at 4K than the RTX 4070 Super.

It's pretty much the same story at 1440p, as well, with the RTX 5070 outperforming the RTX 4070 Super by about 2.7% across configurations at 1440p. We're really in the realm of what a good overclock can get you on an RTX 4070 Super rather than a generational leap, despite all the next-gen specs that the RTX 5070 brings to bear.

OK, but what about the RTX 4090? Can the RTX 5070 with DLSS 4 Multi Frame Generation match the native 4K performance of the RTX 4090?

Yes, it can, at least if you're only concerned with average FPS. The only game with an in-game benchmark that I can use to measure the RTX 5070's MFG performance is Cyberpunk 2077, and I've included those results here, but in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle and Dragon Age: Veilguard (using the Nvidia App's override function) I pretty much found MFG to perform consistently as promised, delivering substantially faster FPS than DLSS 4 alone and landing in the ballpark of where the RTX 4090's native 4K performance ends up.

And so long as you stay far away from ray tracing, the base framerate at 4K will be high enough on the RTX 5070 that you won't notice too much, if any, latency in many games. But when you turn ray tracing on, even the RTX 5090's native frame rate tanks, and it's those baseline rendered frames that handle changes based on your input, and the three AI-generated frames based on that initial rendered frame don't factor in whatever input changes you've made at all.

As such, even though you can get up to 129 FPS at 4K with Psycho RT and Ultra preset in Cyberpunk 2077 on the RTX 5070 (blowing way past the RTX 5090's native 51 average FPS on the Ultra preset with Psycho RT), only 44 of the RTX 5070's 129 frames per second are reflecting active input. This leads to a situation where your game looks like its flying by at 129 FPS, but feels like it's still a sluggish 44 FPS.

For most games, this isn't going to be a deal breaker. While I haven't tried the RTX 5070 with 4x MFG on Satisfactory, I'm absolutely positive I will not feel the difference, as it's not the kind of game where you need fast reflexes (other than dealing with the effing Stingers), but Marvel Rivals? You're going to feel it.

Nvidia Reflex definitely helps take the edge off MFG's latency, but it doesn't completely eliminate it, and for some games (and gamers) that is going to matter, leaving the RTX 5070's MFG experience too much of a mixed bag to be a categorical selling point. I think the hate directed at 'fake frames' is wildly overblown, but in the case of the RTX 5070, it's not entirely without merit.

So where does that leave the RTX 5070? Overall, it's the best 1440p card on the market right now, and it's relatively low MSRP makes it the best value proposition in its class. It's also much more likely that you'll actually be able to find this card at MSRP, making the question of value more than just academic.

For most gamers out there, Multi Frame Generation is going to be great, and so long as you go easy on the ray tracing, you'll probably never run into any practical latency in your games, so in those instances, the RTX 5070 might feel like black magic in a circuit board.

But my problem with the RTX 5070 is that it is absolutely not the RTX 4090, and for the vast majority of the games you're going to be playing, it never will be, and that's essentially what was promised when the RTX 5070 was announced. Instead, the RTX 5070 is an RTX 4070 Super with a few games running MFG slapped to its side that look like they're playing on an RTX 4090, but may or may not feel like they are, and that's just not good enough.

It's not what we were promised, not by a long shot.

Performance: 3 / 5

Should you buy the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070?

Buy the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 if...

You don't have the money for (or cannot find) an RTX 5070 Ti or RTX 4070 Super
This isn't a bad graphics card, but there are so many better cards that offer better value or better performance within its price range.

You want to dabble in creative or AI work without investing a lot of money
The creative and AI performance of this card is great for the price.

Don't buy it if...

You can afford to wait for better
Whether it's this generation or the next, this card offers very little that you won't be able to find elsewhere within the next two years.

Also consider

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti
The RTX 5070 Ti is a good bit more expensive, especially with price inflation, but if you can get it at a reasonable price, it is a much better card than the RTX 5070.

Read the full Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti review

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super
With Nvidia RTX 50 series cards getting scalped to heck, if you can find an RTX 4070 Super for a good price, it offers pretty much identical performance to the RTX 5070, minus the Multi Frame Generation.

Read the full Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super review

How I tested the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070

I spent about a week with the RTX 5070
I used my complete GPU testing suite to analyze the card's performance
I tested the card in everyday, gaming, creative, and AI workload usage

Test System Specs

Here are the specs on the system I used for testing:

I spent about a week testing the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070, using it as my main workstation GPU for creative content work, gaming, and other testing.

I used my updated testing suite including industry standard tools like 3DMark and PugetBench for Creators, as well as built-in game benchmarks like Cyberpunk 2077, Civilization VII, and others.

I've reviewed more than 30 graphics cards for TechRadar in the last two and a half years, as well as extensively testing and retesting graphics cards throughout the year for features, analysis, and other content, so you can trust that my reviews are based on experience and data, as well as my desire to make sure you get the best GPU for your hard earned money.

Originally reviewed March 2025

I used the dual-screen Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) as my everyday laptop for a week, here’s my verdict

11:30 pm | March 3, 2025

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets Laptops | Tags: Lenovo Yoga, SSD | Comments: Off

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Two-minute review

Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) laptop open showing both displays at once — (Image credit: Future / Jeremy Laird)

If ever there were a tale of two halves, it's the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025). This dual-screen laptop-megatablet offers some of the most impressive mobile hardware currently available. It absolutely holds its ground with any of the very best laptops you can buy in 2025 in that regard.

That starts with its cutting-edge Intel Arrow Lake CPU, but just like last year's 2024 model, this revised-for-2025 device really centers on its beautifully built chassis containing dual 14-inch OLED touchscreens, plus a clever wireless clip-on keyboard and a kickstand that adds an additional ergonomic flourish.

Yes, there are compromises in terms of the pure hardware. The otherwise similar best touchscreen laptops in 2025 offer a slimmer and lighter form factor, plus better battery life and outright performance. There are thermal limitations with this kind of design. But Asus has clearly put in some serious engineering legwork to realize this remarkable machine.

Then there's the software side of the equation. For starters, Windows 11 has never been well optimized for touch input and a system like this only serves to highlight that shortcoming. Then there's Asus' own suite of touch optimized apps and features, all designed to make the most of the extraordinary dual-screen hardware.

You can see what Asus is trying to do, including a highly modular and user configurable touch control interface that in theory can be set up to suit almost any preference. You even get ready-made configurations for specific apps, be that content creation or media consumption.

However, in practice the learning curve is extremely steep, and even once you've scaled that peak, the results are a little patchy and a touch buggy. A slick, fully polished touch experience this ultimately is not. There's a slight vibe of concept hardware or a design study going on here despite this 2025 model being a second generation product.

Some of that is thanks to Windows itself as ever being half baked, some of it is surely down to Asus. In the end, the reasons don't matter, the result is at least occasional frustration. That doesn't make the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) unbuyable, but especially for a machine this expensive it does make for some significant caveats.

If you're willing to put up with some pain, there are rewards to be had. This system can do things that a conventional laptop can't dream of. But in return you'll have to accept aspects that feel clunky and unfinished to enjoy them.

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Price and availability

Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) laptop closed to show its exterior chassis and clamshell top — (Image credit: Future / Jeremy Laird)

How much does it cost? $1,699 (with 1TB SSD) / £2,099 (with 2TB SSD)/ AU$TBC
When is it available? Available now
Where can you get it? Available in the US, UK

At $1,699 in the US, the latest 2025 revision of the Asus Zenbook Duo is actually remarkable value when you consider that you're getting dual OLED and a high-end version of Intel's latest Arrow Lake laptop CPU, plus 32GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD.

It's definitely a lot of mobile machine for the money. The £2,099 price in the UK looks like conspicuously poor value by comparison. That works out to $2,650, or thereabouts. Admittedly, the UK price includes 20% sales tax and you're also getting the 2TB SSD on the UK version as reviewed here as opposed to the 1TB of the cheaper US model. But there's still around $500 that's gone missing in the translation from US to UK pricing.

All of which means that in the US the Zenbook Duo 2025 compares well with the likes of a high-spec conventional laptop like a Dell XPS 13 with the options maxed out, which is impressive, while in the UK you're paying a very notable premium for the two-screen experience, more's the pity.

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Specs

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) currently comes in one configuration in the US and one in the UK. Further configurations should follow soon.

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Design

Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) open showing both screens with detachable keyboard resting atop the bottom display — (Image credit: Future / Jeremy Laird)

Without question, the design and features of the Asus Zenbook Duo OLED (2025) really stand out. But, actually, it's those dual OLED panels that really shine.

The screens are identical 14-inch OLED panels with 2,880 x 1,800 pixels each, a peak HDR brightness of 500 nits and simply eye-popping visuals. They also run at up to 120Hz, which is important not just for things like scrolling around web pages and documents, but also for ensuring that the touch input with the bundled Asus Zenpen 2 is responsive, precise and lag free.

Along with the main chassis you also get a clip-in wireless keyboard. Snapped into place, the Asus Zenbook Duo 2025 looks like a pretty conventional laptop, albeit a slightly portly machine compared to your usual thin-and-light machine. At over 1.6kg (3.5 lbs), it's also heavier than many 15-inch systems, such as a MacBook Air 15.

Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) laptop's detachable keyboard and trackpad — (Image credit: Future / Jeremy Laird)

Still, the key strokes feel much better than you'd expect for a clip-in board and it works wirelessly when you detach it, enabling all manner of intriguing ergonomic setups when combined with the dual screens.

Anyway, the basic form factor does come with some compromises. But it's also beautifully put together with a lush alloy chassis, a very sturdy feeling hinge, plus a kickstand on the bottom slice that allows you to prop both screens up vertically.

Backside of the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) laptop with kickstand deployed — (Image credit: Future / Jeremy Laird)

That's absolutely fabulous for some use cases, for instance running collaboration software, such as Slack or Teams or whatever video conferencing platform you use on the top screen and your documents and apps on the bottom screen. Going back to a single-screen laptop once you get used to the Zenbook Duo feels awfully constraining, that's for sure.

Asus has also located a Thunderbolt port on both sides of the chassis, which is a welcome change from the otherwise physically pretty similar 2024 model that placed both ports on the same side. You also get a full-sized HDMI port and a headphone jack. This 2025 model has also been upgraded to Wi-Fi 7, so the lack of an ethernet socket is even less of an issue than before.

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Performance

Person using the touchscreen feature on the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) — (Image credit: Future / Jeremy Laird)

Cramming the latest Intel Arrow Lake CPU under an OLED screen was never going to be a recipe for absolutely peak performance. But it's not just any Arrow Lake chip in this case, but the top spec Intel Core Ultra 9 285H CPU with 16 cores. Overall, this is a very powerful processor, though as an Arrow Lake model as opposed to Lunar Lake, it has a relatively weak NPU that doesn't qualify for Windows Copilot+ AI assistant functionality, which is a bit of a frustration.

Indeed, there is a very strong case for this laptop being better suited all round to that Lunar Lake chip with its lower power footprint. The Zenbook Duo (2025) gets pretty toasty even under very light load and the fans are frequently audible. That said, with all cores ignited, this is a powerful portable with plenty of grunt for all but the most demanding tasks. Just expect some thermal throttling if you really lean on those CPU cores for long periods.

Asus Zenbook Duo (2025): Benchmarks - Laptops only

Here's how the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) performed in our suite of benchmark tests:

3DMark: Night Raid: 30787; Fire Strike: 8004; Time Spy: 3800

GeekBench 6: 2770 (single-core); 16082 (multi-core)

SSD sequential read / write: 5.2GB/s / 4.7GB/s

Handbrake 1.6: 7m 12s

CrossMark: Overall: 1955 Productivity: 1776 Creativity: 2299 Responsiveness: 1604

Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Gathering Storm: 15.951ms average frame time

PCMark 10 Battery Life: 8 hours and 29 minutes

The Intel Arc 140T graphics is also pretty speedy for an integrated GPU. Don't expect desktop-class gaming performance. But you can get a reasonable experience in most games at 1080p, albeit you'll typically have to turn down a fair few settings.

The two OLED panels are also pretty much impeccable and offer a fabulous viewing experience, with good pixel density and fantastic colors and response. Rated at 400 nits, both screens are essentially identical and run at up to 120Hz for responsive touch input. In hardware terms, those screens are stunning.

The problems come with the software and interface ergonomics. Windows 11 simply isn't well optimized for touch and while the Asus ScreenXpert software is absolutely crammed with features, tools and widgets for every possible need, there's a steep initial learning curve getting used to both the various gestures for doing things like expanding windows across the two screen, bringing up items like the the various virtual keyboards and trackpads, and then getting app-specific toolbars setup and optimized.

Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) laptop open to show both displays, stacked vertically — (Image credit: Future / Jeremy Laird)

Even when you have got a setup that you're happy with, it can feel a little flaky as various items, for instance, can occasionally be obscured by the taskbar, touch controls can be unresponsive and some elements are well thought through. You'll also notice little oddities, like the top screen only dimming slightly for a while before both screens shut down to save power.

After the initial delight of using a five finger gesture to expand a webpage across two screens fades, then, you're left with an interface that can feel slightly like quite hard work. Moreover, the core dual-screen experience using the lower screen as a keyboard and trackpad is no substitute for physical input devices. You're going to want to take that clip-on keyboard with you. The upsides, of course, involve a wealth of ergonomic options no normal laptop can match.

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Battery life

Battery life can be a concern with any single-screen OLED laptop, but with two screens? Yikes. Actually, the Zenbook Duo (2025) probably outperforms expectations.

In PCMark 10's web test with the screens set to half brightness at the full 120Hz, the Zenbook soldiered on for eight and a half hours. Set the screens to 60Hz and merely watch some video and you may well see the Zenbook sail past the 10 hour mark.

For sure, conventional laptops can last longer. But that's still a very good result and makes for usable near-enough all day battery life.

Should I buy the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025)?

Buy it if...

You love that dual-screen setup

The dual OLED screens allow for use cases that make it very hard to go back to a conventional single-screen laptop.

You like touch input

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) two OLED panels are both touch enabled and 120Hz, making for an unbeatable touch experience.

You like quality engineering

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) is beautifully put together and very nicely designed. The clip-in keyboard is a delight, too.

Don't buy it if...

You want a thin-and-light laptop

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) isn't a brick. But there are certainly much thinner and lighter laptops with similar performance available for less money.

You're expecting a fully polished experience

Windows 11 itself isn't terribly well optimized for touch and the extras Asus has added including gestures and tools can be a bit hit and miss.

You want maximum battery life

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) isn't a disaster when it comes to battery life. But if that's a high priority, there are laptops available for less that last longer.

Also Consider

If our Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) review has you considering other options, here are two laptops to consider...

Dell XPS 13 2025

The latest Dell XPS 13 (2025) brings Intel's Lunar Lake chips to the iconic laptop line, delivering truly all-day battery life and strong performance across the board in a sleek and stylish MacBook-esque design.

Read our full Dell XPS 13 (2025) review

Lenovo Yoga 9i Gen 8

With the Lenovo Yoga 9i Gen 8, Lenovo has nailed it thanks to its elevated design, speedy performance, and wonderful elements like a stunning OLED screen and a stylus included – all for a very competitive price.

Read our full Lenovo Yoga 9i Gen 8 review

How I tested the Asus Zenbook Duo 2025

I used the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) as my at-home and on-the-go machine for doing almost everything for a week. That means everything from basic web browsing to watching brain-rot content on YouTube and the usual collab' tools and video conferencing. Oh, and getting more serious work done including image editing.

The latter was particularly interesting given the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025)'s dual touch screens and funky interface tools. That said, it was actually more mundane tasks, namely video conferencing and general work collaboration where the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) really shines. Once you've got used to having a spare screen to have those tools running while retaining a primary display for your other actual work, you won't want to go back to a single-screen laptop.

I essay that having been a laptop geek for about 20 years and assessing them professionally for about 15. Most laptops don't move the game on or make you think that you might actually need it in your life. The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) is far from perfect, but it's novel enough to do just that.

First reviewed February 2025

I used the dual-screen Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) as my everyday laptop for a week, here’s my verdict

11:30 pm |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets Laptops | Tags: Lenovo Yoga, SSD | Comments: Off

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Two-minute review

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Price and availability

How much does it cost? $1,699 (with 1TB SSD) / £2,099 (with 2TB SSD)/ AU$TBC
When is it available? Available now
Where can you get it? Available in the US, UK

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Specs

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) currently comes in one configuration in the US and one in the UK. Further configurations should follow soon.

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Design

Without question, the design and features of the Asus Zenbook Duo OLED (2025) really stand out. But, actually, it's those dual OLED panels that really shine.

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Performance

Asus Zenbook Duo (2025): Benchmarks - Laptops only

Here's how the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) performed in our suite of benchmark tests:

3DMark: Night Raid: 30787; Fire Strike: 8004; Time Spy: 3800

GeekBench 6: 2770 (single-core); 16082 (multi-core)

SSD sequential read / write: 5.2GB/s / 4.7GB/s

Handbrake 1.6: 7m 12s

CrossMark: Overall: 1955 Productivity: 1776 Creativity: 2299 Responsiveness: 1604

Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Gathering Storm: 15.951ms average frame time

PCMark 10 Battery Life: 8 hours and 29 minutes

Asus Zenbook Duo 2025: Battery life

Battery life can be a concern with any single-screen OLED laptop, but with two screens? Yikes. Actually, the Zenbook Duo (2025) probably outperforms expectations.

For sure, conventional laptops can last longer. But that's still a very good result and makes for usable near-enough all day battery life.

Should I buy the Asus Zenbook Duo (2025)?

Buy it if...

You love that dual-screen setup

The dual OLED screens allow for use cases that make it very hard to go back to a conventional single-screen laptop.

You like touch input

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) two OLED panels are both touch enabled and 120Hz, making for an unbeatable touch experience.

You like quality engineering

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) is beautifully put together and very nicely designed. The clip-in keyboard is a delight, too.

Don't buy it if...

You want a thin-and-light laptop

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) isn't a brick. But there are certainly much thinner and lighter laptops with similar performance available for less money.

You're expecting a fully polished experience

Windows 11 itself isn't terribly well optimized for touch and the extras Asus has added including gestures and tools can be a bit hit and miss.

You want maximum battery life

The Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) isn't a disaster when it comes to battery life. But if that's a high priority, there are laptops available for less that last longer.

Also Consider

If our Asus Zenbook Duo (2025) review has you considering other options, here are two laptops to consider...

Dell XPS 13 2025

Read our full Dell XPS 13 (2025) review

Lenovo Yoga 9i Gen 8

Read our full Lenovo Yoga 9i Gen 8 review

How I tested the Asus Zenbook Duo 2025

First reviewed February 2025

I’ve fallen in love with the Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX 65% keyboard because of its brilliant touch bar and Hall effect keys

2:47 am |

Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets Keyboards Peripherals & Accessories | Tags: Australia, ROG, UK, US | Comments: Off

Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX: one-minute review

Asus has introduced another fantastic keyboard with the ROG Falchion Ace HFX. This 65% board, which compresses only the most essential keys onto a short panel, offers immense functionality across several areas.

The drawcard of the Falchion Ace HFX is its incredible switches. While the standard Falchion Ace is available with three switch choices, the HFX only offers one tactile feel option – comfortable to the touch magnetic keys, making this Asus’ first hall effect keyboard. It’s one of the most satisfying keyboards to use that I’ve ever laid my hands on.

Despite not offering a wireless connection, it does include a dual USB-C arrangement so that it can quickly switch between two computers with a press of a button on the side, similar to how a monitor might switch between devices. A USB dongle or Bluetooth solution might have been more practical to pull this trick off, but it’s still a welcome ability.

The Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX keyboard up close — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

More interesting to me is the return of Asus’ proprietary touch bar, a unique design element of the Falchion series that compresses media controls, volume, keyboard RGB brightness and other handy features into a touch panel, letting you adjust settings with taps and swipes of your finger. This feature rocked and is much more intuitive than a FN + key macro solution, though the depth of macroing with this keyboard is immense, allowing you to arrange quick commands, website hotkeys and quick Windows commands with a bindable keystroke.

With so much positive to say about the ROG Falchion Ace HFX, there aren’t many drawbacks, although the ones that are there might keep you from a purchase. This board doesn’t come cheap and is one of the most expensive options that Asus offers. The lack of a wireless variant will also leave buyers cutting down on cable clutter unimpressed, and those seeking wrist support will need to make a separate purchase.

More diehard keyboard shoppers will also be left unimpressed by the lack of hot-swapping functionality, and that there's only one switch type available (though the standard ROG Falchion offers three different options).

It’s a tremendous piece of kit. The ROG Falchion Ace HFX is one of the keyboards to beat in 2025, and it may be my favourite keyboard since the Logitech G PRO X TKL.

Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX: price and availability

The Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX keyboard — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

How much does it cost? $199/£239.99/$AU$359
When is it available? Available now
Where can you get it? Available in the US, UK, Australia and other regions

The ROG Falchion Ace HFX is the fourth most expensive keyboard that Asus offers, below the base model Azoth, customizable Claymore II, and the extremely expensive Azoth Extreme. The price marked for the Ace HFX is reflective of the epic magnetic switches underlying its awesome-feeling keys, but given its 65% size profile, it lacks a lot of the typically essential buttons present in the higher-priced models, including a dedicated function row and numpad.

Not that you should feel you need to move up the range for said features, because the Falchion Ace HFX is more than competent and exclusive on its own terms. Compared to the competition, it’s one of the only options to offer magnetic switches on a 65% board. You may want to consider the Logitech G Pro X 60 if you want an even smaller board, or the Glorious GMMK 3 Pro 65 if you want greater customization, but there aren't many major brands offering magnetic switches right now.

Value: 4/5

Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX: specs

Asus ROG Falchion HFX: design and features

The Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX keyboard with a keycap removed — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

More reserved ROG design
Brilliant build quality
Useful multifunction panel and dual computer support

Asus’ ROG gaming accessories are at their best when they don’t look too gamery, and the Falchion HFX looks fairly neutral compared to many other high-end boards offered by the manufacturer.

Available only in black, the one thing about this board that I would consider a tad excessive from a design perspective is the spelling out of ‘Republic of Gamers’ across the top. RGB lights behind each key are programmable with several lighting animations available.

At the top left, you’ll see an illuminated symbol, indicating which setting you’ve got your multi-function touch panel set to, cycleable with the press of a multifunction button in the top left. The panel across the back can be swiped with a fingertip, and can be used to adjust brightness and volume, change key actuation points, play and pause media, or even pull off any dedicated macros you have in mind. In the Armory Crate app, you can limit which functions the cycling button switches between, allowing for a more streamlined experience (I simply have it set to volume and media controls). This touch bar isn’t a new feature, as it’s been available on other Falchion models since 2022, but it works especially well on a small board like this.

There are also lights at the top right, indicating if win lock has been activated, if caps lock is currently on, and if ‘Rapid Trigger’ has been enabled, allowing for much quicker keystroke response times than whatever your preset mode is set to.

Your keyboard’s RGB lighting and per key actuation points can also be adjusted in the ROG Armory Crate app, where you'll find Speed Tap mode. This changes the function of the keyboard to allow for quicker directional changes by prioritising the last pressed in key – so instead of coming to a full stop when strafing in a game, you’ll move left to right or vice versa without lifting your fingers off the keys.

Design and features: 5/5

Asus ROG Falchion HFX: Performance

The back of the Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX — (Image credit: Zachariah Kelly / TechRadar)

8,000Hz polling rate
Magnetic hall effect switches with five layer dampening
Useful competitive gaming features

The Asus ROG Falchion HFX is a gaming keyboard aimed at competitive play, through and through. It offers an exceptional 8,000Hz polling rate – an enormous amount of reports the keyboard provides your computer in a second, theoretically improving response time. As a result of this, click latency is as low as 1.1ms on average with the Falchion HFX.

The keys feel coarse in a comfortable way, allowing for satisfying tactile contact between your fingertips and your inputs. A raised dot on the W key allows you to position your hands for gaming without looking down, brilliant for low-light battle stations.

The actuation point of your keys can be adjusted readily on the fly using the multi-function touch panel, allowing for much more shallow keypresses if you so wish. Backing all of this up is the fact that the keys are magnetic, and well damped to allow for a satisfying press while also being quick and not too loud. On the less technical side, the keyboard has three adjustment angles with two sets of feet underneath.

Many of these features may go above and beyond the needs of a casual gamer and indeed are well past the desires of somebody just after a useful typing tool. But for a dedicated gamer, the ROG Falchion HFX might be the exact device for your hobby.

Mechanical keyboard enthusiasts will likely be disappointed by the lack of hot-swappable keys, and that there's only one switch to choose from. Thankfully, the base model ROG Falchion offers more switch variety – the Falchion HFX is more of a performance model with its magnetic keys.

Performance: 5/5

Should I buy the Asus ROG Falchion HFX?

Buy it if...

You crave good performance and feeling

The ROG Falchion HFX offers a brilliant intersection of form and function, contained in a 65% board and offering some of the first magnetic switches on a mainstream model.

You want to ROG out

With its lighting and key programming reliant on Asus’ Armory Crate, you’ll likely want this to compliment other Asus peripherals in your arsenal.

Don't buy it if...

The price isn’t right

The ROG Falchion HFX isn’t designed to be a budget winner, and it’ll be a poor fit if you want to save cash.

You want greater customization

Mechanical keyboard fans will likely crave hot-swappable keys, which the ROG Falchion Ace HFX does not offer.

Asus ROG Falchion HFX: also consider

Keychron C3 Pro

Compatible across Mac and Windows PCs, the C3 Pro offers a solid design and a nice price, though it won’t be a winner among serious gamers.

Read our full Keychron C3 Pro review

Corsair K65 Plus

Slightly larger at 75%, the K65 Plus is comfortable and wireless, though it is on the pricey side.

Read our full Corsair K65 Plus review

Logitech G Pro X 60

Logitech’s smallest gaming keyboard might be a welcome option if you’re after switches from a premium brand but in a tinier unit.

How I tested the Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX

I tested the Asus ROG Falchion Ace HFX over four weeks, paired with other Asus products including an OLED monitor, mouse and headset. I used it exclusively on my Windows 11 gaming PC and played games including Marvel Rivals, Avowed, The Headliners and Forza Horizon 5. I also used it for some productivity tasks, such as for typing out documents.

Over that time I used it across several lighting settings, enabled different macros and put it in different positions, while constantly adjusting actuation points and diving into toggles in the Armory Crate app.

First Reviewed February 2025

« Previous Page — Next Page »