Tag: future of ai

  • Best password managers 2025: Protect your online accounts

    Best password managers 2025: Protect your online accounts



  • Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 review: $549 price and performance look decent on paper

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 review: $549 price and performance look decent on paper


    Why you can trust Tom’s Hardware


    Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

    Introducing the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Founders Edition

    The Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Founders Edition has a big hole to fill in the graphics card market. As the first true mainstream offering for the Blackwell RTX 50-series GPUs, it takes over from the discounted RTX 4070 Founders Edition with the same nominal $549 base MSRP. It also has the same 12GB of VRAM and nearly the same number of streaming multiprocessors (SMs) — 48 versus 46 — but with the new Blackwell features. On paper, getting a faster GPU for less money with new features should make this one of the best graphics cards, but we have some concerns.

    The biggest problem will no doubt be retail availability and pricing, and we’ve seen every GPU launch of the past few months sell out almost instantly. From Intel’s $249 Arc B580 to the $1,999 RTX 5090, with the RTX 5080 and RTX 5070 Ti filling in the middle, MSRPs have been effectively non-existent. We don’t expect the 5070 to buck that trend, and it’s all starting to feel a lot like 2021 — just with AI-induced GPU shortages rather than cryptocurrency mining shortages. When will it end? That’s a difficult question to answer.

    Nvidia posted record earning of $130 billion for the 2025 fiscal year that just ended, more than double its 2024 earnings. Nearly all of the gains came from its AI and data center business, which accounted for 88% of gross revenue. Gaming was a very distant second place at just 8.7% of the total revenue. Nvidia has been saying it’s no longer primarily a gaming company for a while now, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the financials.

    With massive demand coming from the AI sector, and with limited 5nm-class wafers from TSMC, the simple economics show that it’s far more profitable to make data center and AI products right now rather than consumer GPUs. It’s not that Nvidia won’t order any consumer GPUs, but it’s unlikely to be anywhere near sufficient to meet the demand. And in fact, right now virtually every graphics card of the past two years is either sold out or severely overpriced relative to the launch MSRP — with the only exceptions being the RTX 4060, AMD’s RX 7600 (the RX 7600 XT currently starts at $430, $100 more than its original MSRP), and Intel’s Arc B570.

    The prospects for reasonably priced GPUs look grim, in other words. It could be many months before anything gets close to MSRP — and that goes for AMD’s RX 9070 XT and RX 9070 that are slated for review tomorrow. We expect those to be just as hard to acquire at MSRP as the RTX 5070, which will officially go on sale tomorrow. But maybe our pessimism will prove misplaced! For now, all we can do is look at the performance and features on tap, and hope that supply will catch up to demand sooner rather than later.

    We’ve been kept busy during the past two months testing and retesting graphics cards. The fourth Nvidia GPU launch of the year and sixth new graphics card since December hasn’t given us time to catch our collective breath, never mind getting all the other prior generation GPUs we’d like to test filed through our new test suite.

    Last month we also took a closer look at DLSS 4 and MFG, using the 5080 and 5090, which will have to suffice for now — time constraints didn’t allow us to cover the same tests on the RTX 5070 Ti or the 5070, or the 9070 XT and 9070 for that matter. But we’ll get around to those hopefully by next week and update the appropriate review pages.

    Until then, the TLDR remains the same: MFG is a great way to inflate benchmark scores, and in the right scenarios it can feel better than framegen or non-framegen even if it has slightly higher input latencies. But the benchmark numbers tend to be much higher compared to how games actually feel. It’s not bad as such, but subjectively MFG4X might feel more like 30~40 percent faster than the non-MFG performance, rather than the 200% improvement benchmarks can show. It will look smoother even while typically delivering the same or lower levels of responsiveness.

    For additional information about Nvidia’s Blackwell RTX GPUs, check the links in the boxout. The RTX 5070 Founders Edition represents the reference clocks and design from Nvidia, which will likely be just as fast as most of the non-reference card models from AIB partners. It might also be slightly more affordable, assuming you can find any in stock. But as usual, let’s start with the specs table to see how it compares to the prior generation.


  • Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Review

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Review


    The RTX 5070 – the $550 GeForce 50 series GPU that Jensen confidently told gamers during the Nvidia CES keynote would deliver performance equal to the RTX 4090, the previous generation’s $1,600 flagship product. After the announcement, comments were flooded with users celebrating this exciting new generation – 4090 performance for $550? Yeah, that does sound pretty amazing.

    Of course, the excitement was quickly squashed after it became clear that Nvidia was using multi-frame generation to make these extremely misleading and, frankly, false marketing claims. We were quick to point this out in our CES coverage, but many still came away from the Nvidia announcement expecting great things from the RTX 5070. Now, we finally have it, and it is unbelievably underwhelming.

    The RTX 5070 is so boring, disappointing, and ultimately pointless that we are going to shorten our review. While we conducted extensive testing, we won’t go over all the individual game data because it’s highly repetitive and none of it is exciting.

    But first, let’s address Nvidia’s blatant lie – the one we just mentioned – where they proudly claimed the RTX 5070 would deliver 4090 performance. Obviously, this is a massive falsehood, and it’s a damaging one that undermines features like frame generation by weaponizing them to mislead gamers.

    In simple terms, Multi-Frame Generation is just a more advanced version of Single-Frame Generation. Instead of generating one frame, it can generate up to three, increasing smoothness – provided your monitor has a high enough refresh rate to display these frames. What it doesn’t do is increase performance.

    In simple terms, Multi-Frame Generation is a more advanced version of Single-Frame Generation – it can increase smoothness – what it doesn’t do is increase performance.

    Unlike rendering normal frames, generating frames doesn’t lower latency. In fact, if anything, the overhead of generating frames makes latency worse. No reduction in latency means no performance increase. The game won’t feel or play any faster, but it will look smoother – with some artifacts thrown in. That’s just frame smoothing, not a genuine performance boost.

    So, again – generating frames doesn’t boost performance. No matter how many frames are generated, the RTX 5070 cannot outperform the RTX 4090. These comparisons must be made before enabling frame generation, so let’s quickly do that now.

    RTX 4090 vs. RTX 5070

    In reality, the RTX 4090 is, on average, 63% faster than the RTX 5070 across our 16-game sample at 1440p. But the deception gets even worse when we turn to ray tracing, as there are cases where the RTX 5070 doesn’t work at all due to its much more limited 12GB VRAM buffer.

    One such example is Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, a game Tim strongly recommended we add to our ray tracing tests because of its excellent use of path tracing, resulting in a truly transformative experience. So, we included it in this latest round of GPU testing. The only problem – at least for the RTX 5070 – is that it can’t actually run the game under these conditions, rendering just 13 FPS on average, while the older RTX 4070 Ti Super is good for 47 fps.

    This is because the RTX 5070 – a $550 GPU being released in 2025 – only comes with a measly 12GB VRAM buffer. By now, we would have hoped this kind of memory capacity was reserved for entry-level products, and that an RTX 5070 would include at least 16GB, but that’s not the case.

    As a result, in this example, the RTX 4090 is 462% faster, and even frame generation can’t salvage a win for the RTX 5070. Also, keep in mind that this isn’t even native 1440p – we are enabling DLSS Quality upscaling to try and boost performance.

    You can’t even load the game at 4K using these quality settings – it immediately crashes to the desktop.

    The RTX 5070’s Position in the Market

    Whatever opinions exist about the RTX 5090, 5080, and 5070 Ti, we can confidently say all three of those products are much better than the RTX 5070.

    Things are already looking pretty bad for the RTX 5070, and while one could argue that the GeForce 50 series has been a flop so far, whatever opinions exist about the RTX 5090, 5080, and 5070 Ti, we can confidently say all three of those products are much better than the RTX 5070. For those who aren’t up to speed on what the RTX 5070 actually is, let’s quickly go over the specs.

      RTX 5070 Ti RTX 4070 Ti Super RTX 5070 RTX 4070 Super RTX 4070
    Price MSRP $750 $800 $550 $600
    Release Date Feb 2025 Jan 2024 Feb 2025 Jan 2024 April 2023
    Process   TSMC 4N  
    Die Size (mm²) 378 mm² 378.6 mm² 263 mm² 294.5 mm²
    Core Config 8960 : 280 : 96 8448 : 264 : 112 6144 : 192 : 80 7168 : 224 : 80 5888 : 184 : 64
    L2 Cache (MB) 48 MB 36 MB
    GPU Boost Clock 2452 MHz 2610 MHz 2512 MHz 2475 MHz
    Memory Capacity 16 GB 12 GB
    Memory Speed 28 Gbps 28 Gbps 21 Gbps
    Memory Type GDDR7 GDDR7 GDDR6X
    Bus Type / Bandwidth 256-bit, 896 GB/s 256-bit, 672 GB/s 192-bit, 672 GB/s 192-bit, 504 GB/s
    Total Board Power 300W 285W 250W 220W 200W

    For $550, you get a Blackwell GPU with 6,144 CUDA cores, 192 texture mapping units, and probably 80 ROPs. That’s 31% fewer cores than the 5070 Ti and just 4% more than the original RTX 4080 released two years ago.

    Interestingly, it also has 14% fewer cores than the updated RTX 4070 Super, with a core clock speed that is largely the same. However, making up for the reduced core count is a 33% increase in memory bandwidth. The RTX 5070 uses 28 Gbps GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit wide memory bus, providing 672 GB/s of bandwidth – 14% fewer cores than the 4070 Super but 33% more bandwidth, and an 8% discount at MSRP.

    However, as we’ve already pointed out, one aspect that remains unchanged is memory capacity. Like the original RTX 4070 and the updated 4070 Super, the RTX 5070 also only features 12GB of VRAM. While the VRAM is faster, the capacity remains the same – and no, speed or bandwidth cannot compensate for capacity. It just doesn’t work that way.

    At this point, the RTX 5070 is looking like little more than a slightly discounted 4070 Super with $50 knocked off the MSRP. Of course, we have tested a variety of games to confirm this, so let’s take a look at some of them and then go over the full performance breakdown with graphs.

    Test System Specs

    CPU AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
    Motherboard MSI MPG X870E Carbon WiFi
    (BIOS 7E49v1A23 – ReBAR enabled)
    Memory G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-6000
    [CL30-38-38-96]
    Graphics Cards GeForce RTX 4070
    GeForce RTX 4070 Super
    GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
    GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super
    GeForce RTX 4080
    GeForce RTX 4080 Super
    GeForce RTX 4090
    GeForce RTX 5070
    GeForce RTX 5080
    GeForce RTX 5090
    Radeon RX 7700 XT
    Radeon RX 7800 XT
    Radeon RX 7900 GRE
    Radeon RX 7900 XT
    Radeon RX 7900 XTX
    ATX Case MSI MEG Maestro 700L PZ
    Power Supply MSI MPG A 1000G ATX 3.0 80 Plus Gold 1000W
    Storage MSI Spatium 1TB M470 PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2
    Operating System Windows 11 24H2
    Display Driver Nvidia GeForce Game Ready 572.60
    AMD Radeon Adrenalin 24.12.1

    Benchmarks

    Marvel Rivals

    Starting with Marvel Rivals at 1440p, we see that the RTX 5070 is only 3% faster than the 4070 Super and just 15% faster than the two-year-old RTX 4070. We haven’t had a chance to update our 7900 GRE data, but compared to the 7800 XT, the 5070 is 16% faster and 6% slower than the 7900 XT.

    At 4K, the 5070 and 4070 Super are neck and neck, delivering virtually identical performance, averaging just 44 FPS.

    Stalker 2: Heart of Chornobyl

    Next, we have Stalker 2, where the 5070 actually performs worse than the 4070 Super, coming in 9% slower at 1440p. This meant it was just 11% faster than the 7800 XT and 12% slower than the 7900 XT.

    The 4K results were slightly better, but even then, the best that could be said is that the 5070 managed to match the 4070 Super, averaging just 33 FPS. Overall, a pretty disappointing showing.

    Counter-Strike 2

    Moving on to Counter-Strike 2, we see very similar results again. The RTX 5070 is essentially an RTX 4070 Super, as both delivered nearly identical performance at 1440p.

    The 5070 did pull slightly ahead at 4K, but even then, it only managed a 6% performance uplift.

    Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty

    In Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p, the 5070 came in slightly behind the 4070 Super, though the difference was just 2 FPS in terms of average frame rate. Still, that meant the 5070 was only 7% faster than the 7800 XT in this example.

    At 4K, the 5070 performed slightly better relative to the 4070 Super, pulling ahead by a 6% margin with 51 FPS on average. This was without any RT effects enabled, using the second-highest rasterization preset.

    Hogwarts Legacy

    Hogwarts Legacy is a bandwidth-sensitive game, which works in the RTX 5070’s favor. At 1440p, it outperformed the 4070 Super by an impressive 21% margin, showing that under the right conditions, there are some notable gains. However, this only allowed the 5070 to match the 7800 XT.

    Oddly, the margin shrank significantly at 4K, with the 5070 only 8% faster than the 4070 Super and the 7800 XT, averaging 66 FPS.

    The Last of Us Part I

    The Last of Us Part I delivered more typical results. At 1440p, the RTX 5070 performed identically to the 4070 Super, with both averaging around 90 FPS. This made the 5070 just 2% faster than the 7800 XT.

    At 4K, the 5070 pulled slightly ahead, but the average frame rate was only 4% greater than that of the 4070 Super – a very underwhelming performance boost.

    Starfield

    The last game we’ll cover is Starfield, another case where the 4070 Super outperformed the new 5070 at 1440p. Granted, the performance was nearly the same, but it was still disappointing to see the 5070 coming in 3% slower.

    At 4K, the 5070 was again 6% slower than the 4070 Super, averaging just 45 FPS. Another set of disappointing results.

    Performance Summary

    1440p

    Across the 16 games tested at 1440p, the RTX 5070 was, on average, just 1% faster than the 4070 Super. That settles it – the 5070 is basically a 4070 Super. Realistically, for this to be considered a next-gen GPU, it should have been called the 5060. But we’ve been down this road already with the 5070 Ti and 5080, and to some extent, even the 5090, which is really just a 4090 Ti.

    4K

    It’s a similar story at 4K. The RTX 5070 was, on average, just 5% faster than the 4070 Super, delivering RTX 3090-like performance. So maybe Jensen meant the 5070 would match the 3090, not the 4090, and he simply misspoke – yeah, that must be it.

    Power Consumption

    We’re not going to dive too deep into power consumption, as power usage tends to be a boring topic at the best of times. However, believe it or not, the 5070 is once again a 4070 Super in this regard, consuming roughly the same amount of power across the games we tested.

    Ray Tracing Performance

    RT – Metro Exodus Enhanced

    Now for the ray tracing benchmarks, starting with Metro Exodus Enhanced, where the 5070 matched the 4070 Super at 1440p. Well, technically, it was 4% faster, which is quickly starting to feel like a significant win for this new GeForce GPU.

    At 4K, it was 8% faster, averaging 53 FPS – which is an embarrassingly low level of performance for a $550 GeForce GPU released in 2025. Of course, Radeon GPUs fare even worse, though none of them were released this year.

    RT – Alan Wake II

    Next, we have Alan Wake II, and the 5070 struggles at 1440p even with upscaling, only matching the original 4070 and falling 15% behind the 4070 Super. That’s a disaster, considering we’re only looking at 39 FPS.

    At 4K with quality upscaling enabled, the 5070 did manage to match the 4070 Super, but at just 22 FPS on average – not exactly a win.

    RT – Cyberpunk 2077

    Moving on to Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty, the RTX 5070 continues its trend of extremely underwhelming ray tracing performance, coming in 12% slower than the 4070 Super with an average of 58 FPS.

    Once again, the 5070 is only able to match the 4070 Super at 4K with quality upscaling, but now we’re looking at just 31 FPS on average – hardly an acceptable level of performance.

    RT – Marvel’s Spider-Man

    The Spider-Man Remastered results at 1440p are CPU-limited, but even so, the 5070 ended up 14% faster than the 4070 Super. Like Hogwarts Legacy, this game is very bandwidth-sensitive, which explains why the 5070 performs better here.

    That said, there seems to be another bottleneck at 4K, as the 5070 drops back down to 4070 Super-like performance. While 91 FPS is still a solid result, it’s hardly impressive when compared to previous-generation GPUs.

    RT – Dying Light 2 Stay Human

    In Dying Light 2, the RTX 5070 managed to edge out the 4070 Super, but only by a mere 5% margin.

    At 4K, the gap remained small, with the 5070 being just 7% faster at an average of 44 FPS – not exactly a game-changing improvement.

    RT – Black Myth: Wukong

    The RTX 5070 once again performs like a 4070 Super in Black Myth: Wukong, managing just 46 FPS at 1440p with upscaling. That said, at least it’s not a Radeon GPU.

    At 4K with upscaling, the RTX 5070 becomes completely useless, only matching the RTX 4070 Super at 25 FPS.

    RT – Indiana Jones and the Great Circle

    Lastly, we have Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, a late addition to this review. Tim suggested including it to highlight the RT performance of these new GeForce GPUs, and it certainly paints a bleak picture for the 12GB RTX 5070 – just 13 FPS on average at 1440p with upscaling.

    Of course, you can lower the quality settings to avoid maxing out the VRAM, but these are the ray tracing settings Tim recommends for a truly transformative experience in this game.

    Naturally, 4K is completely out of the question. In fact, it’s so far out of the question that the game will crash and refuse to relaunch on a 12GB GPU with full RT enabled. To get back in, you’ll have to start in safe mode and lower the settings.

    So, how future-proof is the RTX 5070’s RT performance – and perhaps its performance in general – as a 12GB GPU released in 2025? Not very, by the looks of it.

    Ray Tracing Performance Summary

    1440p

    Since the RTX 5070 completely crapped out in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle with full RT enabled, we have removed that game from the average, leaving us with six titles. Even then, the 5070 still fell just behind the RTX 4070 Super – though, to be fair, overall performance was nearly identical.

    4K

    At 4K, the 5070 was slightly faster than the 4070 Super, but again, overall performance was nearly identical. Even with the help of upscaling, frame rates were generally poor.

    Cost per Frame

    MSRP

    In a perfect world where MSRP actually meant something, the RTX 5070 would be a decent value product – if you overlook its obvious VRAM limitations, which will no doubt become a bigger issue in the coming years.

    But ignoring that reality, the 5070 at $550 looks good – not amazing, but good. It offers 8% better value than the 5070 Ti and 20% better value than the RTX 5080. However, both of those products come with more VRAM. While it may only be the minimum amount of VRAM we’d want to see on a mid-range or better product, at least those cards meet that minimum.

    The 5070 is also 13% better value than the RTX 4070 Super. Again, that’s not an amazing generational uplift, but if available at MSRP, it stacks up fairly well.

    Retail

    However, the RTX 4070 Super saw some small discounts in 2024. If you bought one back then, the RTX 5070 only ends up being 10% better value. At that point, we’d rather give up 10% in efficiency for an extra 6 – 12 months of use, making an RTX 4070 Super purchase a year ago the smarter choice.

    Australian Retail

    The RTX 5070 will have to compete with the Radeon RX 9070, so it’s likely to hit the $550 MSRP sooner rather than later. That said, in Australia where I live, the RTX 5070 is expected to cost at least $1,250 AUD, which is a terrible price point. That makes it 8% more expensive in terms of cost per frame compared to the RTX 4070 Super, which was recently available for $1,100 AUD.

    It also makes the RTX 5070 worse value than the Radeon RX 7900 XTX, 7900 XT, and significantly worse than the 7800 XT. The cost per frame compared to the 7800 XT is 31% higher, despite the 5070 having less VRAM – obviously a terrible trade-off.

    Operating Behavior

    Before wrapping up this review, let’s take a quick look at how Nvidia’s Founders Edition version of the RTX 5070 compares to the Asus Prime and Gigabyte Eagle models.

    Under full load, the FE model peaked at a GPU temperature of 72°C, while the Eagle was significantly cooler at 63°C, and the Prime ran at 62°C. It was a similar story with memory temperatures – 76°C for the FE model, while the Eagle peaked at 64°C and the Prime at 68°C.

    Oddly, the FE model reported a fan speed of 2,350 RPM, yet it didn’t seem loud, measuring just 39 dBA. Typically, at that fan speed, we’d expect noise levels to be well above 40 dBA. Meanwhile, the Eagle and Prime were much quieter at 35 dBA and 34 dBA, respectively.

    The Eagle consumed 20W less than the FE model, which led to a slightly lower clock speed of 2,760 MHz – odd considering this is the OC version of the Eagle, yet it clocks lower than Nvidia’s reference model. The Prime exhibited a similar pattern, though its power consumption was reported to be higher despite having a slightly lower core clock.

    Bottom Line

    We are not impressed with the GeForce RTX 5070. It’s a compromised product that will struggle to fully utilize the RTX feature set due to its limited 12GB VRAM buffer. And while this may not be a major issue right now, it’s likely to become one within the realistic lifespan of this product.

    In terms of general performance, there’s nothing exciting here. The RTX 5070 is essentially a refreshed RTX 4070 Super with $50 knocked off the MSRP. It can occasionally compete with the RTX 4070 Ti Super, but again, with just 12GB of VRAM, it’s not a favorable comparison.

    Realistically, you would have been better off buying an RTX 4070 Super months ago if you wanted this level of performance. Six months ago, the 4070 Super was available for $585, and a year ago, it was selling for $600. Waiting an entire year to save $50 while only gaining 5% more performance hardly seems worth it – another reason why the RTX 5070 is so underwhelming.

    For those looking to spend around $550 on a GPU right now, there isn’t a better option – at least not yet. However, the Radeon RX 9070 series launches tomorrow, and AMD is confident they can deliver models at that price. The RX 9070 could be faster, and it certainly offers more VRAM, making it a serious competitor. We have a detailed review of the new Radeons coming, and a dedicated look at FSR4 coming up.

    In other words, if you’re considering a $550 GPU purchase, it would be wise to wait a little longer to see which card is truly worth your money. That said, we suspect that spending an extra $50 on the 9070 XT will be the best move

    The RTX 5070 hasn’t impressed us – in fact, it’s extremely underwhelming. We’ll wait to see what AMD brings to the table before making any recommendations at this price point.

    Shopping Shortcuts:
    • Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 on Amazon
    • Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Ti on Amazon
    • Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 on Amazon
    • Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 on Amazon
    • AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX on Amazon
    • Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super on Amazon
    • AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on Amazon
    • AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT on Amazon


  • Best Internet Providers in Amarillo, Texas

    Best Internet Providers in Amarillo, Texas


    What is the best internet provider in Amarillo?

    Residents of Amarillo, Texas, have plenty of options for home internet, which can make sorting through the choices a bit overwhelming. After reviewing the options in the region, our CNET experts found that AT&T Fiber is the best internet provider in Amarillo. With its blistering speeds up to 5,000Mbps and numerous plans, finding the right option for your needs is simple. You can also look into Vexus and local provider AW Broadband as alternatives.

    But given the city’s mix of urban and rural areas, fiber isn’t available to everyone. Most residents will likely have access to cable services from Optimum, but others may need to look to fixed wireless options from Plains Internet, AW Broadband, Verizon 5G Home Internet or T-Mobile Home Internet.

    Having a fast, reliable internet connection is crucial for streaming, gaming or working from home. CNET examined customer service reviews, speed, pricing and overall value to recommend the best local broadband providers. With that in mind, let’s sort through the best internet providers in Amarillo.

    Best internet providers in Amarillo, TX

    Amarillo ISPs give you options for getting online, whether you want to feed your need for speed with fiber or connect with cable or fixed wireless. Your choice will largely come down to availability. If your address is hooked up for fiber, then AT&T and Vexus are our top picks. T-Mobile Home Internet and Verizon 5G Home Internet offer no-fuss fixed wireless alternatives if you’re in a location with a strong signal.

    Note: The prices, speeds and features detailed in the article text may differ from those listed in the product detail cards, which represent providers’ national offerings. Your particular internet service options — including prices and speeds — depend on your address and may differ from those detailed here.

    Internet providers in Amarillo overview

    Provider Internet technology Monthly price range Speed range Monthly equipment costs Data cap Contract CNET review score
    AT&T
    Read full review
    Fiber $55-$245 300-5,000Mbps None 1.5TB (no data cap for 100Mbps or above) None 7.4
    AW Broadband Fiber/fixed wireless $55-$85 50-1,000Mbps None None None N/A
    Optimum
    Read full review
    Cable $40-$60 300-1,000Mbps None None None 6.2
    Plains Internet Fixed wireless $45-$75 25-50Mbps $10 (optional) None None N/A
    T-Mobile Home Internet
    Read full review
    Fixed wireless $50-$70 ($30-$50 with eligible phone plan) 87-415Mbps None None None 7.4
    Verizon 5G Home Internet
    Read full review
    Fixed wireless $50-$70 ($35-$45 with eligible phone plan) 85-1,000Mbps None None None 7.2
    Vexus Fiber $35-$70 150-2,000Mbps $10 (optional) None None N/A

    Show more (2 items)

    Source: CNET analysis of provider data.

    How many members of your household use the internet?

    All available Amarillo residential internet providers

    AT&T Fiber and Vexus topped our list for best ISPs in Amarillo thanks to fast speeds and reliable connections. T-Mobile offers broad coverage for its 5G home internet. They’re not the only games in town, though. Here are other ISPs to consider.

    • AW Broadband: Regional ISP AW Broadband, formerly Amarillo Wireless, delivers internet services via fixed wireless and fiber. AW covers all of Amarillo with fixed wireless and an estimated 15% of the city with fiber, with a concentration on newly built neighborhoods and suburbs. Equipment is included with an optional Wi-Fi router lease for $10 a month. There are no contracts. A $149 installation fee applies, with discounts for seniors, military and first responders. 
    • Optimum: Formerly known as Suddenlink, Optimum is a wide-reaching provider of cable internet across Amarillo. Pricing starts at $40 per month for 300Mbps service on up to $60 per month for 1,000Mbps (called the 1 Gig plan). Standard installation and equipment are included at no additional cost and there’s no annual contract. Keep an eye out for bonuses like a prepaid Visa rewards card. If you’re shopping on price, then the 1 Gig plan is a tempting deal for the speed you get. 
    • Plains Internet: Fixed wireless provider Plains Internet may be an option for residences that are more rural or otherwise don’t have coverage from a fiber or cable provider. Basic plans start from $45 and speeds can vary depending on location with a top speed of 100Mbps. There’s an $80 installation fee. Plains has two very small pockets of fiber service in north and east Amarillo, but fixed wireless is its mainstay for the area. 
    • Satellite internet: Starlink is a little pricey and the startup cost is expensive, but it’s a solid alternative for rural areas that don’t have a good fiber, cable or fixed wireless option. Also, check into satellite providers Viasat or HughesNet.
    • Verizon 5G Home Internet: Verizon is T-Mobile’s national competitor in the fixed wireless arena. It offers a max speed of 1,000Mbps in some places in the country, but speeds are dependent on location and network demand. Not every city is covered by Verizon’s fastest technology, so Amarillo customers can look for speeds of up to 300Mbps. Plans run from $50 to $70, but you can qualify for significant savings when bundling with an eligible mobile plan. When deciding between T-Mobile Home Internet and Verizon 5G Home Internet, start with the one you have a mobile plan with (if either of them), then check availability.

    Downtown Amarillo, with the Texas Route 66 sign in the foreground and a large building in the background.

    Denis Tagney Jr./Getty Images

    Amarillo broadband at a glance

    If fiber services your address, then give it strong consideration. Fast fiber upload speeds are nice to have, and the Amarillo fiber providers have better customer service reputations than cable rival Optimum. Some locations, especially ones outside the city limits, may not have much choice in ISP, so look to fixed wireless from T-Mobile, Verizon, Plains Internet or AW Broadband as an alternative.

    Pricing for Amarillo home internet service

    Getting started with a new internet connection in Amarillo can be very affordable, compared to other cities. The average monthly starting price for an internet plan in Amarillo works out to about $47. Optimum and AW Broadband have options starting at around $50. Eligible T-Mobile and Verizon phone customers can enjoy discounted fixed wireless internet. You can also drop a pretty penny ($245 per month) if AT&T Fiber offers its fastest 5,000Mbps speed tier at your location.

    Cheap internet options in the Amarillo area

    The cheapest internet plan in Amarillo is Verizon 5G Home Internet’s $35 fixed wireless deal if you bundle the service with an eligible phone plan. On the cable side, Optimum offers a competitive $40 tier for 300Mbps. Your best bargain in fiber is the Vexus 500Mbps plan for $40 per month, but the network access fee bumps that to $50.

    What’s the cheapest internet plan in Amarillo?

    Provider Starting price Max download speed Monthly equipment fee Contract
    Vexus Internet 150 $35 150Mbps $10 (optional) None
    Optimum
    Read full review
    $40 300Mbps None None
    Vexus Internet 500 $45 500Mbps $10 (optional) None
    Vexus Internet 1 Gig $50 1,000Mbps $10 (optional) None
    Verizon 5G Home Internet
    Read full review
    $50 ($35 with eligible mobile plan) 300Mbps None None
    T-Mobile Home Internet
    Read full review
    $50 ($30 with eligible mobile plan) 318Mbps None None
    AT&T Fiber 300
    Read full review
    $55 300Mbps None None
    AW Broadband $55 50Mbps None None

    Show more (3 items)

    Source: CNET analysis of provider data.

    How fast is the internet in Amarillo?

    Amarillo’s internet speeds are all over the map. According to Ookla’s Speedtest.net data, Amarillo’s residential internet options deliver a very respectable median download speed of about 366Mbps for fixed internet. Some residents are able to connect to fiber networks with residential speeds topping out at 5,000Mbps from AT&T Fiber. Most fiber customers will be plenty happy with 1,000Mbps service from AT&T or Vexus. (Disclosure: Ookla is owned by the same parent company as CNET, Ziff Davis.)

    Fastest internet providers in Amarillo

    AT&T Fiber and Vexus Fiber are the fastest internet providers in Amarillo. AT&T offers its zippy 5,000Mbps in some areas of the city, otherwise, you can look at slower (but still very fast) fiber plans at the 2,000Mbps or 1,000Mbps tiers. Vexus comes in with a top speed of 2,000Mbps and undercuts AT&T’s price by a little, though keep an eye on future price changes after the first year. Read our guide to the best multi-gigabit internet plans.

    What are the fastest internet plans in Amarillo?

    Provider Max download speed Max upload speed Starting price Data cap Contract
    AT&T Fiber 5000
    Read full review
    5,000Mbps 5,000Mbps $245 None None
    AT&T Fiber 2000
    Read full review
    2,000Mbps 2,000Mbps $145 None None
    Vexus 2 Gig 2,000Mbps 2,000Mbps $70 None None
    AT&T Fiber 1000
    Read full review
    1,000Mbps 1,000Mbps $80 None None
    AW Broadband Hyperspeed 1,000Mbps 1,000Mbps $85 None None
    Vexus 1 Gig 1,000Mbps 1,000Mbps $50 None None
    Optimum 1 Gig
    Read full review
    940Mbps 35Mbps $60 None None

    Show more (2 items)

    Source: CNET analysis of provider data.

    What’s the final word on internet providers in Amarillo?

    The Amarillo area is a place where city and country life cross over, so internet services are very location-dependent. Parts of the city are covered by fast fiber, while more rural spots may need to look into fixed wireless or even satellite internet options. If AT&T, Vexus or AW Broadband services your address with fiber, then that’s a smart way to go for fast upload and download speeds. Otherwise, consider cable internet from Optimum or fixed wireless from T-Mobile or Verizon, or a regional provider like AW Broadband or Plains Internet.

    How CNET chose the best internet providers in Amarillo

    Internet service providers are numerous and regional. Unlike the latest smartphone, laptop, router or kitchen tool, it’s impractical to personally test every ISP in a given city. So what’s our approach? We start by researching the pricing, availability and speed information drawing on our own historical ISP data, the provider sites and mapping information from the Federal Communications Commission at FCC.gov.

    But it doesn’t end there. We use the FCC’s website to check our data and ensure we consider every ISP that provides service in an area. We also input local addresses on provider websites to find specific options for residents. We look at sources, including the American Customer Satisfaction Index and J.D. Power, to evaluate how happy customers are with an ISP’s service. ISP plans and prices are subject to frequent changes; all information provided is accurate as of the time of publication.

    Once we have this localized information, we ask three main questions:

    1. Does the provider offer access to reasonably fast internet speeds?
    2. Do customers get decent value for what they’re paying?
    3. Are customers happy with their service?

    While the answer to those questions is often layered and complex, the providers who come closest to “yes” on all three are the ones we recommend. Within those recommendations, we also look for the cheapest and fastest ISPs from that region. To explore our process more thoroughly, check out our page on how we test ISPs.

    Amarillo internet provider FAQs

    Is fiber internet available in Amarillo?

    Yes. Amarillo’s biggest fiber competitors are AT&T Fiber and regional provider Vexus Fiber. AW Broadband offers fiber in some limited areas, as well. For households with extreme internet needs, it’s hard to top AT&T’s 5,000Mbps plan, but availability is limited and the price is high. Vexus gives AT&T a run for its money on price and speed when you get to the 2,000Mbps tier. Budget buyers can look to 300Mbps or 400Mbps plans for decent speeds, fast uploads and less stress on the pocketbook.


    Show more

    What’s the cheapest internet provider in Amarillo?

    Verizon and T-Mobile offer tempting bundle deals for eligible phone customers that bring your monthly home internet cost down to as low as $35 with Verizon or $30 with T-Mobile. Otherwise, $35 per month can get you going with Vexus Fiber’s 150Mbps service.


    Show more

    Which internet provider in Amarillo offers the fastest plan?

    The badge for the fastest internet in Amarillo goes to AT&T Fiber’s top-tier 5,000Mbps plan. It has a limited reach across the city, but it will make households with multiple heavy internet users very happy. 


    Show more

    Is Optimum or AT&T Fiber better in Amarillo?

    Optimum cable internet is accessible across Amarillo, but the company doesn’t always earn high marks for customer service. If both AT&T Fiber and Optimum service your address, you have a decision to make. Optimum offers a very affordable 300Mbps plan at $40 per month, while AT&T’s lowest fiber price is $55 for 300Mbps. However, the fiber option gets you fast upload speeds to go along with the download speeds, so if the price difference isn’t a big deal and you need to upload large files, then AT&T could be the better bet for you. Read our AT&T versus Optimum comparison for more details.


    Show more




  • ‘Twilight’ Lego set hands-on: Is the over-$200 replica worth it?

    ‘Twilight’ Lego set hands-on: Is the over-$200 replica worth it?


    I have something to admit upfront before we get into this. And don’t come for me in the comments, please.

    I’ve only seen the first Twilight film, so I can’t really say that I’m a true fan. For what it’s worth, I really enjoyed that movie. Especially that scene where Bella struggles to use a ketchup bottle.

    “Well, then, why’d you spend $220 on the Twilight Cullen House Lego set, Dylan?” you’re probably saying to yourself. It’s simple: My wife is a Twilight superfan, and I thought it’d be a lot of fun for the both of us to undertake the massive, 2,000-plus-piece replica of the Cullen’s modern forest mansion that Lego released in mid-February. Now, that’s quite the chunk of change for a box of plastic bricks, but as we constructed the three-story behemoth, we quickly realized that we were getting way more out of the experience than just our money’s worth.

    SEE ALSO:

    Why Pharrell Williams made his biopic ‘Piece by Piece’ a Lego movie

    After almost a month of waiting since we placed our preorder, our long-awaited shipment arrived at our door. I shook the box just to be sure, and from the sound of it, there were definitely Lego pieces in there. We cut open the package and marveled at the set in all its glory, albeit feeling somewhat nervous. Were we ready to take on a project like this? How long would it take? Would Jacob’s minifigure come with a pair of ripped denim shorts? We were going to find out. We waited until the following weekend so we’d have as much time as we needed, and then began our pre-build preparations.

    The box that the set came in was, not surprisingly, quite large. For scale, here’s a photo of my dog sitting next to it:

    Writer's dog sitting next to the Lego set box for scale

    Unfortunately, Stevie couldn’t help us build the set.
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    As you can see, the box itself is almost exactly one Stevie tall, which is pretty damn big. Upon opening the box, we were greeted with a whole lot of Lego pieces (also not surprising). Thankfully, the over-2,000-piece set was neatly portioned out into 18 separate bags, all numbered to coincide with the included booklet’s step-by-step instructions. That was a huge relief to the two of us — we’d never tackled a Lego set of this size before, so we didn’t know what to expect when it came to the actual process of putting everything together. But, it seemed like our hands were going to be held all the way to the finish line. Splitting each section up into manageable and understandable chunks kept us from feeling overwhelmed by the sea of colored plastic that was strewn across our kitchen table.

    Picture of Lego set bags on a table

    The workspace.
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    Picture of partially built Lego set on a table

    A few hours later…
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    We carefully opened the first bag that Lego kindly meal-prepped for us, which included a brick removal tool in case we made any mistakes and a sheet of stickers that would be used on specific pieces throughout the process. We emptied out the pieces from the first group and started making our way through the instructions, which kicked things off with Charlie Swan’s truck. It was a breeze to put together, thanks to the easy-to-follow instructions, and looked great when it was done. It even has working wheels!

    Then, it was time to move on to the house, which got a bit more complicated. The instructions were still just as simple, but our method of dumping all the bricks from each bag onto the table wasn’t working anymore. Too many of them looked alike, and it would take us minutes just to find the one part we needed. The small moments of panic that would set in whenever it seemed like we were missing a piece weren’t fun, either. We never were, and each bag had some extras in it just in case something did vanish into the void.

    Mashable Top Stories

    Photo of Lego Charlie Swan with his Lego pickup truck

    Something tells me that a lot of people will be happy with the inclusion of Bella’s dad.
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    So, we changed our plan of attack. Going forward, every time we opened a new bag, we’d carefully sift and sort through each plastic piece, grouping them with their identical cohorts. This way, we’d know exactly where everything was and how many of each piece we had at all times. Once we got the hang of our new game plan, we started zooming through the rest of the set. (Well, relatively zooming. It still took us about eight hours to complete from start to finish.)

    We were a well-oiled machine, quickly glancing back and forth between the instruction booklet and the miniature Cullen household, adding to it each time. We worked on different sections simultaneously and with finesse as if we’d been doing it our whole lives. We were officially in The Flow State™. Is this what Lego hobbyists felt like all the time?

    Photo of the inside of the second floor of the 'Twilight' Lego set

    Brick by brick, floor by floor.
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    We constructed the compound literally from the ground up, starting from the foundation all the way to the third floor. As we built, we were constantly impressed by the sheer detail that went into the items on each floor of the house — stuff you wouldn’t see unless you opened the whole thing up and inspected it closely, like the Cullen’s wall of graduation caps or their grand piano. Those items require you to be a bit more surgical while building due to their small pieces, but the result is super rewarding.

    A part of the building experience that I personally loved was the tension of not always knowing what you were building right away. The instructions are careful not to spoil the end product before you get there yourself, so a lot of times, you’re staring at a strange grouping of bricks, wondering if it is, in fact, anything at all. It’s a great exercise in relinquishing control and trusting the process, which can get especially challenging when it seems like whatever you’re building just isn’t coming together. It always came together, though. I feel like there’s a life lesson somewhere in that.

    Photo of Lego Bella on Lego Edward's back while climbing a tree

    “You better hold on tight, spider monkey.”
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    Photo of the inside of the first floor of the 'Twilight' Lego set

    Another one of my favorite details is the Cullen’s grand piano.
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    We kept progressing through the set, eventually hitting autopilot. Now, we were well-versed enough to multitask — 50 percent building, and the other 50 percent just yapping. My wife would talk me through all the Twilight movie references I didn’t understand, and perk up with excitement whenever I was able to call one out myself. It was a joy to connect with her over what Lego detractors would refer to as a children’s toy. It felt nostalgic, like we were in a simpler time. For those next few hours, I wasn’t thinking cynically, which feels wild to say in 2025. I wasn’t thinking about planes falling out of the sky or about the dire condition of our political landscape. I was only thinking about how each of these tiny plastic pieces would snap together, how I was enjoying quality time with my favorite person, and how, at least at this moment in time, everything felt like it was OK.

    Look, I’m not saying that you should bury your head and ignore what’s going on in the world — actually, I advise heavily against that. But if the state of it all is getting to be overwhelming, maybe I am saying that you should pick up a Lego set and just see what happens. You might be surprised by how therapeutic it can be.

    SEE ALSO:

    33 years to read ‘Twilight’? This TikTok account isn’t in a hurry.

    Before we knew it, we were putting the finishing touches on the set, which involved making a wolf version of Jacob and the verdant surrounding area of the Cullen abode. We also put together all of the character Minifigures, including Carlisle, Alice, Rosalie, Charlie, human-form Jacob, and, of course, Bella and Edward. The latter two even came with an extra piece that lets you attach Bella to Edward’s back so you can perfectly reenact the iconic tree-climbing scene.

    Photo of completed 'Twilight' Lego set on a bookshelf

    The final product.
    Credit: Dylan Haas / Mashable

    Finally, our job was done. We carefully lifted the replica and placed it on our bookshelf where we could appreciate its beauty. We stepped back to enjoy the view, proud of the work we’d put into it and feeling unexpectedly reinvigorated. I’m not trying to sound dramatic — it’s not like this Lego set fundamentally changed us as people. But, it was a moment of respite during a time filled with uncertainty, and that was enough.

    If you haven’t already gleaned that I think Lego’s Twilight collaboration is absolutely worth the money, consider this my confirmation. I’m most certainly a Lego and a Twilight guy now. So, I guess it’s time for me to watch the rest of those movies.

    And in case you were still wondering: No, Jacob’s minifigure did not come with a pair of ripped denim shorts.




  • 8 trends that will sound the death knell for gaming PCs

    8 trends that will sound the death knell for gaming PCs


    The ongoing GPU crisis (oh boy) and the past lackluster year for PC hardware have forced me to ponder where the PC industry is heading. PC components selling out in seconds and greedy scalpers holding the market ransom isn’t new, but what has changed is that manufacturers now expect us to treat this as the new normal. No longer do I see the same outrage against hilariously insufficient stocks and faulty PC components.

    This made me think about every single negative trend plaguing the industry right now, and how the combined effect could end up hurting PC hardware and PC gaming in the near future. Not only are gaming PCs becoming inaccessible to the larger population, but internal and external challenges are threatening to make them less appealing than ever before. PC gaming will not die, but it might just become a lifeless carcass if we don’t take the foot off the pedal.

    Related

    5 things I want from the PC hardware industry in 2025

    With 2024 delivering one debacle after another, I have my PC hardware wishlist ready for 2025

    8

    Minimalism has replaced DIY hardware tinkering

    Every PC looks the same

    This one might not be as damning as the other times on the list, but the visual variety in gaming PCs is gradually fading away. The 2000s had balls-to-the-walls hardware mods like CCFL tubes, UV-reactive components, EL wire lighting, custom fan grills & side panels, and submerged cooling. Even the 2010s replaced those with unique PC cases, RGB lighting, components with LCDs, and custom cables. However, the 2020s seem more boring than ever.

    Every other PC builder is opting for fish tank cases, tons of fans, gigantic coolers, and RGB components. The stuff that was fresh a few years ago seems awfully stale now, and the components that have replaced it seem hell-bent on eschewing variety for minimalism. Sleek PCs, SFF cases, and fancy pre-builds that can double as home decor items are all the rage, and the scope for hardware customization is at an all-time low. If we don’t see fresh trends infuse the PC market with some much-needed diversity, custom PC building might become a rarity.

    Related

    What happened to the PC modding scene?

    You might not recognize the modding scene because it’s gone professional.

    7

    Insignificant generational gains are commonplace

    The unfortunate death of Moore’s Law

    It’s not like every single CPU and GPU generation in the past delivered stupendous gains over the previous one, but the 2024-25 season has made this trend more acceptable than ever. First, we saw AMD’s Ryzen 9000 series deliver essentially the same gaming performance as the Ryzen 7000 series, earning the endearing nickname of “Zen 5%.” Then, Intel’s much-anticipated Arrow Lake CPUs ended up being slower than the 14th Gen Core series. And, finally, Nvidia’s RTX 50 series was more a refresh of the 40 series than a whole new generation.

    I feel manufacturers have prematurely made their peace with the death of Moore’s Law, as claimed by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang. They are content with pumping out the same products in newer packaging, demanding more money for lesser value. Even the outrage against these launches doesn’t have the punch that we used to see in the past, which either means manufacturers have worn us down, or that even we don’t care as much anymore — I don’t know what’s worse.

    If this trend of minor gen-on-gen gains continues, it won’t be long before PC enthusiasts will question the very purpose of building a new PC. When gamers find no reason to upgrade to the latest hardware, who will manufacturers sell to? I’ve already declared that my dream upgrade from the RTX 3080 to the RTX 5080 is ruined, since the 50 series offers me nothing that the 40 series doesn’t. It won’t be long before many more gamers feel the same way.

    Related

    5 reasons I have mentally given up on upgrading my gaming PC

    Upgrading my gaming PC isn’t my focus anymore, and I have a lot of reasons for it

    6

    GPU manufacturers are too chummy with AI

    “Artificial Incentives” to upgrade

    Artificial Intelligence became a major driver of GPU performance when Nvidia launched DLSS alongside the RTX 20 series GPUs in 2018. The underlying AI model in DLSS first took charge of filling in the gaps for upscaling and later enabled the generation of entirely new frames. While the technology also handles other departments such as denoising (ray reconstruction) and anti-aliasing (DLAA), AI really became a problem when the RTX 50 series introduced Multi Frame Generation (MFG).

    This feature essentially multiplies the benefits as well as the downsides of Frame Generation, available on the RTX 40 series GPUs. Nvidia chose to market the AI-generated frames as equivalent to those rendered by the game engine, essentially misleading consumers with claims like the RTX 5070 offering RTX 4090 levels of performance. While MFG made it seem like the 50 series would offer double the FPS of the 40 series, the actual raw performance increase of the 50 series GPUs ended up in the 10–30% range (at 4K), depending on the SKU.

    And it’s not just Nvidia that is relying on AI instead of raw hardware-driven gains. AMD has confirmed that AI will play a big role in its RDNA 4 GPUs, enabling enhanced upscaling, frame generation, and lag reduction using FSR 4. Intel’s Arc GPUs already have dedicated AI cores to handle upscaling and frame generation, and an MFG-like feature will surely arrive soon on Team Blue’s GPUs. PC gamers clearly do not welcome this shift toward AI to drive generational performance gains.

    Related

    It’s time to accept Nvidia’s “fake frames” might be the new normal

    Like it or not, Nvidia’s RTX 50 series shows that AI-generated frames are here to stay

    5

    Games are more demanding, yet more broken than ever

    The ship of voting with your wallet has sailed

    If you’re reading this, I’m guessing you’re a PC gamer. So, you already know the state of AAA games of late — a mess of unoptimized titles, uninspired multi-million-dollar failures, and a streak of studio closures even after putting out hits. It almost feels like we’re living through a dark age of PC gaming. Every big-budget studio is pushing the boundaries of photorealism, making games more demanding than ever, but games with predictable performance and engaging gameplay are a rarity in 2025.

    When flagship graphics cards can’t drive playable framerates in the latest games without upscaling and frame generation, there’s no hope for the average gamer using an RTX 4060. Plus, gamers need to be more wary than ever of “gotcha games” like The Day Before, which turned out to be nothing but a cash-grab scam, where the developers hyped up the game like there was no tomorrow (there wasn’t), and closed shop days after releasing a dud.

    The pain of putting up with unoptimized games alone is enough to push PC gamers to consoles. Still, the gaming industry is piling on with unfair practices and using upscaling & frame generation as crutches.

    Related

    PC games need better optimization

    The current state of game optimization is a joke.

    4

    Consoles are getting more powerful every generation

    Talking about moving to consoles…

    When the industry moved to the PS5 and Xbox Series X, there was a palpable shift in the perception toward consoles. They were no longer hunks of junk with jet engine noise, sub-par graphics, and slow-as-heck loading speeds. The latest generation of consoles boasts some of the fastest loading times and PC-level graphics. You don’t need to pump out insanely high FPS to offer a superior gaming experience if your machine can deliver 4K 60 FPS experiences.

    The PS5 Pro even offers enhanced ray tracing and more GPU horsepower than before, bringing consoles closer than ever to PCs. Moreover, using upscaling as a crutch isn’t a downside for consoles when the technology is pervasive on PCs. The biggest draw of consoles today is much greater optimization in some of the biggest titles, offering gamers predictable performance at a much lower price of entry. The next generation of consoles might finally spur an exodus of PC gamers to the enemy camp.

    Related

    5 reasons switching from PC to console makes more sense than ever

    With the state PC hardware and gaming is in, many gamers are considering a switch to consoles.

    3

    Unfinished PC hardware has become more common

    Games aren’t the only things coming out broken

    Maybe PC hardware manufacturers didn’t want to be one-upped by gaming companies, so they decided that proper testing and quality assurance was for chumps, and launched products with some serious bugs. You might be familiar with Intel’s 13th and 14th Gen CPUs suffering from nasty crashes and lasting damage due to a bug causing high voltage delivery. Intel would have hoped to erase that memory with the Arrow Lake CPUs, but even those suffered from instability issues at launch.

    On the topic of Intel launching buggy products, the otherwise excellent Arc B580 encountered a performance overhead when paired with budget and older CPUs, which, ironically, are the most relevant chips for it. The issue doesn’t seem easily resolved with a future BIOS update, since more fundamental factors could be at play. On the other hand, AMD couldn’t fix the gaming performance of its Ryzen 9000 CPUs even with BIOS updates, and probably regretted making tall marketing claims before launch.

    Most recently, Nvidia’s RTX 50 series GPUs shipped with missing ROPs (Render Output Units), melting 12V-2×6 connectors (again), and driver issues causing black screens. Doesn’t it seem that this string of unfinished PC components is going on forever? At this point, it has almost become acceptablesince I don’t see enough consumers speaking out against it.

    Related

    6 recent PC hardware scandals that still seem unbelievable

    Some PC hardware scandals are tough to forget. These are some of the most recent and shocking ones on record.

    2

    PC hardware has become ridiculously unaffordable

    Do you even feel like building a PC anymore?

    Companies like Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and others have gradually made luxury PC components a reality. Years ago, a $1,000 GPU seemed unthinkable, but today we’re seeing an RTX 5090 priced at $2,000, and performing not a lot faster than its predecessor for that price. AMD graphics cards have historically remained cheaper than those of Nvidia’s, but not by a lot. And both Intel and AMD have gradually hiked the prices of even their budget CPUs far beyond the “budget” segment.

    CPUs and GPUs aren’t the only components that have priced out the average gamer. The latest motherboards, memory kits, and SSDs have also played their part. The death of budget components is being felt more than ever before, as there are truly a handful of decent affordable GPUs and CPUs left on the market. Nvidia and AMD have moved the goalposts of the budget and mid-range segments so much that it’s becoming unsustainable to upgrade one’s PC every few years.

    Prices will obviously not come down anytime soon, so gamers will have to make a choice — buy crappy hardware they can afford or finally consider moving to a console or handheld.

    Related

    5 disappointing PC hardware realities that just won’t change

    For seasoned members of the PC community, some harsh realities haven’t changed in a long time

    1

    The string of paper launches is set to continue

    MSRP is no more

    The silicon shortage and supply chain crises that plagued the industry from 2020 to 2022 seem to be making a comeback. No one but scalpers can find an RTX 50 series GPU or a Ryzen X3D CPU at sane prices anymore. Even previous-gen GPUs and CPUs are out of stock everywhere, contributing to an all-around terrible time to upgrade your PC. If you think these paper launches are just a temporary phenomenon, think again.

    The same fate awaits AMD’s newly launched RX 9000 GPUs and any upcoming PC components on the horizon. Insufficient supply, trade tariffs, and an overall shift of priorities toward AI chips will continue to leave PC gamers in the lurch as time goes by. This trend might force people to buy an overpriced $1,000 console instead of an overpriced $2,000 gaming rig. PC gaming was already on the road to becoming a rich man’s game; the industry has now erected a freeway to help get there faster.

    Related

    Just like the Nvidia RTX 5000 series launch, so-called “paper launches” are going to become more common

    If you’re worried about the current GPU trend of “paper launches”, there’s a lot of precedent to suggest it’ll keep happening.

    PC gaming won’t die, right?

    The doomsayers who predicted the death of PC gaming have come and gone numerous times, and we’re all still here (in whatever state). The gaming PC market probably won’t self-combust anytime soon, but I don’t see a bright future either. Rising prices will continue to make PC gaming inaccessible to most people, availability will remain a challenge, consoles will continue to offer better value, and whatever is launched will probably be “bleh.”


  • iPhone Fold rumors release date, crease, features

    iPhone Fold rumors release date, crease, features


    Apple’s long-rumored iPhone Fold has yet to arrive, but the rumor mill still believes it is on the way. Here’s all the latest rumors on release year, the screen, and other features.

    While other device manufacturers have embraced the idea of foldable smartphones, such as Samsung’s Galaxy Fold and Galaxy Z Flip ranges, Apple has steered clear of making its own version. All of its iPhones and iPads continue to be solid, flat devices with fixed screens that won’t bend.

    That’s not to say that Apple hasn’t been working on one in the background. Development of a foldable iPhone, often referred to as the iPhone Fold, has been speculated about for years, and leaks certainly put forward the idea that Apple’s actually going through with it.

    With the very real possibility of a foldable smartphone on the horizon, this is what the rumor mill says to expect from the iPhone Fold, if it actually arrives.

    iPhone Fold release schedule

    Apple obviously hasn’t hinted at any potential release date for the iPhone Fold, and it won’t until it’s ready to do so. That hasn’t stopped analysts from predicting when they think the model will ship.

    When it comes to the iPhone Fold, one of the earliest examples goes back to September 2021, when analyst Ming-Chi Kuo predicted a release by 2024. Obviously, that was a bit optimistic, but more recent speculation offers the same years-away forecasts.

    In 2024, those claims insisted that it could arrive by 2027 at the earliest. A plausible timeframe, and one that will take a long time to disprove.

    Some of the rumors of a 2027 launch even claim that Apple intended for a late 2026 release, but it got delayed into the following year. Again, this is entirely plausible from a manufacturing standpoint, as Apple can always delay releases for many different reasons.

    A February leaker proposed that, based on the current sampling process, manufacturing of the model could start in early 2026. Given Apple’s lengthy production schedules and other rumors, this rumor may lend itself to a 2027 release for the model.

    However, ETNews in late February said in its rumor report that some production will begin in the second half of 2025 with a release later in the second half of 2026. This is somewhat earlier than the 2027 predictions, but with such a complicated device, Apple could be more cautious than normal and take more time to fine-tune manufacturing ahead of the release.

    Ultimately, no-one really knows when it will be launched, except that there is a consensus that it’s a few years away from becoming a reality.

    iPhone Fold display

    The main buying reason for the iPhone Fold is to have a flexible display. By having an iPhone that unfolds to a larger screen, users can enjoy more screen space for apps, games, and so on.

    However, it’s quite a challenge to create a folding screen that’s reliable for consumers. That sort of work relies on getting assistance from key partners in the supply chain.

    Back in April 2022, reports were surfacing that LG Display was working with Apple on the display. However, those reports dealt with it from a standpoint of a foldable iPad or a MacBook OLED display, not an iPhone.

    One month later, the reports about the iPhone display started to flood in.

    Smartphone displaying 19:32 on a colorful, wavy background with 'Do Not Disturb' message on screen.
    An unfolded iPhone Fold could offer iPad mini-style screen estate

    In September of the same year, Apple was reportedly working with LG Display and Samsung Display on screens that won’t crumple. This apparently involved developing hybrid OLED panels that combine the inflexible sections of glass with flexible plastic substrate panels for the bending bits.

    This is entirely likely to have happened, as Apple has to work with its key supply chain partners to develop new screens for its products.

    The use of both glass and flexible plastic substrates is also highly plausible. The glass elements will provide the usual rigid iPhone display consumers know and love, while the plastic fulfills the bending requirements for a foldable device.

    A February 2025 leaker claimed the display for the iPhone Fold could be “comparable to two 6.1-inch iPhones folded together, resulting in a total size of over 12 inches.”

    The mathematics of that supposed measurement is somewhat wrong, as it would realistically be a screen size in the ballpark of 7.5 inches, which is similar to the 8.3-inch iPad mini.

    That leaker also insisted that the display would be exclusively developed by Samsung, which contradicts the earlier LG Display claims, and a January report that Apple was still working to decide on a foldable display supplier.

    The same month, Weibo leaker Digital Chat Station claimed the large folding screen would have a 5.49-inch outer screen to allow it to work like a normal smartphone. The inner screen, to make it look more like an iPad, measures a somewhat realistic 7.74 inches diagonally.

    iPhone Fold versus creases

    A foldable smartphone has to not only be sturdy for everyday use, but it also has to deal with extra fatigue. The process of folding and unfolding can cause wear on a display, especially in an area where the fold can develop into a crease, which can eventually deteriorate.

    Apple, like other folding phone companies, has to design the iPhone Fold to counter this weakness.

    Patent speculation from 2022 introduced one concept of a folding iPhone that puts the display on the outside, instead of the screen being on the inside of the fold. This is one way to beat the problem, as the screen doesn’t have to deal with the typically tight radius of an internal fold, and instead has to deal with being permanently exposed to the elements.

    Foldable smartphone open with colorful, gradient display reading 19:32. Background is a blend of orange to blue tones.
    Folding the iPhone Fold could stress the screen with a crease

    Analysts have also cottoned on to the external display idea, proposing it as a possibility at least once.

    Apple has also considered internal screen fold designs too, but with very complicated hinge mechanisms. The idea was for there to be added supports for the display at its most vulnerable point, so it would be OK for users to press down on flexible sections.

    Patents have also proposed the idea of using stretchable displays. However, it seems unlikely for Apple to go down that route for the iPhone Fold for the moment.

    An ETNews report from late February 2025 said that Apple’s folding iPhone may not be plagued by a crease at all. A source doubled down on claims Apple was working hard to avoid wrinkles in the display, which can emerge over time.

    iPhone Fold or folding iPad

    The nature of a folding smartphone is that it will create a larger viewable area when unfolded, if designed like a book rather than a clamshell. That size increase could make it a very large iPhone, or possibly something more.

    If the size of the unfolded display is sufficient enough, it could feasibly be considered similar in size to an iPad mini. That could make the iPhone Fold a two-in-one device, switching between a smartphone and a tablet.

    Close-up of a dark blue smartphone's triple camera setup with flash and sleek design against a black background.
    The iPhone Fold could be really compact when folded, compared to an iPad mini

    Samsung actually offered a confident prediction that Apple’s first foldable device in 2024 would be a tablet. This was quite believable at the time, due to Samsung being a key display partner for Apple.

    Ming-Chi Kuo also offered that a foldable iPad could arrive by 2024, just one year later. But, others at the time insisted that a foldable iPad-style design wasn’t on the way that year, including Ross Young of DSCC.

    We at least know that a 2024 launch didn’t happen.

    A lot of guesswork

    The problem with rumors about a brand new device category from Apple is that there really is no guarantee that any of the rumors are actually correct. Part of this can be down to some fanciful leakers working from iffy data or wanting to make a splash from a big prediction.

    However, a lot of it is down to Apple itself. Leaks for new hardware types don’t tend to come out from Apple, but they do tend to solidify and accelerate the closer it gets to actually shipping the hardware.

    The problem is that we’re nowhere near that point. We are still in the very early stages, when Apple has yet to solidify its plans properly.

    Another issue is the nature of production, and Apple’s long development and production schedules. Each annual upgrade to the iPhone family takes two years to produce, and there can be a lot of changes in those early stages that can impact what happens later.

    Foldable smartphone displaying time 19:32 and date Wednesday, 7 June on a colorful gradient background.
    The iPhone Fold will be catching up to competitors already offering foldable devices to the public

    It’s also so early that no-one can really pin down what the other specifications for the iPhone Fold could be. While it’s likely to be a copying of the premium components inside a Pro-tier iPhone, we can’t say those details with any precision.

    A dubious leak from February 2025 from social media sharer Jukanlosreve, formerly TechReve, had a stab at the specs. The list seemingly included a 5,000mAh “3D Stacked” battery cell system, a new ultra-thin Meta Lens front camera, and rear Main and Ultra-Wide cameras.

    It would theoretically be 4.6mm when unfolded or 9.2mm when folded, making it thinner than the M4 iPad Pro.

    However, the account has a very patchy track record when it comes to leaks. Add in the supposed timeframe for release of 2027, and it becomes quite dubious.

    Timeframes and core specifications will remain fluid for the moment. Until Apple gets close to releasing the iPhone Fold, we won’t know what’s actually inside it.


  • Moto G Power 2025: It’s OK to stick with last year’s model

    Moto G Power 2025: It’s OK to stick with last year’s model


    Motorola’s 2025 update to the Moto G Power ($299.99) is about as minor a refresh as you can get. The phone has a slightly larger screen and a more comprehensive waterproof rating—and that’s about it. The carried-over cameras are average at best, and, puzzlingly, the new processor produces worse performance than the 2024 model. Ultimately, we prefer the better battery life, sharper cameras, and longer support window of the $299.99 Samsung Galaxy A25 5G, which is our Editors’ Choice winner for affordable phones.


    Design: It Looks More Expensive That It Is

    The Moto G Power looks like a premium phone despite its low price. It features the same stylish rounded corners and thin bezels found on most modern phones, and the vegan leather back is soft to the touch and looks sophisticated right out of the box. It measures 6.56 by 3.04 by 0.34 inches (HWD) and weighs 7.34 ounces, which is bigger and heavier than the 2024 version (6.47 by 2.95 by 0.32 inches, 6.84 ounces), while the Samsung Galaxy A25 (6.34 by 3.01 by 0.33 inches, 6.95 ounces) is marginally shorter and lighter.

    Since 1982, PCMag has tested and rated thousands of products to help you make better buying decisions. See how we test.

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) back

    (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    The Moto G Power comes in two colors: Leaf Green or Slate Gray. The Slate Gray version is featured in this review. While the vegan leather back is easy to grip and appealing to look at, it does have a major problem: It’s a dirt, dust, and debris magnet. It picks up any small particles it comes in contact with and holds onto them for dear life. Within five minutes of unboxing it, I noticed hair and dust attached to the phone’s rear cover. I tried to wipe it away but to no avail. Eventually, I had to use a damp paper towel to clean it effectively. This phone demands a case just to keep it clean—which somewhat negates Motorola’s efforts to make it look and feel nice. 

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) ports

    (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    The same material also covers the three-camera array, so while the bump may look pleasing, it’s destined to attract unwanted debris. 

    The combined SIM card/microSD tray is on the left side of the phone, while the volume rocker and power button are on the right. The buttons feel high-end and make a satisfying click when pressed. The bottom edge of the phone has a 3.5mm headphone jack, a USB-C port for charging, and a speaker grille. A small, circular cutout for the selfie camera sits at the top of the display.  

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) cameras

    (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    The power button has a built-in fingerprint scanner, or you can use the selfie camera for facial recognition. I found the fingerprint scanner slower than I would have liked, but facial recognition worked well. Keep in mind that the fingerprint reader is more secure. 

    One of the phone’s biggest improvements is a more robust IP rating to protect it against dust and water. The phone has an IP68/IP69 rating, which means it can withstand immersion in about five feet of fresh water for up to 30 minutes. It can also withstand high-pressure water jets at high temperatures. Most phones in this price range—including the Galaxy A25—lack an IP rating altogether.

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) power and volume buttons

    (Credit: Sarah Lord)


    Display: Not Bad for the Price

    The Moto G Power has a 6.8-inch display, up from the 6.7-inch screen on last year’s model, and a similar resolution of 2,388 by 1,080 pixels. It also carries over the 120Hz adaptive refresh rate, which is great for gaming. The phone’s display is clear and bright. It struggled under direct sunlight in testing, but I had no problems watching videos in most lighting conditions.

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) in hand

    (Credit: Sarah Lord )

    For comparison, the Samsung Galaxy A25 has a slightly sharper 6.5-inch display (2,340 by 1,080, which has more pixels per inch because it’s smaller) with a refresh rate of 120Hz. 


    Performance: Not as Powerful as Last Year’s Model

    Like the 2024 Moto G Power, the 2025 edition comes with 8GB of RAM and 128GB of storage, though you can expand that up to 1TB via the microSD slot. This year, the phone runs on the MediaTek Dimensity 6300 processor. While it’s newer than the MediaTek Dimensity 7020 found on the 2024 model, it’s a step down in processor class and not as powerful.

    Everyday tasks like opening apps and navigating around the user interface feel identical to the 2024 model, but benchmark testing reveals slower performance across the board. 

    Motorola Moto G Power (2024) benchmarks

    (Credit: Geekbench/GFXBench/PCMag)

    We use Geekbench 6 to test CPU performance and the Moto G Power scored 795 on the single-core test and 2,095 on the multi-core test. This is a notable drop from the 889 and 2,345 results from the 2024 model. The Galaxy A25 (which is powered by a Exynos 1280) did much better in the single-core test (964) and similarly in the multi-core test (2,058).

    Graphics performance is also not as good. In the GFXBench Aztec Ruins gaming test, it ran at 6.4 frames per second (fps) compared with the 2024 model’s 7.2fps and the Galaxy A25’s 10fps.

    You can still play graphics-intensive games on the Moto G Power, but they don’t perform particularly well. I was able to load Genshin Impact, though it stuttered quite a bit during gameplay, especially in combat-heavy situations. Casual games like Alto’s Odyssey play better. 


    Battery Life: Reliable, But Not a Standout

    The Moto G Power carries over the 5,000mAh battery from its predecessor. To test it, I played a YouTube video on loop over Wi-Fi at full-screen brightness. The 2025 model lasted 12 hours and 15 minutes on a single charge—exactly the same as its predecessor. The Galaxy A25 outlasted it with a battery life of 13 hours and 10 minutes.

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) Google folder

    (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    The phone supports wired charging at 30W and wireless charging at 15W. In comparison, the Galaxy A25 supports 25W wired charging but doesn’t support wireless charging at all.

    When plugged in, the phone charged from zero to 100% in 1 hour and 58 minutes, while the A25 took 1 hour and 25 minutes. 


    Connections: Just the Basics

    The Moto G Power supports sub-6GHz and C-band 5G in the US, but not the faster mmWave technology offered by some networks. I tested the phone using the Google Fi network, which runs on T-Mobile towers. Cell service isn’t amazing in my area, but the Moto G Power still managed speeds of 104Mbps down and 7.96Mbps up. My iPhone 14 Pro on T-Mobile performed better when tested in the same location, with download speeds of 154Mbps and upload speeds of 4.91Mbps. 

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025)

    (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    The phone includes Wi-Fi 6, but not 6E or 7. When tested next to my Wi-Fi 6 router, the phone reached download speeds of 212Mbps and upload speeds of 23Mbps. My iPhone 14 Pro got download speeds of 391Mbps and upload speeds of 22.4Mbps from the same spot. Neither phone performed well at the edge of the Wi-Fi network, where the Moto G Power got 31.7Mbps down and 20.7Mbps up, and the iPhone only mustered 8.83Mbps down and 8.16Mbps up.

    Bluetooth 5.3 and NFC are also onboard.


    Audio: Good Call Quality, Decent Speaker

    Call quality is good. I never had an issue hearing callers or being heard by them. The earpiece peaked at 74.2dB, while the speaker phone maxed out at 83.1dB. These are respectable levels that should be more than loud enough for most people.

    The phone supports Dolby Atmos and does a surprisingly good job of filling a small room with sound. The opening bass line in our test track, The Knife’s “Silent Shout,” actually vibrated the phone in my hand. Of course, you’ll get the best sound by connecting either wired headphones via the 3.5mm headphone jack or wireless earphones.


    Cameras: Average All Around

    The camera hardware remains identical to last year’s model. The phone has a 50MP main camera with an aperture of f/1.8 and optical image stabilization (OIS), an 8MP ultra-wide camera with an aperture of f/2.2 that doubles as the macro camera, and a 16MP front-facing camera with an aperture of f/2.4 for selfies. This year, there are four zoom modes instead of the three found in the 2024 version: macro, 0.5x, 1x, and 2x. 

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) camera sample, main camera

    Main camera (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    The camera’s sensors struggle with detail, even in bright light. Colors appear artificially bright, while zooming in your photos reveals pixelation and smudging. Here is a progression of the same scene at 0.5x, 1x, and 2x:

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) camera sample 0.5x shot

    Ultra-wide camera at 0.5x (Credit: Sarah Lord )

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) camera sample 1x shot

    Main camera at 1x (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) camera sample 2x shot

    Main camera at 2x (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    The cameras can record 1080p video at 30fps, and the quality is middling. It should be fine for taking home videos of kids or pets, but the footage falls short under scrutiny.

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) selfie

    Selfie camera (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    Likewise, the selfie camera did an average job of taking a picture of my dog in low light.


    Software: Not as Much Support as Samsung

    The Moto G Power comes with Android 15 installed, and Motorola says it will offer two years of OS upgrades and three years of security updates. This is well behind Samsung’s A25, which offers four years of OS upgrades and five years of security patches. 

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025) apps

    (Credit: Sarah Lord)

    Thankfully, Motorola has reduced the amount of bloatware this year. It’s still there, of course, but in a way that’s far less intrusive. I’m thankful that the company has removed the large Shopping and Entertainment folders found on last year’s model. 


    Verdict: A Step in the Wrong Direction

    The Motorola Moto G Power for 2025 is almost identical to its predecessor, and that’s not a good thing. Aside from a more durable rating and a marginally larger display, its cameras, battery life, and design are carried over from last year’s model. The biggest issue is the new processor, which delivers slower performance year over year, making the phone hard to recommend. For the same price, the Samsung Galaxy A25 5G has better cameras, longer battery life, and superior software support, making it our Editors’ Choice.

    Motorola Moto G Power (2025)

    Pros

    • Affordable

    • Good battery life

    • Waterproof

    The Bottom Line

    The 2025 version of the Motorola Moto G Power takes a surprising step back from its predecessor with a less powerful processor that results in slower performance.

    Like What You’re Reading?

    Sign up for Fully Mobilized newsletter to get our top mobile tech stories delivered right to your inbox.

    This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links.
    By clicking the button, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our
    Terms of Use and
    Privacy Policy.
    You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

    Newsletter Pointer

    About Sarah Lord

    Analyst, Mobile

    Sarah Lord

    I’m a Mobile Analyst at PCMag, which means I cover wireless phones, plans, tablets, ereaders, and a whole lot more. I’ve always loved technology and have been forming opinions on consumer electronics since childhood. Prior to joining PCMag, I covered TVs and home entertainment at CNET, served as the tech and electronics reviews fellow at Insider, and began my career by writing laptop reviews as an intern at Tom’s Hardware. I am also a professional actor with credits in theater, film, and television.

    Read Sarah’s full bio

    Read the latest from Sarah Lord




  • Vintage Apple, ThinkPad, and Commodore computers still hold their allure

    Vintage Apple, ThinkPad, and Commodore computers still hold their allure


    When Levi Maaia’s mother, a school teacher, brought home the Apple IIGS in the late ‘80s, to say it made a lasting impact is an understatement.

    He and his family used the computer far beyond its recommended lifespan, even after Apple stopped making it. But that didn’t stop Maaia from using the IIGS.


  • LumaLux Face Pro LED Light Therapy Mask review: the future of LED face masks has arrived

    LumaLux Face Pro LED Light Therapy Mask review: the future of LED face masks has arrived