Battery: 2× 716 Wh LFP (total 1,433 Wh), ≥3,500 cycles Output: 1,800 W continuous; 2,700 W surge; four AC outlets + USB-A/C + car port Inputs: 1,440 W AC, ~500 W solar; UPS switching <20 ms; app + LCD control Weight/Size: 26.5 kg, 390×280×395 mm
When I have the chance to go on any adventure, I will occasionally take portable power with me. Having something like the swap power system, where I can move around my charged power banks to whatever inverter I want, is handy, especially when you pair that with the SwapSolar Multi-Cooler.
This system allows me to have my Multi-Cooler anywhere in the world that I want, running on batteries, and when one gets low, I can pop it out, hot swap it with another battery that is charging in my AC180T, for example, and keep the cool times cooling. Plus, on the days or trips that I don't need to bring an entire Cooler with me, I can use just the AC180T on its own, just as I would any standard portable power station.
Bluetti's AC180T is one of many devices in the SwapSolar ecosystem, and I hope Bluetti continues expanding the devices in that family, too. I didn't realize how helpful this was until I visited my family cabin. I am in the process of installing the Bluetti AC500 system as a whole cabin backup, but until then, having portable solutions like the SwapSolar Multi-Cooler is vital.
The Cabin is on an old lakefront grid, so during storms, the power goes out regularly. Knowing I can put my meats, dairy, and some beverages I want to keep cold in the SwapSolar Multi-Cooler, and keep that inside, in a tent, in the truck, or wherever I want while at the same time being able to put the AC180T wherever needed to best pull some solar power makes for such an easy experience. Mainly because I don't even have to move the full AC180T when the batteries are charged, I have to pull out one of the hot-swappable batteries.
(Image credit: Collin Probst // TechRadar Pro)
Bluetti AC180T: In use
I've gotten to the point where power stations are all the same to me. Yes, there are, of course, specifics that make each unique, but each portable power station is the same idea. It's heavy enough that you don't want to move it, but not heavy enough that you can't.
This makes it portable, and it has a range of port options and capacities. That's the portable power station market. Now, however, there is a new possibility that has joined the scene. The hot-swappable batteries make for an entirely new possibility when it comes to mentioning specs, features, and even use cases.
(Image credit: Collin Probst // TechRadar Pro)
I use the AC180T entirely differently than I use any of the best portable power stations I've tested. Most power stations I can plug in and charge, then bring to where I need it, plug things in there, and go from there.
With AC180T, I can set up a charging station. This allows me to efficiently run my cooler or any other Bluetti products within the SwapSolar ecosystem. I can take out a fully charged battery from my AC180T and place it into a different inverter (like my cooler) when I need it. Or, I can use my AC180T as a UPS, a power strip, a battery backup, or anything else.
Speaking of the cooler, it has plenty of space, which is excellent. In addition, if you add some filtered water, you can make ice on the go. So with this setup, you'll not only have portable power, but you can also keep your food cold and enjoy ice-cold drinks—literally!
The AC180T stands out on its own. It can recharge in about an hour and has enough output to power even larger devices. The accompanying app provides all the relevant stats and information.
On the front of the AC180T, you'll find four AC ports, two USB-A ports, two USB-C ports, and a 120W car port. There's also a port for the Explore Charger 1, which allows for faster car charging, as well as options for a standard car charger, solar panels, or lead-acid battery charging. The right side features a standard AC port for more traditional recharging of the unit.
Overall, this power station has been fantastic. It's impressive on its own, but when paired with the cooler, it unlocks amazing capabilities.
If you're a nomadic traveler, a camper, or just someone looking to ensure you have a backup to keep food and drinks cool, this power station is an excellent choice.
Bluetti AC180T: Final verdict
The Bluetti AC180T is one of the most unique power stations I have tried. It can hot swap batteries with a portable fridge with a working ice maker, it has great ports, fast recharging, and it will hopefully work with other devices in the future as well.
For RV caravaners, van campers, off-grid users, and anything in between, this is a serious power station to consider. It's a sweet spot. It's not the largest, but it's got enough power to give a good amount of power to those who need it, plus it has the added benefit of being able to hot swap with the portable fridge.
The Goal Zero powerstation lineup is impressive, especially since their merger with BioLite. According to Goal Zero, the Yeti Pro 4000 is their most remarkable power station yet. It boasts a high output, high capacity, high weight, and a high price to match.
There are several different setups that this power station can support. First, there are Haven Setups that provide additional capacity and a home connection point, allowing a home to function as a battery backup. Second, there is an option to integrate solar power, enabling recharging from the sun. Lastly, there is an escape system that can either convert a towable RV into a system powered by the Goal Zero Yeti Pro 4000 or a drivable kit that transforms an adventure vehicle into a system backed by the Yeti Pro 4000.
No matter what the use case is, if you need a large amount of reliable power, high output, and you're willing to pay for quality gear, this system could be the right fit for you. Goal Zero's goal with the Yeti Pro 4000 was to replace noisy and messy traditional gas generators - and they've done it.
I will note here that I have seen some notes about reliability issues that some have had with this unit, though I have not experienced that myself. So far, I haven't had any problems.
(Image credit: Collin Probst // TechRadar Pro)
Goal Zero Yeti Pro 4000: Pricing & Availability
The Goal Zero Yeti Pro 4000 is available on Goal Zero's website for just under $4000. There are other retailers selling, including Amazon.com.
You can pick up an expansion battery to extend the capacity for another $2000, and there are other accessories to outfit this even further.
Worth noting that I'm seeing limited availability outside the US right now.
(Image credit: Collin Probst // TechRadar Pro)
Goal Zero Yeti Pro 4000: Design & build quality
Specs
Battery: ~3,994 Wh (LiFePO₄), 4,000+ cycles Power: 3,600 W continuous; 7,200 W surge Recharge: 1,800 W AC inlet; up to 3,000 W solar
The Goal Zero Yeti Pro 4000 is not a compact device. It's pretty cumbersome, so it has a wheeled base that comes with the standard purchase to facilitate more effortless movement.
However, what it misses in ease of mobility, it makes up for in pure power. The output is phenomenal for this size, and the choice in port layout makes sense. All of the inputs are on the back of the unit, plus the inverter you would use if you are plugging into the Haven system, for example.
All of the output ports are on the front, making it super simple if you want to set this unit up and leave it somewhere for an extended period. You can set it and forget it, and still you're able to plug in everything you may need to without moving the unit around, unless you are changing primary inputs, which is less familiar to change around than outputs.
(Image credit: Collin Probst // TechRadar Pro)
Goal Zero Yeti Pro 4000: In use
The Yeti Pro 4000 by Goal Zero is designed to carry a heavy load, all without any issue. It's intended to be a home backup, a primary power system on the road, or even a primary system for an off-grid building.
It's rated to run a residential fridge for 1-2 days, while also running a Wi-Fi Setup, basic lighting, and other essentials. If you connect to solar, depending on the sun, you can keep things running for longer. You recharge with the sun and then run off the battery when the sun is not out, and recharge via the solar panels.
For home use, this is an easy option. Set it, forget it, keep it tucked away, hooked up to your house with a Haven backup system. If your home requires more power, you can add more tanks, which adds capacity to run off-grid for longer.
For those who are looking for an RV/Van Life/Off-Grid Camper solution, you can have this unit in the corner of your setup, or tucked away and have it plugged in with the Escape system to have an integrated screen and complete system, meaning you'll never even have to touch this unit, or if you don't want to do that, you can plug anything and everything you need into the front of this unit, have any solar input plugged into the back, and then you can run things that way.
If you do choose to add the Escape System, you can then add an integrated screen wherever you want in the vehicle or trailer to control all aspects of the Yeti Pro 4000 while the unit itself is tucked away. Add this to a system where you have outlets placed where you want them throughout your off-grid home on wheels, and it will feel like you're in a standard home when it comes to power convenience.
Some people don't need a semi-permanent setup, and they want something that can be brought out for job sites, one-off jobs, or similar projects. The Yeti Pro 4000 can be great for this, too, as long as you have a good way to transport it there. But, if you work at a job site and you want to be able to swap out the traditional generator for a portable power station to recharge tools, run a table saw, or similar tasks, this is a great solution.
Goal Zero Yeti Pro 4000: Final verdict
No matter your potential solution, this power station is a serious one worth considering. It could power you for days on the road if used reasonably, and it could back up essentials in your home in the case of a power outage. The Yeti Pro 4000 has a great set of offerings for expansion, and it is built to last. If you're looking for a high-powered, high-capacity, and highly reliable power station, the Yeti Pro 4000 is one worth considering - keep in mind that it's not easy to move.
Plugable has been in the computer accessory game for quite some time. I used to think of them as another option, then as a great option, and now, with their Thunderbolt 5 offerings, they might become one of the better options.
This unit boasts quite a few features I have yet to see as neatly packaged with even some of the best docking stations. Thunderbolt 5 support offers up faster file transfers than TB3 and TB4, and means there's also up to dual 8K outputs, depending on your laptop's capabilities. And it even allows 140W charging to your host laptop, and then direct more power output to accessories.
The dock itself feels sturdy and rugged, reminding me of the ever-popular CalDigit docks. Further, the port offering is fantastic, granting users 11 ports that they can utilize from their machine, including Thunderbolt Share integrated into the dock, which is something I have not seen as a mainstream offering yet.
The Plugable's Thunderbolt 5 Dock is currently on sale for $300.
It's available from the official website by clicking here and you can grab it from other online retailers like Amazon.com.
However, I am seeing less availability outside the US.
Plugable's Thunderbolt 5 Dock: Unboxing & first impressions
The Plugable 11-in-1 Thunderbolt 5 Docking Station arrived in a very clean and simple box, just as I would expect from Plugable. Nothing fancy, just basic packaging. Within the box are the dock itself, a Thunderbolt 5 cable, the power brick, a stand, and some basic documentation.
The dock feels very good in the hand, and the aluminum chassis feels durable and rugged, while at the same time, the added touches like the rubber feet show that Plugable is thinking ahead and doesn't want their dock to scuff up your desk or workspace. Depending on your setup, this dock may fit under a desk shelf, or you could mount it with adhesive, a 3D printed mount, or another mounting method to the underside of your desk.
Alternatively, you can use the base that the dock comes with to stand the dock up vertically if you so choose. At my setup for testing, I decided to slide it under my desk shelf as it fits perfectly.
Once I got the power supply plugged in, I connected my monitor, an ethernet line, and the Thunderbolt 5 cable to my laptop, and then I got to work.
Ports: 2× TB5/USB4, 2× HDMI 2.1, 1× DP 2.1, 3× USB-A (10Gbps), 1× USB-C (10Gbps), 1× 2.5GbE, 1× UHS-II SD, 1× 3.5mm audio Power: 240W total (140W host, 100W peripherals) Display: Dual 8K60 or triple 4K144 (Mac limited to dual 6K) Bandwidth: 120Gbps TB5 (split lanes for display + data) Compatibility: Windows, macOS, Linux (TB5 or TB4 laptops)
As I mentioned, the aluminum is a nice touch. It makes this dock feel premium without adding a ton of unnecessary weight or flair. The aluminum also helps with heat, as this dock can get warm when pumping out up to 240W of power. One of the things I always pay attention to with laptop docks is the port layout and how easy it is to use it in a day-to-day scenario.
From what I can tell, even after just setting this up, the dock has a great port layout. I don't feel like, after setup, I'll need to go digging behind the dock to plug things in repeatedly, and if I do, it will be understandable. Plugable has put the more permanent, or set-it-and-forget-it ports on the back, so if you tuck this under a desk shelf, or if you mount this under your desk, you won't feel like you are constantly having to reach around or re-adjust.
Another thing I noticed off the bat was the size of the power brick. Granted, I see a lot of Thunderbolt 4 bricks, but this one still surprised me. It's got to be larger due to the demand for this power output and the draw of Thunderbolt 5, but still, it's pretty extensive.
(Image credit: Collin Probst // Future )
Plugable's Thunderbolt 5 Dock: In use
This dock has been fantastic. I've been able to try it out with both macOS and Windows OS, I even tried it with a Chromebook that I have too. All around, it works great. The charging is fast, the monitors were stable, and didn't feel like they had any issues.
Plugable has made it so that both macOS and Windows can push to the computer's maximum video output, capping Mac-based systems on the chip's abilities, and the same with Windows.
The power delivery was impressive, too. My primary machine is a 14-inch M4 Pro MacBook Pro that draws a good amount of power, but my secondary machine, the Dell Precision 5690, draws even more power.
So far, the Plugable Thunderbolt 5 dock has handled both without a problem. I can even charge at full speed while running multiple displays, powering an SSD, and transferring terabytes of information over a network link to my Synology DiskStation. That's impressive.
(Image credit: Collin Probst // Future )
The ports are plentiful, but the best port is the second Thunderbolt 5 port. On a Thunderbolt 5 dock, with a Thunderbolt 5 laptop, I would want to be able to also connect to other devices at Thunderbolt 5 speeds. Part of the reason this port is so incredible is not just the TB5 specs, but the fact that this is how Plugable allows Thunderbolt Sharing through this dock.
Now, I can connect two Windows Laptops and take advantage of Thunderbolt Sharing, transferring files at lightning TB5 speeds, controlling one laptop with the other, and so on.
All around, this dock is incredibly powerful, and I have found the only fundamental limitations to be computer-based, and not docking station-based, which says a lot about the quality and abilities of this docking station.
Plugable's Thunderbolt 5 Dock: Final verdict
The Plugable Thunderbolt 5, 11-in-1 dock is not only a powerful docking station, but it brings the power of Thunderbolt 5 to your laptop, providing high-quality display, fantastic power delivery, and a plethora of perfectly placed ports.
Thanks to the design of both the dock and the power brick, it's not the most portable device. Couple that with its thoughtful port placement (where lesser users ports are tucked around the rear), it's probably best left in a single-space set-up.
If you are looking for a docking station for your Thunderbolt 5 machine, this one is worth considering. But if you are looking for a dock that will work great for your Thunderbolt 4 or earlier machine, you'll get more bang for your buck with other docks.
Intermapper stands out in ourbest network monitoring tools roundup as a veteran solution that's been serving IT teams for years. This network monitoring platform from Fortra focuses on visual network mapping and real-time status monitoring across Windows, Mac, and Linux environments.
TechRadar reviewers spend several weeks researching each major IT platform in the market, testing features and comparing pricing models. We found Intermapper offers solid fundamentals but struggles to compete with advanced solutions like LogicMonitor, our pick for the best network monitoring tool of 2025.
Still, Intermapper's device-based pricing model makes it accessible for growing businesses. While it lacks the bells and whistles of modern competitors, Intermapper's straightforward approach appeals to teams seeking a reliable and no-nonsense monitoring solution.
Intermapper: Features
Intermapper offers a comprehensive but somewhat dated feature set that works well for small to mid-sized networks. The platform excels at automatic network discovery and visual mapping, providing color-coded status indicators that make problem identification straightforward.
While these core features are well-executed and reliable, we noticed gaps in advanced analytics, AI-powered insights, and cloud-native integrations that competitors like Dynatrace and LogicMonitor provide. The pricing feels reasonable for basic monitoring needs, but organizations requiring sophisticated analytics might find better value elsewhere.
Automatic network mapping
Intermapper's standout feature automatically discovers and maps your network infrastructure within minutes. You'll see every IP-enabled device displayed with customizable icons and color-coded statuses that update in real-time. The platform supports hierarchical maps and sub-maps, letting you drill down into specific network segments like building floors or server closets.
Proactive monitoring and alerting
The platform monitors devices 24/7 using SNMP and other protocols, sending alerts via email, SMS, or sound when thresholds are exceeded. Smart alerting capabilities let you customize schedules, assign alerts to specific teams, and set up escalation procedures. Interface-level monitoring allows granular control over what gets monitored and alerted on.
Performance analysis and reporting
Intermapper tracks network performance metrics and generates reports for capacity planning. The platform now supports 64-bit data storage, improving scalability for high-speed network monitoring. Chart data retention policies help manage storage while preserving historical performance data.
PowerShell integration
Recent updates added PowerShell probe and notifier support, enabling automated responses to network events. This feature lets you restart services, run scripts, or perform other remediation tasks automatically when alerts trigger. The integration works particularly well with Windows applications like SQL Server and SharePoint.
(Image credit: Intermapper)
Intermapper: Ease of use
Intermapper's interface feels functional but dated compared to modern network monitoring tools. New users face a learning curve during initial setup and configuration, though the visual nature of network maps makes ongoing monitoring intuitive. But the platform lacks accessibility features found in newer solutions. And some users report that recovering from power outages can be challenging without reliable UPS systems.
The software runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux platforms with consistent functionality across operating systems. Once configured, daily monitoring becomes straightforward thanks to color-coded visual indicators and centralized dashboards. However, we noticed that customizing advanced features requires more technical expertise than user-friendly competitors demand.
Intermapper: Pricing
Plan
Starting price (paid annually)
What's included
Intermapper (25 devices)
$1,650/year ($137.50/month)
Network mapping, monitoring, alerting, web reporting, 24/7 support
Intermapper + Flows (25 devices)
$1,930/year ($160.83/month)
Base features plus network traffic analysis
Intermapper + Flows + Analytics (25 devices)
$2,230/year ($185.83/month)
Full suite with automated analytics and advanced reporting
Intermapper's device-based pricing model offers predictable costs that scale with your network size. This approach contrasts favorably with per-element pricing used by some competitors, making budget planning straightforward. However, the entry price of $1,650 annually for 25 devices positions Intermapper in the mid-range market, not as the budget option some reviews suggest. Volume discounts are available for larger deployments, though enterprise-grade features remain limited compared to premium alternatives.
Intermapper: Customer support
Fortra provides 24/7 human support to all Intermapper customers, which sets it apart from vendors offering tiered support models. You can reach the support team via phone, live chat, or email through the Fortra Community Portal. The company also provides technical bulletins, updates, and program fixes to keep your installation current.
Support quality appears solid based on user feedback, though some customers note that complex configuration issues may require escalation to higher-tier technicians. Documentation is comprehensive, covering installation, configuration, and troubleshooting scenarios. The company maintains active release cycles with regular updates and bug fixes, demonstrating ongoing commitment to the product.
Intermapper: Alternatives
Intermapper occupies a middle ground in the network monitoring market, serving organizations that need more than basic monitoring but don't require enterprise-grade analytics. It competes primarily with tools like PRTG Network Monitor and ManageEngine OpManager in the small-to-medium business segment. For larger enterprises, solutions like SolarWinds Network Performance Monitor, Dynatrace, and LogicMonitor offer more advanced features and scalability.
The platform works best for IT teams managing 100-1000 devices who prioritize visual network mapping and straightforward alerting. Organizations requiring advanced analytics, AI-powered insights, or extensive cloud integrations should consider more modern alternatives. Intermapper's strength lies in its reliability and simplicity rather than cutting-edge features, making it suitable for teams that value stability over innovation.
Intermapper: Final verdict
Intermapper remains a solid choice for organizations seeking reliable network monitoring without complexity. Its visual mapping capabilities and device-based pricing model offer clear value for small to mid-sized networks. The platform delivers on its core promises of network discovery, monitoring, and alerting with minimal fuss.
However, Intermapper shows its age when compared to modern competitors offering AI-powered analytics, cloud-native architectures, and advanced automation features. While it serves its target market adequately, organizations planning significant growth or requiring sophisticated monitoring capabilities should consider more scalable alternatives like LogicMonitor or Dynatrace.
Intermapper: FAQs
What's the minimum number of devices I can monitor with Intermapper?
Intermapper's entry-level license covers 25 devices for $1,650 annually. There's no smaller licensing tier available, making this the minimum investment required. However, you can monitor unlimited components on those 25 devices without additional licensing fees.
Does Intermapper support cloud environments?
Intermapper can monitor cloud-based infrastructure as long as devices are IP-addressable and support SNMP or other monitoring protocols. However, it lacks native cloud service integrations found in modern solutions and works best with traditional on-premises or hybrid environments.
How does Intermapper's pricing compare to competitors?
Intermapper uses device-based pricing rather than per-element pricing, which can be more cost-effective for organizations monitoring many components per device. Compared to enterprise solutions like SolarWinds or LogicMonitor, it's less expensive but offers fewer advanced features.
What happens if my Intermapper server loses power?
Intermapper requires a reliable power source and UPS system to maintain continuous monitoring. Power outages can corrupt network maps, requiring recovery from automated backups. This makes proper power protection essential for reliable operation.
Can Intermapper integrate with automation tools?
Yes, Intermapper's most recent versions include PowerShell integration for automated responses to network events. The platform can also integrate with Fortra's Automate tool for network self-healing capabilities, though this requires additional licensing and installation.
Dynatrace positions itself as a leader in the competitive network monitoring space, offering a complete observability platform that extends far beyond basic network metrics. While on the hunt for thebest network monitoring tools of 2025, we found it to be particularly strong for enterprise environments with complex and distributed infrastructures.
TechRadar reviewers spend several weeks researching each major IT platform in the market, analyzing everything from core functionality to pricing and customer support quality. When we looked at Dynatrace, we were especially impressed by its AI-powered Davis engine, which automatically detects anomalies and performs root cause analysis across your entire stack.
While our top pick LogicMonitor remains the best overall network monitoring tool of 2025, Dynatrace offers unique strengths for organizations needing comprehensive observability beyond traditional network monitoring. Dynatrace has also been recognized as a leader in G2's Network Monitoring for 2025 and Gartner's Magic Quadrant for Observability Platforms.
Dynatrace: Features
Dynatrace is an exceptionally feature-rich platform that goes well beyond traditional network monitoring to provide observability across applications, infrastructure, and user experience. It's primarily geared toward enterprise organizations with complex environments distributed across multiple cloud and on-premises systems.
Features are generally well-executed, with particular strengths in automated discovery, dependency mapping, and intelligent alerting, though some users note that pure network monitoring capabilities aren't as robust as specialized tools like SolarWinds NPM. While the premium pricing makes it inaccessible for small teams, the feature set justifies the cost for organizations looking for unified observability over point solutions.
Full-stack monitoring
Dynatrace's flagship capability provides end-to-end visibility from user experience down to infrastructure components, automatically discovering and mapping all dependencies across your technology stack. The OneAgent technology deploys with minimal configuration and begins collecting metrics, traces, and logs immediately, supporting automatic instrumentation for hundreds of technologies without manual intervention. This eliminates the blind spots common in traditional monitoring approaches by correlating performance issues across all tiers of your environment.
AI-powered analytics
The Davis AI engine serves as Dynatrace's differentiating factor, continuously analyzing billions of dependencies and metrics to automatically detect anomalies and determine root causes. Rather than simply alerting on threshold breaches, Davis provides context-aware insights that help IT teams understand not just what happened, but why it happened and what should be done about it. It reduces alert noise significantly while ensuring critical issues receive immediate attention with actionable remediation guidance.
Network performance monitoring
While network monitoring isn't Dynatrace's primary strength, the platform provides process-level network visibility that goes beyond traditional host-based monitoring. You can track network performance metrics between specific processes and services, identify connection issues proactively, and understand network topology in dynamic cloud environments. The platform automatically monitors new network interfaces and provides integrated health metrics alongside other key resource indicators.
Real user monitoring
Dynatrace captures actual user interactions across web, mobile, and API channels to provide insights into real-world performance and user experience. It tracks click patterns, page load times, and user journeys while identifying frustration points and performance bottlenecks that impact customer satisfaction. This extends beyond synthetic testing to understand how actual users experience your applications under real-world conditions.
(Image credit: Dynatrace)
Dynatrace: Ease of Use
Dynatrace comes with a modern interface that uses its Smartscape data visualization to help users understand complex environment relationships at a glance. Its automatic discovery capabilities significantly reduce initial setup complexity, with deployment typically completing in minutes without extensive configuration.
However, the sheer breadth of features and data available can create a steep learning curve for new users, particularly those transitioning from simpler monitoring tools. That said, the platform includes helpful features like in-product live chat assistance available directly within the interface, allowing users to get immediate help without leaving their monitoring environment.
Dynatrace has invested heavily in user experience improvements, with recent updates focusing on streamlining workflows and reducing the number of clicks required for common tasks. While the learning curve exists, IT teams find the investment in training worthwhile given the platform's capabilities and the reduction in time-to-resolution it provides for complex issues.
Dynatrace: Pricing
Plan
Starting price (paid annually)
What's included
Infrastructure Monitoring
$0.04 per hour per host
Host monitoring for any server size, with basic dashboards and alerting
Kubernetes Platform Monitoring
$0.002 per hour
Complete observability across all Kubernetes clusters, workloads, pods and more
Synthetic Monitoring
$0.001 per request
High throughput monitoring for browser clickpaths, single pages, and APIs
Full-Stack Monitoring
$0.08 per hour per host
Complete APM and observability, AI-powered insights, OneAgent deployment, OpenTelemetry support
Dynatrace employs a usage-based pricing model that scales with your environment size and monitoring requirements. There's no hidden fees, but you'll be making potentially complex cost calculations for larger deployments.
It works well for organizations with predictable infrastructure sizes, plus volume discounts make it more attractive for enterprise deployments. Compared to competitors, Dynatrace sits at the premium end of the market, which reflects its comprehensive feature set but may price out smaller organizations that need simpler network monitoring solutions.
Dynatrace: Customer Support
Dynatrace offers two tiers of support: Standard Support included with all subscriptions and Enterprise Support for customers requiring enhanced service levels.
Standard Support includes in-product live chat assistance available directly within the Dynatrace interface, allowing users to connect with product experts for configuration questions and basic troubleshooting during business hours. The support team has access to product development experts for complex issues, ensuring customers can reach the right level of expertise when needed.
Enterprise Support provides enhanced response times, dedicated support resources, and expanded coverage hours for mission-critical environments. All customers also have access to comprehensive self-help resources including detailed documentation, the Dynatrace Community forum, and Dynatrace University for training and certification.
While support quality generally receives positive feedback from enterprise customers, some smaller organizations report challenges getting rapid responses during peak periods with Standard Support.
Dynatrace: Alternatives
Dynatrace occupies a unique position in the observability market, serving as both a comprehensive monitoring platform and a specialized network monitoring tool, though its strength lies more in the former. It's best suited for enterprises with distributed environments where the AI-driven insights and visibility justify the premium pricing and complexity.
If you're looking for pure network monitoring tools, you might find better value in specialized tools like SolarWinds Network Performance Monitor or PRTG. But for organizations looking for network monitoring and observability, Dynatrace's main competitors include New Relic and Datadog.
Dynatrace: Final Verdict
Dynatrace delivers exceptional value for enterprise organizations requiring comprehensive observability beyond traditional network monitoring, with its AI-powered Davis engine and full-stack visibility providing capabilities that few competitors can match. It excels in complex, distributed environments where automatic discovery, dependency mapping, and intelligent root cause analysis justify the premium pricing and learning curve investment.
While pure network monitoring isn't Dynatrace's strongest suit compared to specialized tools, its ability to correlate network issues with application and infrastructure performance makes it valuable for organizations seeking unified observability. However, smaller organizations or those with simpler network monitoring needs may find Dynatrace overkill in both complexity and cost, making alternatives like LogicMonitor or PRTG more practical choices.
Dynatrace: FAQs
Is Dynatrace primarily a network monitoring tool?
No, Dynatrace is primarily an observability platform that includes network monitoring as one component of its full-stack approach. While it provides process-level network visibility and can monitor network performance between services, its core strength lies in application performance monitoring, infrastructure monitoring, and AI-driven analytics across the entire technology stack. Those looking for dedicated network monitoring tools might find better value in specialized solutions like LogicMonitor or SolarWinds NPM.
How does Dynatrace pricing work for growing organizations?
Dynatrace uses a usage-based pricing model where costs scale with your monitored infrastructure, measured in host-hours or GiB-hours depending on the plan. The platform offers volume discounts for larger commitments and allows organizations to exceed their minimum annual commitment on an on-demand basis without penalties. While this flexibility helps growing organizations, costs can increase significantly as infrastructure scales, making budget planning important for expansion.
What level of expertise is required to implement Dynatrace?
Dynatrace is designed for enterprise IT teams and requires moderate to advanced expertise to fully leverage its capabilities, though initial deployment is relatively straightforward thanks to OneAgent's automatic discovery.
While the platform can begin collecting data within minutes of deployment, maximizing its AI-driven insights, custom dashboards, and advanced alerting typically requires several weeks of learning and configuration.
Dynatrace provides comprehensive training resources through Dynatrace University and offers in-product support to help teams get up to speed.
Can Dynatrace replace multiple monitoring tools?
Yes, Dynatrace is specifically designed to consolidate multiple monitoring functions into a single platform, covering application performance, infrastructure monitoring, network monitoring, real user monitoring, and synthetic testing.
This eliminates data silos and provides correlated insights across the entire technology stack, which is particularly valuable for complex enterprise environments. However, organizations with specialized needs might still require dedicated tools for specific use cases like detailed network flow analysis or specialized database monitoring.
How does Dynatrace compare to other observability platforms?
Dynatrace differentiates itself primarily through its Davis AI engine, which provides automated root cause analysis and intelligent alerting beyond what competitors like New Relic or Datadog typically offer.
It also excels in automatic discovery and dependency mapping, requiring less manual configuration than many alternatives. However, it comes with premium pricing that may exceed competitors, and some users find its comprehensive feature set more complex than needed for simpler monitoring requirements.
If you’re searching for a network monitoring tool that can keep up with hybrid and cloud-first IT environments, Datadog is likely on your shortlist. We’ve spent weeks researching every major IT platform and Datadog is near the top for its feature-rich approach and impressive integrations. For a broader look at your options, check out our best network monitoring tools list.
Our team at TechRadar has deep experience evaluating IT platforms — using, comparing, and stress-testing them in real-world scenarios. LogicMonitor is our pick for the best network monitoring tool of 2025. Its AI-powered suite automates many day-to-day IT workflows, making it a top choice for organizations wanting proactive, hands-off monitoring.
Still, Datadog’s popularity is no accident. It’s a favorite among IT teams for its real-time visibility, rich analytics, and ability to unify monitoring across multi-cloud, hybrid, and on-premises environments. But is it the right fit for your team? Let’s dive in.
Datadog network monitoring: Features
Datadog is one of the most feature-rich platforms in the network monitoring space. It’s packed with tools for real-time analytics, customizable dashboards, anomaly detection, and integrations with over 850 services and devices.
These features are best suited for IT teams managing complex, hybrid, or cloud-native environments who need granular visibility and automation. Everything comes together pretty well, though some users have asked for easier self-remediation and more transparent pricing, especially as data volumes grow.
At its price point, though, you’re paying for depth and breadth. So, if you need only basic monitoring, there are cheaper options.
Infrastructure monitoring
Datadog’s core component gives you a bird’s eye view of servers, cloud instances, containers, and network devices. It auto-discovers resources and collects data from CPUs, memory, disk, and network performance, all visualized in real time.
Network performance monitoring (NPM)
NPM provides deep visibility into your network traffic, showing you which services are talking to each other, where bottlenecks are, and how traffic flows across your environment. You can drill down to individual connections, monitor bandwidth usage, and set up alerts for unusual activity.
Log management
Datadog automatically ingests, parses, and analyzes logs from across your stack. You can search logs in real time, correlate them with metrics and traces, and set up alerts for error spikes or suspicious activity.
Application performance monitoring (APM)
APM traces requests across distributed systems, helping you spot slowdowns, errors, and performance bottlenecks at the code or service level. It supports major programming languages and frameworks.
Synthetic monitoring
This tool simulates user interactions with your apps and connectors, running tests from locations around the world to measure uptime and performance. It’s useful for catching issues before users notice them.
Real user monitoring (RUM)
RUM tracks the actual experience of your users, measuring load times, errors, and engagement in real time. This is important for teams focused on optimizing user-facing applications.
Security monitoring
Datadog’s security suite includes anomaly detection, threat intelligence, and compliance monitoring, helping you spot vulnerabilities and suspicious behavior as it happens.
Integrations and APIs
With support for 850+ integrations, including AWS, Azure, Kubernetes, Chef, Puppet, and more — Datadog can slot into almost any IT environment, making it easy to unify monitoring across tools and platforms.
(Image credit: Datadog)
Datadog network monitoring: Ease of use
Datadog is generally user-friendly, with a modern, intuitive interface and customizable dashboards that make it easy to visualize the metrics that matter most to you. Many users find setup and configuration straightforward, especially compared to older tools like SolarWinds. You can drag and drop widgets, create custom views, and filter data with just a few clicks.
However, the initial setup can feel overwhelming for newcomers. With so many features and integrations, it’s not always clear where to start, and some users report that onboarding documentation could be more beginner-friendly. Once you’re past the learning curve, though, day-to-day use is smooth and efficient.
Datadog also supports accessibility features and offers a REST API for advanced customization and integration with other tools. While the platform is designed to scale with your needs, we’d love to see more guided onboarding for first-time users.
Datadog network monitoring: Pricing
Plan
Starting price (paid annually)
What’s included
Infrastructure Monitoring
$15 per host/month
Core metrics, dashboards, 850+ integrations
APM
$31 per host/month
Distributed tracing, service maps, code profiling
Log Management
$0.10 per GB ingested
Log ingestion, search, analytics
Network Performance
$5 per host/month
Network traffic analysis, flow monitoring, device health
Synthetic Monitoring
$5 per 10,000 API tests
API and browser tests, uptime checks
Real User Monitoring
$2 per 10,000 sessions
End-user experience metrics, session replay
Security Monitoring
$0.20 per GB analyzed
Threat detection, compliance monitoring
Database Monitoring
$21 per host/month
Database performance, query analytics
Continuous Profiler
$8 per host/month
Code profiling, performance optimization
Incident Management
$15 per user/month
Incident tracking, collaboration tools
CI Visibility
$5 per 25,000 test runs
CI/CD pipeline monitoring, job analytics
Datadog’s pricing is modular and can add up quickly as you layer on more features or monitor more hosts. While the entry price for network monitoring is competitive, costs for log ingestion, APM, and other advanced features can become significant for large environments.
The flexibility to pick and choose modules is great, but budgeting can be tricky. Compared to competitors like LogicMonitor, Datadog is often pricier at scale, though it offers more control over what you pay for.
Datadog network monitoring: Customer support
Datadog’s customer support is generally responsive and knowledgeable, with 24/7 availability for most plans. Users can access support via email, chat, or ticketing, and there’s a robust knowledge base and active community forums. Enterprise customers get priority support, including a dedicated account manager and faster response times.
But, some users have reported mixed experiences, especially with lower-tier plans or complex billing issues. A few customers mention delays in getting detailed technical answers or feeling like their concerns weren’t fully addressed. For mission-critical environments, we recommend opting for enterprise support to ensure the fastest resolution times.
Datadog network monitoring: Alternatives
Datadog is a leader in network monitoring, but it’s not the only option. It’s best suited for mid-sized to large IT teams managing hybrid or cloud-first environments who need deep analytics and extensive integrations. If you’re a smaller business or just need basic monitoring, you might find Datadog’s cost and complexity overkill.
Top competitors include LogicMonitor for its AI-powered automation and intuitive interface, Dynatrace for AI-driven anomaly detection, and Nagios or Zabbix for IT teams who want open-source options. That said, Datadog’s main edge is its unified, cloud-native approach and real-time analytics. But if you value simplicity or lower costs, it’s worth comparing alternatives.
Datadog network monitoring: Final verdict
Datadog brings a powerful, unified approach to network monitoring, with real-time analytics, deep integrations, and customizable dashboards. It’s a top choice for IT teams that need to monitor complex, hybrid, or cloud-native environments and want to correlate network data with logs, traces, and application metrics.
However, cost and complexity can be drawbacks, especially for smaller teams or those new to monitoring platforms. If you need the most advanced features and can invest in setup and training, Datadog is a strong contender. For simpler needs or tighter budgets, other platforms may offer better value.
FAQs
What types of environments can Datadog monitor?
Datadog supports on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments, with integrations for AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and more. It’s designed to provide unified visibility across all your infrastructure.
Is Datadog suitable for small businesses?
While Datadog can be used by businesses of any size, its pricing and feature set are best suited for mid-sized to large organizations with complex monitoring needs. Smaller teams may find the cost and learning curve steep.
Can Datadog alert me to network issues in real time?
Yes, Datadog provides real-time alerts for network performance issues, outages, and anomalies. You can customize alert thresholds and receive notifications via email, Slack, PagerDuty, and other channels.
Does Datadog offer a free trial?
Datadog typically offers a 14-day free trial for new users, allowing you to test core features and integrations before committing to a paid plan.
How does Datadog compare to LogicMonitor?
LogicMonitor is our top pick for 2025, thanks to its AI-powered automation and revamped UI. Datadog offers more granular analytics and integrations but can be more expensive and complex to set up. Both are excellent, but LogicMonitor is better for teams wanting automation while Datadog excels in analytics and customization.
Blackview is a thriving technology brand that initially specialised in rugged outdoor phones designed to support rugged lifestyles and survive demanding and challenging environments. Over the years, Blackview has expanded its product range to include mainstream smartphones, smartwatches, earphones, tablets, and laptops.
The Blackview BV7300 is a rugged smartphone designed for outdoor enthusiasts and professionals who need a durable and reliable device. It features a reinforced frame and textured back for a secure grip, making it both tough and stylish. The BV7300 is equipped with dual camping lights and a 20MP night vision camera, ensuring safety and visibility in low-light conditions. Its super-large 15000mAh battery supports 45W fast charging, providing long-lasting power for extended use.
The device runs on Android 14 with DokeOS 4.0, offering a smooth and personalised user experience. With up to 18GB RAM and 256GB ROM, the BV7300 delivers powerful performance for various tasks. Additionally, it boasts IP68 and IP69K ratings for water and dust resistance, as well as MIL-STD-810H certification for durability in extreme environments.
The BV7300's weaknesses include an odd low-resolution screen and a limitation to 4G comms, not 5G. And at 528g, this is a bulky phone to use for everyday use.
It is unlikely to be our top choice for rugged smartphones, but it offers excellent value for those who occasionally venture into challenging environments.
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Blackview BV7300: price and availability
How much does it cost? $280/£166
When is it out? Available globally
Where can you get it? Direct from the maker or via an online retailer
Available directly from the maker's own shop, the asking price is £166 in the UK and $279.99 for US customers, making it a substantially better deal in those countries that don’t apply tariffs to Chinese goods.
If bought via Amazon.com and with a coupon applied, it can be had for only $219.99, but the standard price is $249.99. UK customers can get it via Amazon for £170.
For those willing to wait for AliExpress to deliver, it can be found for less than £150 or $195.
Typically, I’d mention another phone that uses the same platform as the BV7300, but alas, it's almost unique to this device. The only other Android device using the G81 SoC is the Oukitel RT3 Pro tablet.
Based on the specification, this is a decent phone for what is the bargain basement end of recent rugged phones
IP68/IP69K water and dust resistance, MIL-STD-810H compliant
Build Materials
Polycarbonate, TPU, Aluminium alloy
Dimensions
186.2 × 85 × 24 mm
Weight
528g
Blackview BV7300: design
Built to last
Large camping light
No headphone jack
Blackview devices often feature sharp lines, reinforced corners, and textured surfaces that evoke a tool-like toughness. They look like they belong in a toolbox as much as a backpack. And, the BV7300 is no exception.
It has metal sides and buttons that, together with the rubberised bumpers, reinforce the rugged identity. These style aspects aren’t just decorative; they are a signal of durability, and this phone was made to operate in harsh environments.
The button layout is by-the-numbers, with the volume rockers and fingerprint-reading power button on the right, and the user-definable function button on the left.
In addition, the left side is also where the SIM tray resides, and it's one where you can use two Nano SIMs or one and a MicroSD card for additional storage.
The rear mounts the two cameras near the top and relatively central, making them easy to aim, but the majority of the back is taken up with a substantial camping LED.
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
To diverge for a moment, many phones these days come with a substantial metal label stuck to them. This details the model, spec, IMEI number, serial number and various standards that the maker wishes to acknowledge. Do you leave these on, or do you peel them off?
Until now, I’ve always left them on, as the information might be necessary at some point and locating it could be crucial.
Why am I mentioning this? On the BV7300, the label is slapped over half of the camping LED, and therefore, it needs to be removed if you want to use that feature. I chose to leave it in place for my photographs, but if I were to use this device in anger, it would need to be removed.
The use of the back with the dual-element LED lamp also negates the possibility of wireless charging, but with a battery this big, that probably wasn’t a possibility.
What this design lacks is a headphone jack, although you could use an adapter with the USB-C port if you own one.
As is often the case with Blackview hardware, the BV7300 sells its robust credentials confidently and doesn’t stray away from the feature set that most of its customers expect.
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Design score: 4/5
Blackview BV7300: hardware
MediaTek Dimensity 7300
Odd resolution display
15000 mAh battery
The MediaTek Helio G81 is a mid-range SoC introduced in August 2024, designed primarily for budget-friendly Android smartphones with a focus on gaming and multimedia performance.
It has an older brother, the G80, that has basic AI features, and this chip added Enhanced AI (MediaTek NeuroPilot, Android NNAPI support), allegedly. It also sports EIS (electronic image stabilisation), along with support for a 120Hz display. The makers, Mediatek, have also added the Helio G85, which is remarkably similar to the G81 used in this phone.
All the G8X series use dual A75 performance cores combined with six A55 efficiency cores to deliver both power and long battery life. They also all use the Mali-G52 MP2 GPU, which isn’t especially powerful, but is good enough for smooth video playback.
It’s a solid choice for rugged phones and budget gaming handsets, offering a good balance of efficiency and features without pushing into premium territory.
One potential improvement could be that this chip uses a 12nm FinFET (TSMC), whereas the latest Dimensity chips use 6nm and even 4nm. That limits how far its efficiency can go, and it also has a capped bandwidth by using LPDDR4x 1800Mhz memory.
But this chip does support a screen with a 2520 x 1080 resolution and a 120Hz refresh rate, but unfortunately, that wasn’t what Blackview gave the BV7300.
The 6.67-inch IPS LCD has the curious resolution of 720 x 1604 pixels, a 90Hz refresh rate and a 700 nits brightness. That means it can’t display 1080p video at its full quality, and that includes the video captured by the primary camera.
If neither the screen nor the SoC are the star of this show, what is? Possibly the battery, which has a capacity of 15000mAh, is mostly responsible for this phone weighing more than 500g.
If you aren’t put off by such a bulky device, that’s plenty of battery capacity, and it can be shared with other devices using reverse charging.
When we get to the benchmarking, it will become evident that those comments are foreshadowing, in many respects.
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Hardware score: 4/5
Blackview BV7300: cameras
50MP and 20MP sensors on the rear
32MP on the front
Three cameras in total
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
The Blackview BV7300 has three cameras:
Rear camera: 50MP Samsung JN1 primary, 20MP Sony IMX376 Night Vision Front camera: 32MP Galaxycore GC32E1-WA1XA
I wasn’t expecting much considering the cost of this camera and its inevitably tight production budget. But the 50MP Samsung JN1 primary is a workmanlike sensor that, in good lighting conditions, can deliver some decent quality images.
I’d recommend that, unlike me, you disable the AI and HDR functionality, as it tends to oversaturate the colours to the point of making some captures pop-art.
The JN1 is a decent, if now slightly old, Samsung sensor that uses pixel-binning to create generally good 13MP captures from its 50MP source data.
Its limitation is that it isn’t great in low-light conditions, resulting in blurry and grainy results. Blackview's answer to that was to make the second sensor the 20MP Sony IMX376, which is a specialist Night Vision camera.
What’s mildly confusing is that within the Android camera app, there are ‘Night’ and ‘Night Vision’ modes, with the first being an AI-enhanced EIS mode that uses the Samsung JN1 but longer exposure times.
Electronic Image Stabilisation (EIS) is a technology used in the context of the MediaTek Helio G81 System on Chip (SoC) to reduce blurriness and shakiness in videos and images. EIS works by using software algorithms to compensate for small movements and vibrations during video recording or photography. This is particularly useful for handheld shooting, where even slight hand movements can cause noticeable shake in the footage.
While EIS helps, it's not the same as optical stabilisation, and the results are a bit mixed. If you truly want to take images in low light, the MX376 is a much better choice as it uses IR flash to bathe even the darkest locations in light that the sensor can see and generate an image from. It’s only B&W, and the images are in 20.2MP resolution.
Using this mode, you should be able to capture nocturnal creatures if you turn the screen brightness down and stay quiet enough that your presence isn’t an issue.
As a camera system, the BV7300 is better than I expected, but it's also worth noting that it is a budget device. So you get a Pro mode, panoramas, time-lapse, document shooting and even AR stickers. But equally, the best video resolution is ‘high’, which translates into 1080p when you’ve recorded something.
When you consider that the Samsung ISOCELL JN1 is capable of 4K at 30fps, that’s an intentional omission.
It's normal at this point in my phone reviews to moan that the makers only support Widevine L3 video encryption, reducing the quality of streaming to only 480P from most of the big streaming brands.
However, since the best resolution this display can support is only 720p, it’s probably not an issue in the greater scheme of things.
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Blackview BV7300 Camera samples
Image 1 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 2 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 3 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 4 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 5 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 6 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 7 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 8 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 9 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 10 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 11 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 12 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 13 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 14 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 15 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Image 16 of 16
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Camera score: 3.5/5
Blackview BV7300: performance
Not 3D game-friendly GPU
Decent battery performance
Phone
Blackview BV7300
Doogee Fire 6 Power
SoC
Mediaktek Helio G81
Unisoc T606
GPU
Mali-G52 MP2
Mali G57 MP1
Mem
N/A
N/A
NPU
6GB/256GB
8GB/256GB
Weight
528g
430g
Battery
15000
15500
Geekbench
Single
446
391
Multi
1469
1368
OpenCL
218
460
Vulkan
361
461
GFX
Aztec Open Normal
5.5
5.5
Aztec Vulkan Norm.
4.8
4.8
Car Chase
3.2
5.4
Manhattan 3.1
4.9
8.8
PCMark
3.0 Score
7391
7790
Battery
30h 40m
31h 18m
Charge 30
%
16
13
Passmark
Score
6767
6289
CPU
3268
2947
3DMark
Slingshot OGL
789
1479
Slingshot Ex. OGL
490
985
Slingshot Ex. Vulkan
504
976
Wildlife
226
432
Nomad Lite
N/A
49
It wasn’t easy to find a phone I’d reviewed recently that was comparable to the BV7300, because most that use the Helio G99 or one of the Dimensity series MediaTek SoCs are significantly more powerful than the G81 used here.
Eventually, I chose the Doogee Fire 6 Power, and its underwhelming Unisoc T606 SoC to be something to compare.
Performance-wise, these phones are closely matched, both in CPU and GPU speeds, and neither is a phone you would pick to play 3D games on.
What ultimately divides them is that the BV7300 only comes with 6GB of RAM, and the Nomad Lite test refuses to run with less than 8GB. And, I did try RAM expansion mode, and that 3D Mark test wants real memory, not mapped storage.
Where both phones excel is in respect of battery capacity and running time, with the Fire 6 being a little better because it has 500mAh more battery at its disposal. I worked out the running time per mAh, and the Blackview has a tiny advantage, although it’s also nearly 100g heavier for that win.
Overall, this isn’t a phone that anyone wanting high performance would gravitate towards, but if you want a rugged phone that can take reasonable pictures and last at least four working days without a recharge, then the Blackview BV7300 might be for you.
Performance score: 4/5
(Image credit: Mark Pickavance)
Blackview BV7300: Final verdict
Looking for an affordable phone that can withstand some abuse, whether on holiday, a building site, or in the jungle? Then the Blackview BV7300 might fit the bill.
There isn’t much about this phone that stands out, other than perhaps the battery life and the price, but for some, having a phone that can get wet and be dropped and still work is the critical requirement.
The BV7300 ticks that box, even if it makes it less than lightweight, and in a company scenario, you are unlikely to take flak for going over-budget.
Should I buy a Blackview BV7300?
Blackview BV7300 Score Card
Attributes
Notes
Rating
Value
Cheap and chunky
4/5
Design
Heavy, but designed to take abuse
4/5
Hardware
MediaTek Helio G81, odd screen, big battery
4/5
Camera
Two rear sensors but only 1080p video
3.5/5
Performance
Budget phone performance but good battery life
3.5/5
Overall
A practical device if you don't mind the weight
4/5
Buy it if...
You need an outdoor phone The BV7300 is built to handle drops, even into water, as long as it doesn't go too deep or stay submersed too long. Clumsy people need phones like this.
Battery life is critical Being able to run continuously for more than thirty hours suggests that it should take most people through four working days without a recharge. Or, longer if you aren’t always on it.
Don't buy it if...
You travel light At over 500g, this isn’t a lightweight device; ideally, it must be mounted to your belt or a vehicle. If your role involves extended walking, you might regret buying this phone.
You need more memory or performance This is probably the least powerful phone I’ve seen since the Doogee Fire 6 Power, and that one wasn’t impressive. If you use demanding tasks, of 5G, then perhaps this isn’t for you.
Also Consider
Ulefone Armor Mini 20 Pro Another practical, rugged design with an inbuilt camping light, night vision camera and about half the battery capacity of the Blackview BV7300. But it's also much easier to carry, and they make a 20T Pro model with thermal imaging.
Doogee Fire 6 Power A low-power rugged phone with a similar spec to the BV7300, but with 8GB of RAM, and it's 98g lighter. In many other respects, it’s very similar to the Blackview.
Being less heavy, but with a battery almost the same size, hints that it might not be as robust as the BV7300. Although I don't have evidence to support that assertion.
Anker Prime TB5 14-in-1 Docking Station: 30-second review
The Anker Prime Docking Station is a powerful unit with plenty of ports that employ the latest standards, serving the needs of creatives and other power users.
It’s rather elegant for a docking station, thanks to the premium grey metallic finish and vibrant blue light ring, which is bright enough to notice without causing distraction.
Build quality is also impressive, rivalling the best laptop docking station constructions. Every panel is solid, and the rubber feet are robust and provide plenty of dampening and protection.
However, its tall, square form could be inconducive to certain setups, since it might not fit under monitor stands and shelves. This is less of a problem for typical docking stations with their thin, rectangular shapes.
My other gripe with the Prime Docking Station concerns its power button, which isn’t very tactile and can be awkward to use. My presses would sometimes fail to register, and I wish the hold time was shorter when powering it down.
There are plenty of ports on the Prime Docking Station (14 in total), including upstreaming and downstreaming USB-C ports at the back. Both of these employ the Thunderbolt 5 standard and can also provide charge: the former at 140W and the latter 15W.
What’s more, the two downstreaming ports can support dual 8K monitors (6K when connected to macOS devices), and either can be used in conjunction with the HDMI port or the DisplayPort. Only two external monitors can be used at the same time, though, and the HDMI and DisplayPort can’t be used simultaneously, either.
The front two USB-C ports provide a combined output of 45W, which is sufficient for fast charging numerous devices. Other ports include three USB-A ports, readers for SD and TF cards, and a 3.5mm audio jack.
All of these ports function well, providing fast and stable data transmission and multi-device charging. However, there were a few occasions where my external displays lost signal for a second or so, or failed to display altogether, usually when booting up my laptop for the first time of the day.
This required a simple re-plug of the upstreaming cable to remedy, and these occurrences weren’t frequent enough to disrupt the overall experience. What’s more, I believe at least part of the blame lies with the poor multi-display optimization of Windows 11, rather than with the dock itself.
The audio jack, on the other hand, is somewhat of a let down, failing to deliver as much bass and fidelity as when connecting my headphones directly to my laptop.
The main drawback of the Prime Docking Station, though, is the price. At $400 / £400, it’s seriously expensive, and only worth the outlay if you’ll actually be using two 8K or 6K monitors, and have multiple devices to charge and peripherals to connect at once.
Anker Prime TB5 14-in-1 Docking Station: Price & availability
(Image credit: Future)
$399.99 / £399.99 (about AU$610)
Available now in the US and the UK
High-end of the market
The Anker Prime Docking Station costs $399.99 / £399.99 (about AU$610) and is available via Anker's website here, as well as online retailers including Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk.
While there are many docking stations in the same ballpark, there are also plenty of cheaper alternatives. This includes the Kensington SD5000T5 EQ, which costs considerably less despite having a comparable spec. It also has a slimmer design to boot – no wonder we think it’s one of the best Thunderbolt 5 laptop docks around.
AC power input, 1x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A, 1x USB 2.0, 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x 2.5GbE Ethernet
Downstream power:
2x 15W USB-C (Thunderbolt 5)
Upstream power:
140W USB-C (Thunderbolt 5)
Size:
4.6 x 4.6 x 3.0in / 116 x 116 x 75mm
Weight:
38oz / 1,086g
Accessories:
USB-C cable (Thunderbolt 5)
Anker Prime TB5 14-in-1 Docking Station: Design
(Image credit: Future)
Solid build quality
Premium looks
Divisive boxy shape
The Prime Docking Station certainly looks sleek, with its dark grey metallic body, which is nicely complemented by the blue light ring around the top edge. This is bright enough to add interest, but dim enough to avoid being a distraction. Even the rear vents are stylishly designed, and help to make it fit for any professional environment.
While it’s pleasingly thin across its width, the Prime Docking Station is quite tall and thick across its depth. This might prove to be an issue for those looking to slot it underneath their monitor stand or similar, as I doubt it’ll fit comfortably under all of them.
There’s no denying the premium construction of the Prime Docking Station, though. It’s extremely solid and sturdy, and the four rubber feet are certainly thick enough to dampen any operating vibrations and protect your desktop surface.
The power button, however, is a slight misstep. It doesn’t feel very tactile, and it can be hard to tell when you’ve actually pressed it properly. There were numerous occasions when I thought I’d pressed it, but it failed to actuate.
Design: 3.5 / 5
Anker Prime TB5 14-in-1 Docking Station: Features
(Image credit: Future)
14 ports
Thunderbolt 5 support
Blue light indicator
The Prime Docking Station has three Thunderbolt 5 ports, all located on the back. One is for upstreaming and also provides 140W of PD charging. The other two are for downstreaming and each supports 8K monitors (or 6K if used with a macOS device). They’re also capable of transferring data at 120Gbps and charging at 15W.
Also on the back is an HDMI port and a DisplayPort, although both can’t be used at the same time. If two connections are present, the latter will take precedent. Thankfully, either of these ports can be used in conjunction with one of the Thunderbolt 5 ports for dual-display setups. Unfortunately, though, the Prime Docking Station can’t support three external monitors.
Rounding out the rear interfaces are two USB-A ports, each of which is capable of data transfer speeds of up to 10Gbps. On the left side you’ll find TF and SD card readers, the latter of which accepts most form factors.
The front of the Prime Docking Station features two more USB-C ports – each with a data transfer speed of up to 10Gbps and a combined 45W output – and one more USB-A port, again capable of transferring data at 10Gbps. A 3.5mm Aux jack is also present for connecting headphones and other output devices.
The aforementioned blue light ring isn’t just for show: it also acts as a status indicator. It remains solid when the Prime Docking Station is powered on, and flashes twice when the upstream port is connected and in Thunderbolt 5 or 4 mode.
When the Prime Docking Station is running intense workloads involving high data transmission speeds, such as when gaming with high resolution monitors, a moving pattern is displayed. The light can be turned off altogether by pressing the power button once, while holding it for five seconds turns the entire unit off, which is slightly too long to be convenient in my view.
Accompanying software is available for the Prime Docking Station, but it’s very basic, used merely to download firmware updates and view the manual, which can also be downloaded as a PDF.
Features: 4.5 / 5
Anker Prime TB5 14-in-1 Docking Station: Performance
(Image credit: Future)
Seamless connectivity and charging
Minor external monitor issues
Awkward power button
Given the spec of the Prime Docking Station, it’s no surprise overall performance is fast and seamless. One of the immediate drawbacks of this power, though, is the fact that AC power is required at all times, so you’ll need a spare outlet nearby.
The Thunderbolt 5, HDMI and Displayport interfaces all provide stable connections to external monitors, although there were a few occasions where one of my connected displays would go black for a couple of seconds before coming back. There were also times when neither one of them was recognized, requiring me to reconnect the upstreaming cable to my laptop.
However, this could be a fault of my laptop rather than with the dock, as Windows 11 devices are known to be somewhat unreliable when handling multiple displays.
(Image credit: Future)
Connected peripherals, on the other hand, worked flawlessly in my experience. Mice and keyboards worked and charged just as well as if they were connected directly, and the same can be said of the read and write speeds of the SD card I inserted into the reader.
The audio jack, however, proved somewhat of a disappointment. Low end frequencies were noticeably weaker through my headphones, and overall fidelity seemed slightly compromised, too.
When dealing with high workloads, such as … multiple USB ports simultaneously, the Prime Docking Station does produce some fan noise. Mercifully, though, this isn’t loud enough to disturb, and neither is the small amount of heat that’s generated.
Performance: 4 / 5
Anker Prime TB5 14-in-1 Docking Station: Report card
Value
This is one expensive docking station, and only worth it for those who’ll make the most of what it has to offer.
3 / 5
Design
It’s very well engineered, but that cube shape might prove incongruous for certain setups.
3.5 / 5
Features
With plenty of ports employing the latest standards, power users should be pleased.
4.5 / 5
Performance
Peripheral connections and multi-device charging are taken in its stride, and there are only a few minor hiccups when using multiple displays.
4 / 5
Overall
The Prime Docking Station is a powerful unit, but one with a somewhat cumbersome design and a price tag that only makes sense if you plan on using it to its fullest potential.
3.5 / 5
Should I buy the Anker Prime TB5 14-in-1 Docking Station?
Buy it if...
You want good looks and build quality It’s certainly smart and sophisticated, and feels as premium as it should do at this price.
You want powerful interfaces The multiple Thunderbolt 5 ports will please power hungry and 6/8K dual-monitor users.
Don't buy it if...
You want something thin It may be compact in terms of length, but it’s quite tall and thick, which might not fit so well with certain setups.
You want to save money The Prime Docking Station is far from cheap, and unless you really need all of its power and capabilities, there are better value alternatives.
Also consider
Kensington SD5000T5 EQ If you need Thunderbolt 5 ports but are on a tighter budget, the SD5000T5 EQ is a sound choice. This is a fast and well-made unit, as well as being versatile thanks to its 11 ports. Like the Prime Docking Station, the SD5000T5 EQ also requires power from an outlet.
IOGear Dock Pro Our pick as the best docking station overall, the IOGear Dock Pro is a great all-rounder. There are no less than four HDMI/DisplayPort interfaces, and it can be powered with a PSU or via a USB-C cable. We did find it can get quite hot after a while, and there’s only one USB-C port on the entire unit, but these are about the only drawbacks.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is an HEDT workstation processor built for an extremely specific — and extremely demanding — audience.
Nothing about this chip is ‘mainstream’, including the fact that just about every enthusiast consumer processor available right now will mostly outperform this chip in most workloads that 95% of users will run on their computers, and they will do so at a minuscule fraction of the Threadripper 9980X’s price.
There is part of me that wants to slag this processor as overpowered, overengineered, and overpriced—except I can’t. With 64 full-fat performance cores, 128 threads, a base clock of 3.2GHz, and the ability to push far beyond that under controlled thermal conditions, this chip feels like its sole purpose is to blow through Cinebench R23’s multi-core benchmark and shame every other chip that tries to do the same.
(Image credit: AMD)
I would say that this is a ridiculous waste of time, energy, and resources, but the thing about Cinebench R23, as well as all the other multi-core benchmarks that this chip leaves defeated in its wake, is that there are professionals out there who need exactly this kind of power from a processor, and no other consideration really matters.
Database administrators, IT managers dealing with web servers, machine learning researchers and developers, 3D designers of every kind, and high-end video productions are among those who will look at the multi-core performance of this chip and see past the bar on a graph stretching well past every other chip in the test group and see the hours of work saved every week with a processor specifically designed to break up their workloads into as many as 128 individual processing threads to be worked through in parallel.
That definitely isn’t everyone, and the incredible parallel processing power available with the Threadripper 9980X comes at a cost. To keep those 64 cores from setting your workstation on fire under load, per-core clock speeds start nearly a full GHz lower than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, which means that single-core or lightly-threaded processing power suffers somewhat, though the 9980X can still hold its own at a system and productivity-minded processor, and its TSMC N4P/N6 architecture does translate into some solid responsiveness.
With eight compute dies under the lid and 256MB of L3 cache, there are a lot of interconnects between all that discrete silicon, and communication between all those parts introduces latency as well, though it isn't debilitating.
(Image credit: AMD)
What's more, at $4,999 / £4,499.99 / AU$8,399, this is a very expensive processor. It’s not the most expensive HEDT chip on the market, that’d be the 96-core Threadripper Pro 9995WX at nearly three times the price of the 9980X, but it’s still not a CPU you buy because you ‘want the best.’
You buy it because your workflow would bring even the best processors on the consumer market to their knees. This is the kind of chip you slap into a workstation because you need to render the 12-second Gargantua approach sequence from Interstellar in a matter of days rather than weeks, and not because you want to play Cyberpunk 2077 at the highest framerate possible. For the former, it’s an outstanding, special-use processor. Not at all for the latter.
(Image credit: Gigabyte)
Then there’s the matter of platform requirements. You’ll need a TRX50 motherboard, which isn’t just more expensive—it’s physically larger, requires more robust power delivery, and usually comes loaded with workstation-focused features that add to the price.
You’ll also need to spend a lot of money on cooling, because under full multi-core load, the 9980X can pull upwards of 350W from the socket, so a 360mm AIO cooler is the absolute rock-bottom, bare minimum cooling solution you can use to keep this chip from throttling, and there aren't many that fit this chip out there.
And believe me, having sat next to the open-air test bench running high-intensity multi-threaded workloads on the 9980X, this thing pumps out an enormous amount of heat, so plan your workstation environment accordingly.
(Image credit: AMD)
All that said, if you’re the kind of user who spends whole workdays in Premiere Pro, Houdini, or TensorFlow, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is a dream, but you do have to really ask yourself if you need this much focused power for your particular situation.
I love multi-threaded programming and working on asynchronous processes when developing my own software tools, but in no universe would I ever be able to fully utilize all 64 cores on this processor unless I was actively trying to, and I don't work with anything nearly that complex.
If your workflow is even moderately mixed, or gaming is even a quarter of your use case, this chip delivers diminishing returns that will make you regret investing so much into it, especially when the significantly cheaper Threadripper 9970X is ideal for those situations at half the cost.
How much does it cost? $4,999.99 / £4,499.99 / AU$8,399
When is it available? It is available now
Where can you get it? You can get it in the US, UK, and Australia
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is available now in the US, UK, and Australia for $4,999.99 / £4,499.99 / AU$8,399.
While not 'cheap' by any means, if you're seriously looking at buying this processor, you're not window shopping. You know you need it, and it will either make back the money you spent on it in relatively short order, or it is a processor you have to have for academic or scientific research, and it's simply the price paid for progress.
It should be noted, though, that while the Threadripper 9980X's multi-core performance is second only to the high-end Threadripper Pro 9000-series chips, the Threadripper 9970X's multicore performance is actually not that far behind the 9980X's, and it costs half the price of this chip.
If you're wincing at the price tag of the 9980X, but you really do need something like this for your workflow, give the 9970X a long look and see if it's a better fit for your needs.
Value: 3 / 5
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Specs & Features
(Image credit: AMD)
64-cores/128-threads chew through multi-core workloads
Slower clock speeds than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X
256MB L3 cache
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X specs
Socket
sTR5 (TRX50)
Architecture
AMD Zen 5
Cores
64
Threads
128
Base Clock
3.2GHz
Boost Clock
5.4GHz
L3 Cache
256MB
PCIe Lanes
Up to 80 PCIe 5.0
Memory Support
Up to 1TB Quad-channel DDR5‑6400 ECC
TDP
350W
tjMax
95℃
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is built on AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, an MCM design featuring TSMC’s N4P process for the compute dies and its N6 process for the I/O die, all tied together using AMD’s Infinity Fabric interconnect. Each of the eight CCDs contributes eight cores and 16 threads to the massive 64-core, 128-thread chip, supported by a staggering 256MB of L3 cache. This is particularly ideal for keeping large datasets close to the cores and minimizing memory latency in heavy workloads.
The base clock speeds sit at 3.2GHz, with boost frequencies climbing up to 5.4GHz under lightly threaded tasks, depending on cooling and power headroom. The processor is fully unlocked for overclocking, although thermal and power constraints will make manual tuning challenging without extreme cooling solutions. Out of the box, this processor is pulling 350W, so you’ll likely need more than a 360mm AIO to cool this properly if you push it even modestly.
(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Memory support is another standout. The 9980X works with up to 1TB of DDR5-6400 ECC RAM across quad-channel configurations, a 1,200MT/s increase over the last-generation Threadripper line.
I/O capabilities have also gotten a significant boost. Now, you can utilize up to 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes, meaning you can run multiple GPUs, storage arrays, and capture or networking cards without lane-sharing bottlenecks.
As with previous Threadrippers, there’s no integrated GPU, but that’s expected. Power consumption is rated at an extremely high 350W TDP, and the physical chip uses the sTRX5 socket, meaning it requires a TRX50-series motherboard. These boards are large, expensive, and purpose-built for heavy-duty computing.
Specs & features: 4.5 / 5
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Installation & test setup
(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X installation is much more involved than you might be used to if you've only ever used consumer-grade motherboards that seat a standard desktop CPU.
The Threadripper 9980X uses AMD’s sTR5 socket, which is physically longer and more delicate, and so requires a specific installation procedure.
Included with the 9980X is a torque-limiting wrench that you'll need to ensure even pressure across the heat spreader, which for this chip is a vital step for both thermal performance and long-term reliability.
I highly recommend watching some installation videos on YouTube after you've read over the installation instructions before you attempt to install this processor, since slacking on proper installation can create uneven contact with the socket or even damaged pins on the TRX50 motherboard. You've spent a lot of money on this chip, so definitely make sure you don't wreck the whole thing on the installation step.
For testing the chip, I used the ASUS Pro WS TRX50-SAGE motherboard together with an Nvidia RTX 5090 GPU, 128GB (4 x 32GB) G.Skill G5 Series DDR5-6400 ECC memory, along with a Crucial T705 PCIe 5.0 SSD as my primary system drive. Cooling was handled by a Silverstone XE360-TR5 AIO cooler, and power was supplied by a Thermaltake Toughpower PF3 1050W Platinum PSU, and a fresh install of Windows 11.
This configuration is more or less what an enthusiast HEDT rig or professional Windows workstation would look like, and it definitely outclasses what you'll find in all but the most tricked-out gaming PC, so it's a solid representative system for carrying out my testing.
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Performance
(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Best-in-class multi-core performance
Slower clocks mean it can lose out to the Threadripper 9970X in key workloads
Gaming performance is unimpressive
The performance of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9800X ends up being a somewhat mixed bag for all of the reasons I've already gone over, but now that we're at the 'take-a-look-at-the-actual-numbers' stage, hopefully you'll see what I mean.
Across most workloads I tested, the Ryzen Threadripper 9980X can't keep up with the 9970X, falling behind some Ryzen 9 desktop chips, and even losing a couple of times to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. This is especially true when it comes to single-core performance and gaming, where the Threadripper 9980X just isn't competitive at all with any of the consumer-grade enthusiast processors I tested.
First, the single-core performance of the 9980X consistently loses out to not just the Threadripper 9970X, but it gets roughed up pretty bad by pretty much all the high-end Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 9000-series processors. Ultimately, it just doesn't have the base clock speed to sustain enough performance to compete in focused, application-specific tasks.
This difference across all single-core tests is about 3% slower than the 9970X (which isn't terrible), but about 10% slower than the Ryzen 9 9950X (which is at least bad, if not quite terrible).
However, when we look at the 9980X's multi-core performance, things flip rather drastically. At first, it looks like more of the same with Geekbench 6, where the 9980X only outperforms the 9970X by about 4% (though it does beat out third-place finisher, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, by about 36%).
Once we hit the Cinebench tests, though, it's over for everyone else. In Cinebench R23, the 9980X's score of 115,098 is about 51% better than the 9970X's 76,136 score, and an increadible 173.4% better than the third-place finisher, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, which scored a relatively measly 42,098.
In Cinebench R24, it's more or less the same, with the 9980X finishing 56% better than the 9970X's multi-core score and nearly 168% better than the third-best performer, the Core Ultra 9 285K.
Across all multi-core tests, the 9980X comes in about 36% better than the 9970X and about 106% better than the Core Ultra 9 285K, with the rest of the Ryzen 9 and 7 chips falling even further behind.
In whole system performance, as measured in CrossMark, the Threadripper 9980X does pretty well in terms of overall performance, though it comes in about 125 points behind the 9970X (or about 5%). That's still better than the Ryzen 9s and Ryzen 7s, though. It falls behind quite a bit in productivity workloads, coming in second to last, just ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D.
In terms of responsiveness, it's well ahead of the Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 chips, as well as Intel's flagship desktop processor, coming in second only to the 9970X.
Creative workloads are one of the areas where the 9980X shines like the powerhouse chip it is, notching substantial wins in Blender Benchmark 4.3, V-ray 6, and PugetBench for Creators Adobe Premiere.
Over all workloads, the 9980X chalked up a roughly 30% better performance than the 9970X, and that's taking the geomean of all the creative benchmark results, something that really undersells how dominating the 9980X's Blender Benchmark and V-Ray 6 CPU performance is (about 71% and 65% better than the 9970X). If I just averaged all the scores to give some of these tests more weight, the 9980X comes in about 50% better than the 9970X across creative workloads, with every other chip far, far behind.
Where the 9980X really fails is in terms of gaming performance, so PC gaming enthusiasts out there who want a Threadripper 9980X as a flex, you'd be doing yourself a massive disservice.
On average, across all the games tested, the 9980X had the worst gaming performance both in terms of average FPS and 1% FPS. The 9970X did marginally better, but the consumer-grade Ryzen chips and even the Core Ultra 9 285K are far better suited for gaming than either of the Threadripper 9000-series chips, but expecially compared to the 9980X.
This poor gaming performance also extends into game AI, largely because game logic is a largely single-core task that can't easily be disaggregated across multiple threads.
Independent NPC actors might benefit from multithreading in games, of course, but if that was the case, the 9980X should have done better simulating a full in-game year of Stellaris gameplay with 42 AI empires on a huge map, exactly the kind of asynchronous agent logic processing multithreading might have helped.
Unfortunately, the 9980X came in dead last in that test, only being able to finish the year in about 55.72 seconds, which would extrapolate to 393 in-game days in one minute. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D finished the year in about 44.75 seconds, which translates to about 489 days simulated in one minute.
In the end, all of this is to say that the 9980X isn't going to be awful at gaming, especially if you have one of the best graphics cards like the Nvidia RTX 5090 and crank up the settings so that the frame rate bottleneck moves from CPU to GPU.
Moving on to the more physical aspects of performance, the thermal and power consumption of the 9980X are what you would expect from a 350W TDP chip. I can assure you, the 9980X uses up every last watt of headroom its TDP will allow, ranging from 54.515W when idle all the way up to 349.623W peak power draw under 100% load.
Surprisingly, this did not directly translate into the chip overheating, and its temperatures ranged from 41℃ to 75℃ at its peak with a 360mm AIO cooler.
As you can see above, the real strength of this chip is in its multi-core performance. It's general system performance is decent and it's a pretty responsive chip, but you don't buy a 64-core Threadripper to try and max out your single-core clock speed for better FPS in games, you use it to chew through asynchronous workflows as fast as possible. The Threadripper 9980X is all about throughput, and in this regard, it's in a class all its own.
Normally, I take the geomean all of the different performance scores to arrive at a final score that accounts for some tests having very large numbers as their results compared to other tests (Cinebench R23 and R24's single and multi-core scores being a prime example).
However, when I do that, in the case of the 9980X, I all but erase the dominating results that make this chip what it is in the one workflow category it is designed to excel at.
As such, I've done something different and included both the aggregate geometric mean of all the chips' scores as well as a straight average. This allows you to appreciate how much the multi-core performance of the 9980X skews the results when the scores are averaged normally.
The 9980X is in an effective geometric tie with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and only a little bit ahead of the rest of the processors I tested in the end. But give the 9980X the proper weight of its multi-core performance with a straight average, and the 9980X runs away with it, beating out the 9970X by about 30% and the Intel Core Ultra 9 and AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D by about 87%.
Taking all of those scores and looking at them in terms of performance-for-price, however, and the 9980X does not fair very well, coming in dead last in terms of value for your money. At least at first glance.
Given how this processor is designed for a very specific (and often lucrative) kind of work, I don't really think that the standard value metric I'd use with other products is applicable.
Yes, this chip is expensive, but if you're the kind of professional who would benefit from the 9980X's multi-core prowess, you're likely to make that money back fairly quickly just from speeding up your workflow and this chip will pay for itself in very short order.
Performance: 5 / 5
Should you buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X?
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Scorecard
Value
This chip is very expensive, but for those who are seriously looking to buy it, money probably isn't the biggest concern here.
3 / 5
Specs & features
The 9980X has some impressive workstation-friendly specs, like a huge capacity for PCIe 5.0 I/O and faster 6400MT/s DDR5 ECC memory. The only shame is that it's base clock speeds aren't higher.
4.5 / 5
Performance
While there are some areas of weakness in terms of the 9980X's performance, this chip is built around one thing: chewing through multi-core workflows, and in that, it's a spectacular success.
5 / 5
Final Score
The 9980X is a very particular chip that is not going to be great for everybody, but if you're the type of person who needs this kind of chip for work, only the high-end Threadripper Pro 9000-series chips can best the 9980X.
4.17 / 5
Buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X if...
Your work will benefit greatly from improved multi-core performance The only real reason to buy this chip is its absolutely dominant multi-core performance. Nothing else is really in the same league as the 9980X in this regard, so if your workflow will benefit substantially from this kind of processing, this is the chip you need.
Don't buy it if...
You don't need the absolute fastest multi-core performance you can afford If better multi-core performance isn't your number one priority for upgrading your workstation to speed up your workflow, then you will be better off with the Threadripper 9970X, which is much more balanced as well as cheaper.
Also consider
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X The Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is no slouch when it comes to multi-core performance and is second only to the 9980X in my testing, but offers a better performance and price balance.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K If you're not hellbent on setting Cinebench R23 records your multi-core performance on a HEDT workstation, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is pretty good for these kinds of workloads without costing a fortune.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D If you're looking to get the best processor for your enthusiast gaming, streaming, or prosumer content creation workstation, in most cases, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D will be more than enough for your needs at a fraction of the price.
I spent about two weeks testing the Threadripper 9980X
I used it for content creation, gaming, and intensive office productivity
I put the chip through my standard suite of CPU benchmark tests
I used the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X for about two weeks in my day-to-day work PC, using it for content creation for work, CPU experimentation and stress testing, and general productivity.
I didn't spend a whole lot of time gaming with this chip, as it definitely isn't its intended use case, and it was obvious early on that this wasn't a great gaming chip.
I used my standard CPU testing suite to stress the 9980X under load, including running custom scripts to maintain the highest CPU utilization possible for hours at a time to stress the chip's multi-core performance. For benchmarks, I focused most of my attention on benchmarks like V-Ray 6, Handbrake 1.9, Cinebench R23 and R24, as well as PugetBench for Creators Adobe Premiere.
I've tested dozens of processors for hundreds of hours over my time here at TechRadar, so I know my way around a processor and a testbench to push a chip to its limits to evaluate its quality and value, and I bring that expertise to bear with every review I do.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X isn’t just a “cut-down” version of the flagship AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X—it’s a deliberately tuned, high-clocked, 32-core workstation CPU that hits a sweet spot for many professionals.
By halving the core count from 64 to 32 while boosting base frequency to 4.0 GHz (and up to 5.4 GHz on single-core boost), AMD has created a chip that is easier to cool, faster in certain lightly threaded scenarios, and considerably more affordable.
When I first unboxed it, the 9970X didn’t feel like all that different proposition from the 9980X. The packaging, socket installation, and TRX50 platform requirements are the same, but it’s only after I spent two weeks extensively testing both HEDT chips that the performance story for the 9970X revealed itself.
(Image credit: AMD)
In heavily threaded workloads like Blender Cycles and Cinebench multi-core, it delivers S-tier throughput in absolute terms—my Cinebench R23 multi-core score averaged 76,136, which is closer to the 9980X’s 115,098 than it is to the third-best result from my test group, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D with an average score of 42,100. That’s because the higher sustained clocks and reduced cross-die latency help the 9970X punch above its core count.
Where the difference becomes even more apparent is in day-to-day interactivity. Complex CAD assemblies, large Photoshop and Premiere projects, Unreal Engine scene editing, and other workloads with bursts of single-threaded or lightly threaded activity feel snappier than on the 9980X, a chip that feels purpose-built to maximize multi-core performance above any other consideration. That’s because the 9970X’s smaller core count means fewer CCDs to coordinate and a higher per-core thermal limit, allowing for faster frequency off the line. This will also pay dividends in applications that can sometimes scale unevenly across cores, such as large database server operations or multiple multi-threaded tasks running concurrently.
The 9970X’s power and thermals also proved more manageable in my testing. Under sustained all-core load, the chip’s maximum power draw hovered around 300W, but this was managed easily enough by the 360mm AIO cooler on the test bench. This kept the chip’s maximum tdie temperature at a balmy 74℃. For those who want to keep chip cooling simple in the form of a high-end AIO, this could make a tangible difference.
(Image credit: AMD)
Platform benefits are unchanged from the rest of the Threadripper 7000 Pro lineup: you still get quad-channel DDR5-6400 ECC memory support, up to 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes, and motherboard designs built for multiple GPUs, high-bandwidth storage, and add-in accelerators. That means it can serve as the central brain for a machine-learning workstation, a film-editing suite with multiple GPU accelerators, or a high-end simulation box without compromise.
Like earlier Threadrippers before it, the 9970X’s gaming performance is at best a distant secondary consideration—and like the 9980X, the 9970X won’t match the best processors on the consumer market, like the Core i9-14900K or Ryzen 9 9950X3D, in pure gaming FPS.
(Image credit: AMD)
However, with an average of over 240 FPS at 1080p in my tests, it’s more than capable of handling games competently between work sessions, especially when paired with one of the best graphics cards like the Nvidia RTX 5090.
The real magic of the 9970X, though, is how it blends workstation-class parallel compute with desktop-class responsiveness. For many pros, this chip will actually feel faster than the 9980X in mixed workloads, all while costing $2,499.99 / £2,299.99 / AU$4,199.
This is literally half the cost of AMD’s “best” HEDT processor. It’s still a major investment, but in the right pipeline, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X delivers a better return on both performance per dollar and performance per watt than its bigger sibling, making it the best AMD processor for just about every workstation PC that can run it.
How much does it cost? $2,499.99 / £2,299.99 / AU$4,199
When is it available? It is available now
Where can you get it? You can get it in the US, UK, and Australia
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is available now for $2,499.99 / £2,299.99 / AU$4,199 in the US, UK, and Australia, respectively.
From a prosumer, enthusiast, and industry perspective, though, the price of the 9970X is going to be much cheaper than the 9980X, not to mention the Threadripper Pro 9000-series chips. So while its hard to call something costing more than a couple grand "cheap", for this class of product, this isn't that bad, especially considering that there's no increase in price from the Ryzen Threadripper 7970X.
Meanwhile, for many professionals, the 50% difference in price between the 9970X and 9980X—for what can often feels like 75–99% of the real-world performance of the 9980X—has to weigh heavily in its favor.
It’s important to note that Threadripper chips aren’t typically sold through mainstream retailers, so availability will be more limited than with high-end consumer CPUs. You’ll need to check with specialty component retailers, workstation-oriented e-tailers, and system integrators building high-end rigs for creative, engineering, or research applications in your region if you’re looking to upgrade to the 9970X.
It’s also worth noting that a total platform investment might be necessary as well. A TRX50 motherboard, high-bandwidth DDR5 ECC memory kit, and capable cooling are all required for the 9970X, and these can easily add a couple of grand to a build. That said, for buyers who rely on multi-core compute and high I/O throughput to make a living, the 9970X offers excellent return on investment.
Value: 4 / 5
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X: Specs & Features
(Image credit: AMD)
AMD Zen 5 architecture
Higher base clock than 9980X
32-cores/64-threads for excellent multi-core throughput
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X specs
Socket
sTR5 (TRX50)
Architecture
AMD Zen 5
Cores
32
Threads
64
Base Clock
4.0 GHz
Boost Clock
5.4 GHz
L3 Cache
128MB
PCIe Lanes
Up to 80 PCIe 5.0
Memory Support
Up to 1TB Quad-channel DDR5‑6400 ECC
TDP
350W
Tjmax
95℃
The Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is built on AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, manufactured using a MCM design with the TSMC’s advanced N4P process for the main compute die and TSMC’s N6 proccess for chip I/O.
It combines 32 high-performance cores for 64 total threads, offering strong parallel compute capabilities while maintaining high per-core speeds that benefit lightly threaded workloads.
With a 4.0 GHz base and up to 5.4 GHz boost, it delivers both sustained throughput and the snappy responsiveness that closely parallels mainstream consumer CPUs.
A major strength of the Threadripper 9000-series is its quad-channel DDR5 memory controller, supporting ECC DDR5-6400, up from ECC DDR5-5200 from the Threadripper 7000-series, for higher data bandwidth and integrity, which are key for high-resolution video editing, scientific computation, and large-scale 3D rendering.
(Image credit: AMD)
PCIe connectivity is equally formidable, with up to 80 lanes of PCIe 5.0 for GPUs and NVMe drives (up from 48 with the 7000-series), plus an additional 8 PCIe 4.0 lanes for legacy devices. This level of I/O capacity is ideal for multi-GPU render farms, expansive storage arrays, or specialized accelerator cards.
Its 350W TDP highlights the need for serious cooling (I would not recommend anything less than a 360mm AIO cooler), but it also enables sustained all-core performance without throttling when thermals are under control. The chip is fully unlocked as well, allowing fine-grained tuning for workloads that benefit from higher clocks.
Combined with the TRX50 platform’s durability and expandability, the 9970X’s specs make it a workstation CPU that can anchor a system for years of demanding use.
Specs & features: 5 / 5
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X: Installation & test setup
(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Installing the Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is more involved than seating a standard desktop CPU. It uses AMD’s sTR5 socket, which is physically massive and requires a specific installation process.
AMD includes a torque-limiting wrench with the processor to ensure even pressure across the integrated heat spreader, an important step for both thermal performance and long-term reliability. Skipping proper installation can lead to uneven contact or even bent pins on the TRX50 motherboard, so definitely watch some installation videos on YouTube and read the instructions carefully before touching anything.
For testing, I used an ASUS Pro WS TRX50-SAGE board, paired with an Nvidia RTX 5090, G.Skill 128GB DDR5-6400 ECC memory (4x32GB), and a Crucial T705 PCIe 5.0 SSD as the primary system drive running a fresh copy of Windows 11. Cooling was handled by a Silverstone XE360-TR5 AIO cooler, and power was supplied by a Thermaltake Toughpower PF3 1050W Platinum PSU.
This configuration is more or less what a professional workstation or enthusiast HEDT rig might look like, and definitely exceeds what you might find in a typical gaming PC (this will be important in a bit). Every component—from the motherboard’s VRM design to the memory configuration—was selected to match the demands of a CPU built for long, heavy, and complex computing tasks.
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X: Performance
(Image credit: Future / John Loeffler)
Phenomenal multi-core performance
Very responsive
Gaming performance is unimpressive
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X’s performance reflects its 32-core, 64-thread design and high clock speeds, as demonstrated by my various benchmark data.
Everything from Geekbench 6.4 and Cinebench R23 to V-Ray, Blender Benchmark, and HandBrake 1.9 shows that it delivers exceptional throughput across professional workloads while maintaining strong single-core responsiveness.
In Geekbench 6.4, the 9970X scored a 3,010 in single-core and a 27,567 in multi-core performance, for example. This puts its single-core performance in the neighborhood of mainstream desktop CPUs like the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, though it’s about 10% slower than the fastest processor I tested, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, in Geekbench’s benchmark. Notably, the 9970X is about 1% faster in this test, on average, than the Threadripper 9980X.
For multi-core performance, however, the only real competition for the 9970X is the 9980X. In Geekbench 6.4, the 9970X is about 31% faster than the Core Ultra 9 285K, the third-fastest chip on this benchmark in my test group.
Meanwhile, the 9970X comes in about 4% slower than the 9980X in this test. Before you go thinking the 9970X can hang with the 9980X in overall multi-core performance, though, in Cinebench R23, the 9970X scored an astounding 76,136 points in multi-core performance, which is about 81% faster than the next chip on the podium, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, score of 42,098 (followed very closely by the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K with 41,281).
The 9980X, meanwhile, clocked in 115,098 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which puts the 9970X about 34% slower than the 9980X. The story is essentially the same in Cinebench R24, with some tightening in the 3DMark CPU Profile (Max Thread) and PassMark CPU tests. Overall, the 9970X is the second-best multi-core performer, coming in about 54% faster than the third-place Core Ultra 9 285K, and about 25% slower than the multi-core champ 9980X.
The faster clock speeds in the 9970X give it a responsiveness edge over the slower 9980X, which you can see play out in system benchmarks like CrossMark. Here, the 9970X beat or roughly matched the productivity performance and responsiveness of the 9980X, Core Ultra 9 285K, and Ryzen 9 9950X. It’s only real competition here is the Intel Core i9-14900K, which has a noticeably higher boost frequency for its performance cores, which is vital to app performance and responsiveness.
In creative workloads, the 9970X outperformed nearly all of the chips in my testing, save for the 9980X, though there are some notable quirks in the results that might point to poor optimization for certain tests, like PugetBench for Creators.
Here both Threadripper chips fell way behind their client-grade competition in Adobe Photoshop, or essentially tying with them in PugetBench’s Premiere test—as the 9970X did—or only slightly beating the competition—hats off to the 9980X for the win there.
Other workloads, however, show that the 9970X is substantially better suited for these workflows than consumer-class chips. The 9970X takes the top spot in the CrossMark Creativity and Handbrake encoding tests overall, and loses only to the 9980X in Blender Benchmark 4.3 and V-Ray 6’s CPU test while nearly lapping its next closest rival on the consumer side on all four benchmarks.
Since the 9970X is classified as an HEDT chip rather than a full-on industrial workstation CPU, there are a lot of non-pro enthusiasts out there who like Threadrippers for the elite performance on offer, but I’ll warn you now that gaming is not where this chip is going to excel.
In my gaming benchmarks, the 9970X consistently came in at the bottom of the rankings, averaging about 241 FPS at 1080p on low settings (with a 1% FPS average of about 169). Every other chip besides the 9980X cleared 340 FPS on average, with 1% FPS averaging at least 40 FPS better. On the bright side, the 9970X did manage to beat out the 9980X, which came in dead last on every game I tested it with.
In terms of game AI performance, its also a bit of a mixed bag, with the 9970X doing very well in Civilization VII’s AI benchmark, but coming in a good deal behind in the mainstream consumer chips in the group in the Stellaris 1-year, 42 empire autoplay duration tests.
Of course, that’s not all there is to be said about gaming, since few with this kind of chip will be playing at 1080p with the lowest graphics settings on a cheap graphics card. If you’ve got the money for a Threadripper 9970X, you’re likely going to be able to swing a 4K graphics card like the Nvidia RTX 5080 or better; and gaming at higher resolutions shifts the FPS bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU, so the difference in actual framerates while playing might not be nearly so dramatic.
Thermals and power consumption were in line with what I was expecting from a 350W TDP chip. I recorded power draw ranging from 6.77W while idle to 300.6W peak, with temperatures between 37°C when idle and 74°C under sustained load using a 360mm AIO— an excellent result given the chip’s capabilities.
Overall, then, the 9970X really strikes a phenomenal balance between the responsiveness and everyday capability of the best consumer-market CPUs and the high-end performance required from a workstation-level processor.
Of course, given its price, I cannot imagine anyone who isn’t doing serious, heavy-duty 3D design, video production, or scientific simulation work needing a chip like this. If you’ve somehow stumbled into this review wondering if you should go through the ridiculous amount of expense to upgrade from a Core i9, Core Ultra 9, or Ryzen 9 system that you mostly use for gaming and prosumer-level content creation, don’t do it.
The payoff just isn’t worth the expense for anyone other than creative, AI, or scientific professionals. If you’re in a field that demands this kind of multi-core performance for your day-to-day work, however, the 9970X delivers close to flagship throughput with better responsiveness, making it one of the most balanced HEDT CPUs you’re going to find anywhere.
Should you buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X?
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X Scorecard
Value
For a chip this expensive, 'value' is definitely a relative term here. But for a workstation chip, this is a great value.
4 / 5
Specs & features
With high clock speeds, lots of CPU cores, and support for up to 1TB ECC DDR5 and 80 PCIe 5.0 lanes, this chips brings the latest and greatest to the table.
5 / 5
Performance
While this isn't the most powerful chip for every use case, for professional workloads, the performance on offer is incredible.
5 / 5
Final Score
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X offers a perfect balance of performance, responsiveness, and price that is impossible to beat.
4.67 / 5
Buy the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X if...
You need strong multi-core performance Of the non-Threadripper Pro 9000-chips, the 9970X outperforms everything on the market other than the 9980X, but it isn't that far behind.
You want excellent responsiveness and single-core performance While the multi-core performance is the big selling point of this chip, it offers comparable system responsiveness and single-core performance as many of the best consumer-class processors.
You want workstation performance on a 'budget' No one is calling this processor cheap, but compared to other workstation-class processors, the 9970X isn't terrible on price.
Don't buy it if...
You aren't running professional creative, academic, or enterprise workloads This chip brings fantastic performance for key professional workloads, but it's general computing and gaming performance isn't as good as substantially cheaper consumer processors.
You're on an actual budget The Threadripper 9970X, and the platform required to run it, will run you several grand at least. Many of the best consumer PCs for professional workloads are almost certainly a better value.
You are looking for a true, industrial-class workstation chip While the Threadripper 9970X is a powerful processor, for serious industrial-grade workloads (such as rendering the Gargantua approach sequence at the end of Interstellar, let's say), you should only consider this chip if you've purchased all of the available stock of the Threadripper Pro 9000-series and 9980X and still need more compute.
Also consider
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X You get twice the cores for extreme parallel workloads, but at nearly twice the cost and with much lower sustained clock speeds for less responsive single-core or lightly-threaded tasks. But if you really need that heavy, all-cores-on-deck performance for your work, only the Threadripper Pro chips will give you better results.
Intel Core Ultra 9 285K OK, seriously, hear me out. If you're looking for a responsive prosumer-grade chip with excellent multi-core performance, the Core Ultra 9 285K is as good as you'll find in a consumer system, even if it falls well short of where the 9970X lands. It's also substantially cheaper.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D If you're an enthusiast who is looking for the best processor for gaming, prosumer-level content creation, and excellent all-around performance, this is the chip you actually need, not the 9970X.
I spent about two weeks testing the Threadripper 9970X
I put the chip through my standard suite of CPU benchmarks, with special attention on professional workloads and multi-core performance
I used it for content creation, gaming, and day-to-day work
I used the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X in my day-to-day work PC, using it for general productivity, content creation for work, and a healthy dose of CPU experimentation. I also used it for gaming while running benchmarks on other systems, but that was not my primary focus.
While there are a lot of specialized workloads that this CPU will be running, most of those workflows or applications don't have readily accessible benchmarks, so I used my standard CPU testing suite to inform the potential performance for those I could not benchmark directly, and put special emphasis and attention on those benchmarks, like V-Ray 6 and Handbrake 1.9 Encoding, that directly relate to the intended market for this chip.
I've reviewed dozens of processors over my time at TechRadar, and have spent hundreds of hours of testing processors for features, special projects, and general maintenance of my benchmark score database, so I know how to push a processor to its limits and assess its quality and value, an expertise I bring to all of my reviews to ensure that you find the right chip for your needs and budget.