The phrase 'RMA' is likely to send shivers down many a spine, especially when it concerns something like a graphics card. Returning a faulty component can often be a 'cross your fingers and hope for the best' kind of deal, so naturally I am pleasantly—very pleasantly—surprised to hear Asus has enough of a heart to not only give one lucky Redditor an upgrade but also get the colour right.

According to the Redditor's original post about the issue, they sent their white Asus ROG Strix RTX 4080 Super OC in for RMA and were sent back a black Asus TUF Gaming RTX 5080 when they discovered the former couldn't be repaired. That's a win, right? Well, not fully, because the Redditor wanted a white one, like their original RTX 4080 Super, to match their all-white build.

So, what's to be done about that? Naturally, asking for them to swap it: "After about 6 weeks of emails and escalating the case to higher-level management, Asus finally approved the exact card I asked for: the ROG Astral RTX 5080 White OC. I sent the TUF back, and they even upgraded the shipping to FedEx Standard Overnight at no extra cost. The card finally arrived!"

This is an RMA result, if ever I've seen one. It might seem a bit much, but to be honest if you have an all-white build and an expensive GPU that fails, I can see why it makes sense to at least attempt to get a replacement just right.

Funnily enough, I can speak to this very kind of issue with a much cheaper product. A few years ago, I sent my cream-coloured Sennheiser HD 599 headphones for RMA, and they sent back a new pair... except they were black, not the lovely cream colour I sent off. But being the non-confrontational and lazy weasel I am, I just accepted my fate, and those are the headphones I use to this day.

RTX 4080 vs RTX 5080 Super

Comparing the real-world gaming performance of the RTX 4080 and RTX 5080 Super at 1440p resolution, using upscaling and frame gen when possible.

Black Myth Wukong (1440p High + Upscaling (quality))Cyberpunk 2077 (1440p RT Ultra + upscaling (quality))F1 24 (1440p Ultra high +upscsaling (Quality), 2x FG)Homeworld 3 (1440p Epic + upscaling (quality))The Talos Principle 2 (1440p Ultra +upscaling (quality), 2x FG)

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

RTX 4080 Super

121

94

RTX 5080

132

116

037.575112.5150

Black Myth Wukong (1440p High + Upscaling (quality)) Data

Product	Value
RTX 4080 Super	121 Avg FPS, 94 1% Low FPS
RTX 5080	132 Avg FPS, 116 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

RTX 4080 Super

155

118

RTX 5080

189

123

050100150200

Cyberpunk 2077 (1440p RT Ultra + upscaling (quality)) Data

Product	Value
RTX 4080 Super	155 Avg FPS, 118 1% Low FPS
RTX 5080	189 Avg FPS, 123 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

RTX 4080 Super

223

161

RTX 5080

259

129

075150225300

F1 24 (1440p Ultra high +upscsaling (Quality), 2x FG) Data

Product	Value
RTX 4080 Super	223 Avg FPS, 161 1% Low FPS
RTX 5080	259 Avg FPS, 129 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

RTX 4080 Super

137

66

RTX 5080

136

62

037.575112.5150

Homeworld 3 (1440p Epic + upscaling (quality)) Data

Product	Value
RTX 4080 Super	137 Avg FPS, 66 1% Low FPS
RTX 5080	136 Avg FPS, 62 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

RTX 4080 Super

172

99

RTX 5080

203

94

075150225300

The Talos Principle 2 (1440p Ultra +upscaling (quality), 2x FG) Data

Product	Value
RTX 4080 Super	172 Avg FPS, 99 1% Low FPS
RTX 5080	203 Avg FPS, 94 1% Low FPS

The RTX 5080 performs at least as well as the RTX 4080 Super, and often noticeably better at 1440p.

To give just a glimpse of how difficult and frustrating RMAs can be, consider the fact that we recently discovered that a faded serial number could scupper your chances of being able to RMA your Founders Edition card. So yes, Asus swapping an RTX 5080 out just to get the colour right is pretty sweet. I can only assume the Redditor must have been very persistent. And fair enough, because it worked.

This is all on top of the performance improvement they received, too, of course. As you can see from the chart above, the RTX 5080 performs better than the RTX 4080 Super, and it has access to more of the latest and greatest DLSS tech. Just don't go breaking your 40-series cards and trying the same. Who knows what the RMA gods will have in store for future requesters.

Microsoft has been maintaining two separate Windows options menus for generations now, but a new test project spotted and investigated by Windows Latest might pave the way for a single, discrete bit of software that can do it all. What looks like a new Windows Settings app has stealth dropped in on the Microsoft Store, and that alone might make it easier to update with new features and hopefully finally consolidate everything Control Panel does in one place.

Windows Latest discovered 'Project Odeon' in the Store, which shares the same icon as Windows Settings and resembles the usual Settings interface. Finding and installing the app apparently requires Windows 11 build 26100 or newer. I tried enabling developer mode and finding the app but I still couldn't see it, so perhaps it also requires you to be using an Insider build, or be based in a certain region.

It seems like there's a little bit of jank to the app at this point, as it shows different settings, unfinished pages, and some greyed out options, but that's to be expected for an early test application. Other areas, however, seem more extensive than the regular Settings app. For instance, towards the bottom of the Display settings page, you can see things such as your monitor's display path, HDR support, and SDR white levels.

WindowsLatest looked into the executables the app uses and calls on, and discovered the base executable can call on helper ones which require extra permissions to run. They seem to be modular add-ons related to tasks such as changing time zone or renaming the PC.

It's possible that Windows is simply using the Store for its testing of different functions for some specific reason and that none of this will translate to a discrete store-based Settings app. But it could also be that Settings eventually becomes an app store app, which would mean quicker and easier updates to it than having to wait for bona fide Windows Update.

Those who are still keen on using the Control Panel instead of the Settings app should also take heed, because the fact that more features and so on are being tested in something almost identical to the regular Settings app is just more sign that Microsoft is pulling away from Control Panel. To be clear, saying goodbye to Control Panel has been on the cards for at least a couple of years, now, and it doesn't look like Microsoft has changed its stance on migrating things over to the Settings app.

I'm personally okay with Microsoft moving everything from the Control Panel to Settings, provided the latter lets you do everything you could in the Control Panel, and that everything is easily accessible and suitably customisable. And to be fair to Microsoft, many of the changes to Windows 11 we've seen over the past few months have been pretty great.

I've never been stung by Amazon, but I've heard enough stories for it to be a worry. Amazon can take returns and list them again as new products if they pass inspection, which can open the door for scammers if something slips through inspection. And it's tales of this happening with expensive components that really give me the heebie jeebies, such as what seems to have happened to one Redditor with the incredibly expensive AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2.

The picture they share shows what are supposed to be two Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 chips, but they look different. The pin layout on the underside is different, and on the top there is a distinct lack of caps jutting out from under the integrated heat spreader (IHS).

Those familiar with AMD chips will know that that lack of capacitors on top is a giveaway that it's not, in fact, a new Ryzen chip under the IHS—those caps, or surface-mount device (SMD) components, are never bundled in the middle and never on the underside. Another giveaway, therefore, is that the underside of the fake chip features all that SMD gubbins bundled in the centre, which is a feature of Intel chips, not AMD ones.

What has most likely happened here, just as the top Reddit comment says, is someone has probably delidded a Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 and stuck an old Intel CPU under the Ryzen IHS. The smudging/wearing of the text on top of the fake chip probably occurred during the delidding process.

For someone who doesn't know a lot about CPUs and components, this might have been difficult to spot in part because for quite some time now Intel chips have been rectangular rather than square. Someone giving a chip a quick glance without knowledge of the pin and cap situation might just see the naming, the eight IHS jut-outs, and the square shape, and assume it's good to go.

One would hope that inspections would usually catch something like this, though, given the differences are far from subtle if you know anything about AMD and Intel chips.

We've seen likely Amazon return scams like this before, such as for memory. This particular one with the fake Ryzen chip is no small deal given how expensive the 9950X3D2 is. It's currently retailing for $889 at Amazon. I'd be unhappy with having this happen to any processor I bought, but especially one that's pushing $1,000. Hopefully Amazon sorts it out for the Redditor.

For a company that has made the best mouse I've ever laid my hands on, it sure seems to be doing its darndest to destroy that mystique. That is, assuming the latest images from Razer on Chinese site Billibilli of a Pokemon-themed Viper V4 Pro come to fruition (via Jakeu). You can see it in the Tweet above, in all its glory—what do you think?

I think it looks bloody awful. There's just something about that peculiar mix of grey, yellow, and green that seems very uncoordinated. That, and the fact that the pixel art and yellow Poke-circle on the body of the mouse seem about as seamless as your average in-game graffiti emote. Just slapped on there without a care in the world.

I'm being harsh, but to be fair, this is right off the back of hearing about another potential version of the Viper V4 Pro that might cost $300. At least, if the currency conversion is relevant and it is indeed listed for sale in the Chinese market, as is claimed.

Why can't a good thing be left alone? The Viper V4 Pro is fantastic, and that's in part because it looks sleek and simple, and because it's cheaper than other top-end gaming mice from big brands.

There's a chair, too, and a keyboard, which my colleague James says he prefers the look of to the mouse. I think I agree, but I still think the the grey clashes too much with the green.

Back to the Viper, though, there could have been a chance here to make a proper red-and-white, pokeball-themed version, but instead we get this grey-and-whatever-else monstrosity.

I'll just keep hold of the white one, thank you very much.

Many of tech's heaviest hitters have seen their share prices decrease significantly this week. For instance, Nvidia has seen a decrease of about 8% over the last five days—and this AI company is far from the only one seeing such a dip.

Over the last five days, we've seen share prices fall by 13% for AMD, and nearly 15% for Intel. Looking more broadly across the AI and semiconductor industries, CNBC reports 20 of the most valuable players have shed more than $1 trillion in value as investors sell off stock.

The bigger picture doesn't look any better: over the last five days, Samsung Electronics has seen its share price decrease by nearly 20%, SK hynix is down 18%, and Micron has seen a dip of over 15%.

A combination of factors have likely triggered this big chip stock sell off, including concerns that the memory supply crisis may actually reverse into oversupply come 2029, according to a recent column in South Korea's Maeil Business Newspaper.

There's more going on than just the CEO of Acer insisting "It's impossible for the shortage to last until 2030!" We also know that many chip manufacturers have already been working to boost their production capacity, though TSMC's next-gen Arizona fab is fully booked before it has even been built.

Chinese manufacturer CXMT is also growing, which is likely to go at least some way towards putting a dampener on the western market's aspirations. It's been stocking up on western DUV machines and is estimated to match Micron in terms of DRAM manufacturing capabilities this year. The chip manufacturer also recently claimed it had created breakthrough chip architecture that increases memory density. Make no mistake, CXMT is one to watch.

On top of that, The CEOs of both Intel and Broadcom recently claimed that financing could become a bigger hurdle to overcome for the AI industry than even securing memory or electricity supply. The uptick in interest rates means that investors may feel the balance between borrowing and the return on investment for big tech's data centre build out is looking increasingly lopsided.

So, is the AI bubble finally popping? Even as air is clearly escaping, it's still hard to say. The resulting lower share prices from this widespread stock sell-off may inspire some investors to buy, for one thing.

Despite the high price of these infrastructure projects, the demand for AI computing remains robust according to tech analyst Dan Ives for merchant bank Yorkville Ives. Ives told CNBC, "What would change our view is a demand signal, not [an increased interest] rate signal."

As such, big tech likely won't be ditching data centres any time soon, and the AI bubble may once again reach for something more party-balloon shaped in the future.

Last week, I asked whether Razer's "Perfect 180" feature on its new Basilisk V4 Pro gaming mouse counts as cheating. For the unaware, said feature allows a near-instant 180-degree spin to be mapped within the software to a single mouse button. In other words, one click, one insta-turn to face whatever (or whoever) is behind you.

316 of you responded to the poll (where were the rest, asleep?), and the results are... unsurprising. 79% of respondents said yes, while 21% said no, it's totally fine.

Does Razer's "Perfect 180" gaming mouse feature count as cheating?

Out of 316 poll respondents, here are the results expressed as percentages:

Votes (%)

Yes

79

No

21

Votes (%) Data

Product	Value
Yes	79
No	21

Or just "no." I'm adding a bit of flavour to that one. Looking through the comments, many seemed to echo the sentiments of TrexLaser, who says: "Anything that moves the mouse for you is cheating."

However, some took a more nuanced approach. Terito697174 says the real issue might be in the determination of cheaters, as overly snappy aiming is often the only way for another player to reasonably assess whether they're up against an opponent with an unfair advantage.

Salvador Pardiñas makes a good point: "I can sort of understand it as an accessibility option for people who can't normally do a 180 by themselves, but other than that it's just plain cheating."

Certainly, those with differing abilities might find a 180 turn on a mouse button a very useful thing indeed. However, that doesn't seem to be the way Razer is currently pitching it, as the feature blurb on the Basilisk V4 Pro product page describes it as "built for low-sensitivity gaming," rather than as an accessibility option.

Commenter Fojacko brings up a real blast from the past: "Welcome to the 2000s, Razer. The Intellipoint software says hi."

I'd forgotten all about Microsoft's SideWinder gaming mice from back in the day, which, via the Intellipoint mouse software, could reassign a side button to perform 180-degree or full 360-degree turns. "Quick turn never took off back then for a reason," says Fojacko. Erm, I'm not quite sure why. Was it not as useful as we might think?

Anyway, the feelings of the majority have been made clear. I doubt Razer will rescind the feature regardless, but I will definitely be looking out for insta-turning players in multiplayer games from now on.

"I know what mouse you use," I'll think to myself. Also, "How on earth am I supposed to compete with that?"

With little sign of new and exciting GPUs, and with rising memory prices affecting just about everything in a less than positive manner, it's new CPUs that I'll be keeping my optimistic eyes peeled for. That's doubly so now that we're getting wind of the specs for Intel's upcoming Nova Lake generation.

According to tech leaker Laurent's Choice on X, we can expect a range of next-gen Intel CPUs to use a 4000-series naming scheme—though still following Core Ultra nomenclature—and three of these will be 'BFC' chips featuring bLLC ('big last-level cache'). 'BFC' presumably means 'big friendly cache' or... something to that, err, effect. I'll let you fill in the blanks.

This will be Intel's answer to the 3D V-Cache we see in AMD X3D chips such as the current best CPU on the market, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. Games love chomping through cache, so the more merrier. Intel's bLLC, however, is said to be built into the die rather than slapped on top or underneath like AMD's 3D V-Cache solution. It's about time we see sign of this, too, if you ask me, given we've had AMD X3D chips since 2022 and no equivalent from Intel.

We've seen rumoured specs similar to these earlier in the year, but there are some extra models here, plus the naming to go with it. Apparently the top-end model will be the Core Ultra 9 4970K BFC, and this will run down to the Core Ultra 5 4650KF.

The most interesting of the supposed bunch, and one we hadn't seen before, is the Core Ultra 9 4900 BFC (note the lack of a 'K'). This will apparently have two fewer P-Cores and run with a base TDP of 65 W, compared to the 125 W of the rest of the line-up, but it will still have the big cache.

Presumably this will be for specific professional workloads in smaller machines, given the lower TDP. Or perhaps for SFF gaming rigs. Unless it's just that there's a mix-up in the specs here, and the 65 W should be for another CPU in the line-up.

Early in the year we heard rumour that some hefty Nova Lake chips could consume up to 700 W of power, but only as a kind of theoretical limit on a many-cored processor. This was corroborated by further rumour a few months later that the PL2 limit—sustained power limit—will be double current Intel CPU limits and will require an extra 8-pin connector to power the processor.

This was only said to be the case for the rumoured big boi, two-tiled, 44- and 52-core Nova Lake chips, however, not the regular Core Ultra ones that will feature in our gaming PCs. Which tracks here, given this latest rumour has all but one of the listed models running at a 125 W (PL1) TDP just like current-gen, where a similar 250 W PL2 will also be likely.

At any rate, it's exciting to see more mention of upcoming cache-heavy processors. That's most certainly where it's at for gaming. We're expecting the processors to launch at the start of next year, so hopefully there won't be long to wait.

Pumpkin month is here and it has brought us bountiful PC tech, too. Along with the launch of the new Nvidia RTX Spark platform—bringing us all-Nvidia powered laptops and mini PCs for a pretty penny—we've also now got the latest update to DLSS 5, or DLSS Neural Rendering, or DLSS NR. I'm still not 100% sure how we should be referring to this, but I'm certainly not convinced by the whole '3D-guided Neural Rendering' moniker.

Whatever, we've got a new model to play with in the one game that has been officially released with the tech inside it: NBA 2K27. And, almost definitely from now on in any of the myriad modding platforms that have baked DLSS 5 into any game you could imagine, on any GPU architecture.

The new model is promising to be half as demanding of your hardware than the previous model—so a nominal 30% hit rather than 60%—and Nvidia says it has done this by refining the training data and reducing the model size itself down to around 118 million parameters, which makes it roughly 24% smaller. In terms of its impact on your GPU's VRAM, Nvidia gives the example of a reduction in VRAM usage at 4K of 20%.

NBA 2K27 running on the Nvidia RTX Spark with the DLSS 5 Oct update

Which is all well and good for Nvidia's numbers, but what happens in the real world? I've got hold of a preview version of the .dll files, specifically created for the RTX Spark hardware I'm testing right now (probably so we couldn't drop the files onto a repo somewhere and have the new model leaked early), and have been playing around with NBA 2K27 once more on the Asus ProArt P16.

DLSS 5 October Update

Testing the new DLSS 5 model in NBA 2K27. Using DLSS Balanced and 4x Multi Frame Gen.

NBA 2K27 (1080p High)NBA 2K27 (1440p High)

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

PC Latency (ms)

DLSS 5 Off

227

93

68

DLSS 5 On (original)

143

63

88

DLSS On (Oct update)

168

61

85

NBA 2K27 (1080p High) Data

Product	Value
DLSS 5 Off	227 Avg FPS, 93 1% Low FPS, 68 PC Latency (ms)
DLSS 5 On (original)	143 Avg FPS, 63 1% Low FPS, 88 PC Latency (ms)
DLSS On (Oct update)	168 Avg FPS, 61 1% Low FPS, 85 PC Latency (ms)

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

PC Latency (ms)

DLSS 5 Off

200

61

76

DLSS 5 On (original)

107

47

117

DLSS On (Oct update)

134

51

92

NBA 2K27 (1440p High) Data

Product	Value
DLSS 5 Off	200 Avg FPS, 61 1% Low FPS, 76 PC Latency (ms)
DLSS 5 On (original)	107 Avg FPS, 47 1% Low FPS, 117 PC Latency (ms)
DLSS On (Oct update)	134 Avg FPS, 51 1% Low FPS, 92 PC Latency (ms)

And the results are pretty impressive to be honest. First, that I can get this RTX Spark machine to run at over 200 fps anyways, but also that at 1080p it still sits around the 170 fps mark with DLSS 5 enabled.

Looking at the more intensive 1440p result, you can see what a massive hit the original model delivered to the game when DLSS 5 and Neural Rendering were enabled. Going from a healthy 200 fps down to effectively half that is a brutal performance hit that no-one is going to be happy with.

Especially when, in all honesty, the extra lighting and tonal improvements are only really visible during the game's many cutscenes. When you're zoomed out, actually playing the game, then the extra fidelity doesn't really add a whole lot to the experience, as you can see in the video above.

DLSS 5 October Update

Showing the difference between DLSS 5 off and on with the new October update model.

DLSS 5 off

DLSS 5 Oct Update

It's still quite a hit going from 200 fps down to 134 fps—a 33% drop in performance—but that's in line with what Nvidia has been suggesting would be the case with this updated model. And when you're still getting that sort of frame rate at 1440p on a relatively thin and light laptop (running an Arm CPU, too) then I'll admit I'm impressed with the technical achievements all round here.

Of course we are running all the Nvidia bells and whistly things here, so I've got 4x MFG enabled and DLSS Super Resolution running on Balanced mode, but I'd still say the motion looks grand on the small screen of this Asus ProArt P16 laptop.

Though it really didn't before I disabled VSync. That was enabled by default when I first booted the game, dragging performance down to 60 fps despite the 120 Hz refresh rate of the OLED panel. And, oh boy, the Frame Gen artifacting was nuts. That all went away once I disabled it and the frame rate shot up, but it sure wasn't pretty...

DLSS 5 October Update

Showing the difference between DLSS 5 off and on with the new October update model.

DLSS 5 off

DLSS 5 October update

But while this is the showpiece for DLSS Neural Rendering right now, NBA 2K27 is absolutely not the game that's going to show the tech off to its best. Sure, it has a lot of cutscenes, but for the most part you're watching the game from high above where the extra lighting pretties don't matter one jot. So really, why would you turn it on?

At least now, when it appears in new games—and when this updated model goes into the DLSS 5 modding tools—it's not going to have the same sort of performance hit that made it a struggle before. But there does need to be some sort of positive 'wow' moment for the feature.

Fingers crossed they can keep pushing the model further to bring that performance hit down even further, and fingers crossed some engaged devs get on board to make something impressive.

I use my Razer Wolverine V3 Pro several times a week. It's become my go-to wireless controller (among many different options on my shelves), thanks to its shape, stickfeel, and build quality. It's plenty quick to react, it's got excellent triggers and face buttons, and is one of my favourite bits of gaming gear. Ever, in fact.

Then came the Wolverine V3 Pro 8K, and I wasn't too fussed. Sure, 8K polling is a nice thing to have, but it wasn't enough to sway me towards spending $200 on another controller. Now, however, I have a Wolverine V4 Pro review sample in my hands, and I have to admit—I'm sorely tempted to upgrade.

Razer hasn't messed with the core recipe that made the V3 Pro great. It's still got the same comfortable chassis shape, fantastic heavyweight, dual-action triggers, and all the right controls in all the right places. What it has done, though, is upgrade the hardware underneath, while adding a heavy sprinkle of customisation options that improve the experience considerably.

I thought I wouldn't get on with the slightly lighter stickfeel compared to the previous model, but I was wrong. It's still got a highly-controllable resistance, now combined with superb snap-motion accuracy from the new contactless sensors.

It feels sharper, without losing its smooth, slightly weighty movement. The battery life has been upped to a maximum of 27 hours. You can pull off the rear buttons and block the holes off with flush-fit magnetic plates. And you get 8K polling support, complete with wrist-shaking haptic rumble. Individually, these might seem like small changes. Together, they make one of the best controllers I've ever used… well, even better.

We do need to talk about the price. $200/£200 is an awful lot to ask for a gaming controller, especially when there are so many good options on the market for fractions of that sum. But the Wolverine V4 Pro has a kitchen sink-worthy list of features, all of which combine to create a brilliant gaming device—even if your bank account may disagree.

Razer Wolverine V4 Pro features

Take a deep breath, because there's a whole lot to go through here. At its core, the Razer Wolverine V4 Pro is an asymmetrical, Xbox-style controller with 2.4 GHz wireless and USB Type-C wired connectivity, alongside a maximum 8K polling rate over both wireless and wired connections. Razer says the Wolverine V4 Pro achieves sub-1 ms response times, thanks in part to the speedy polling.

Beyond the usual controls, there are also two extra configurable buttons between the bumpers and the triggers on the top side, alongside four extra "mouse click" paddle buttons on the underside. The triggers can also be locked with two toggle switches on the back, which means they can be switched between a full-throw action and a precise click on the fly.

On the front, you get a set of PBT face buttons with clicky, mecha-tactile switches underneath, which have a slightly shorter action than those found on the bog-standard V3 Pro. Diagonally opposite sits a very clicky D-pad.

Then there are the new thumbsticks. These feel slightly lighter and snappier than the V3 Pro's versions, although they still have a touch of weight to the action. Razer has imbued these sticks with what it calls "next-generation" capacitive sensors, which represent "the next step in contactless sensor design."

According to the company, these sensors offer superior resolution and are more resistant to magnetic interference when compared to the TMR and Hall effect models found in other high-spec controllers, while still avoiding stick drift. When paired with the 16-bit ADC chip inside, the new tracking results in around 3,000 steps of movement tracking per sensor.

Still with me? Good, because I haven't got to the customisation options yet. The front faceplate of the V4 Pro is now magnetic, and can be removed by wedging your fingernails underneath a hidden groove on the topside and giving it a sharp pull. Razer says more faceplate options are coming soon—so prepare yourself for the inevitable Minecraft tie-in, I guess.

You also get six interchangeable thumbstick caps to choose from. By default, it comes with your standard short concave models installed, but there are also a pair of taller versions, and a pair of convex replacements for weirdos. I mean, those who prefer a totally different thumbstick experience.

The rear paddle buttons are also removable, and the holes can be filled in with magnetic-locking plates that fit flush with the frame. All of these magnetic additions explain the switch to interference-resistant capacitive thumbstick sensors, that's for sure. You can also switch between software profiles on the fly with an assigned button combo. Phew.

What's left? Oh yes, the battery life. Razer reckons you'll get a maximum of 27 hours out of the V4 Pro, a seven-hour improvement over the old model. That depends on polling rate and haptic settings, though. Charging from empty to full is quoted at three hours via the USB Type-C connection.

The last change is a pronounced lip around the USB Type-C port on the rear. This is to prevent a flexed cable from damaging the port over time, although my old V3 Pro sits on charge regularly and has never had an issue. The raised section is a bit… over-pronounced, if you ask me. The lip stands out on what is otherwise a seamless design. Still, I appreciate the concession towards durability, if nothing else.

Razer Wolverine V4 Pro ergonomics

I've been holding the V4 Pro up against my V3 model for some time now, and it looks (and feels) like exactly the same chassis shape to me. This is a very good thing. If I look ever so closely, I would say the textured grip on the rear of the V4 Pro is slightly finer, although this could be down to wear on my older version.

It's the differing textures underneath the various controls that stand out, though. The triggers still have a weighty resistance to them, with a deliciously smooth action. The main bumpers click with precision, whereas the taller macro buttons underneath them have a longer, "snippier" sort of click. You won't mix them up easily while staring at a screen, I've found.

The matte-finish PBT used on face buttons is plenty grippy under the fingertips, and while the switches underneath feel roughly the same, there does seem to be a slightly faster action when placing them side-by-side with my V3 Pro. Again, that could be down to wear on my used model, but there's definitely an improvement under my right thumb here that I appreciate.

And as for the snappier thumbsticks, I didn't think they were much of an improvement when I tried them out in a Gamescom booth earlier this year. However, having now spent some quality time with them, the lighter stick resistance really does make a difference to my aiming speed. There's still a little bit of aim-steadying pushback, alongside a quicker snap back to center.

Speaking of the sticks, I can't help but be impressed by the robustness of the V4 Pro's customisation system. The thumbsticks themselves can be pulled off with a reasonable amount of force, and pressed back on firmly without incident. The faceplate is similarly secure, but it's still easy enough to remove once you know where to put your fingernail.

You don't have to remove the faceplate to replace the sticks, but I thought I'd try both together to see if I could disassemble the front of the controller with one hand:

And yes, I can. But the biggest boon to customisation happens round the back, where any (or all) of the rear paddle buttons can be removed and replaced with magnetic-locking plates. These snap into place to create a remarkably flush fit, which makes the plates practically disappear underneath my fingers.

I've got used to resting my ring and pinky digits on the rear paddles of my V3, but if you're not using them all the time, they can feel a little obstructive.

No such worries here. Block them all off individually, or keep one or two around for specific tasks if you so wish.

Despite all these modular features, the V4 Pro feels like a rock solid, totally finished product. There are no rattles, no rough edges, no fiddly bits of cheap plastic. It might be expensive, but this controller really does feel like you've bought a ticket to the executive lounge.

Razer Wolverine V4 Pro performance

To test the Wolverine V4 Pro, I booted up three controller-favouring games from my Steam library: Elden Ring, Crimson Desert, and Control Resonant. I have many hours in each, much of which has been spent with either the V3 Pro, or the standard Xbox Wireless controller. I also had a knock around in Apex Legends to test its shooter capabilities.

And to my genuine surprise, I could feel the difference immediately. Control Resonant in particular, a game with much target switching and button juggling, actually feels a touch easier with the new Wolverine. The snappier thumbsticks make a real difference to fast direction changes, and while I'm no expert judge of 8K polling and sub-1ms latency times, the V4 Pro definitely feels quicker to respond.

The haptic responses are also super-powerful. So much so, I think most people will probably turn them down—but vibration fans are in for a buzz. Turning this controller on for the first time actually made me jump, as it jiggled my desk with such force.

The face buttons are quick to press and slightly more positive, too, which adds to the feeling of snappy responsiveness. And I really enjoy the heavyweight triggers, which make firing an arrow in Crimson Desert feel more purposeful than most. My Elden Ring performance has also felt the benefit, although I still suck at it overall. No fancy controller is going to change that.

And while I'd personally never pick a controller over keyboard and mouse controls in a shooter, the Wolverine V4 Pro is plenty responsive in Apex Legends, too. If I had to use my thumbs for precision shooting? I'll take one of these, please. It's better than any other controller I've tried for speedy first-person aiming, put it that way.

There's a feeling of extra precision to the Wolverine V4 Pro that I didn't realise the previous version lacked. It's subtle, but very much there. One feels like a luxury item with a touch of padding, while the other is sharper, lighter under the fingertips, and slightly more eager.

Plus, being able to individually remove the rear paddles (I quite like dropping them down to two, ring fingers only) makes for a more comfortable gaming experience.

I'd expected to forget about the internal upgrades once my brain was focussed on a game, but I was wrong. It's easy to tell that improvements have been made. And switching back to a standard Xbox Wireless controller afterwards definitely feels like a major downgrade. Still, you can pick one up for around a quarter of the price—so I can't knock it too badly.

Razer Wolverine V4 Pro aesthetics

Razer has ditched the RGB-lit lettering on the front of the new Wolverine, but I doubt many will miss it. I've turned mine off on the older model, as while it looks good in photos, it can be a touch distracting. Instead, what you get here is a stealthed out, grown-up-looking device.

Not very Razer, is it? Still, I'm definitely a fan of the all-black aesthetic. The matte finish on the PBT face buttons doesn't just feel good, but looks the part, too. I suppose it's not the best controller for beginners, or those who still hunt for the Y button in a panic during a QTE event. There are no multi-coloured buttons or white letters to help you out here.

My major bugbear, though, is the protruding USB Type-C cable port, which sticks out more than I'd like and makes for an ugly blemish on what is otherwise a very refined design. At least it's round the back, ey?

Razer Wolverine V4 Pro software

The Wolverine V4 Pro is configured via Razer Synapse, which will be a benefit for those of you with Razer devices already—and perhaps a downside for those who don't. Still, Synapse is very workable these days, and the menu system for this particular controller is pretty straightforward.

Alongside the profile switching options at the top (which can also be cycled using on-controller button combos) there are five main tabs: Customize, Triggers, Thumbsticks, Power, and Calibration. The first gives you the most useful settings, these being polling rate, haptic intensity, and communication switching modes, alongside button configurations.

There are also options for the SOCD feature, which allow you to configure what happens when you press and hold two opposite directions at once.

You can adjust the trigger ranges in the second tab, and fiddle with the sensitivity and dead zones of the thumbsticks in the third. Honestly, I feel like a lot of these options could be boiled down to a single page, but at least it's not a labyrinth of poorly worded menus like some others I could name.

A case in point is the fourth tab, Power, which has exactly one thing you can adjust—the length of time the controller stays on when inactive. And the fifth tab handles individual control calibration, which I guess is worthy of its own section. Overall, though, the software is perfectly acceptable. Better than most, even.

Razer Wolverine V4 Pro

Razer quotes a 27-hour battery life for the new Wolverine, although I'd imagine that's at lower-than-8K polling rates. What I can say from my own testing, though, is that my review sample came out of the box with a 65% charge and I've only just plugged it in. That's after several days of on/off gaming.

Those weren't 24-hour sessions, of course. But several eight-hour sprints without reaching for the USB cable certainly seem possible. I'm still old-school enough to want to plug my controller in after I've finished, but it's a habit I'm starting to break.

What would be nice though, for the cash, would be an included charging stand. It's something we're starting to see more often these days—even with some of the more affordable controllers, like the EasySMX D05. Food for thought, Razer?

Razer Wolverine V4 Pro value

Do we have to talk money? I'm afraid so. The Wolverine V4 Pro is expensive, and there's no getting around it. When the GameSir G7 Pro Tri-Mode costs $80, the $200 price tag of Razer's new baby looks more than a little excessive.

The G7 Pro also has customisation options similar to the Razer, with its removable faceplate and swappable controls. You can't get rid of the rear paddle buttons, though, a feature I find most handy on the new Wolverine. The GameSir model also has TMR thumbsticks, which should be in the same ballpark as the Razer's. They won't stick drift, put it that way.

In terms of value, it's clear that the GameSir G7 Pro Tri-Mode wins the day. It's less than half the price, for goodness sake, and it comes with a charging cradle. But I don't think the heavyweight price tag spoils the Wolverine V4 Pro, either.

Yes, it's a lot of money to pay for a controller. But if you're the sort of gamer who sits for hours every weekend with one in your hands, the Razer really does feel like the final boss. It's got pretty much every feature you really need (and many extra niceties you might not expect), alongside a smorgasbord of delicious controls and switches that feel like the cat's pyjamas. And when it comes to speedy inputs? Fuggedaboutit.

Plus, being able to individually block off those rear paddle buttons and swap out thumbsticks on the fly makes more difference than you think. Whatever your setup, whatever your odd combination of control preferences, the Razer is likely ready for you. And it's even managed to avoid any overblown gamer flair while it's at it. This is a grown-up device for adults, not an RGB-covered piece of frippery.

Pricey? You bet, and I wish it was significantly cheaper. But, in the same way I'd happily recommend spending a lot of money on something brilliant you're going to use all the time, like a great gaming chair, TV, or headset, I do think the Wolverine V4 Pro makes a very good case for justifying the expense.

Well, here it is, Nvidia's all-in-one silicon, the RTX Spark. This is an SoC that's being promoted as the everything chip; the processor that can be all things to all people. It's a creator's chip, it's an AI-lover's chip, and it's a gamer's chip.

But all three of those kinds of people do need to have one thing in common: they need to be rather well off, because this is also an expensive chip. I spoke about it when the pricing first came to light last week, while I was at the launch event for this Windows-based tech. Even the cheapest of the RTX Spark machines coming our way will cost $2,700, and that will only get you the weaker cores, a paltry 24 GB of unified memory, and a 512 GB SSD.

That is certainly a limitation, but also completely expected in a time where all things PC cost a ludicrous amount of money, especially devices which are locked into requiring a colossal amount of memory to do their main task. Which, let's be honest here, is AI.

The unified memory architecture (UMA) of the RTX Spark is perfectly suited to providing a ton of memory for system resources, but also to be able to switch that over to supporting the GPU when it comes to smashing through local AI workloads which fill up the GPU's memory pool. It's the perfect time for Nvidia to release something like this, because local AI is set for a bit of an explosion in popularity (especially when the cloud services start charging real money for their services), but it's also the worst time because this sort of memory-heavy hardware is expensive.

But here it is in front of me, an RTX Spark laptop that looks for all the world like the slimline MacBook-esque Razer Blade machines I've loved for years. But this is no Blade, this is an Asus ProArt P16 and it's a stunner. Thinner than the Zephyrus G16 with a sleek aluminium body and a 64 GB, 20-core RTX Spark N1X chip inside it.

I've only been using it a short time, and there is so much to it and so much that is going to change over the next few months that I'm only really going to scratch the surface here. But today I'm going to go over the architecture and the gaming performance, and maybe I'll give you a little bit about my adventures in agentic AI as a palate cleanser later on.

Yet, even having spent under a week with an RTX Spark as my daily driver, I think from the get-go I can probably say that this is not a platform I can really recommend to the average PC gamer. It's too expensive and we're better served by the gaming laptops already on the market. But, it is an absolutely fascinating, and genuinely impressive platform, and could be a real glimpse at the future of PCs and laptops as a whole.

Nvidia RTX Spark - architecture

I've been waiting for this moment for a long time. The promise of an all-Nvidia gaming laptop has been a tantalising prospect for years now; even before the company tried to buy Arm itself there were rumours of an SoC that would combine Arm cores with Nvidia's powerful GPU silicon.

AMD's had its own APUs for the longest time, and Intel has been running every facet of a laptop since the dark ages. So it's no surprise Nvidia wanted a piece of that pie.

And with Qualcomm taking the initial Windows-on-Arm hit with its Snapdragon Elite and Plus chips, letting the OS evolve around the early teething troubles, the time is now ripe for Nvidia's platform to come to fruition.

Actually, there is no Windows-on-Arm anymore as Microsoft is ditching the suffix and just calling it Windows, because Microsoft is all-in here, too. To be honest, I think that's largely down to the push for local AI and the fact Linux is generally where that lives right now—including the DGX Spark, which was the first desktop home of the N1X chip that's running the RTX Spark. But Microsoft is also helping on the gaming side, making the Prism emulation layer more robust on an Arm platform and also committing to bringing all the anti-cheat apps over that Linux currently doesn't have.

Though Epic is working on the Linux side of that right now.

The Nvidia RTX Spark SoC packs in all the Nvidia good stuff alongside a whole slew of, what appear to be, relatively off-the-shelf Arm cores. This is all packed in alongside up to 128 GB of unified LPDDR5X-9400 memory.

First the GPU side. This is exactly the same as we've already seen drop in the DGX Spark machine launched around this time last year; it's an RTX Blackwell-based chip, sporting 6144 CUDA cores across 48 SMs. Effectively, that's the same core configuration as the desktop RTX 5070 GPU, the GB205, although with a chunk less L2 cache, and a necessarily slower clock speed.

This is one of the reasons that, despite having the same configuration as the desktop RTX 5070, Nvidia is tempering performance expectations by suggesting it will be more akin to the performance of the mobile RTX 5070 (which has fewer SM) in actual gaming performance.

Aside from the cache difference, and the overall difference in attached system memory (LPDDR5X not GDDR7) we can assume that the layout of the Blackwell SM remains the same as it has done since the architecture first launched. There are still 128 CUDA cores per SM and I would expect 192 fifth gen Tensor Cores and 48 fourth gen RT Cores, as there are in the DGX Spark's chip.

The 256-bit memory interface and slower memory means you're getting 300 GB/s of memory bandwidth, against the 672 GB/s the desktop RTX 5070 configuration can offer on its 192-bit bus. But these are slightly apples vs. oranges comparisons because of the platform the RTX Spark is sitting in, the unified memory architecture (UMA) it's surrounded by, and the CPU companion it has.

Which, although Nvidia is calling it a Grace CPU, and custom-made with MediaTek, does still just sport some off-the-shelf Arm cores. But a lot of them, to be fair. There are 10 'performance' Arm Cortex-X925 cores and 10 'efficient' Arm Cortex-A725 cores and they mark the peak of Arm's 2024 lineup.

As far as we know, however, there hasn't been any additional work done with these cores to help bolster the necessary emulation to be able to run the x86-focused workloads that are going to be thrown their way. This is the step Apple has taken with its own Arm cores, making sure they're designed from the ground up to take care of such things.

There is also a second, cut-down RTX Spark SoC. That comes with 5120 CUDA cores across 40 SMs (so a commensurate reduction in Tensor cores and RT cores, too) and with 18 Arm CPU cores, meaning one less of each of the performance and efficient cores.

Nvidia RTX Spark - Gaming performance

Previous

1 / 3

Next

1080p gaming performance

Testing the relative gaming performance of different laptops across multiple games.

Cyberpunk 2077 (1080p RT Ultra)Baldur's Gate 3 (1080p Ultra)Black Myth: Wukong benchmarking tool (1080p High)Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (1080p Ultra)

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

36

27

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

43

33

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

45

28

Cyberpunk 2077 (1080p RT Ultra) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	36 Avg FPS, 27 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	43 Avg FPS, 33 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	45 Avg FPS, 28 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

42

24

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

69

41

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

65

38

Baldur's Gate 3 (1080p Ultra) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	42 Avg FPS, 24 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	69 Avg FPS, 41 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	65 Avg FPS, 38 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

66

42

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

64

55

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

65

56

Black Myth: Wukong benchmarking tool (1080p High) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	66 Avg FPS, 42 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	64 Avg FPS, 55 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	65 Avg FPS, 56 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

75

29

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

82

51

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

84

50

Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (1080p Ultra) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	75 Avg FPS, 29 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	82 Avg FPS, 51 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	84 Avg FPS, 50 1% Low FPS

Native gaming performance

Testing the relative gaming performance across multiple games at the laptop screen's native resolution.

Cyberpunk 2077 (Native res. RT Ultra)Baldur's Gate 3 (Native res. Ultra)Black Myth: Wukong benchmarking tool (Native res. High)Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (Native res. Ultra)

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p

18

13

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p

18

8

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p

7

3

Cyberpunk 2077 (Native res. RT Ultra) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p	18 Avg FPS, 13 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p	18 Avg FPS, 8 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p	7 Avg FPS, 3 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p

36

22

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p

67

37

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p

61

30

Baldur's Gate 3 (Native res. Ultra) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p	36 Avg FPS, 22 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p	67 Avg FPS, 37 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p	61 Avg FPS, 30 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p

38

26

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p

72

62

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p

63

55

Black Myth: Wukong benchmarking tool (Native res. High) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p	38 Avg FPS, 26 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p	72 Avg FPS, 62 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p	63 Avg FPS, 55 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p

46

17

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p

54

39

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p

49

35

Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (Native res. Ultra) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark | 1880p	46 Avg FPS, 17 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W | 1600p	54 Avg FPS, 39 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W | 1800p	49 Avg FPS, 35 1% Low FPS

Upscaled gaming performance

Testing the relative gaming performance of different laptops across multiple games.

Cyberpunk 2077 (Native res. RT Ultra + upscaling (quality), 2x FG)Black Myth: Wukong benchmarking tool (Native res. High + upscaling (quality, 67%))

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

54

34

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

75

58

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

62

43

Cyberpunk 2077 (Native res. RT Ultra + upscaling (quality), 2x FG) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	54 Avg FPS, 34 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	75 Avg FPS, 58 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	62 Avg FPS, 43 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

62

37

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

72

62

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

63

55

Black Myth: Wukong benchmarking tool (Native res. High + upscaling (quality, 67%)) Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	62 Avg FPS, 37 1% Low FPS
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	72 Avg FPS, 62 1% Low FPS
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	63 Avg FPS, 55 1% Low FPS

The performance I've been getting out of this slim little gaming laptop has been impressive. Especially when you consider the power it's drawing to get mighty close to (and sometimes matching) the performance of gaming laptops whose GPUs alone are running to 115 W of power.

The Metro Exodus Enhanced benchmark is the one we've been consistently using for gaming performance metrics because we can easily loop the test runs to provide a more long-term understanding of what happens over a gaming session. And, looking at the numbers the RTX Spark in this Asus ProArt P16 laptop is demonstrating, you can see what an efficient piece of silicon this is.

We ran a triple loop of the Metro Exodus Enhanced benchmark at top 1080p settings and while the RTX Spark machine was demonstrably slower than the other RTX 5070 systems I'm comparing it against, it's running at a fraction of the power draw. At 75 fps it is behind the 115 W RTX 5070 in the Blade 14 at 84 fps, but the chip is running almost 700 MHz slower and drawing down an average of 43 W over that run compared to 97 W for the Razer laptop.

System performance

Measuring the relative performance of the different laptop chips in terms of power and thermals.

GPU statsGaming temperatures

Avg GPU freq. (MHz)

Avg GPU power (W)

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

1906

43

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

2421

77

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

2589

97

GPU stats Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	1906 Avg GPU freq. (MHz), 43 Avg GPU power (W)
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	2421 Avg GPU freq. (MHz), 77 Avg GPU power (W)
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	2589 Avg GPU freq. (MHz), 97 Avg GPU power (W)

Avg CPU (°C)

Max CPU (°C)

Avg GPU (°C)

Max GPU (°C)

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

75

83

67

70

Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W

65

73

68

71

Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W

79

85

78

81

Gaming temperatures Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	75 Avg CPU (°C), 83 Max CPU (°C), 67 Avg GPU (°C), 70 Max GPU (°C)
Framework 16 | RTX 5070 100 W	65 Avg CPU (°C), 73 Max CPU (°C), 68 Avg GPU (°C), 71 Max GPU (°C)
Razer Blade 14 | RTX 5070 115 W	79 Avg CPU (°C), 85 Max CPU (°C), 78 Avg GPU (°C), 81 Max GPU (°C)

The other side of that is that, because it's such an efficient setup pulling the plug out of the side of the thing isn't going to slam the frame rate. You're still going to get within a percentage point of the same performance whether you're plugged into the wall or not.

Keep this thing in Performance mode and I've seen the frame rate change by maybe a couple of fps, but nothing that's really more than could be explained by statistical variance. Nvidia says that you will get around 99% of the performance from the battery you get from the plug, and that bears out.

But even on Balanced power mode, in the ProArt Creator Hub (a reskinned Armoury Crate), while the power draw drops to 30 W and the GPU clock speed to 1572 MHz, I only saw Metro's benchmark drop by maybe five frames per second on average.

That's not to say there aren't issues here, because at full power you're still not going to be gaming for hours. I measured under an hour and a half running the Fire Strike benchmark on loop via the PCMark 10 CLI. Which is not really what I'd hoped to see from an efficient Arm-based system.

This is still a gaming laptop that wants to be plugged in for the most part, maybe not for performance but definitely for longevity.

Battery life

Testing gaming battery life using PCMark 10's dedicate gaming battery life test.

PCMark 10

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

86

Framework 16

131

Razer Blade 14 (2025)

134

037.575112.5150

Battery life (minutes)

PCMark 10 Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	86
Framework 16	131
Razer Blade 14 (2025)	134

The other inevitable issues surround emulation. This is not an x86 system and while Microsoft's Prism layer is very good for the most part, there are problems with running games on an Arm system that will be familiar to anyone who's spent any time playing games on Linux. Yes, the hoary ol' chestnut of anti-cheat.

The good news is that Microsoft is working hard on this, presumably with the aim of stopping defectors from entering the sunny uplands of Linux gaming, and a ton of anti-cheat providers are already running on RTX Spark and Windows (formerly on Arm). From everybody's favourite, Denuvo, to BattlEye and EAC, a host of multiplayer games can be played from day one.

But there are still some notable exceptions, the main one for me being EA's Javelin. I like me some Battlefield, and I've been playing a lot of FC27 recently, too, for I am a football-liker. These are currently games not compatible with RTX Spark, nor is the F1 24 benchmark we run across our gaming laptop suite, either. Javelin is expected to be updated and added to the list of supported anti-cheats next year, but for right now, you're out of luck.

CPU performance

Testing the straight CPU performance of the relative laptop silicon.

Cinebench 20247zip 24.07Procyon

Multi-core index score

Single-core index score

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

1018

72

Framework 16 | Ryzen AI 9 HX 370

1158

105

MSI Crosshair 16 HX | Core Ultra 9 275HX

1320

134

Razer Blade 14 | Ryzen AI 9 365

1054

115

Cinebench 2024 Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	1018 Multi-core index score, 72 Single-core index score
Framework 16 | Ryzen AI 9 HX 370	1158 Multi-core index score, 105 Single-core index score
MSI Crosshair 16 HX | Core Ultra 9 275HX	1320 Multi-core index score, 134 Single-core index score
Razer Blade 14 | Ryzen AI 9 365	1054 Multi-core index score, 115 Single-core index score

Compressing (GIPS)

Decompressing (GIPS)

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

156.362

135.541

Framework 16 | Ryzen AI 9 HX 370

108.822

128.355

MSI Crosshair 16 HX | Core Ultra 9 275HX

121.787

130.822

Razer Blade 14 | Ryzen AI 9 365

103.17

107.975

7zip 24.07 Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	156.362 Compressing (GIPS), 135.541 Decompressing (GIPS)
Framework 16 | Ryzen AI 9 HX 370	108.822 Compressing (GIPS), 128.355 Decompressing (GIPS)
MSI Crosshair 16 HX | Core Ultra 9 275HX	121.787 Compressing (GIPS), 130.822 Decompressing (GIPS)
Razer Blade 14 | Ryzen AI 9 365	103.17 Compressing (GIPS), 107.975 Decompressing (GIPS)

Overall index score

Duration (Sec)

Sec/image

Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark

1505

66.404

4.15

Framework 16 | Ryzen AI 9 HX 370

1789

55.9

3.49

MSI Crosshair 16 HX | Core Ultra 9 275HX

1508

66.27

4.14

Razer Blade 14 | Ryzen AI 9 365

1704

58.67

3.67

Procyon Data

Product	Value
Asus ProArt P16 | RTX Spark	1505 Overall index score, 66.404 Duration (Sec), 4.15 Sec/image
Framework 16 | Ryzen AI 9 HX 370	1789 Overall index score, 55.9 Duration (Sec), 3.49 Sec/image
MSI Crosshair 16 HX | Core Ultra 9 275HX	1508 Overall index score, 66.27 Duration (Sec), 4.14 Sec/image
Razer Blade 14 | Ryzen AI 9 365	1704 Overall index score, 58.67 Duration (Sec), 3.67 Sec/image

The other issue is also CPU related, though not 100% emulation based. Those Arm cores, even the X925 'performance' cores are not the same as the x86 chips from AMD and Intel right now. Multithreading is fine, but the real problem is single core performance. Take a look at the Cinebench scores and you'll see what I mean.

With a single core score of 72 it's well behind the other chips in the test. Those this benchmark will, of course, be emulated and that is going to impact the outcome, but it highlights where the limitations lie with Nvidia's approach to the SoC. Translate that into gaming terms and the Baldur's Gate 3 benchmark above highlights this perfectly.

This is a game we use to benchmark the gaming performance of a system's CPU because the end-game in the city really demands a lot from your processor. That's why you'll see the MSI Crosshair 16 HX topping the benchmarks here, with its grunty Intel processor. And down the bottom is the RTX Spark with its Arm cores chugging along some 43% slower in terms of frame rate.

Nvidia RTX Spark - Early impressions

I can't really give a solid verdict on the RTX Spark having only had it in my hands for less than a week. But I can certainly give you my first impressions. And they are that the platform delivers a really great device. The Asus ProArt P16 is an absolute delight to use, and the performance it delivers is genuinely impressive.

If this were the same price, or even slightly more than an RTX 5070 gaming laptop, then it would be an easy thing to call this the future of mobile gaming machines. It comes in a thoroughly enjoyable form factor, performs admirably, and it would be a real toss-up for me as to whether I would rather this or the Razer Blade 14.

But it's not. This is a $4,400 machine, and while you can't currently pick up Blade 14 right now, you can get really lovely RTX 5070 gaming laptops for a lot lot less.

So, it can't be a solid recommendation for a dedicated PC gamer.

For less than the price of this middle-range RTX Spark laptop, you can pick up a very well-specced RTX 5090 laptop that comes with 24 GB of very fast GDDR7 VRAM. And that will really do the business when it comes to local AI. Yes, you can go and buy a 24 GB RTX Spark for $2,700, but that would be the same overall memory pool as a standard 16 GB laptop with an RTX 5070. Or even RTX 5060 for that matter. That's not going to get you real access to good local AI models to take advantage of what makes the RTX Spark special.

And there are things that do make it special. If you could stretch to the 64 GB version I have here, and you do far more than game on your device, it does become almost that do-everything laptop. You absolutely can play games on this at high frame rates when you're done doing serious work things, but you can also slam through beefy local AI models, but you also have both the GPU and memory power to run through practically any creative task you put your mind to. And Windows (formerly 'on Arm') is now so transparent that almost every application you might use to do that is fully supported on the OS.

This is my daily driver now, and I'll be spending a lot more time with it to give a more considered take down the line, combined with a whole lot more gaming benchmarks. But for now, and for a very specific audience, this is a hell of a machine. For the rest of us? Well, it's a glimpse into a future where the x86 hegemony of hardware has well and truly been put to rest.

Catching a glimpse of my screen is often a stressful experience for my colleagues. Besides my mess of desktop icons and all the browser tabs I have open at any given time, you don't want to know how many things I have set to launch on startup. Among these are, of course, the Steam and Epic Games Store clients and let me tell ya, not all launchers are created equal.

Earlier this week, Epic shared on X that it had "vibe coded the Epic Games Launcher to be faster than the other guy." On the same day, Valve released a Steam Client update that "Improved Steam Client startup performance." Well, there's only one thing for it: I've got to benchmark these bad boys to determine once and for all whose launcher is actually faster.

For my basic benchmarks, I timed how quickly each client loaded into their respective storefronts (with all images displaying properly) after I opened them from the system tray (for those curious, my rig is this iBuyPower prebuilt with an RTX 4070 Super). I ran three tests on each and then took the average result. The Steam client loaded in 9.32 seconds on average, while the Epic Games Launcher loaded in 5.98 seconds for me.

Others have demonstrated Steam launching into the library in less time, but the Epic launcher is faster by seconds as far as my rig is concerned. That said, Steam remains my client of choice.

For instance, the first thing I noticed during my tests was that one does not simply 'exit' the Epic Games Launcher like you can with Steam. In Valve's client, you click 'Steam' in the top-left corner, then simply select 'exit' from the drop-down menu. A quick check of Task Manager shows it's not secretly running in the background.

It's not as straightforward for Epic. You can either click the 'x' or right-click the icon in your system tray and then select 'Close window'. But for my benchmarks, I opted to 'end task' the Epic launcher each time, as just closing the window doesn't stop it from running in the background. On each of my tests, I had to do this twice as the launcher opened itself after I ended the task the first time.

This small, very specific gripe aside, there are other features on Steam I personally appreciate. The recent Big Art update has really spruced up my game library, and I've been making liberal use of the 'personal calendar' feature (Steam has already spotlighted a number of upcoming cosy and horror games, much to my wallet's chagrin).

As we've seen from my benchmarks, the Steam client is by no means perfect. For instance, Valve keeps saying it has fixed local game transfer quirks, though the experience can still be plenty quirky. I'm also not really a fan of the bouncing logo screensaver, either. And to be fair, even the features I like arguably make the client's store page look a bit cluttered. Still, I generally prefer that mess to the Epic Games Launcher's austere look myself.

So, you've seen the Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 in all its black and gold glory and wondered if it's worth paying $300 more for it. Well, the answer is 'it really depends on what kind of device you are looking for' and 'how much is a fresh OLED screen worth to you?'

Unlike the other ROG 20th anniversary edition bits of Asus gear, the X20 is not about superfluous add-ons (unless you pick up the bundle with XR glasses). You aren't getting a commemorative faceplate here, or extra stickers. You get an OLED screen, TMR thumbsticks, improved thermals, and MicroSD Express compatibility.

You also get Impulse triggers, which means they can rumble independently, and the D-Pad can be flicked around to make the corners more or less pronounced.

The screen is perhaps the biggest sell here, with its 1400 HDR-certified display going up to a peak brightness of 1,400 nits. As I found in my review, it's so sizzlingly bright at points that I looked at the sun in Cyberpunk 2077 while lying in bed one night and actually winced. Check out the full differences below.

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs Asus ROG Xbox Ally X: Performance

Performance test

In a handful of games and productivity apps (35 W plugged in)

3DMark Time Spy3DMark StorageFFXIV ShadowbringersBlack Myth Wukong (1080p Medium)Black Myth Wukong | Upscaling (1080p Medium)Cyberpunk 2077 (1080p Medium)Cyberpunk 2077 | Upscaling (1080p Medium)F1 24 (1080p Medium)F1 24 | Upscaling (1080p Medium)Horizon Zero Dawn (1080p Original)Horizon Zero Dawn | Upscaling (1080p Original)Metro Exodus Enhanced (1080p High)7-zipCinebench R24

Index score

GPU index score

CPU index score

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

4033

3663

9462

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

4086

3771

9568

02,5005,0007,50010,000

3DMark Time Spy Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	4033 Index score, 3663 GPU index score, 9462 CPU index score
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	4086 Index score, 3771 GPU index score, 9568 CPU index score

Index score

Avg bandwidth (MB/s)

Access time (ųs)

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

1163

199.98

155

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

1233

210.38

145

03757501,1251,500

3DMark Storage Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	1163 Index score, 199.98 Avg bandwidth (MB/s), 155 Access time (ųs)
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	1233 Index score, 210.38 Avg bandwidth (MB/s), 145 Access time (ųs)

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

18.91

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

21.4

07.51522.530

Total load time (seconds)

FFXIV Shadowbringers Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	18.91
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	21.4

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

26

19

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

26

19

07.51522.530

Black Myth Wukong (1080p Medium) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	26 Avg FPS, 19 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	26 Avg FPS, 19 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

39

30

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

40

35

010203040

Black Myth Wukong | Upscaling (1080p Medium) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	39 Avg FPS, 30 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	40 Avg FPS, 35 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

41

34

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

42

33

015304560

Cyberpunk 2077 (1080p Medium) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	41 Avg FPS, 34 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	42 Avg FPS, 33 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

53

44

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

58

40

015304560

Cyberpunk 2077 | Upscaling (1080p Medium) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	53 Avg FPS, 44 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	58 Avg FPS, 40 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

84

76

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

85

61

0255075100

F1 24 (1080p Medium) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	84 Avg FPS, 76 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	85 Avg FPS, 61 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

97

88

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

96

72

0255075100

F1 24 | Upscaling (1080p Medium) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	97 Avg FPS, 88 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	96 Avg FPS, 72 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

48

15

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

51

18

015304560

Horizon Zero Dawn (1080p Original) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	48 Avg FPS, 15 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	51 Avg FPS, 18 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

70

18

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

69

25

020406080

Horizon Zero Dawn | Upscaling (1080p Original) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	70 Avg FPS, 18 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	69 Avg FPS, 25 1% Low FPS

Avg FPS

1% Low FPS

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

27

15

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

22

13

07.51522.530

Metro Exodus Enhanced (1080p High) Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	27 Avg FPS, 15 1% Low FPS
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	22 Avg FPS, 13 1% Low FPS

Compression (GIPS)

Decompression (GIPS)

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

81.14

86.54

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

81.77

85.5

0255075100

7-zip Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	81.14 Compression (GIPS), 86.54 Decompression (GIPS)
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	81.77 Compression (GIPS), 85.5 Decompression (GIPS)

Single-core index score

Multi-core index score

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

111

762

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

110

800

0200400600800

Cinebench R24 Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	111 Single-core index score, 762 Multi-core index score
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	110 Single-core index score, 800 Multi-core index score

With both devices featuring the same chip and memory, you can expect more or less the same performance. In my testing, I got lower Metro performance and worse 1% lows in F1 25, but better performance in Horizon Zero Dawn, Cyberpunk 2077 and 3DMark, so the framerate differences overall just about balance out. I also noticed the X20 never went above 49 watts, which means I would feel more comfortable cranking up the wattage. It helps that its thermals are much improved.

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs Asus ROG Xbox Ally X: Thermals

Gaming test thermals

Recorded in HW Info whilst performing gaming benchmarks (35 W plugged in)

Thermal performance

Max CPU temp (°C)

Max CPU package power (W)

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

96

55

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

79

48

0255075100

Thermal performance Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	96 Max CPU temp (°C), 55 Max CPU package power (W)
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	79 Max CPU temp (°C), 48 Max CPU package power (W)

The X20 comes with a refined new thermal cooling system, and it's more than just a marketing term. I recorded temps up to 17 °C cooler compared to the previous model, and even in long gaming sessions, I couldn't manage to push the system's temp above 80°C with its included wattage modes (between 17 W and 35 W). Importantly, I never felt that heat on my fingers as I played, making it a relatively frosty gaming device.

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20 vs Asus ROG Xbox Ally X: Battery life

Gaming battery life

Recorded using PCMark 10's gaming battery life test (25 W)

Battery life | PCMark 10

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X

125

Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20

149

037.575112.5150

Battery life (minutes)

Battery life | PCMark 10 Data

Product	Value
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X	125
Asus ROG Xbox Ally X20	149

In stress testing gaming benchmarks, the X20 managed 2 hours and 9 minutes in the 25 W gaming mode, and almost 3 hours in the 17 W mode. Importantly, it can get up to 9 hours of indie gaming on the go, in my experience. The standard X model has the exact same size battery, so you can expect a similar battery life, though our testing saw it perform a little under the X20.

Though you're getting similar performance figures, the day-to-day use of the Ally X20 is superior from my experience. The screen is gorgeous and super bright, all the buttons feel superb under the fingers, it's super quiet (unless you want it to be loud), and it looks phenomenal.

As well as all of this, those frosty temps mean you can shove up the wattage if you want, or just have a ton of headroom to avoid throttling in the future. I would really struggle to want to spend over $1,000 on any gaming handheld right now, but if I were flush with cash, I would be majorly tempted to pop the X20 in my basket.