Organizer
Gadget news
I tested Sigma’s superb 17-40mm f/1.8 DC for a month – it’s the ultimate zoom lens for APS-C cameras, and prime lens killer
4:00 am | January 24, 2026
Author: admin | Category: Camera Lenses Cameras Computers Gadgets | Comments: Off

Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art: One-minute review

Cast your mind back to 2013 and Sigma had just brought out its 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM | Art lens – the world’s first zoom with a fast, constant f/1.8 aperture – and was set to revolutionize the photography industry.

Over a decade since that lens pushed the boundaries of what a zoom lens could do, the world's largest independent lens manufacturer has gone one better with the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art, which like its predecessor boasts a constant and bright f/1.8 aperture and promises to deliver exceptional image quality comparable to a prime, but with an expanded zoom range, all while being more than 30% lighter than its predecessor.

The lens is specifically designed for mirrorless cameras with an APS-C sensor and is available in L-mount, Sony E, Fujifilm X, and Canon RF versions. I've spent a month testing an E-mount version of the lens mounted on a Sony A6700, to see if this optic really can do the job at least three primes.

The TLDR is that it absolutely can, and I thoroughly enjoyed hitting the streets to use it for all sorts of photography, from city shots to portraits, shallow-depth-of-field still-life shots, and even low-light scenes like traffic trails and stars.

Professional photographer Dan Mold holding a Sony A6700 camera outdoors with a Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens attached with his eye to the viewfinder

(Image credit: Future / Dan Mold)

While the 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art builds on its predecessor in pretty much every way, it's not free from faults. It's an APS-C lens with a smaller imaging circle, so it's less future-proof if you upgrade to a full-frame camera later down the road. It's also very expensive, and costs significantly more than its predecessor did back in 2013.

If money is no limit, and you love to shoot at a range of wide-angle focal lengths while also having the versatility of a fast f/1.8 aperture, this is the lens for you, providing you shoot on an APS-C mirrorless body. However, if you're on a stricter budget, and prefer smaller lenses and don't mind switching between them, then you may be better off with one or two cheaper prime lenses instead – provided you're not shooting weddings and other events where you may have less time to swap your optics over.

Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art: Price and availability

  • Priced at $919 / £779 / AU$1,650
  • Lens hood included
  • Announced in July 2025

The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art costs $919 / £779 / AU$1,650. That’s more than Sigma’s original 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art, which retailed for $799 / £699 (around AU$1,150) at launch. However, this higher price is to be expected given more than a decade of inflation since then, and tariff increases have likely impacted US pricing too. Regardless, I think the extra money is justified in the US and UK by the suite of upgrades that come with the new and improved version.

It’s difficult to say exactly who this lens is for, as I personally found it a bit frustrating with it either being not wide enough or not telephoto enough for my shooting style, though as someone who regularly likes to shoot with 35mm prime lenses, there were times when the extra versatility from its small zoom range was welcome. It is a bit like a souped-up kit lens, but one that costs significantly more.

If you’re on a tighter budget, and not fussed about that wide f/1.8 aperture, or you’re looking for something a bit more portable for your everyday carry lens, then the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary would be a better choice. Similarly, if you don’t want a zoom and simply want a smaller prime lens there are options like the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM that are lighter, smaller and a little bit cheaper, too. So it really comes down to what you want to use the lens for.

However, for events and wedding photographers shooting with APS-C bodies I can see this lens being a game changer, giving those photographers extra focal length options and a fast f/1.8 aperture when they may not have the time to change lenses.

Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art: Specs

Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art specs

Type:

Wide-angle zoom

Mount:

L-mount, Sony E, Fujifilm X, Canon RF

Sensor:

APS-C

Focal length:

17-40mm (25.5-60mm effective on Fujifilm, Sony & L-mount, 27.2-64mm on Canon RF)

Max aperture:

f/1.8

Minimum focus:

0.28m

Filter size:

67mm

Dimensions:

72.9 x 115.9mm

Weight:

18.8oz / 535g

Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art: Design

  • Some degree of weather-sealing, usually saved for more premium Art lenses
  • Combines a versatile zoom range with a fast f/1.8 maximum aperture
  • Switches on the lens barrel to control AF/MF and iris ring functions
  • Much longer than most prime lenses with a length of 115.9mm

The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art lens improves on its predecessor in virtually every way. Not only is it 34% lighter, tipping the scales at 18.8oz / 535g, it’s also 6.5% leaner in diameter and 4.2% shorter in length. Despite being a skinnier and lighter model it manages to pack in a 2.35x optical zoom, with a more expansive focal range of 17-40mm, whereas the original 18-35mm fell just shy of 2x optical zoom, so the overall zoom range has been expanded by roughly 18%.

As in the 18-35mm f/1.8 the optical design comprises 17 elements, but there’s one fewer aspherical and one fewer SLD (Special Low Dispersion) elements this time around, meaning there’s a total of three aspherical and four SLD elements inside the barrel.

The aperture has been upgraded however, and instead of the old nine-bladed design, we now have a more premium 11-bladed design, which should deliver better-rounded bokeh.

Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens product shot taken outdoors on a metal garden table with blurry bokeh background

Measuring 115.9mm tall, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art is substantially longer than primes like a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 so it's not quite as compact, though it does the job of several primes between 17mm and 40mm so it's the price you have to pay (Image credit: Dan Mold)

The rear mount is brass and also weather sealed, confirming the dust and splash-proof credentials of the optic. The lens is available to fit L-mount, Sony E, Fujifilm X and Canon RF, and factoring in the 1.5x crop factor of APS-C sensors the lens will behave much more like a 25.5-60mm, with the exception of Canon cameras, which have a 1.6x sensor crop and with which the lens will be have a slightly tighter perspective at 27.2-64mm.

On the outside of the lens barrel are the zoom and focus rings, which are a decent size and have a knurled rubber finish, making them very grippy and comfortable to use. Because this new lens is designed for modern mirrorless cameras it has an electronic fly-by-wire focus ring rather than a mechanical one, and this also means we’ve lost the focus distance window on the top. Both rings turn smoothly and are easy to operate.

Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens product shot taken outdoors on a metal garden table with blurry bokeh background

An iris ring is featured on the L-mount, Sony E and Fujifilm X versions, though this is replaced by a Control ring on the Canon RF version. There's also two customizable focus hold buttons on the lens barrel (Image credit: Dan Mold)

A third ‘iris’ ring sits closest to the lens mount and is for controlling the aperture. This also has a lock to keep it securely in the ‘A’ position if you prefer not to use it, and there’s also a switch to enable or disengage the click – videographers will likely prefer the smoother declicked option when recording footage. It’s also worth noting that on the Canon RF version this is instead a Control ring which can be assigned custom functions for all sorts of settings, including but not limited to aperture.

The zoom is internal, so the lens remains compact and doesn’t rack out when zooming in or out. The throw from 17mm to 40mm on the zoom ring is also quite short, and certainly less than 90 degrees, so you can zoom fully in or out very quickly.

Also on the barrel is a switch to control AF/MF, and there are two AF-L buttons for holding focus, though these can be assigned different functions via the menu.

Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens product shot taken outdoors on a metal garden table with blurry bokeh background

The lens is dust and splash resistant and a rubber gasket around the rear mount shows the lens has weather sealing (Image credit: Dan Mold)

Heading to the front of the lens we see the front element, which isn’t overly large considering it has a wide f/1.8 max aperture, and this is also where you’ll attach the 67mm screw-in front filters. The front element also has a water- and oil-repellent coating to make it more durable in harsh outdoor environments.

Also in the box is a LH728-02 petal-shaped lens hood, which is part plastic and part rubber for a premium feel, and also has a nice chunky button to lock it in place and release it. This fits on the lens backwards to take up less space when not in use.

Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art: Performance

  • Chromatic aberration and flare handled well
  • Bright f/1.8 aperture makes it great for low light and blurry backgrounds
  • Corner details a little soft and vignetting at f/1.8 but cleared up by f/2.8
  • Autofocus is fast, quiet and accurate

When it comes to assessing performance, we first need to consider who the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC lens is for. It clearly excels in low light with its fast maximum aperture of f/1.8, though its wider focal range of 17-40mm makes it a bit too wide for portraits, so it’s likely to be better suited to indoor events, astrophotography, and perhaps as a wide option for wedding photographers who don’t have time to switch lenses and need its versatility.

It is designed for use with APS-C cameras, which means its imaging circle is too small for full-frame cameras, with which you would see a pronounced vignette. That said, you can still pair the lens with a full-frame camera using the camera’s APS-C crop mode. The downside to this approach is that you won’t be making the complete use of the sensor – effectively throwing away pixels.

I took the lens out around London for several days, using it as my main lens for street photography. In this setup I found it to be a little on the large side, not in terms of width, but in overall length – it’s easily twice the length of, say, my Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM. This made it more difficult to keep a low profile and take candid shots of people going about their lives without me being noticed, though this is the cost of having a more versatile zoom range.

Image 1 of 5

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show blurry backgrounds when shooting at its wide f/1.8 aperture

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 2 of 5

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show blurry backgrounds when shooting at its wide f/1.8 aperture

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 3 of 5

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show blurry backgrounds when shooting at its wide f/1.8 aperture

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 4 of 5

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show blurry backgrounds when shooting at its wide f/1.8 aperture

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 5 of 5

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show blurry backgrounds when shooting at its wide f/1.8 aperture

(Image credit: Dan Mold)

With its focal length of 17-40mm it’s fair to compare the lens to an 18-55mm kit lens, but with a little less telephoto power – it falls frustratingly short of that magical 50mm focal length which works wonderfully well with a wide aperture of f/1.8 for wider mid-length and head-and-shoulders portraits.

With all that being said, it is a big step up from the old 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens – the new version is 34% lighter, 6.5% shorter and 4.2% thinner, all while boasting two more aperture blades and being able to focus 2cm closer. While these may sound like minor updates, when combined they make the lens feel like a big upgrade overall.

Image 1 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and backlighting in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 2 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and backlighting in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 3 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and backlighting in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 4 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and backlighting in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 5 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and backlighting in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 6 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and backlighting in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 7 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and backlighting in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 8 of 10

Test shot with Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 9 of 10

Test shot with Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 10 of 10

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its handling of buildings and barrel distortion when shooting wide at 17mm

(Image credit: Dan Mold)

On to image quality, and I have to say that considering its broad zoom range and constant f/1.8 maximum aperture I was quietly impressed. Corners were a little soft and showed some vignetting when shooting wide open at f/1.8, though this was pretty much cleared up by f/2.8 and was easy to fix in software. Impressively, there was very little sign of chromatic aberration, and flare was handled well when shooting towards the sun.

There is a little barrel distortion around the edges when shooting at the wider focal lengths, which as expected starts to disappear as you zoom in – at 40mm the distortion has completely vanished. What distortion there is is very minor and testimony to the new lens element construction, and the in-camera lens corrections do a good job at ironing this out, though further correction can be applied in post-production to straighten out vertical lines more.

Autofocusing was a joy thanks to the High-response Linear Actuator motor, with the lens being very speedy, silent and reliable in achieving focus even in low light.

Image 1 of 4

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its low light performance at night and in the blue hour of buildings in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 2 of 4

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its low light performance at night and in the blue hour of buildings in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 3 of 4

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its low light performance at night and in the blue hour of buildings in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)
Image 4 of 4

A test shot taken with the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 DC Art lens to show its low light performance at night and in the blue hour of buildings in London

(Image credit: Dan Mold)

Should you buy the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art?

Buy it if...

You own an L-mount, Sony E, Fujifilm X or Canon RF APS-C body

The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art is designed with a smaller imaging circle for APS-C mirrorless camera bodies

You need both speed and zoom

This Sigma lens has a unique combination of a versatile 17-40mm zoom range as well as a fast constant f/1.8 aperture which means it can do the job of several prime lenses

You want to blur backgrounds

With its f/1.8 maximum aperture you can throw backgrounds into a blur with a shallow depth of field easily

Don't buy it if...

You're looking for a small, portable prime

The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 is roughly twice as long as many 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 primes, so if portability is your main priority you'll likely be better off with a prime lens

You're on a budget

The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art is very expensive at £779 / $919US making it much more expensive than the usual nifty-fifty prime lenses that usually cost between $100-300

You own a full-frame mirrorless body

The Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art has a smaller imaging circle for APS-C camera bodies and while it can be used on full-framers in crop mode, you won't be making the full use of that larger sensor. This also means it's not a very futureproof lens if you eventually upgrade from APS-C to full-frame at a later date, tooView Deal

How I tested the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art

  • I used the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art extensively for a whole month and regularly took it out on day trips around busy cities in both day and night
  • I paired it with the Sony a6700 APS-C body as well as a Sony a7R IV full-frame body in crop mode – both of which delivered 26MP stills
  • I took shots at all focal lengths and apertures of cities, sunsets, low light scenes, stars and more

I got hold of the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC | Art and Sony A7R IV and A6700 bodies for a month to give the lens a thorough testing over an extended period.

Due to its small size and portability the lens quickly became my go-to option when I needed to bring a camera with me for days out around cities such as London, where I shot everything from landscapes to cityscapes, sunsets, astro and still life shots.

I took a range of pictures with in-camera lens corrections enabled and also turned off to see the comparison. I also shot in RAW and JPEG formats and shot at all of the various apertures to gauge how things like corner sharpness and vignetting changed throughout the aperture range.

  • First reviewed January 2026
Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series review: I can’t find another mid-price printer so loaded with features and ink
6:15 pm | January 23, 2026
Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets Pro | Comments: Off
Specs

Type: color inkjet 4-in-1 printer

Functions: Print, copy, scan, fax

Connectivity: Ethernet, USB, Wi-Fi

Data storage slots: none

Print speed: 35ppm (mono)

Max paper size: Legal/Letter/A4

Max print quality: 4,800 x 1,200 dpi

Memory: unknown

Apple AirPrint: yes

Consumables included: 5 bottles; 15,100 black pages, 5,500 color

Dimensions/Weight: 375 x 347 x 240 mm (WxDxH)/16lb/7.3kg

I can see why Epson has sold over a 100 million EcoTanks. Being the first to bring the refillable concept to market, Epson hasn’t stopped tweaking the design so that the Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series looks like the slickest all-in-one inkjet in the shop.

I’m testing the white ET-4956 variant, but its also available in black and they both come with a feature-set to suit any small business or home-based professional. It can both duplex print and duplex scan as well as offering an improved automatic document feed (ADF) and a faster print speed than its predecessor.

The main attraction is the huge amount of inbox ink (enough to print for three years), but the asking price is rather high, so let’s see if the new model can maintain Epson’s lead in the increasingly competitive refillable 4-in-1 printer category.

Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series: Design and build

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)

The redesign looks fresh to my eye, especially in this white livery. The folding front panel ensures the touchscreen display is always visible, while the new status light encircling the top of the ink tank cover makes it easy to see if and how your printer is responding from the far side of the office. The smooth plastic feels sturdy enough and the motorized paper output glides out smoothly every time you’re ready to print.

The paper input tray can hold an adequate 250 sheets of paper up to letter or A4-size, but it’s a pity there’s no second input tray as this means you’ll need to unload the main tray each time you want to print on different media.

The 2.4-inch touchscreen is somewhat small, but big enough to operate and quite sensitive. The cable ports are easily accessible at the left side and the fairly large 70ml ink tanks are well integrated on the other side. It’s a practical design overall and the whole thing feels well made.

Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series: Features & specifications

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)

As the top model in Epson’s three-strong range, the ET-4950 series is a four-in-one multifunction device with print, scan, copy and fax functionality, plus plenty of extras. The ADF on top can hold 30 sheets of paper and copy both sides of each page automatically.

That’s something the previous model couldn’t do. It’s using a PrecisionCore print head with 784 inkjet nozzles to achieve a print resolution of 4,800 x 1,200 DPI. WiFi 5 with AirPrint compatibility is built in and it can print on paper up to 300g/m².

It prints quickly for an inkjet with a claimed top speed of 35ppm (pages per minute) with simplex monochrome pages or 23 in color. That’s slightly confusing as the ISO/IEC 24734 is just 18ppm, but suffice to say, that it printed a little faster than its predecessor and compares well with other inkjets in its class. The quoted 8.5-second FPOT (first page out time) is accurate and also PDQ (pretty darn quick).

The only features missing are Bluetooth, NFC, a USB Host port for printing from or scanning to a USB stick and a multi-purpose tray. The first three items I can live without, but a second paper input tray would have really improved the functionality of this printer. Perhaps Epson will include it with the next update.

Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series: Setup and operation

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)

The printed quick-start guide is easy to follow. Just remove all the transport tape, load some paper, plug in, turn on and follow the on-display prompts.

I’d recommend downloading the Epson Smart Panel app onto your Android or iPhone first as this makes it easier to add your new printer to your wi-fi network. I’d also recommend printing out the test pages when offered to ensure all your nozzles are aligned and firing correctly.

Filling the ink reservoirs is a quick and clean process as the bottles hold the same volume of ink as the tanks — 70ml for the three coolers; 127ml for black — and each spout is shaped to fit only its corresponding tank so you can’t muddle them up.

Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series: Performance

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)

The Epson EcoTank ET-4956 I tested put in a strong all-round performance, printing quickly and cleanly with only one paper jam where I loaded a photograph into the automatic document feed for copying. Where the manual says that it can handle paper up to 300g/m² (my photo paper was only 200g/m²) it means via the main tray and evidently not via the ADF.

That incident aside, I was pleased with my test pages, although I couldn’t honestly see any improvement over the outgoing EcoTank ET-4850 test pages. That’s unsurprising given it’s using the same heat-free inkjet technology and the same hybrid pigment and dye-based inks.

Plain pages of text print quietly in simplex mode and the paper is turned swiftly in auto duplex mode. The pigment black is applied precisely enough, but it’s not as dark as, for instance, the Canon MAXIFY GX4020, which uses a smiler hybrid ink system.

Switching to color test documents plays more to the Epson’s strengths as its dye-based C/M/Y inks are particularly bright and color documents look pleasingly vivid. It also does well with photography for the same reason.

The Epson recognizes a range of coated photo paper types and given premium glossy photo paper, my test photos really popped. This printer manages an enhanced resolution of 4,800 x 1,200, which is enough for photo printing, but dedicated photo printers, like the Canon PIXMA G3270, produce sharper images for less money.

Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series: Consumables

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 comes with five ink bottles containing a total of 464ml of ink. That’s equivalent to around 65 regular ink cartridges and enough, Epson reckons, to print for around three years before needing to buy refills.

Epson’s bottled ink is cheap compared with cartridge ink and there’s nothing to stop you from buying third party ink, which is even cheaper. Put like that, Epson’s claim that this printer is up to 95% cheaper to run than a cartridge printer seems reasonable.

Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series: Maintenance

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)

Epson says its heat-free printing tech means you’ll never need to replace the printhead, which is a cost incurred by plenty of other inkjet owners. This printer is also less prone to clogging in the nozzles thanks to some improved engineering.

However, the settings menu includes several anti-clogging cycles that can be run if (or more likely, when) dried up ink stops you printing. Epson includes a one-year, or 100,000-page warranty with this model.

What you may well have to replace is the maintenance box when it eventually fills up with the tiny amounts of excess ink generated by printing and cleaning. A replacement costs around ten dollars and it looks to me like you could save money by emptying and cleaning the existing one.

Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series: Final verdict

Image 1 of 4

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)
Image 2 of 4

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)
Image 3 of 4

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)
Image 4 of 4

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series ink tank printer undergoing testing in a home office during our review process

(Image credit: Epson // Future)

The Epson EcoTank ET-4950 and its variants proved that Epson is the brand to beat in this refillable office-friendly mid-price category. I found it easy to set up and operate thanks to the responsive touchscreen and good design and it has all the features I consider essential for the home worker or small shared office.

In other words, it duplex prints pretty quickly, connects readily my 5GHz Wi-Wi and turns out crisp and colorful test pages on all kinds of media. I also appreciated the two-sided scan feature and, of course, the generous amount of inbox ink.

Does Epson still make the best ink tank printers? This category only gets more competitive with new players like the significantly more affordable Brother DCP-T780DW entering the fray, while the excellent HP Smart Tank 7001 comes with larger ink tanks and the Canon MAXIFY GX4020 offers superior print quality.

But with more features than those rivals, and such a strong all-round performance, I can highly recommend the Epson EcoTank ET-4950 series.

For more top-performing models, I've tested the best home printers and the best all-in-one printers.

The more I tested the GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra, the less it looked like it justified its ‘Ultra’ moniker
10:15 am |
Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets | Tags: | Comments: Off

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra: 30-second review

Having just reviewed the GMKtec M5 Ultra, that prior investigation puts an interesting twist on the M7 Ultra now before me.

Because the M5 was built on a platform that wasn’t widely utilised, and the M7 Ultra turned out to be built on a platform from 2022 that nobody used at all.

However, don’t be put off by the older hardware, because this Ryzen 6000 series processor with Zen3+ architecture is well-suited for a mini PC. It has DDR5 support, USB4 and plenty of PCIe lanes, enabling the M7 Ultra to deliver a well-rounded and confident performance level that’s above any of the Ryzen systems that use DDR4 and the Vega 8 GPU.

It’s also got plenty of potential for upgrades, either internally with the SODIMM and M.2 slots, or externally via USB4. And it must also be one of the cheapest systems to come with Oculink, enabling the external connection of discrete graphics cards via its 64Gb/s interconnect.

Compared to a cutting-edge system, it only has eight cores (sixteen threads), the DDR5 is only 4800 MT/s, and while it is a PCIe 4.0 system, it only supports PCIe 3.0 on the M.2 slots.

Those caveats make me think that the M7 Ultra is suitable for someone who needs a little big more power, but not the performance of a Ryzen 9 or Ryzen AI machine.

For that person who does more than just basic office tasks, this might be ideal, and if they suddenly need more graphics performance, it can be added via Oculink.

Where this system is flawed is that it's slower than the M7 and M7 Pro that came before it. Given the silicon's age, this isn’t going to feature in our round-up of the best mini PC systems, but with a reasonably effective platform and plenty of ports, it's not junk either.

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra: Price and availability

  • How much does it cost? From $310/£260/€300
  • When is it out? Available now
  • Where can you get it? Direct from GMKtec and via online retailers

Much like the M5 Ultra, the M7 Ultra is offered in three basic SKUs that go from the baseline barebones system with no memory or storage, to an intermediate 16GB+512GB option that’s reviewed here, to the top spec with 32GB of RAM and 1TB of storage.

In the USA, these machines are priced at $309.99, $439.99, and $529.99, respectively.

GMKtec doesn’t have a specific UK outlet, but from the European site (e.g., de.gmktec.com), these systems are £260, £347 and £408, which, if you have DDR5 and an M.2 module, looks like a great deal. Euro prices are €299.99, €399.99 and €469.99. And all the M7 Ultras bought in Europe come with a free 8-in-1 USB docking hub reputedly worth €29.99.

I'm also seeing it available on both Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk with similar pricing.

For those curious, based on the current exchange rates when writing this, the 32GB+1TB model is almost the same price no matter where you buy it, but the barebones model is 12% more expensive.

Another obvious question is how these prices compare with the M5 Ultra? In short, the M7 Ultra is about $50 more than the M5 Ultra for the barebones, and about $40 more for the 32GB+1TB option. When you consider that the M7 Ultra comes with USB4, uses DDR5 and is significantly faster, then the price difference is modest.

What I’d advise against is sourcing this via Amazon, as their systems only come with 512GB of storage, and the asking price is $489.99.

In this part of the review, I’d normally list the other mini PCs that use the same platform and how some are more expensive, and others are cheaper, but not today.

Unless I missed one, no other mini PC maker is using this platform, and I couldn’t find any retail computer, of any variety, that uses it. There are several mini PCs with AMD Ryzen 7 6800H, 6850H, and other “H” series chips, but these are not the same as the PRO 6850U.

Why is this the case? I’ve no information to share. It might be that AMD has TMSC make bins of many Ryzen 6000 mobile chips with no clear market, and now they’re having a clear out of those that didn’t sell.

Whatever the reason, this is a mid-2022 platform built on a fab AMD no longer relies on, and it might be that the GMKtec M7 Ultra is the one and only machine the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U gets to see the light of day.

Which might go some way to explain how competitively priced this system is.

  • Value: 4 / 5

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra: Specs

Item

Spec

CPU:

AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U( 8C/16T, up to 4.7GHz)

GPU:

AMD Radeon 680M, up to 2.2 GHz

NPU:

N/A

RAM:

16GB DDR5-4800 (8GB x 2) expandable to 64GB

Storage:

512GB M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 3

Expansion:

1x M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 3

Ports:

2x USB4, 2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A, 2x USB 2.0, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x 3.5mm Audio, 1x Oculink

Networking:

2x 2,5GbE Realtek RTL8125, WiFi 6E, Bluetooth 5.2

OS:

Windows 11 Pro (pre-installed)

Base Power:

15W-28W

PSU:

19V 6.32A 120.08W

Dimensions:

132 x 125 x 58 mm

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra: Design

  • Decent build quality
  • Easy internal access
  • VESA mountable

There are two important things about GMKtec systems I like, and those are the build quality and the ease of internal access. And, the M7 Ultra doesn’t confront either of those expectations.

While the top and underside of this NUC are plastic, the part that is likely to take the greatest amount of abuse, the sides, is metal on all faces.

It’s a cool gunmetal grey, and the plastic top is painted to match.

Access is remarkably straightforward, with the top rotating to come away, and with that removed, there are four large screws visible that most people should have a suitable screwdriver for.

I like that these are large, easily visible screws, not the tiny ones that ping under my desk before activating their inbuilt cloaking devices. These are only discoverable either with socked feet or the use of a stupidly powerful electromagnet.

Even I couldn’t misplace these screws was my first thought on seeing them.

With those removed, the DDR5-4800 modules and M.2 slots are unobscured, and upgrading either of them merely requires the replacement parts and a couple of spare minutes.

The memory modules were branded as GMKtec, but the chips had OEM Micro branding. Therefore, based on the repositioning of that source for memory, we won’t be seeing this in future GMKtec products.

Thankfully, you can swap the RAM with any DDR5-4800 SODIMMs of any brand, as long as they’re the same type and size.

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

On the outside, the M7 Ultra doesn’t go off the beaten path with all the ports on the front or back, and those on the front are well placed for the attachment of storage. Both USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A ports are on the front, along with the USB4 port, the 3.5mm audio jack and the Oculink port. Oh, and the power button.

Maybe the Oculink port might have been better on the back, but there isn’t much room with dual 2.5GbE LAN sockets, dual USB 2.0, another USB4 port and both HDMI and DisplayPort.

One feature which is slightly controversial on the M7 Ultra is that hot air is ejected under the external ports, not above them. While there is the possibility that it might impact the connected cables, I can’t see this air getting heated enough to melt the insulation on these.

As GMKtec do with most of its systems, included with the M7 Ultra, is a plate that can be used to VESA mount the system to the back of a monitor. As the scale of this system might make it tempting for someone to pick it up and take it home, connecting it to the monitor is probably a good idea. For those seriously concerned about theft, it also has a security slot on the rear.

As with the M5 Ultra, the engineering, accessibility and port deployment are good, and there doesn’t appear to be any significant design issues with this design.

  • Design: 4 / 5

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra: Hardware

  • AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U
  • DDR5 Memory
  • Gen 3 PCIe M.2 Slots

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U is a mobile processor featuring eight cores, launched in April 2022 as an offshoot of the Ryzen 6000 series. And, the closest silicon from the core series is the Ryzen 7 6800H, a Zen 3+ (Rembrandt) architecture chip made for Socket FP7.

AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) doubles the effective thread count to sixteen, giving it some potential for multi-threaded software.

Operating at a base frequency of 2.7GHz, boosting up to 4.7GHz when required, this silicon was part of the swansong of the 6nm process at TSMC before AMD moved to the 4nm fabrication in the 7040 series.

The thermal design power (TDP) is just 15W, but that can be bumped to 28W, making it highly energy-efficient. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a maximum official speed of 4800 MT/s. It also supports 6400 MT/s for surface-mounted LPDDR5, but GMKtec hasn’t chosen to use that.

And, as I’ve alluded to already, this is the only PC I’ve found that uses this specific processor, so it now seems unlikely that a machine using the greater bandwidth memory is ever likely to appear.

Since Zen3+, AMD has evolved the Zen4 and Zen5 architectures, with more powerful GPUs, 8000MHz DDR5 options and larger core and thread capabilities.

In this context, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U provides a solid underpinning to the system where it can run reliably for long periods and remain effectively silent.

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

However, there are a few choices GMKtec made that are more nuanced than merely picking an older processor. One might assume AMD let this business have these at a bargain price.

As is often the case, this all revolves around PCIe lanes and how these critical resources are allocated. In this system, there are various draws on the bandwidth of the PCIe subsystem, which has twenty lanes of PCIe 4.0 at its disposal. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U has an integrated USB4 controller, but it still needs at least four lanes for USB4 and at least four more for Oculink, leaving only eight lanes for everything else.

In that pile are all the other USB ports, dual 2.5GbE LAN ports, the small M.2 slot for the Wi-Fi, and most importantly, the two M.2 slots. However you dice this up, without using a PCIe switch, something had to give, and what gave here was the M.2 slots ended up being only Gen 3, not Gen 4.

I can see a strong argument that either one of the USB4 ports or the Oculink should have been sacrificed to provide Gen 4 storage, but that might have created a thermal issue for keeping the NVMe drives cool.

With the amount of bandwidth available, this was a tough choice, and GMKtec went with Oculink and two USB4 ports but downgraded the M.2 slots, for good or bad.

I’d have liked at least one Gen 4 M.2 slot, but I’m not the one trying to shoehorn all this technology into a tiny box.

  • Features: 3.5 / 5

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra: Performance

Mini PC

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra

GMKtec NucBox M5 Ultra

CPU

AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U

AMD Ryzen 7 7730U

Cores/Threads

8C 16T

8C 16T

RAM

16GB DDR5 (2x8GB)

32GB DDR4 (2x16GB)

Storage

512GB AirDisk SSD

1TB NVMe

Graphics

Radeon 680M

Radeon Vega 8

3DMark

WildLife

9846

6711

FireStrike

4149

3154

TimeSpy

1495

1264

Steel Nom Lt.

1420

1035

CineBench24

Single

90

78

Multi

401

414

Ratio

4.47

5.29

GeekBench 6

Single

2096

1806

Multi

8582

5939

OpenCL

22656

12823

Vulkan

21484

11472

CrystalDisk

Read MB/s

3558

3624

Write MB/s

2520

2642

PCMark 10

Office

6973

5581

WEI

8

8.1

Given the modest price difference between the M7 Ultra and its M5 Ultra little brother, these seem the obvious systems to compare.

And, unsurprisingly, with DDR5 memory and the 12 cores of the Radeon 680M in its corner, the M7 Ultra is a good bit quicker than the M5 Ultra in the majority of the tests.

Although, for some curious reason, the CineBench24 multi-core test is a win for the AMD Ryzen 7 7730U over the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U. But these results aren’t replicated in Geekbench or PCMark 10.

Why Windows Experience Index scores the GPUs inaccurately in this instance is another mystery, but that's the precise result reflected here.

There is, however, a hollow aspect to this victory, which is that my results from the old GMKtec NucBox M7, which used the Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, were much better, scoring 14909 for 3DMark WildLife. Given that the original M7 system used DDR4, something doesn’t add up.

Yes, this system is up to 50% faster than the M5 Ultra, but it should be even quicker than that. It’s like it's operating on a single memory module, though I checked that it isn’t.

Looking back at the original M7 and the M7 Pro, the M7 Ultra has less processing power and lower GPU performance than both of these.

Unfortunately, the M7 is out of stock, and the M7 Pro is discontinued, I suspect.

I’ve concluded that, unless there was a fault with my machine, the M7 Ultra has the unfortunate accolade of offering less power than the models it replaced, sadly.

  • Performance: 3 / 5

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra: Final verdict

GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

Not sure what to think about the GMKtec M7 Ultra, since it uses a processor no other machine has ever used and yet delivers performance numbers below those of its predecessors.

What’s the most curious thing about this system is that it uses DDR5 memory, but with the same 680M GPU, it's slower than the M7, which used DDR4. How is that possible?

The M7 Ultra's bandwidth should make it faster, not 66% of the M7’s speed in the 3DMark Wildlife benchmark.

I’m hoping that this system merely needs a firmware update to deliver the results the hardware should be capable of.

Because of these issues its not an obvious replacement for the M7 or the M7 Pro, but there are plenty of alternatives using Ryzen 6000 and 7000 chips that can perform better.

Should I buy a GMKtec NucBox M7 Ultra?

Value

Affordable system, especially barebones

4/5

Design

Easy access and a good port selection

4/5

Features

Odd processor, but Oculink and USB ports

3.5/5

Performance

Not as quick as it should be on paper

3/5

Overalls

Dissapointing follow-up to M7 and M7 Pro

3.5/5

Buy it if...

You want a medium-cost NUC
Not super-cheap but still affordable, the M7 Ultra has a specification that is suitable for users who need extra performance above an entry-level system. While not as fast as the original M7, it's still better than most Intel Core i5 systems.View Deal

You need a flexible NUC
Compared to some NUC designs, this one is remarkably flexible. With two 2.5 GbE LAN ports and dual M.2 slots, it can be used as a hardware firewall, media server or marketing display controller. But adding an Oculink port also enables it to be enhanced with a discrete video card, making it suitable for graphics-intensive tasks that the integrated graphics would not handle.View Deal

Don't buy it if...

You want ultimate performance
This is a mid-range mini PC, lacking the power of those with the fastest processors, such as the Ryzen AI Max+ 395. View Deal

Also consider

Geekom A5
The Geekom A5 mini PC delivers a decent user experience for office work in a small, easy-to-deploy package. It doesn't have a second M.2 slot, but it does have a SATA and a place for a 2.5-inch drive.
In testing it produced almost identical performance to the M5 Ultra, using its AMD Ryzen 5 7430U CPU.

Check out my Geekom M5 review View Deal

GMKtec NucBox M5 Plus
Another mid-tier mini system, this time the prior design from the same brand as the M5 Ultra. This one utilises the AMD Ryzen 7 5825U (8 cores, 16 Threads) CPU and features 1TB of onboard NVMe storage. Where this is slightly better than the A5 is that the second M.2 slot is 2280, and it has dual 2.5GbE LAN ports.

Check out my GMKTec NucBox M5 Plus review View Deal

I watched all of Wonder Man on Disney+ — and the new Marvel TV show deserves a standing ovation for breaking the MCU mould
7:30 am |
Author: admin | Category: Computers Disney Plus Gadgets Streaming | Comments: Off

Light spoilers follow for all eight episode of Wonder Man.

2026 is a big year for Marvel. With its cinematic universe struggling to rediscover the consistency that defined its first decade, there's never been more pressure on highly-anticipated movies like Avengers: Doomsday and Spider-Man: Brand New Day to get people back onside.

And yet, it falls on Wonder Man, the comic book giant's first Disney+ show of the year, to convince casual fans that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is worth sticking with or jumping back into. It's a wonderful thing, then, that Wonder Man is a franchise-disrupting, metatextual caper that's arguably the studio's most creative TV original since WandaVision.

I was born to play this character

Simon Williams preparing to record an audition tape in front of a ring light in Wonder Man

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II portrays Simon Williams, a down-on-his-luck, Los Angeles-based actor (Image credit: Marvel Studios)

Produced under the Marvel Spotlight banner, Wonder Man introduces us to Simon Williams (Yahya Abdul- Mateen II), a luckless and capricious actor struggling for work in the MCU's version of Hollywood.

Williams' tortured nature is captured with pitch-perfect intensity and gravitas by Abul-Mateen II

When Williams learns that Oscar-winning director Von Kovak (Zlatko Burić) is remaking 'Wonder Man', an in-universe movie that's also his favorite film of all time, Williams vows land the lead role. Well, as long as he can keep his biggest secret – as one of Wonder Man's teasers confirmed, that he possesses actual superpowers – under wraps.

Having superhuman abilities should be advantageous for a project like this, right? Not if you're Simon Williams, a serial overthinker whose passion for his craft often makes him difficult to deal with personally and professionally.

Simon Williams standing in a room with his hands in his pockets in Wonder Man

Williams' life is falling apart when we meet him in Wonder Man's premiere (Image credit: Marvel Studios/Disney+)

His failure to secure regular work and tendency to lose the roles he does get due to a passion interpreted as overzealous interference are, unsurprisingly, emotionally destabilizing moments for Williams. Add in your demonstrably powerful abilities appearing whenever you experience negative emotions, and that's a recipe for disaster.

That's especially true if Williams' abilities ever manifest while on set. The reason? Enhanced individuals are banned from working in Hollywood, so it's not the ideal profession for Williams, whose tortured nature is captured with pitch-perfect intensity and gravitas by Wonder Man's lead star Abdul-Mateen II.

DoDC Agent Cleary sitting at a diner table with Trevor Slattery in Marvel's Wonder Man

Trevor Slattery (right) has two options: help the DoDC or complete his prison sentence for his crimes as The Mandarin (Image credit: Marvel Studios/Disney+)

Wonder Man is as much Trevor Slattery's (Ben Kingsley) story as it is Williams', though.

A washed-up thespian and recovering substance abuser who we first met as fake terrorist The Mandarin in Iron Man 3, Slattery is an important cog in Williams' journey and the Marvel Phase 6 show's wider narrative.

Slattery is the uproarious fulcrum for many of Wonder Man's hijinks

Apprehended by the Department of Damage Control (DoDC) at an airport following his redemption arc in Shang-Chi, Slattery is coerced into helping the superhuman-monitoring US government agency keep track of Williams, whom it believes to be a highly dangerous individual.

Rather than position Slattery as a primary supporting character, though, Marvel installs Kingsley as the series' co-lead. It's a storytelling decision that not only allows Wonder Man to thoroughly examine this enigmatic and eccentric character's background, personality, and motives in greater detail than before, but also plays to Kingsley's strengths as an actor.

Utilizing the British icon's extensive affiliation with the Royal Shakespeare Company and penchant for playing characters as straight as possible, Wonder Man gives Kingsley a stage to really shine on. Equipped with Slattery's awkward and unfiltered persona, Kingsley is the uproarious fulcrum for the various hijinks that ensue throughout, too.

Just the two of us

Simon Williams standing with his hands on his hips as Trevor Slattery looks at him in Marvel's Wonder Man

Williams and Slattery are another absorbing buddy cop pairing to add to the MCU's growing roster (Image credit: Marvel Studios/Disney+)

Armed with either of these likeable albeit lost souls, Wonder Man would be an enthralling watch. The resolution to build its plot around both, then, is a match made in heaven.

The decision to build Wonder Man's plot around Williams and Slattery is a match made in heaven

From their initial encounters at a Midnight Cowboy screening and then the 'Wonder Man' auditions, where a regret-filled Slattery takes pity on Williams as he struggles to maintain his composure, they're a mesmerically mismatched pair that deserve to be added to the MCU's ever-expanding collection of charming double acts.

A two-hander in all but name, it's the kind of odd-couple dynamic that doesn't come along often, but produces all manner of on-screen fireworks from the outset.

Simon Williams standing with his hands on his hips and looking down as Trevor Slattery sits at a bar in Marvel's Wonder Man

Williams and Slattery's professional and personal lives become entwined as the story progresses (Image credit: Marvel Studios/Disney+)

It's a bond initially formed by their mutual love for their craft. Slattery sees his tactless and ego-driven self in Williams and uses his experience and calming influence to guide the less-seasoned actor through the murky world of Hollywood. It isn't long, though, before their student-teacher relationship blossoms into a genuine bromance – and, like me, you'll soon be rooting for them to individually and collectively succeed.

You'll soon be rooting for Williams and Slattery to individually and collectively succeed

That said, I'll admit my desire to root for them was strained at times. Whether it's the emotionally unavailable Williams occasionally shutting out his mentor, or Slattery's duplicity in trying to keep both Williams and the DoDC onside – honestly, at one point, I genuinely thought Slattery would fully betray his new friend – theirs is a companionship buffeted by numerous outside forces. Ultimately, though, the earnestness of their buddy-cop dynamic, plus the hardships these tragic characters have endured, is what'll make you cheer them on.

And all the world's a stage

Simon Williams and Trevor Slattery looking at Von Kovak in the latter's mansion in Marvel's Wonder Man

Von Kovak (right) will ultimately decide if Williams and Slattery land roles in his 'Wonder Man' movie remake (Image credit: Marvel Studios/Disney+)

With its intimate, dual-character-study-first approach, Wonder Man plays more as a tragicomedy with sitcom elements than a biting commentary on the corporate Hollywood machine.

Wonder Man doesn't hold up a taunting mirror to Hollywood in the same way that The Studio does

Sure, Wonder Man's metatextual layers run deep, and it doesn't shy away from the cutthroat nature of the entertainment business. However, it's not a fourth-wall-breaking project in the way She-Hulk: Attorney at Law or the Deadpool films are. Nor does it hold up a taunting mirror to Hollywood in the same way that The Studio does. Laugh-out-loud funny though Wonder Man is, it's not as outrageously chaotic or toe-curlingly hilarious in its takedown of the industry as that Apple TV Original is, or as scathingly satirical of the superhero genre like Prime Video's adaptation of The Boys is.

Trevor Slattery and Simon Williams having a conversation next to a car in Wonder Man

Riveting as Wonder Man is, it isn't without its missteps (Image credit: Marvel Studios/Disney+)

I don't consider those to be faults that Wonder Man possesses, but Marvel's latest small-screen offering isn't beyond reproach.

For one, its Williams and Slattery-absent Twilight Zone-esque fourth episode provides context for one of Wonder Man's early mysteries, but brings its primary narrative to a grinding halt just as it's really beginning to build momentum. Similarly, while its circumnavigation of Williams' complicated comic book history facilitates an easier MCU introduction for the character, this source material deviation will irritate some Marvel Comics purists.

And then there's the finale, which falls foul of the same problem that's plagued other Marvel TV Originals on one of the world's best streaming services. In its favor, it foregoes the archetypal – not to mention predictable – CGI showdown between hero and villain, which is a welcome departure from the Disney subsidiary's usual TV blueprint.

Nonetheless, just another five to 10 minutes showing how Williams has grown as an individual across its eight-episode run would've helped its pacing and stopped it from racing towards an ending that may be perceived as somewhat anticlimactic.

My verdict

Ultimately, though, those niggles didn't prevent me from having a blast with Wonder Man. Pardon the pun, but it's a wonderfully executed slice of television that's both a celebration of the performing arts and an eye-opening peek behind the curtain of an industry that continues to entertain us to this day.

It might be a bit on the short side, runtime-wise, and its narrative flow is a little uneven, especially in the first half. But, armed with a charismatic leading pair firing on all cylinders, and a story that'll resonate with anyone who's set out to achieve their wildest dreams and did so, Wonder Man deserves a standing ovation for proving nothing is impossible if you put your mind to it – and if you have a little help along the way.

Wonder Man releases in full on Tuesday, January 27 (North and South America) and Wednesday, January 28 (everywhere else). To learn more about the series ahead of launch, read my guide on everything we know about Wonder Man.

Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

And, of course, you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.

I’ve tested plenty of ereaders but the Onyx Boox Go 7 is the first Android-powered ebook reader I really like
4:22 am |
Author: admin | Category: Computers eReaders Gadgets Tablets | Tags: | Comments: Off

Onyx Boox Go 7: Two-minute review

I received the Boox Go 7 months ago for review, along with the Boox Go Color 7 (Gen II), and I’m glad I delayed my testing. A few firmware updates since I tested its color sibling have improved overall performance and I now have the new stylus for it.

That’s right: the Go 7 is more than just a basic ereader, offering stylus support and a native Notes app that’s full featured. You’ll need to purchase the stylus separately, though, but that’s not unprecedented – you’ll need to do the same for the Kobo Libra Colour as well, for example. While the new InkSense Plus is an improvement over the older Boox InkSense pen previously sold, writing on the Go 7 isn’t as nice as I’ve experienced on other ereaders – there’s just not enough friction.

That said, the 7-inch E Ink Carta 1300 display here is the standout feature and there’s nothing more important for an ereader than its screen. Right from the start, it made the Go 7 the better device compared to its sibling – something I said in my Boox Go Color 7 (Gen II) review and I still stand by that statement – putting it on par with the likes of the current-gen Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024). Text is sharp and crisp, while the overall reading experience is enhanced by very snappy performance. Page turns are quick, whether you want to tap to turn or use the buttons.

Speaking of which, access to the Google Play Store gives you a lot more flexibility on how you want to use the ereader – the native apps are great, but if you have personal preferences for specific reading or productivity app, they’re easy to install, with fast load times and smooth third-party functionality.

Another reason I love a Boox device is the impressive file and font support. You can sideload a wide variety of files and fonts, and you don’t even need a wired connection for that – Google Drive and Dropbox support help with cloud transfer that’s quick and easy. Transferring directly from a USB-C external hard drive or portable SSD is also remarkably simple and very fast and, in all honesty, I don’t see the need to tether this device to a PC at all for file transfer.

The Boox interface has also improved but, as I’ve said before in many of my previous reviews, there’s still too much going on and some setting options are still hidden within the native app and accessed from different submenus. Better streamlining is definitely called for, which would be a huge help to first-time Boox users.

Another reason I’m docking marks from the Go 7 is its lack of waterproofing. Given its price tag and that all its main competitors have IPX8 certification, it’s a huge oversight. If you’re careful with it while traveling or reading by the pool, in the bath or near the kitchen sink, this is arguably the best Boox device I’ve tried in a long time.

A small handwriting sample on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

Onyx Boox Go 7 review: price & availability

  • Released in April 2025 in most major markets
  • List price: $295.99 / €249.99 / AU$419
  • Available to buy directly from the Boox Shop and select retailers

It seems very strange to me that if you’re in the US and you shop directly from the online Boox Shop, the Go 7 costs more than the Go Color 7 (Gen II) – the latter is listed at $279.99, while the former is $295.99 at full price at the time of writing.

On the other hand, the pricing for Europe and Australia makes more sense: €249.99 and AU$419 respectively for the Go 7 compared to €279.99 and AU$459 for the color variant.

No matter where you live, the monochrome Go 7 is a relatively expensive ereader, although it can be argued that its price is justified by the open operating system and 64GB of onboard storage that’s expandable via a microSD card.

Moreover, its features include writing (although the InkSense Plus stylus will need to be purchased separately for $45.99 / €45.99 / AU$69) and built-in stereo speakers (sound isn’t great though). That said, not everyone will need the freedom that the Android operating system provides and the likes of the Kobo Libra Colour is cheaper at $229.99 / £209.99 / AU$379.95.

• Value score: 4 / 5

A book cover displayed on the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

Onyx Boox Go 7 review: Specs

Display type:

E Ink Carta 1300

Screen size:

7 inches

Resolution:

300ppi (1680 x 1264)

CPU:

Qualcomm Snapdragon 690

Frontlight:

Warm and cold

Storage:

64GB (expandable)

Battery:

2,300mAh

Speaker:

Stereo/dual

Water protection:

None

Software:

Android 13

Connectivity:

Wi-Fi (2.4GHz + 5GHz); Bluetooth 5.1

File support:

20 document; 4 image; 2 audio

Dimensions:

156 x 137 x 6.4 mm (6.1 x 5.4 x 0.25 inches)

Weight:

195g (6.9oz)

Onyx Boox Go 7 review: design & display

  • Crisp and clear 7-inch E Ink Carta 1300 display
  • Slim, lightweight and compact body with page-turn buttons
  • Features speakers and microSD card tray

The Go Color 7 II and the Go 7 are siblings, meaning they’re identical physically – the only difference being the screen technology they use. In fact, the design has been inherited from the original Go Color 7 and that’s not a bad thing at all.

Page-turn buttons on the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

The Go 7 is slim, lightweight and compact enough to take with you anywhere. And the page-turn buttons are well placed to be just where your thumb would sit when holding the tablet in one hand. Personally, though, I would still prefer the old Kindle Oasis asymmetry (still used in the Kobo Libra Colour) that had a little extra thickness along the larger bezel to make it more ergonomic. The thinness of the Go 7 can make the fingers hurt if you're someone who reads for long hours. Having a case to add some overall thickness helps with this little issue.

I love how the page-turn buttons feel and work – there’s a nice little feedback that makes them satisfying to use. They become volume-adjustment buttons if you’re using an app that doesn’t need scrolling or page turning, which is nice since you can listen to audio files here.

Buttons, speakers, card tray and USB port on the side of the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

As with the color variants (Gen I and II), the rear is textured, and there’s a small power button on the bottom right corner of the tablet. One slim edge is just thick enough to house a USB-C port for charging, as well as a microSD card tray and speaker grilles. A tiny mic is on the opposite edge.

Boox continues to steer clear of waterproofing for its ereaders, sadly, with the Go 7 also missing out. In my opinion, it’s an unforgivable oversight given its price tag.

A person holding the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

The star of the show, however, is the Go 7’s display. As its name suggests, it’s a 7-inch screen using E Ink’s Carta 1300 technology. This display has proved itself time and time again on other ereaders and does so again here where it’s been optimized well.

Text and images are displayed marvelously well and the anti-glare coating on top ensures bright overhead lights don’t distract when you’re reading. The LEDs for the screen are fantastic, far better than the screen light on the Go Color 7 II. The light is brighter and not nearly as yellow as on the color version of this ereader. In fact, I’m amazed at how different the two screens are – the Go 7 is practically perfect while the Go 7 II is fuzzy and too warm.

• Design & display score: 4.5 / 5

Onyx Boox Go 7 review: software & apps

  • Runs a slim version of Android 13 with excellent native apps
  • Full access to the Google Play Store offers a lot of freedom
  • Clean user interface, but some settings are hidden in submenus

An ereader running Android is an excellent choice for anyone who doesn’t want to get locked into either the Kindle or Kobo ecosystems. The freedom to use third-party apps or source content from any platform, can make a huge difference to the user experience.

That said, the native apps have plenty to offer and the average user may not even need to download anything else from the Play Store. The library app called NeoReader, for example, offers plenty of customization options that you don’t need to use MoonReader or KoReader… unless that’s really what you prefer. The same goes for the native Notes application too. There’s also a browser and music player, among other things.

Some of the third-party apps I’ve used on this Boox device are Kindle, Kobo and Evernote, but I’ve used Libby on a different Boox ereader.

Image 1 of 4

The stylus setup page on the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)
Image 2 of 4

The Kindle app on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)
Image 3 of 4

The settings tab on the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)
Image 4 of 4

The apps page on the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

The Boox interface has evolved into a much cleaner version of the convoluted UI from years past, but there’s still room for improvement. For example, it’s not at all obvious that there’s some library settings in NeoReader hidden on the top menu bar under More – it’s very easily missed unless you have the patience to explore every single menu option on the device.

The Notes app is also not available on the home screen navigation by default; you need to head into the device’s System Settings to find it and apply it to be visible if you plan to use it often. For me, given the Boox Go 7 has stylus support, the expectation is that the Notes app would be available by default on the home screen.

A memo on the native calender app on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

I saw a major change in how the ebook styling menu in the library app was set up in 2025 and that’s been carried over, which is a good thing. However, the complications still exist: tap in the middle of the screen when an ebook is open to bring up the menu, choose Style and the setup is much cleaner than before, but you need to tap on More Settings to adjust fonts, spacing and margins. These are much easier to access on a Kindle or Kobo.

Long story short: I can see the Boox UI is improving, but there’s really just too much going on still and the average user doesn’t need so many customization options. I don’t think even a power user like me needs so many options on an ereader. Less is more, Boox.

• Software & apps score: 3.5 / 5

A handwritten note on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

Onyx Boox Go 7 review: user experience

  • Arguably one of the best reading experiences on an electronic device
  • Full featured, but takes some learning to get it set up for individual needs
  • Not a great writing experience

Most of us read text-heavy books, so opting for a monochrome ereader makes economical sense as there’s really no point in opting for a color screen if you aren’t going to be viewing anything more than a book cover in color. But the Go 7 makes a much stronger case of being the better ereader compared to the Go Color 7 (Gen II) by offering a much nicer reading experience.

As I’ve already alluded to in this review, the screen on the Go 7 is a standout. Text is sharp and there’s good contrast too, making it one of the best Boox ereader I’ve used. This is further enhanced by the fact that page turns are quick, whether via a tap on the screen or the buttons. That said, individual books take a little longer than the Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024) to open, but all other library functionality is snappy. Boox really has done an excellent job of optimizing the E Ink Carta 1300 display for this device.

Image 1 of 3

Hidden library settings on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)
Image 2 of 3

Ebook style settings in the native library app on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)
Image 3 of 3

Ebook settings in the native library application on the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

Text selection for highlighting or annotating is also quick, and it’s very precise if you use the InkSense Plus stylus. However, the Boox Go 7 doesn’t support global handwriting, which means you won’t be able to annotate or markup books using NeoReader – and that's despite a feature called FreeMark (which allows you to write on the screen when any app is open but not annotate). The native Calendar (for memos) and Notes apps are the only places where there's default stylus support.

This might seem restrictive, and for a power user like me, that definitely is, but the average user looking for a capable ereader won’t necessarily need all the bells and whistles of a more advanced epaper tablet like the Boox Note Air series.

Image 1 of 2

A person using the InkSense Plus stylus to write on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)
Image 2 of 2

A highlighted section on an ebook on the Boox Go 7 ereader

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

If you did want to use the Notes app, though, be warned – the writing experience isn’t great. The InkSense Plus glides over the screen with barely any friction and it can be a little disconcerting at first, but you do get used to it. That said, there’s absolutely no lag and stylus input is instantaneous. I’ve used it to write and draw crude designs on the Notes app and didn’t mind it, but I would much prefer to use the Boox Go 7 as an ereader rather than a note-taker.

• User experience score: 4 / 5

Onyx Boox Go 7 review: performance

  • Fast and snappy performance
  • Occasional ghosting only when reading image-heavy books
  • Battery drain is higher compared to the competition

The Go 7 uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 chipset paired with 4GB of RAM – the same combo powering the color variant – and performance is generally very good for an E Ink device.

While the NeoReader app isn't the fastest book loader, that's not a fault of the device but he application. However, using third-party apps is smooth, with quick loads and all other functionality within them working well. Where I’ve previously encountered third-party app crashes on older Boox tablets, I had no such issues here.

As with the Go Color 7 II, I found wired file transfer via OTG to be remarkably quick and, for the first time while testing a Boox tablet, I didn’t even bother using Google Drive or BooxDrop to access my ebooks. I only signed into my Google account to access the Play Store.

Thanks to the Carta 1300 screen, the Go 7 doesn’t suffer as much from ghosting as the color version. In fact, I had no ghosting while reading text-only books, but there was the occasional overlay when reading graphic novels, which is common when reading image-heavy titles on epaper displays.

A crude drawing of a turtle on the Boox Go 7

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

Battery life, however, is disappointing. The expectation from an ereader boasting a 2,300mAh capacity pack would last a few weeks, but in real-world use Android devices like the Go 7 don’t offer as much use on a single charge like a Kindle or Kobo.

If you have Wi-Fi switched on at all times, you’ll get about a week of use when reading about two hours a day and the screen brightness set at medium levels. You’ll eke out more with Wi-Fi (and Bluetooth) turned off and the light dim.

Start doing more than just read and you will see the battery drain even faster. The browser and music player are power hungry, and the more you jot notes, the quicker the Go 7 will run out of juice. Battery drain even in sleep mode is quite significant – something I’ve seen in nearly every Boox I’ve tested to date.

While there’s no quick charging here, you don’t need to wait too long for the battery to top up. On average, the Go 7 took about two hours to go from 9% or 10% to full over the several months I used it when plugged into a USB-C port of a 65W wall charger. It will be slower if you use a dock connected to your PC or a USB-A to C cable, but this is quite standard for most ereaders.

• Performance score: 4 / 5

Should I buy the Onyx Boox Go 7?

Attribute

Notes

Score

Value

It's a relatively expensive device, but its open Android ecosystem could justify its price for many users.

4 / 5

Design & display

Lightweight and compact, this is a fantastic spiritual successor to Amazon's Kindle Oasis, with an equally fabulous screen to read on.

4.5 / 5

Software & apps

While Android offers a lot of flexibility on a device like this, Boox's interface requires a steep learning curve to master.

3.5 / 5

User experience

If you're use it solely for reading and the occasional productivity feature, it's fantastic. There are, however, restrictions on where stylus use is supported.

4 / 5

Performance

There's barely anything to complain about when it comes to performance, although keep an eye on the battery drain.

4 / 5

Overall

Boox makes good ereaders, but the Go 7 is arguably my favorite.

4 / 5

Buy it if...

You want a fantastic screen on an ereader

Giving the 2024 Kindle Paperwhite a run for its money, this 7-inch E Ink Carta 1300 on the Go 7 is one of the best displays I've had the pleasure of using for reading ebooks. There just isn't enough friction to make writing as pleasurable, though.

The freedom of an Android operating system is enticing you

A lot has to be said to not being locked into the Amazon or Kobo walled garden. If you want to be able to use other apps on your ereader, this one is for you.

You want physical page-turn buttons on a lightweight and compact ereader

Even though the Kobo Libra Colour and the Go 7 share the same screen size, the latter has an overall smaller footprint and is 4g lighter. While that's neither here nor there, page-turn buttons make using ereaders nicer when holding in one hand.

Don't buy it if...

You want a no-frills, cheaper ereader

If the additional writing features and the ability to use third-party apps is overkill for your needs, you can save money by opting for, say, the base model Amazon Kindle (2024) or the Kobo Clara BW.

You don't need stylus support

If your sole purpose of getting a new ereader is only reading, then it would be economical to look at other options like the 7-inch Kindle Paperwhite instead.

You want a dedicated writing tablet

For users keen on making full use of an epaper tablet's writing features, you'd be better off looking at a larger 10-inch alternative. They'll cost you more, but a bigger screen is better for both productivity and creativity.

Onyx Boox Go 7 review: Alternatives

If you're not sure whether the Boox Go 7 is worth picking up, I've listed a few alternatives below, with the Kobo Libra Colour, despite its color screen, being its closest rival from a design perspective. There are other standard ereaders as well and I've listed their specs in the table below to help you compare them all.

Onyx Boox Go 7

Kobo Libra Colour

Kobo Clara BW

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024)

Price

$295.99 / €249.99 (about £217) / AU$419

$229.99 / £209.99 / AU$379.95

$139.99 / £129.99 / AU$249.95

from $159.99 / £134.99 / AU$299

Screen

7-inch E Ink Carta 1300

7-inch E Ink Kaleido 3

6-inch E Ink Carta 1300

7-inch E Ink Carta 1300

Resolution

300ppi in B&W

300ppi in B&W; 150ppi in color

300ppi in B&W

300ppi in B&W

Operating system

Android 13

Linux-based

Linux-based

Linux-based

Storage

64GB (expandable)

32GB

16GB

16GB

CPU

Qualcomm Snapdragon 690

Undisclosed 2GHz dual-core chipset

Undisclosed 2GHz dual-core chipset

Undisclosed 1GHz dual-core chipset

Battery

2,300mAh

2,050mAh

1,500mAh

Undisclosed

Connectivity

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB-C

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB-C

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB-C

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth (in select regions), USB-C

Waterproofing

None

IPX8

IPX8

IPX8

File support (including images and audio)

25

16

16

17

Speakers

Yes

No

No

No

Dimensions

156 x 137 x 6.4 mm

161 x 144.6 x 8.3 mm

112 x 160 x 9.2 mm

176.7 x 127.6 x 7.8 mm

Weight

195g

199.5g

174g

211g

Kobo Libra Colour

Its design looks dated, but the Kobo Libra Colour is my pick of the best ereader you can buy for good reason. Cheaper than the Go 7, it too has both reading and writing suites, but its overall interface is a lot more streamlined.
Read my in-depth Kobo Libra Colour review

Kobo Clara BW

If you don't want the writing features and a 6-inch ereader will suffice, the Kobo Clara BW is a good mid-range option to consider. It's waterproofed and offers seamless operation in a compact form factor.
Read my in-depth Kobo Clara BW review

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024)

The 12th generation Kindle Paperwhite is a fantastic 7-inch ereader with a black-and-white screen that I'd recommend if you're already part of the Amazon ecosystem. With direct access to the Kindle Store and a smoother interface than Boox, its E Ink Carta 1300 is one of the best optimized in the business.
Read my in-depth Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (2024) review

How I tested the Onyx Boox Go 7

The Boox Go 7 ereader case with stylus and a set of spectacles

(Image credit: Sharmishta Sarkar / Future)

I might have had the Boox Go 7 for months, but I've used it on and off for maybe just two of those before writing this review. That's because I got distracted by other Boox devices...

I digress, though. For this review, I tried various ways to upload files, including signing into Google Drive. I moved one font folder over, but used the OTG support to import the ebooks I wanted on the device for my testing. I used the same method to transfer a couple of music files to test the built-in speaker as well.

I was sent the new InkSense Plus stylus towards the end of December and I was pleasantly surprised to see that setup was remarkably simple as long as the pen was charged.

From the Play Store, I downloaded the Kindle and Kobo apps to access my existing libraries and to test how third-party apps function. I also used Evernote and Libby on this device, plus downloaded CPU X to confirm what hardware was powering this device.

I used the stylus to both write and draw, but spent most of my testing hours reading. I did use the browser briefly.

I've been testing ereaders for nearly a decade now for TechRadar and built up a strong knowledge base to help me able to objectively compare different models from different brands – and the Go 7 definitely stands out.

Read more about how we test

[First published January 2026]

MochaHost review
6:34 pm | January 22, 2026
Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets Pro Website Hosting | Comments: Off

The story of Mochahost began in 2002, when its future founders recognized a profound need for high-quality web hosting companies and decided to launch one of their own. Founded in San Jose, Mochahost’s key objective was to strike a balance between “top-of-the-line” services and a pocket-friendly price, and, at the same time, cover everything from personal blogs to large businesses.

Today, their main office is in New York, and they seem to have expanded beyond a US-centric strategy. In the past, their only data centers were in Texas and Illinois. Now they offer a choice of eight locations covering Texas, Canada, the UK, India, Singapore, Germany, Mexico, and Australia.

We first reviewed Mochahost in 2021, and a lot has changed since then. Where a visit to their site then was like a blast to the past (as in, the early 2000s), it's now caught up with the times and sports a simpler look in trendy colors.

Plans and pricing

Like most other hosting companies, Mochahost offers potential customers a range of plans to choose from. Unfortunately, while its website may be more up to date, its hosting plans seem to lag a bit further behind.

Mochahost's primary offerings are shared and VPS hosting, with a couple of WordPress-specific plans thrown in. There are no Cloud hosting plans nor dedicated servers available here.

Yet being somewhat entrenched in the past isn't always a bad thing, since it means Mochahost is also one of the few remaining service providers that still offers Windows web hosting in both the shared and VPS space. Because of this, Mochahost can offer relatively niche hosting solutions, such as Java Tomcat hosting.

Shared hosting

shared hosting plans at Mochahost

Shared hosting at Mochahost isn't cheap but comes with ample resources and cPanel access. (Image credit: Future)

Shared hosting plans at Mochahost start with the Soho plan at $3.99/mo on a 1-year term, with renewal prices on that plan hiking up to $12.99/mo. At the high end of that spectrum is Mocha, costing $9.99/mo and $20.99/mo on renewal. These prices aren't exactly low, but Mochahost is relatively generous with resources and provides cPanel access, Imunify 360 security, free SSL, free weekly backups, and free site migrations.

The problem is that several competitors are offering similar freebies and resource levels at much lower prices. For example, with just a bit less storage space, HostPapa comes at a much better price point. Personally, unless Mochahost offers stunning performance figures for its hosting plans, these prices seem a bit too high to be excellent value for money.

WordPress hosting

Mochahost WordPress hosting plans

(Image credit: Future)

As if in retrospective shame of its high shared hosting prices, Mochahost throws $1/mo WordPress hosting plans in your face. The problem is that the dollar deal is only valid for the first month and renews at $14.99/mo (Lite) to $99.99/mo (Business).

Most of the freebies on Mochahost's WordPress plans are similar to those on its shared hosting plans. The only advantage beyond those is that if you sign up for the Starter or higher plans, you get WP Rocket included. That's about $59/year in value, which isn't enough to offset the monthly hosting charges here.

To put things in perspective, Cloudways hosting plans start at around $14/mo for cloud hosting ($11/mo if you're willing to forego their premium servers), with a custom server management dashboard. It also doesn't restrict you to a specific number of WordPress sites. At Mochahost, you'll need to be on their Pro plan or above to run more than a single site.

Windows shared hosting

Windows shared hosting plans at Mochahost

(Image credit: Future)

Windows shared hosting plans at Mochahost range from $4.45/mo to $8.45/mo. We won't debate this pricing, since, as we all know, a considerable portion will go to Microsoft for its operating system license.

Resource allocation is similar to the Linux shared hosting plans we discussed earlier. You also get the comparable Windows hosting tech stack, meaning Plesk instead of cPanel, plus MS SQL/MariaDB, and all the .NETs you could want. The one point you'll want to be aware of is the relatively low memory allocation. On the cheapest Soho ASP.NET plan, all you get is 300MB.

Plus, since these are relatively niche plans (yes, it sounds a little weird to consider Windows hosting as niche, even today), you also have a narrower range of data center locations to choose from: either in Europe or the US.

VPS hosting

Linux VPS hosting at Mochahost

(Image credit: Future)

As with its shared hosting plans, VPS at Mochahost comes in both Linux and Windows variants. The same price adjustments apply, with Linux VPS plans slightly cheaper. The lowest-tier Linux VPS costs a mere $24.38/mo for a 1-year term, renewing at $48.75/mo thereafter. For that, you get 2 CPU cores, 4 GB of RAM, 80GB NVMe, and unlimited bandwidth/mo.

Impressively for the price, Mochahost also throws in cPanel (most hosting companies today charge separately for this on a VPS). For specs, the VPS plans at Mochahost seem like a relatively good deal, especially for managed plans.

There's also a lot of leeway for scalability since their top-of-the-line VPS comes with a whopping 64 CPU cores, 128GB of RAM, and 960GB NVMe storage.

Ease of use

cPanel

Mochahost offers its users either Plesk of cPanel to help manage their hosting plans (Image credit: cPanel)

When creating an account with Mochahost, the first step is to select a hosting type, operating system, and a plan, and there are a whole lot of them. The next step is choosing a billing cycle, and this is where you’ll see details on the price and the plan’s key features. There, you can choose whether you want to be billed monthly, annually, biannually, or triannually.

To finalize the creation of your account (and your order), you’ll be required to provide Mochahost with some standard personal information. Then you’ll set a password, choose a preferred payment method, and complete your purchase.

The best part about Mochahost plans is that they all come with recognizable control panels, either cPanel or Plesk. These are industry-standard and help you manage your hosting server easily and quickly.

Speed and Reliability

For testing, we put the spotlight on Mochahost's Soho plan, which is the entry-level tier on its shared hosting list. We then uploaded a standard test WordPress website and ran WordPress core benchmarks and a load test to see if it holds up well under stress.

Aside from speed, it's notable that Mochahost offers separate uptime guarantees of 99.9% and 99.95% for its shared and VPS hosting services, respectively—nothing super-impressive, but just about meeting industry norms.

WordPress benchmark test (Soho)

CPU & Memory

Operations with large text data

6.82

Random binary data operations

8.38

Recursive mathematical calculations

4.71

Iterative mathematical calculations

7.18

Floating point operations

7.11

Filesystem

Filesystem write ability

3.55

Local file copy and access speed

4.79

Small file IO test

8.4

Database

Importing large amount of data to database

6.52

Simple queries on single table

8.79

Complex database queries on multiple tables

7.2

Object Cache

Persistent object cache enabled

0

Wordpress core

Shortcode processing

6.33

WordPress Hooks

8.45

WordPress option manipulation

9.06

REGEX string processing

7.95

Taxonomy benchmark

7.69

Object capability benchmark

7.89

Content filtering

3.47

JSON manipulations

7.85

Network

Network download speed test

10

Overall

Your server score

6.8

On WordPress core tests, Mochahost shared hosting did reasonably well with an overall score of 6.8 (out of ten). The scores were not dragged down in any specific area, meaning it offers a relatively well-rounded experience across CPU and memory, the filesystem, the database, and other elements.

The key takeaway here is that while these are relatively strong results, they aren't the best we've seen by far. As an example, SiteGround is a host with comparable shared hosting prices to Mochahost and scores much better in core WordPress benchmarks.

Siege test (Soho)

Concurrent users

5

9

15

Transactions

2253

3524

5503

Availability

100

100

100

Elapsed time

299.1

299.48

299.23

Data transactions

66.29

102.44

147.04

Response time

0.66

0.76

0.81

Transaction rate

7.53

11.77

18.39

Throughput

0.22

0.34

0.49

Concurrency

4.99

8.98

14.95

Successful transactions

2253

3525

5503

Failed transactions

0

0

0

Longest transaction

2.67

11.22

12.21

Shortest transaction

0.07

0.07

0.07

Mochahost also performed well under Siege, a tool we use to send an increasing user load to hosting servers. At 5, 9, and 15 concurrent users, Mochahost held its own and achieved a 100% success rate on every transaction attempted. This is pretty impressive, since most of the hosts we test start indicating some degree of failed transactions even at the 9-user mark.

One notable point, however, is that despite a 100% success rate, the longest transaction time increased from an initial 2.67 seconds at the 5-user load to 12.21 seconds at the 15-user load. This means that while all requests were processed, users on a real-world site would likely experience longer wait times as load increases.

Still, it's a fair cop overall and one that somewhat justifies Mochahost's steeper-than-typical price tags on its shared hosting plans.

Customer Support

Mochahost support page

Mochahost offers several support channels including a phone support line (Image credit: Future)

Like most web hosting companies today, Mochahost uses a chatbot as its first line of defense in customer support. From what we've seen, the chatbot scans a knowledge base and, if an answer isn't found, hands you over to a customer support representative.

We tested the process and were impressed that the handover from the chatbot to a real-live agent took just a minute. This stands in stark contrast to some hosts, where it took hours for a real human to respond to queries.

Aside from live chat, you can also get assistance by submitting a support ticket (for existing customers), or calling a phone support line.

Mochahost knowledgebase

Mochahost's knowledgebase is presented as a wiki-style site (Image credit: Future)

Aside from the support channels that allow you to talk to them, Mochohost also offers a relatively decent knowledge base. It's wiki-style and easy to navigate, but primarily covers how-to documentation. That means you can easily find out how to get things done, but you'll likely need to contact their support team if you're facing an actual problem.

The competition

HostGator is Mochahost’s fellow US-based rival, with data centers within the USA. With a full range of hosting options and features, competent support, and pricing, both can offer a bit of something to suit everyone’s needs. However, HostGator's pricing is lower even on renewal.

Bluehost and Mochahost are both suitable for newcomers and veterans alike, although neither host is without its flaws. With Mochahost’s cheapest plan, you won't get as many valuable features as with Bluehost.

Final verdict

Mochahost isn't one to promise you the moon and stars, and its plans are certainly not in the cheapest tier. However, its hosting servers perform well even under load, assuring potential customers of a firm, but a steady-performing website, so long as you don't create problems with your own designs and code.

There is a shortcoming in the lack of cloud and dedicated server plans. Yet Mochahost more than makes up for this with robust VPS offerings that go beyond the dedicated server plans offered by some hosts.

Finally, if you need Windows hosting for some reason, then Mochahost is one of the few places where you can still find these plans.

Spaceship web hosting review
6:00 pm |
Author: admin | Category: Computers Gadgets Pro Website Hosting | Tags: , | Comments: Off

In recent years, we've seen several hosting brands attempt to expand their services and challenge the envelope of the best web hosting services. Spaceship is the result of one such effort, with the parent company being Namecheap.

Granted, Spaceship offers a slightly more futuristic site design and interesting product names (e.g., Starlight, Hyperlift). However, even this is subjective, since one man's meat can be another's poison. Additionally, the superficial design differences don't affect the performance of the core products themselves.

In some instances, the product offerings are also identical in many ways. For example, the cloud WordPress hosting offered by Spaceship is EasyWP, which is another product that Namecheap has tried to spin off as a standalone offering.

Hero image for Spaceship hosting review

(Image credit: Future)

What types of hosting does Spaceship offer? 

Spaceship offers an extensive product range that includes domain name services, web hosting, and associated services like a CDN, VPN, and domain name-based communication services. And because it's stripped out some essential services from hosting, these can also be considered other services, such as email hosting and auto backups.

Spaceship shared hosting

Spaceship shared hosting plan prices

(Image credit: Future)

Spaceship's shared hosting plans start at $1.21/mo and top off at $2.87/mo on two-year cycles. They all begin with a 30-day free trial before any charges are due. The lowest-tier (Essential plan) comes with 20GB NVMe storage, free SSL, SiteJet AI website builder, and security services from Imunify360.

As you move up the plan tiers, storage space increases, and you also get the inclusion of AI tools that can help you write content for your site.

The kicker is that email services are free for only 30 days or one year, depending on the email plan you choose during sign-up. You'll also have to decide if you want auto-backups, which start at $11.76 for 5GB on the two-year plan. Added together, that initially low hosting price doesn't feel so low anymore.

Spaceship Cloud WordPress hosting

Spaceship Cloud WordPress hosting plan prices

(Image credit: Future)

With WordPress sites driving much of the internet today, it's unsurprising that Spaceship also offers cloud-based WordPress hosting. These plans include the same 30-day free trial option as Spaceship's shared hosting plans. Thereafter, prices range from $28.88/year to $48.88/year, depending on which plan you choose.

Likewise, email services on these plans are free for a year, after which you'll have to pay separately for them, outside your hosting fees. At least you get HackGuardian for free, along with MalwareGuardian Autoclean protection on the two higher-tier WordPress plans.

Spaceship VPS hosting and App hosting

Spaceship VPS plan prices

(Image credit: Future)

Spaceship offers a range of Virtual Private Server (VPS) plans called Starlight Virtual Machines. These come in three flavors: standard, CPU-optimized, and memory-optimized. The prices are also similar to Spaceship's cloud plans and are available on a monthly, quarterly, yearly, or pay-as-you-go basis.

For example, the standard VPS offers 1 CPU core, 2GB of RAM, 25GB of NVMe storage, and 1 TB of bandwidth. This is priced at either $4.90/mo, $13.88/3 months, $42.44/yr, or $0.007/hr.

You can also add on block storage of between 50GB and 500GB to these plans, of course, for an additional fee. Block storage plans cost between $30.44/year and $302.44/year, and you can attach up to 3 blocks to each virtual machine.

Spaceship Hyperflift plan prices

(Image credit: Future)

App hosting comes in the form of Starlight Hyperlift plans, which are essentially micro VMs. These allow you to connect to GitHub, then pull and build your code for deployment. It's a convenient and super-cheap way of deploying apps quickly. Hyperlift plans cost between $30.88/year and $453.88/year.

Can I build a web store with Spaceship?

Since Spaceship comes with the SiteJet AI website builder and supports WordPress, you can technically build an online store. That means you either create one from scratch or run WooCommerce.

There are no ecommerce specific features at Spaceship, so you'll have to find all your ecommerce needs elsewhere, such as payment gateways, specialized plugins, and so on. However, most of what you'll need is available with the Softaculous app installer (free at Spaceship).

If you want a dedicated ecommerce or online store, consider a service dedicated to this, such as Shopify or Squarespace. Or if you're planning to build for extreme traffic, a more scalable option like Cloudways or ScalaHosting.

How fast is Namecheap?

To measure Spaceships' performance, we uploaded our standard WordPress test site. This site sports a relatively simple design with online store functionality and a handful of products.

We then run two key tests: One to assess how well the hosting server handles WordPress in general, and the other to see whether it can withstand increasing user traffic over set periods.

WordPress benchmark test (Essential plan)

CPU & Memory

Operations with large text data

9.57

Random binary data operations

7.64

Recursive mathematical calculations

5.82

Iterative mathematical calculations

9.1

Floating point operations

6.05

Filesystem

Filesystem write ability

3.6

Local file copy and access speed

4.86

Small file IO test

8.59

Database

Importing large amount of data to database

4.03

Simple queries on single table

7.44

Complex database queries on multiple tables

5.38

Object Cache

Persistent object cache enabled

0

WordPress core

Shortcode processing

5.79

WordPress Hooks

8.29

WordPress option manipulation

8.94

REGEX string processing

0

Taxonomy benchmark

8.17

Object capability benchmark

7.63

Content filtering

3.38

JSON manipulations

7.1

Network

Network download speed test

8.72

Overall

Your server score

6.4

It's interesting (and yet unsurprising) to see that Spaceship shared hosting servers offer nearly identical performance characteristics to Namecheap servers. In core WordPress performance areas, Spaceship servers held up well under scrutiny, with results slightly above average.

Siege test (Essential plan)

Concurrent users

5

9

15

Transactions

10483

11535

12814

Availability

100

100

100

Elapsed time

299.83

299.8

299.68

Data transactions

53.43

58.8

65.34

Response time

0.14

0.23

0.35

Transaction rate

34.96

38.48

42.76

Throughput

0.18

0.2

0.22

Concurrency

4.95

8.99

14.96

Successful transactions

10484

11539

12815

Failed transactions

0

0

0

Longest transaction

5.08

5.11

5.16

Shortest transaction

0.02

0.02

0.02

The siege load testing tool we use is the more critical of the two since it best reflects how well a site hosted on Spaceship will perform in real-world scenarios. Unsurprisingly, performance here was also similar to Namecheap, with Spaceship successfully processing all transactions even at 15 concurrent users.

Even better, the longest transaction times were consistent, meaning your website users won't have to deal with overly long wait times, even when many users are on your website. While it may sound like something all web hosts should be capable of, this delicate load-balancing act isn't always present among hosting brands.

How easy is Spaceship to use?

Spaceship hosting manager screenshot

The Hosting Manager at Spaceship allows you easy control over your web hosting plan. (Image credit: Future)

Right on its About Us page, Spaceship states that its "primary mission is to redefine speed and simplicity." This is about half right since we've already seen that Spaceship offers above-par performance. However, the usability factor is a separate ballgame altogether here.

After you've signed up for a Spaceship plan, the site attempts to take you through what it calls an "unboxing process," which initially worked well for us. However, after completing the final step, we were unceremoniously booted to the website's main page with no explanation. After that, we were on our own and had to follow the standard experimentation process. Not an altogether smooth transition.

Spaceship user dashboard

User dashboard at Spaceship (Image credit: Future)

The user dashboard at Spaceship is also a little hard to use, especially for those new to web hosting. Sure, it looks cool (subjective), but it doesn't offer much of a different experience from cPanel. You'll still have to plod through the options one by one and figure them out on your own.

The bigger problem is that our default WordPress installation didn't work. This ended up in a chat with support, which took around 30 minutes to resolve. The strange thing was that the issue was caused by a misconfiguration in the .htaccess file, which the system itself created. Not an entirely great experience nor first impression if you're a new Spaceship user.

What is Spaceship's support like?

Spaceship knowledgebase

You can find some how-to guides in Spaceship's knowledge base. (Image credit: Future)

Spaceship offers 24/7 support via a knowledge base, live chat, and email (there's no telephone support).

The web knowledgebase is a modest collection of how-to articles organized into several categories. Sometimes, even the categories don't make much sense. For example, although Spaceship offers the SiteJet AI website builder, there is a knowledge base category that covers the Alf website builder instead. At the same time, Alf is what Spaceship calls its automated support chatbot, so you can understand our confusion.

Aside from the knowledge base, you can also choose to chat with their AI agent (and get transferred to a human) or email them for support. The process of getting in touch with them is smooth. We tried the process, and it took us just a few seconds to connect to a real support agent.

Final verdict

Spaceshop hosting plans start at pretty unbelievable prices, but you'll quickly realize that if you need all the regular features a hosting plan comes with, those low prices will soon balloon. At the same time, stripping them out offers a good deal if you don't want email or backups with your plan.

While their server performance is decent, we're concerned about the failure of their automated WordPress installation system. For new users, this can be a breaking point and lead to a disastrous first impression.

Spaceship web hosting FAQs

Does Spaceship provide free SSL?

Yes, Spaceship does offer free SSL certificates for most of its hosting products. Spaceship also protects custom-redirects with SSL for better data integrity. These features are part of an all-round security suite that helps keep you safer at Spaceship.

How secure is Spaceship?

Aside from SSL, Spaceship comes with many security features that protect everything from their servers to your apps. This includes suspicious login monitoring, passkey logins, virus and malware monitoring, strict firewall rules, and robust encryption on its email services.

Does Spaceship support ecommerce sites?

You can build an ecommerce site on Spaceship using the provided tools, such as the Softaculous app installer. However, Spaceship doesn't offer some features you'll need, such as payment processing. For that, you'll have to source a third-party provider from elsewhere.

Is Spaceship hosting reliable?

Spaceship hosting offers an impressive 99.99% uptime guarantee across all its web hosting plans. The industry standard is around 99.9% for shared hosting and 99.99% for VPS and cloud plans. However, Spaceship does not explicitly state what happens if it fails to deliver on that uptime guarantee, unlike some other providers that specify compensation tiers in the event of a breach of the service level agreement.

I tested this budget, subscription-free fitness tracker and it actually offers Whoop some serious competition – especially in terms of value
3:06 pm |
Author: admin | Category: Computers Fitness Trackers Gadgets Health & Fitness | Comments: Off

Amazfit Helio Strap: One minute review

The Amazfit Helio Strap is a good lower-cost alternative to a Whoop band or even some of the best fitness trackers like Fitbit, as long as you enter with the right expectations. The hardware itself is substantially cheaper, and no subscription is required for day-to-day use of a Helio Strap.

In return, you get all-day health and fitness tracking, with more of a focus on active forms of exercise than some lifestyle wearables. Amazfit doesn’t provide quite as explicit training readiness insights as a Whoop band, but with stats that focus on your training load and overall condition, it doesn’t take a degree in sports science to join the dots for yourself and get most of the benefits.

This is a less upmarket band than some of the competition. Its central part is plastic, with no metal parts, but this is a win for comfort as it further lowers weight.

Amazfit Helio Strap: Specifications

Amazfit Helio Strap

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)

Component

Amazfit Helio Strap

Price

$99.99 / £99.00 / $179.00AU

Dimensions

33.97 x 24.3 x 10.59mm

Weight

20g with band

Case/bezel

Fiber-reinforced polymer

Display

N/A

GPS

N/A

Battery life

Up to 10 days

Connection

Bluetooth

Water resistant

Yes, 5ATM

Amazfit Helio Strap: Price and availability

  • It costs $99.99 / £99.00 / $179.00AU
  • Less than the Polar Loop
  • Much less than the ongoing Whoop subscription

Despite having less tech inside than a more traditional fitness tracking wearable, the pricing of these screenless wearables (other than the Whoop MG) is less aggressive than some other categories. It’s because they’re a lifestyle buy as much as anything

The Amazfit Helio Strap is one of the better-priced options, though. It costs $99.99 / £99.00 / $179.00AU, far less than a Whoop band or the Polar Loop.

There’s no need for an ongoing subscription here either, although one is of course offered. It’s called Aura (not to be confused with Oura). This adds an AI-based wellness advisor and lots of audio-based relaxation content, costing $69.99 (around £52 / AU$100) a year, although during testing we were offered a year’s worth for £19.99. There’s a 14-day free trial too.

  • Value score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Design

Amazfit Helio Strap

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)
  • Screen-free
  • Does not feel premium, no metal
  • Extremely light – set and forget

The Amazfit Helio Strap is a screen-free wearable, and an exceptionally light one. It weighs just 20g, strap included. You can thank the relatively low-frills style of the central unit for this, which is just a puck of plastic. All you see when wearing the Hello Strap is the fabric of the strap itself, which hooks up to the tracker’s block using traditional watch fastenings. Amazfit also offers an arm strap, should you prefer to wear it off the wrist.

I have at times had to check whether the watch was actually still attached, which is just not something that happens with the GPS running watches I tend to wear daily. There is one important caveat to note on the design, though; the Amazfit Helio Strap is not as slimline as you might guess. It sticks out a way from your wrist and its sides don’t fully hug its surface either. In person it’s thicker than the Coros Pace 4 watch I was using at the same time, which is at odds with the vibe most of these screenless wearables try to give out.

That said, Amazfit doesn’t sell the Helio Strap as a casual step and sleep tracker. It apparently has the keener exerciser in mind, as you can see from the Hyrox-themed strap attached here. Hyrox and Amazfit have entered a partnership (Amazfit is now the official timekeeper for the event), but the standard version of the strap is plain two-tone dark grey.

This watch isn’t a friend to those tight-fit long-sleeved base layers that hug the wrist, but actually wearing the Hello Strap has been an entirely discomfort-free experience. Of course, you will still need to make the strap reasonably tight for the most accurate heart rate results so the little sensor mount on the back will leave an imprint in your wrist. It comes with the territory.

Amazfit rates the watch’s water resistance at 5ATM, so you won’t have to take it off too often. The official guidance is the Helio Strap is “suitable for splashes, snow, showering, swimming” but shouldn’t be worn in the sauna or for a “hot shower” as the steam can damage the internal seals.

  • Design score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Features

Amazfit Helio Strap

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)
  • Relatively slight on features
  • Transmit HR data to gym machines and fitness watches
  • Set up to 10 haptic alarms

Wearables like the Amazfit Hello Strap are not out to wow us with their expansive feature lists (after all, they’re designed not to be interacted with) but it does do more than you might guess.

It has a temperature sensor, for example, used to check for variations from the norm overnight. Such a change could be an indicator of illness. You can set up to 10 alarms too, which use the Helio Strap’s vibration motor to alert you. It’s not a massively powerful buzz, though, so you might not want to rely on it to wake you up for work each day.

A little unusual for a screenless wearable, Amazfit also stresses its active fitness tracking skills. You can manually start a specific tracked exercise in the app on your phone, and the Helio Strap can also be set to automatically detect workouts and log them as such. When you start a tracked session in the app, the Helio Strap can transmit live heart rate data to another device. Some more advanced gym machines support this, as do cycling computers and some fitness watches. It uses Bluetooth for this, not ANT+, which was the classic technology of heart rate chest straps.

What else is there to note? The Hello Strap uses a tiny little charge puck that connects to a pair of metal contacts on the back. Easy to lose, but also easy to transport in a pocket.

  • Features score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Performance

Amazfit Helio Strap

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)
  • Battery life as described
  • Solid heart rate accuracy
  • Plenty of metrics provided in-app

Low upkeep is one of the best parts of the Amazfit Hello Strap. Despite weighing next-to-nothing, Amazfit still says it delivers “up to 10 days” of battery life. And that is entirely consistent with our experience. After using it for a week, the Helio Strap had 35% charge left. While two-week battery watches with screens are common enough, they weigh a lot more than the Helio Strap.

A lot of this wearable’s metrics rely on heart rate data. The Hello Strap’s is mostly solid with some small issues that may not dull its appeal too much, especially at this price point. Throughout the day, passive tracking is decent and there are no wild spikes as you walk around your home or office. This can happen when a tracker takes any sign of walking as a suggestion your HR is likely rising fast.

You don’t manually start tracked activities on the watch, but when comparing the results of long runs on the Helio Strap with those of a chest strap, though, the Amazfit Hello Strap occasionally overestimates heart rate by around 10bpm. Not a hugely meaningful difference to most, and certainly good enough for an indication of heart rate zones, but still not quite as accurate as the best Apple Watches. Amazfit does talk about the Helio Strap as a wearable to pair with another fitness watch, to fill in stat gaps throughout the day and night, and during other workouts the results were (relatively) bang-on accurate. But there’s definitely scope for tracking accuracy to improve in a firmware update.

As for tracking steps, the Amazon Helio Strap recorded slightly lower counts over a five day period, apart from one day when they were almost identical just 3000 steps apart. Over the five day period the Helio Strap recorded 94% of the steps of the Garmin Forerunner 970. It’s also worth noting the Garmin was worn on my dominant arm (the Helio Strap was not) so that could have a part to play here.

Sleep tracking performance is solid. A couple of nights during testing I wore the Amazfit Helio Strap alongside three other wearables to see how great the disparities would be: the Garmin Forerunner 970, Polar Loop and Coros Pace 4. All four of these watches failed to pick up on any of the moment you briefly wake up and wonder why the alarm clock reads 4:55am. But those times you actually have to get up to go to the toilet? It picks them up. The Amazfit Helio Strap also did consistently note a change in sleep state and heart rate during those missed moments of wakefulness, though – the next best thing.

It’s also important not to underrate the quality of the Amazfit Helio Strap app. It’s Zepp, shared with other Amazfit wearables. And its layout is kinda great for the purposes of a wearable like this. On the front page you get a handy summary of stats you likely want to see daily, with a traffic light system too show which (if any) are a bit dodgy. These include resting heart rate, sleep duration, Skin temperature, exertion load and more.

This layout returns in a separate Sleep tab, where we get stats like heart rate variability, Deep Sleep duration and skin temperature, again with the traffic light system.

Amazfit also goes big on a concept called BioCharge, which is an estimation of your overall energy level. The one missing next step is what you get with Whoop, where such data – and other bits – are used to more explicitly tell you whether you should work out on a specific day or not. And the paid-for Aura subscription is more about wellness and relaxation that that kind of athlete-focused experience.

  • Performance score: 4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Scorecard

Category

Comment

Score

Value

Cheaper than most and with a no forced subscription? Typical of Amazfit, the Hello Strap is decent value.

4/5

Design

It may not be a luxury wearable but the super-low weight is fantastic for comfort.

4/5

Features

While screen-free wearables are never feature-packed, this one has a few neat extras including heart rate broadcasting.

4/5

Performance

You get good overall stat accuracy with just some missed wakeful moments during sleep tracking.

4/5

Amazfit Helio Strap: Should I buy?

Amazfit Helio Strap

(Image credit: Future / Andrew Williams)

Buy it if...

You want a good-value screen-free wearable

While not Amazfit’s most aggressively-priced tracker, it beats the big-name competition and then some.

You value comfort highly

At just 20g, you can often forget the Amazfit Helio Strap is even on your wrist.

You want quick daily dose health stats

The Amazfit app does a good job of highlighting unusual health stats, with a colour highlight system.

Don't buy it if...

You want a wearable for run tracking

This band doesn’t have GPS (or a screen, obviously) so is not ideal for more hardcore run training.

If luxury style is a priority

A fabric strap and plastic housing are great for low weight, but there are no luxe touches here.

You want a direct Whoop replacer

The stats the Amazfit Helio Band are much more classic lifestyle fitness tracker fodder instead of Whoop’s hyper-detailed recovery focus.

Also consider

Whoop MG

The most premium version of the original screenless wellness wearable.

Read our full Whoop MG review

Polar Loop

A little more money, but a more premium stainless steel design.

Read our full Polar Loop reviewView Deal

First reviewed: January 2026

I tested the GTBox T1 – and while the designers did something different with this mini PC, I’m debating whether it was a good idea
10:15 am |
Author: admin | Category: Computers Computing Gadgets | Tags: | Comments: Off

GTBox T1: 30-second review

Since Intel stopped its NUC platform, and by its definition guidance, we’ve seen a significant number of mini PC designs that have stepped outside the norms of shape and size in mini systems.

GTBox makes a mix of conventional designs and more out-there options, and the T1 is distinctively different. This NUC-sized motherboard is vertically mounted in a cylindrical speaker case measuring 115mm in diameter and 165mm high.

Because of that ergonomic choice, there is no front or back, only a single I/O section where all the ports and the power button are located. That’s a bit of a crunch, and due to this, there is only one USB4 and LAN port, but there are HDMI and DisplayPort video outs.

Inside the cylindrical speaker case is a punchy AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS processor, Zen 4 architecture from the 2023 Hawk Point series. In this context, it's combined with 32GB of DDR5 memory and a 1TB Gen 4 NVMe SSD.

This makes the T1 a powerful small system eclipsed only by Ryzen AI platforms, and the pre-release pricing is extremely competitive.

However, the downside to this design is that there is no access to the memory or storage, and you are specifically told that opening up the T1 to do this is ‘irreversible’.

If you are happy with those limitations, then the T1 might be a good choice, but the lack of flexibility precludes it from being one of the best mini PCs I've tested. Maybe with the T2, or whatever, GTBox can work out a way to put the mainboard on sliding rails to make memory and storage upgrades (or replacements) possible.

GTBox T1: Price and availability

  • How much does it cost? From $700
  • When is it out? Available now
  • Where can you get it? Direct from GTBox

At the time of review, there is only a single SKU of the GTBox T1 available from the official GTBox site.

That model comes with 32GB of DDR5 and 1TB of storage. The cost is $699.99 for US customers with shipping included. GTBox doesn’t quote specific prices in other currencies, but they will ship to the UK, EU and Switzerland.

One oddity I noticed is that before you add this system to the cart, it tells you that “Free standard shipping on orders over $99” and “Free shipping and tax included in Europe and the United States.”

When you add it, it says that if you spend another $100, you can get free shipping.

I hope that’s a mistake. In both the UK and the EU, there are rules about real price discounts, where you can’t say you’ve made a reduction if you never sold it at the pre-discount price. GTBox has this machine reduced from $799.99 to $699.99, and I suspect it had that from the start.

Looking at competitor systems using the same platform, the candidates include the Bosgame M4 and the Acemagic W1.

The Boxgame M4 has had some hardware changes since I reviewed it, but you can still find the original M4, which uses the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS and costs $559 for the 32GB+1TB SKU, via Amazon.com.

And, the Acemagic W1 is $549, but there is no stock of the memory and storage options. However, Acemagic will sell you the barebones model for only $280.

All of these systems, when in stock, are cheaper than the GTBox T1, and all of them also have the ability to be internally upgraded with extra RAM and storage.

On that basis, the T1 doesn’t look like an especially hot deal.

  • Value: 3 / 5

GTBox T1 mini PC

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

GTBox T1: Specs

Item

Spec

CPU:

AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS ( 8C/16T, 3.8GHz up to 4.9GHz)

GPU:

AMD Radeon 780M, 12 cores, up to 2.6 GHz

NPU:

AMD Ryzen AI 16 TOPS (38 TOPS total)

RAM:

32GB DDR5-4800 (16GB x 2) not expandable

Storage:

1TB M.2 2280 PCIe Gen 4

Expansion:

N/A

Ports:

1x USB4, 3x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A, 1x USB 2.0, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x 3.5mm Audio

Networking:

1x 2,5GbE Realtek RTL8125, WiFi 6E, Bluetooth 5.2

OS:

Windows 11 Pro (pre-installed)

Base Power:

35W-54W

PSU:

19V 6.32A 120W

Dimensions:

115 x 115 x 165 mm

GTBox T1: Design

  • Speakerific
  • Limited ports
  • Zero internal access

There is something about the mesh covering that speakers use that is lovely to touch, with a distinctly fabric feel. As this system is a computer-in-a-speaker, with a slate blue colour scheme, it looks great perched on the edge of a desk.

That’s where this system was designed to sit, since it doesn’t have any VESA mounting options, and you wouldn’t be able to hear the sounds it generates if it were out of sight.

On top is a circular depression with an LED light that can be set to pulse through various RGB colours via the BIOS. That there isn’t a software component to set this is disappointing, as repeatedly going into the BIOS to make changes seems excessively complicated.

But where this system entirely leaves behind the current world of mini PCs is that it only has one place where ports are accessible, and there is no access whatsoever to the internal system.

All the ports are on a single I/O shield, and that includes five USB ports, one USB4, three USB 3.2 Gen 2 and one USB 2.0. There are both HDMI and DisplayPort, and if you use the USB4 port for video, it allows triple displays to be operated from this one computer.

There is also a 3.5mm audio jack, a single 2.5GbE LAN port, the power inlet and a power button. But there is no security slot to stop anyone from walking off with the T1.

With things so tight in this area, maybe the top might have been utilised for a second USB4 port, but that wasn’t something the designers embraced.

GTBox T1 mini PC

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

Having more ports is always better, but what really confronts the reality of this system is the lack of internal access. With no approved way in, should you want more memory (if it's even socketed) or to replace the storage, there are no options. That limitation is problematic for a business customer as it reduces the flexibility of this design considerably.

What you do get is a system with an inherently fairly loud speaker, but you can’t really use this for conferencing, since there is no corresponding microphone.

  • Design: 2.5 / 5

GTBox T1 mini PC

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

GTBox T1: Hardware

  • AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS
  • One USB4 port
  • Unused PCIe lanes

Many mini PC builders are turning to AMD, largely due to the affordability of its components and the generous number of PCIe lanes, which allow for an array of high-speed ports. The Ryzen 7 8745HS is a Hawk Point processor that, to my knowledge, was originally released in June of 2023.

This chip boasts eight cores with hyperthreading, enabling it to handle sixteen concurrent threads. It offers a slightly improved power profile over the Ryzen 7 8745H, resulting in modestly higher clock speeds.

While there are several advantages to this processor, but also one notable drawback. That caveat is the age of the 780M GPU, which has now been superseded by the 890M and also the new 8060S integrated GPUs. It’s not Intel UHD Graphics bad, but there are faster options that aren’t discrete video cards.

On the upside, it utilises Zen4 architecture, matching the performance of the previous generation's 7745HX. Additionally, it supports DDR4, DDR5, and the latest LPDDR5x memory standards. Its most significant advantage for mini PC applications lies in the twenty PCIe 4.0 lanes provided by AMD, which facilitate multiple ports and significant expansion capabilities.

The capacity of these lanes has enabled the implementation of USB 4 and Oculink on some systems, but here there is only one USB4 port and no Oculink. However, the M.2 SSD slot does at least get PCIe 4.0 lanes, even if you can’t get inside to use an SSD of this spec in that slot.

GTBox T1 mini PC

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

With only one USB4 port, no Oculink and a single M.2 Gen 4 slot, this machine has PCIe lanes that sit entirely idle and contribute nothing to the overall experience.

Therefore, this system is something of a contradiction, as it has a decent processor and DDR5 memory technology with dual modules, providing ample bandwidth and enhancing GPU performance.

But, there are also at least eight PCIe lanes doing nothing, no way to exploit the PCIe 4.0 M.2 slot, and no expansion path other than using a single USB4 external drive or the LAN.

  • Features: 3.5 / 5

GTBox T1: Performance

Mini PC

GTBox T1

Bosgame M4

CPU

AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS

AMD Ryzen 7 8745HS

Cores/Threads

8C 16T

8C 16T

RAM

32GB DDR5 (2x16GB)

32GB DDR5 (2x16GB)

Storage

1TB GTP3000-1TB

1TB NVMe Kingston OM8PGP41024N

Graphics

Radeon 780M

Radeon 780M

3DMark

WildLife

19813

17746

FireStrike

7726

7448

TimeSpy

3194

3126

Steel Nom Lt.

2765

2559

CineBench24

Single

103

104

Multi

903

909

Ratio

8.8

8.71

GeekBench 6

Single

2587

2609

Multi

12380

12840

OpenCL

30593

26664

Vulkan

25443

31667

CrystalDisk

Read MB/s

3431

4087

Write MB/s

2258

3142

PCMark 10

Office

7458

6992

WEI

8.2

8.2

As a counterpoint to the T1, I chose the excellent Bosgame M4. But if you go to the Bosgame website now and select the M4, it shows as discontinued for the M4 Neo and the M4 Plus. However, it is still possible to get the original M4 from other outlets.

The reason I went with the M4 was that it uses the same CPU, GPU, and memory as the T1, giving some indication of whether the T1 is a good version of this platform.

And, looking at the first part of this benchmark collection, all the signs are good, as it edges the M4 in the GPU tests and matches it in most of the processing metrics.

But where it all goes slightly awry is when we get to the CrystalDisk benchmark and discover that the best performance the GTP3000-1TB can achieve is below the 4,000Mb/s threshold that PCIe 3.0 M.2 NVMe drives can almost reach.

This is a guess, since I can’t identify the maker and spec of the GTP3000-1TB, but given the number, I’m inclined to believe that this is a Gen 3 drive, which, as this system has a Gen 4 slot, is a depressing conclusion. If it is a Gen 4 drive, then it's one of the slowest I’ve ever seen. What makes this even worse is that because you can’t get inside the T1, this drive can’t be replaced with something quicker or larger.

The phrase grasping defeat from the jaws of victory seems suitable for the T1, since it had all the pieces it needed to be a winner, and then blew it with an apparent cost-cutting exercise.

Overall, aside from the storage, this machine performs well and is perfect for a power user, or rather one who doesn’t need more than 32GB of RAM or 1TB of quick storage.

  • Performance: 4 / 5

GTBox T1: Final verdict

GTBox T1 mini PC

(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)

There are two elephants in the GTBox T1 room, and the first of those is a design where you explicitly can’t get inside the system to do any form of upgrades. There are plenty of appliances where that sort of limitation is considered normal, but the PC isn’t one of them.

And, given the upgrade paths that other mini PCs provide, that’s a significant problem.

I’d had less of an issue with this if GTBox had at least made some sort of effort to make the M.2 slot accessible, but the owner is told not to open the T1 under any circumstances.

The other elephantine problem is the asking price, which seems about $150 more than it should be with this specification. It may be that, with this unique speaker styling, GTBox assumed a price premium was in order, but nothing about this design justifies it.

With memory and storage going up in price, the cost of the T1 might suddenly become something of a bargain, but based on other machines using the same platform, it's way too high, and there are Ryzen AI systems that aren’t much more than this cost.

But, if we put our purchasing blinkers on and ignore the lack of flexibility and the price, this is a decent mini PC with a great hardware platform (ignoring the SSD) that delivers a good user experience.

However, business IT buyers don’t tend to wear those blinkers much these days, and they’d reject this due to the cost and the lack of internal access.

Should I buy a GTBox T1?

Value

Expensive for the spec

3/5

Design

Zero internal access and limited ports

2.5/5

Features

Powerful CPU and USB4, but unused PCIe lanes

3.5/5

Performance

Decent performance on CPU and GPU

4/5

Overalls

Interesting take, but it lacks flexibility

3.5/5

Buy it if...

If you want a power-user NUC

The T1 has an excellent Zen4 system at its heart, which is perfect for those who want more power, and the DDR5 memory used in it makes the most of that CPU and GPU combination. However, the lack of any memory or storage upgrades needs to be considered for its role.View Deal

You hate upgrades
Not everyone sees buying hardware as the start of a path to enhancement. If you have no intention of ever putting more memory or storage into your systems, then the T1 might be perfect for you. Though this also means that should anything go wrong with the SSD, then this system is junk.View Deal

Don't buy it if...

If you need a flexible mini PC
The lack of internal access and the inclusion of only one USB4 port make this mini PC highly inflexible, since you can’t upgrade either memory or storage, and what you can connect externally is limited by only having one high-performance port.View Deal

You want ultimate performance
This is a value-led mini PC, so it's not going to be as powerful as machines loaded with the fastest processors - for top performance, check out mini PCs using the AMD Ryzen AI platforms like the Ryzen AI Max+ 395, with 16 cores and 32 threads.View Deal

Also consider

Bosgame M4
Built around the same platform as the T1, the Bosgame M4 is a more traditional NUC design.
While it doesn’t have a metal case, the M4 ticks every other box for a successful NUC design. The asking price is low, the performance is good, and it’s a highly flexible system that can perform many tasks. Little to dislike here.

Check out my Bosgame M4 review View Deal

Mercy review: Chris Pratt’s new AI sci-fi thriller is so haphazard, you’ll wonder if ChatGPT could do a better job of writing it
8:00 pm | January 21, 2026
Author: admin | Category: Computers Entertainment Gadgets Streaming | Tags: | Comments: Off

I need everyone in the movie industry to listen up and repeat the following pact: "I solemnly swear to never make a film told through the lens of social media ever again. Never will I sit my main character in front of a screen, digesting the rest of the storyline through open internet tabs, Instagram feeds and MacBook files. I will only include digital elements if it effectively serves the plot."

Agreed? Great, because Chris Pratt's new AI sci-fi thriller Mercy is the latest victim of this heinous crime. With a 101 minute runtime, Pratt spends 90 of those sitting in the same chair, wrongly accused of a murder he didn't commit. Instead of being given a defense lawyer like a normal society would, he has to face off against an AI-generated judge in a 'mercy' courtroom (who conveniently looks exactly like Rebecca Ferguson).

If he can't prove his innocence past a certain percentage, he'll be fried on the spot. Override the algorithm sufficiently, and he'll walk free. Cue an entire movie of sifting through ring cam footage, facetiming witnesses and finding crucial evidence on his daughter's private Finsta account.

After about 15 minutes of this, the gimmick wears off pretty quickly. Pratt himself is clearly loving it (possibly due to the ease of his character also being called Chris) but unsurprisingly, this doesn't translate offscreen. Mercy is mundane in its own unique way, but there are few surprises – it'll hit you over the head with its ambivalent AI messaging.

Mercy refuses to call AI a hero or a villain, and that's a missed opportunity

"Maybe humans and AI both make mistakes" is a line of dialogue in Mercy that I've only slightly paraphrased, and it sums up the movie's moral vagueness in one nifty sentence. Sure, we've just spent an hour and 40 minutes watching an AI-generated court judge nearly kill Chris over a wrongful conviction, but we all make mistakes, right?

This was Amazon MGM Studios' chance to lay down the AI line by deciding what side of the industry argument they're on. Instead, they've chosen to sit on the fence, and that transforms any vim and vigor Mercy did have into pure monotony. If we're not using storytelling to send home a powerful message, especially about something so ever-changing, then what's the point?

Of course, the point is to make a bit of money at the box office by seeming to touch on a topical subject. It's the same way that a social media influencer might look like they're supporting a social campaign, but are actually doing the surface-level bare minimum to help it. Mercy could have been an industry-changing heavyweight piece of art, but no – let's play around with some CGI graphics instead.

For a big-budget studio, these graphics feel incredibly cheap. This is where the most obvious connection to Prime Video's take on War of the Worlds, starring Ice Cube, comes into play. Both have the same function and aesthetic look – almost as if Amazon is ashamed that is uninspired slop is all it's got to offer.

@techradar

♬ original sound - TechRadar

Rebecca Ferguson is our one and only savior

Rebecca Ferguson as an AI judge

Rebecca Ferguson is our AI judge. (Image credit: Amazon MGM Studios)

Almost no movie (perhaps with the exception of 2023 thriller Missing) can use tech, screens and social media as its sole method of storytelling to its advantage – the concept is as lame as lame comes. But our AI-fashioned Rebecca Ferguson is the jewel in our crown of criminal offenses.

Even as a non-human entity, Ferguson shines. She's far from a voice of reason, but seeing the cracks in her generated facade is easily the most satisfying payoff in this otherwise faltering farce. She's also the only source of continuity when Mercy decides to finally let Chris out of his chair for an unhinged 15-minute duration, abandoning all of its narrative mechanics without warning.

You get where I'm coming from here. ChatGPT could probably have written a much stronger script and overarching plot, while watching any other takes on AI or the digital world would be a more shrewd use of your time. Our best case scenario is hoping Mercy is popular enough to finance more Guardians of the Galaxy or Star-Lord content, and then never speak of it again.

Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.

« Previous Page — Next Page »