Radeon - Page 6 of 45

AMD 4700S System
(Image credit: Tmall.com)

If you haven’t gotten your hands on an Xbox Series X, you may be able to pick up one very soon, but without the RDNA 2 graphics, of course. The recently uncovered AMD 4700S Desktop Kit (via momomo_us) has found its way into a mini-ITX gaming PC at Tmall in China.

When the AMD 4700S emerged last week, the obscure processor raised a lot of questions. For one, the chip doesn’t carry the Ryzen branding, suggesting that it might be a custom processor that AMD developed for one of its clients. Stranger still, the processor is available for purchase as part of the AMD 4700S Desktop Kit.

Starting with what we know so far, the AMD 4700S is an octa-core Zen 2 processor with simultaneous multithreading (SMT). The Tmall merchant listed the AMD 4700S with 12MB of L3 cache, although we saw the chip with 8MB in a previous Geekbench 5 submission. The processor runs with a 3.6 GHz base clock and a 4 GHz boost clock. While we saw the AMD 4700S with 16GB of memory, we were uncertain of its nature. However, we suspected that the AMD 4700S is a variant of the processor that powers Microsoft’s latest Xbox Series X gaming console. The new mini-ITX listing appears to confirm our suspicions.

Apparently, the AMD 4700S is outfitted with 16GB of GDDR6 memory, which is the same amount of memory in the Xbox Series X. It appears that AMD is salvaging defective dies that don’t meet the requirements for the Xbox Series X and reselling them as the AMD 4700S.

Logically, AMD can’t just sell the same processor that it produces for Microsoft (for obvious reasons). Therefore, the AMD 4700S could be a result of a defective die with a faulty iGPU, similar to Intel’s graphics-less F-series chips. On the other hand, AMD could simply have disabled the iGPU inside the AMD 4700S, which is a shame given how generous GDDR6 memory is with bandwidth.

The only image of the mini-ITX system’s interior revealed a motherboard that looks like the same size as the Xbox Series X. There are no memory slots, and we can see some of the GDDR6 chips that surround the processor. Naturally, AMD reworked the motherboard for PC usage, as we can see by the addition of capacitors, passive heatsink, power connectors, and connectivity ports. Since the AMD 4700S lacks an iGPU, AMD added a PCIe 3.0 x16 expansion slot for a discrete graphics card.

AMD 4700S Benchmarks

Processor	Cinebench R20 Single-Core	Cinebench R20 Multi-Core	Cinebench R15 Single-Core	Cinebench R15 Multi-Core
Ryzen 7 4750G	411	4,785	199	2,085
AMD 4700S	486	3,965	160	1,612
Core i7-9700	508	3,643	200	1,469

Thanks to the listing, we can also get an idea of just how the processor inside the Xbox Series X performs compared to today’s desktop processors. However, it’s important to highlight that the AMD 4700S may not be the exact processor used in Microsoft’s latest console. The Series X uses a chip that runs at 3.8 GHz and 3.6 GHz when simultaneous multithreading is active. The AMD 4700S, on the other hand, clocks in a 3.6 GHz with a 4 GHz boost clock. On paper, the AMD 4700S should have faster compute cores since it doesn’t have an iGPU that eats into its power budget, so the heightened clock speeds make sense.

In general, the AMD 4700S lags behind the Ryzen 7 4750G (Renoir) and Core i7-9700 (Coffee Lake) in single-core workloads. The AMD 4700S did outperform the Core i7-9700 in multi-core workloads. However, it still placed behind the Ryzen 7 4750G.

It’s remains to be seen whether AMD is selling the AMD 4700S to retail customers or just OEMs. Thus far, we’ve seen the AMD 4700S Desktop Kit retailing for €263.71 (~$317.38) in at Tulostintavaratalo, a retailer in Finland. The Chinese mini-ITX gaming system is listed for 4,599 yuan or $709.12, but the price factors in the Radeon RX 550, 5TB SSD, CPU cooler, power supply and case.

(Image credit: AMD)

Apple is on track to transit most of its new PCs to system-on-chips (SoCs) with its own graphics processing units (GPUs) in the coming months, but before this happens, it appears that the company will use AMD’s latest RDNA2-based high-end graphics cards with Macs. Recently Apple added support for the Radeon RX 6800/6900 graphics cards to MacOS.

Apple lists compatibility with AMD’s Radeon RX 6800, Radeon RX 6800 XT, and Radeon RX 6900 XT among the MacOS Big Sur 11.4 Beta features. Meanwhile, the documents don’t say which Macs now support AMD’s latest graphics boards.

(Image credit: Apple)

Being a notebook-centric PC maker, Apple offers only one PC that can accommodate a standalone graphics card, the Mac Pro. Right now, these workstations come equipped with Intel’s Xeon W ‘Cascade Lake’ CPUs with up to 28 cores as well as AMD’s Radeon Pro graphics cards based on the GCN 4.0/Polaris, GCN 5.1/Vega, and RDNA architectures. Apple uses are proprietary MPX modules with Mac Pro, and not the typical add-in-boards we’re used to. The system can still house an off-the-shelf graphics card, though.

It is unclear whether Apple plans to change its policy and begin equipping its Mac Pro with non-professional graphics cards in a standard FHHL form-factor, or if the company just added RDNA2 support to allow users to upgrade the Mac graphics subsystem to play games. After all, it is possible to equip a modern MacBook Pro notebook with a graphics card using an eGFX box with a Thunderbolt 3 interface.

It is unlikely that Apple will equip its workstation with a graphics card that is not certified by the developers of professional applications, so RDNA2 support is likely aimed at gamers. Meanwhile, the depicted card is not necessarily a Radeon RX, but rather a yet-unannounced Radeon Pro powered by the RDNA2 architecture.

In any case, Apple’s upcoming macOS Big Sur 11.4 will support AMD’s latest Radeon RX 6800/6900 graphics cards, which is good news for gamers.

(Image credit: AMD)

Two newly leaked images suggest that AMD considered building an extreme flagship for its Big Navi family featuring a liquid cooling system and called Radeon RX 6900 XTX. The Navi 21 GPUs already rank near the top of the best graphics cards, and also place high on our GPU benchmarks hierarchy. Adding liquid cooling to the mix, similar to what’s been done in the past with the RX Vega 64 Liquid, R9 Fury X and R9 295X2, would allow AMD to reach higher clocks and performance.

A member of the Chiphell forums published two pictures claiming to be the reference design of AMD’s Radeon RX 6900 XTX graphics card. The images were then republished by a Weibo user. The images show a board with a large heatsink with the letter “R” on its shroud, hiding a waterblock underneath.

(Image credit: bswvae/Weibo)

The shroud also has red accents and the ‘Radeon’ inscription on its side, which is very similar to those on the reference Radeon RX 6800 XT and Radeon 6900 XT graphics cards.

But unlike the 6900 XT, the so-called Radeon RX 6900 XTX does not have a backplate (not that it is particularly surprising for a pre-release product). The board also appears to come with a 120mm radiator and one fan.

(Image credit: bswvae/Weibo)

While AMD has not yet released a Radeon RX 6900 XTX product, it has worked to deliver the ultimate version of the 6900 XT with 5,120 stream processors and very high clocks. AMD Recently started supplying partners with its “unlocked and unleashed” Navi 21 XTXH silicon that can boost all the way to 2.73 GHz on Sapphire’s Toxic Radeon RX 6900 XT Extreme Edition, and to about 2.50 GHz on AIBs by ASRock and PowerColor (up from 2.25 GHz recommended by AMD).

Assuming AMD did play around with a RX 6900 XTX card, it’d be interesting to know how far it was willing to push the GPU. Some of the extreme cooling systems designed by AMD’s partners seem more capable than its liquid cooler at first glance.

In general, while the Radeon RX 6900 XTX speaks the same design language as AMD’s reference Radeon RX 6800 and 6900-series graphics cards, it’s unclear if the card in the images was meant to be a commercial product, a sample for game developers, or a one-off prototype.

AMD is not new to liquid cooling. The company offered the Radeon R9 Fury X and Radeon Vega 64 Liquid Cooling boards with a closed-loop liquid cooling system. Ultimately, the company moved to a triple-fan cooler with a large heatsink as a more practical cooling solution.

World’s Fastest Radeon RX 6900 XT Graphics Cards
	Sapphire Toxic Radeon RX 6900 XT EE	PowerColor Liquid Devil Ultimate RX 6900 XT	ASRock RX 6900 XT OC Formula	Radeon RX 6900 XT
Base	?	?	2,125 MHz	1825 MHz
Game	2,375 MHz	2,305 MHz	2,165MHz	?
Boost	2,500 MHz	2,375 MHz	2,295 MHz	2250 MHz
Performance Game	2,525 MHz	2,480 MHz	2,365 MHz	–
Performance Boost	2,730 MHz	2,525 MHz	2,475 MHz	–
Cooling System	Hybrid	Custom LCS	Triple-fan	Triple-fan

While we still don’t have hard proof of a 6900 XTX under consideration or in the works, it would make sense for AMD to allow its partners to release extreme specced Radeon RX 6900 XT SKUs that could push the Navi 21 silicon even further, especially with rumors of Nvidia planning to announce a GeForce RTX 3080 Ti in the near future.

Nvidia’s flagship GeForce RTX 3090 nearly always outperforms AMD’s Radeon RX 6900 XT, but a heavily factory-overclocked Navi 21 XTXH can successfully compete against a slightly cut-down GA102 that carries ‘only’ 12GB of memory. Whether either card will be available for purchase at reasonable prices this year is another matter entirely.

(Image credit: Sapphire)

Being one of AMD’s closest partners, Sapphire has historically offered the fastest factory-overclocked Radeon graphics cards with exotic cooling systems. AMD’s ‘quiet’ launch of the ‘unlocked’ Navi 21 XTXH GPU opened doors to makers of graphics cards to release ultimate versions of their Radeon RX 6900 XT products with high clocks and Sapphire went above and beyond with its Toxic AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Extreme Edition that can clock the GPU at up to 2.73 GHz right out-of-box.

Sapphire’s Toxic Radeon RX 6900 XT Extreme Edition graphics card carries AMD’s ‘unlocked’ Navi 21 XTXH GPU with 5120 stream processors that is powered by a custom voltage regulating module (VRM) enabled by one six-pin and two eight-pin auxiliary PCIe power connectors (which can deliver up to 375W of power, another ~75W can be drawn from a PCIe x16 slot). The board uses a custom-built hybrid all-in-one cooling system that uses a fan to cool down the VRM (which is covered with die-cast heatsinks and heat pipes) as well as a closed-loop liquid cooling system featuring a 360-mm radiator with three fans to cool down the GPU. Sapphire says that its cooler “keeps the GPU temperature lower than 85°C and noise levels below 36 dBA.”

Image 1 of 5

(Image credit: Sapphire)

Image 2 of 5

(Image credit: Sapphire)

Image 3 of 5

(Image credit: Sapphire)

Image 4 of 5

(Image credit: Sapphire)

Image 5 of 5

(Image credit: Sapphire)

The Toxic Radeon RX 6900 XT Extreme Edition comes with a default Game clock of 2375 MHz and Toxic Boost clock of 2500 MHz, which is 250 MHz higher than AMD’s recommendations for its Radeon RX 6900 XT in boost mode. Meanwhile, in Performance mode the Toxic Boost clock increases all the way to 2730 MHz, which is a whopping 480 MHz higher than AMD’s recommendations. By contrast, competing graphics cards can hit around 2500 MHz out-of-box. Meanwhile, the world’s record GPU clock ever achieved is 3225 MHz.

World’s Fastest Radeon RX 6900 XT Graphics Cards

	Sapphire Toxic Radeon RX 6900 XT EE	PowerColor Liquid Devil Ultimate RX 6900 XT	ASRock RX 6900 XT OC Formula	Radeon RX 6900 XT
Base	?	?	2125 MHz	1825 MHz
Game	2375 MHz	2305 MHz	2165MHz	?
Boost	2500 MHz	2375 MHz	2295 MHz	2250 MHz
Performance Game	2525 MHz	2480 MHz	2365 MHz	–
Performance Boost	2730 MHz	2525 MHz	2475 MHz	–
Cooling System	Hybrid	Custom LCS	Triple-Fan	Triple Fan

Sapphire’s Toxic AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Extreme Edition is not only one of the world’s highest-performing graphics card, but it also looks good as it has multiple addressable RGB LEDs and an overall stylish look.

Since the graphics board uses a hybrid cooling system, it is not very large itself and measures 270 × 130 × 45mm, which can be considered modest by today’s standards. It will not fit into compact chassis, but buyers of extreme graphics cards generally favor larger cases, so this is hardly a limitation.

Sapphire has not disclosed recommended pricing of its Toxic AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Extreme Edition graphics board, but one can be fairly certain that its retail price will be just as extreme as its clocks given the scarcity of GPUs at this present time.

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD yet has to reveal its new breed of graphics processors for notebooks that will use the company’s latest RDNA2 architecture, but the launch may be just around the corner. The company’s latest Adrenalin driver version 21.4.1 already supports the as-yet unannounced Radeon RX 6600M GPU.

AMD has already introduced its enthusiast-grade Navi 21 processor that powers its Radeon RX 6800/6900-series products as well as the mainstream Navi 22 GPU that is used for its Radeon RX 6700-series graphics cards for desktops. Meanwhile, hardware enthusiasts have found out that the company’s latest driver also contains references to the Navi 23, which is expected to be used for the Radeon RX 6600M (and probably non-M version too), reports VideoCardz.

The fact that the driver already supports the Radeon RX 6600M indicates that a product launch is imminent. Specifications of the GPU are unknown, but it is likely that the Navi 23 will feature a 32MB Infinity Cache as well as a 128-bit memory interface (as the Navi 22 features a 192-bit bus) and therefore will come equipped with 4GB or 8GB of memory. Unfortunately, we do not know how many stream processors the Radeon RX 6600M will have, but since it is already supported by the drivers, we are going to find this out soon enough.

What is surprising is that AMD’s latest drivers also contain references to the Navi 24, according to @Komachi_Ensaka. As the name suggests, this GPU should sit below the Navi 23 and therefore be aimed at entry-level PCs that for some reasons need something slightly better than integrated graphics. OEMs tend to install such graphics solutions into inexpensive systems to attract budget-conscious buyers.

Since AMD has not yet officially introduced its Radeon RX 6600M, Navi 23, and Navi 24, there’s no official word on their specifications, capabilities, or launch timeframes. All we know is that the first members of the Radeon RX 6000M-series should be launched in Q2 2021.

(Image credit: der8auer)

Der8auer, a star overclocker from Germany, has managed to set a new GPU frequency record with PowerColor’s custom-designed AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT graphics card. With the help of liquid nitrogen cooling, the specialist managed to boost the clock rate of 6900 XT, which made our list of best graphics cards thanks to its 26.8 billion transistors, to a whopping 3,225 MHz.

While all 6900 XT-based cards are fast, PowerColor’s LiquidDevil Ultimate Radeon RX goes above and beyond with a 16-phase VRM, three eight-pin auxiliary PCIe power connectors, and some liquid nitrogen. The board does not appear to have any clock speed cap, which is why it was possible to push it all the way to 3.225 GHz without modifying its VRM. Previous GPU overclocking records involved graphics cards with power delivery modifications or usage of K|NGP|N-branded boards with a configurable VRM.

(Image credit: der8auer)

When AMD introduced its Radeon RX 6800 XT and RX 6900 XT graphics cards about half of a year ago, users soon discovered that the company had capped the maximum frequency of the RX 6800 XT (Navi 21 XT) at 2.80 GHz and the maximum clock of the Radeon RX 6900 XT (Naxi 21 XTX) at 3.0 GHz.

More recently, unofficial sources said that AMD began to offer its partners its Navi 21 XTXH GPU with a higher frequency potential, yet it was not completely clear whether AMD binned the new processors itself, or just let its partners factory overclock them. ASRock and PowerColor indeed started to offer Radeon RX 6900 XT products with a maximum boost clock of up to 2,500 MHz, up from 2250 MHz maximum boost clock that AMD recommends for its Radeon RX 6800 XT & RX 6900 XT products.

(Image credit: PowerColor)

As it turns out, the Navi 21 XTXH silicon is a real thing, though looks like its main difference from the regular Navi 21 XTX GPU is the absence of a frequency cap.

Overclocking databases, such as HWBot.org, do not keep GPU frequency records, though a quick check with overclockers actually indicates that der8auer has indeed managed to set the new world’s GPU frequency record as no graphics processor has ever hit a clock significantly higher than 3.0 GHz.

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD this week made select capabilities of its FidelityFX package available to Microsoft Xbox Series X|S developers. For Xbox Series X|S, AMD makes available FidelityFX Contrast Adaptive Sharpening (CAS), Variable Shading, and ray-traced shadow Denoiser technologies, which are already supported by numerous PC games.

AMD’s FidelityFX is a collection of technologies that can greatly enhance visual quality of games or improve their performance without noticeable degradation of image quality. AMD has introduced eight FidelityFX technologies.

Contrast Adaptive Sharpening (CAS)
Combined Adaptive Compute Ambient Occlusion (CACAO)
Variable Rate Shading (VRS)
Stochastic Screen Space Reflections (SSSR)
Ray-traced shadow Denoiser
AMD’s Luminance Preserving Mapper for HDR-supporting FreeSync Premium Pro monitors
Single Pass Downsampler (SPD)
Parallel Sort (optimized version of the radix sort algorithm)

So far, game developers have implemented support for CAS, CACAO, and SPD on PCs, but eventually AMD expects developers to adopt more technologies from the package. One of the most anticipated FidelityFX technologies is AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR), a rival for Nvidia’s DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling). Unfortunately, this technology is currently not supported either on PC or Xbox X|S.

Making ingredients from the FidelityFX package available on Microsoft’s latest game consoles has a lot of rationale for AMD. Firstly, the consoles come in two configurations and it is easier for developers to make sure everything works on them as they do not have to test over a dozen of different RDNA/RDNA2-based graphics cards that are used by gamers. This is barely important for those 40 games that already support CAS (as well as CACAO and SPD) on Windows PCs, but for those titles that yet have to support CAS, variable shading, and ray-traced shadow denoiser supporting them on consoles first makes quite a lot of sense.

Secondly, at around 4.5 million consoles sold to date, Microsoft’s Xbox Series X|S have a larger installed base that AMD’s entire RDNA2 lineup, so game developers are more inclined to use the collection of FidelityFX technologies (well, three of them at this point) for the new consoles rather than for the latest graphics cards. Of course, it would make even more sense for AMD to get its FidelityFX to the latest Xbox Series X|S and to PlayStation 5 (i.e., to over 11.5 million systems) to popularize the package, but right now the collection seems to be a more PC centric.

Earlier AMD said that it was going to support arguably the most anticipated FidelityFX Super Resolution technology available on all RDNA/RDNA2 platforms, which includes PCs running AMD’s Radeon RX 5000 and Radeon RX 6000-series GPUs, Microsoft’s Xbox Series X|S, and Sony’s PlayStation 5. Meanwhile, the company has not disclosed when it plans to roll out its FSR.

Our Verdict

The Asus ZenBook 13 UM325SA packs some of the best value we’ve seen in an ultraportable yet, outperforming much more expensive Intel options thanks to new Ryzen 5000U chips.

For

+ Strong and cheap
+ OLED display
+ Surprisingly good audio

Against

– Need a dongle for a headphone jack
– Touch-based numpad feels gimmicky

The Asus ZenBook line usually tends to be a series of plain, mid-range ultraportables that hit respectable performance for strong value. The ZenBook 13 UM325SA ($749 to start, $999 as tested), is also somewhat unassuming and still maintains strong value, but its performance is anything but mid-range.

That’s thanks to its new Ryzen 5000U processor options, which bring the power of AMD’s latest CPU line to ultraportables and into competition with Intel’s 11th Gen “Tiger Lake” processors. The result is a stunningly strong computer that’s priced well below Intel and Apple alternatives, yet usually outperforms the former while coming within spitting range of the latter.

Asus ZenBook 13 Specs

CPU	AMD Ryzen 7 5800U
Graphics	AMD Integrated Radeon Vega Graphics
Memory	16GB DDR4-3733 MHz
Storage	1TB M.2 SSD
Display	13.3 inch, 1920 x 1080, OLED
Networking	802.11ax Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.0
Ports	2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C, 1x USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A, 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x microSD card reader
Camera	720p, IR
Battery	67Wh
Power Adapter	65W
Operating System	Windows 10 Pro
Dimensions(WxDxH)	11.97 x 7.99 x 0.55 inches
Weight	2.5 pounds
Price Range	$750 – $1000

Design of Asus ZenBook 13

Image 1 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 8

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Zenbook 13 is still a thin, light and minimally decorated machine that looks neither ostentatious nor exciting. Fitting that, color options include a blackish gray and a lighter, more metallic silver — the one we tested was gray.

The laptop’s lid is probably its most heavily decorated part, with a reflective, silvery Asus logo sitting off-center towards the laptop’s charging port side. A slight radial texture surrounds and emanates from the logo, although a glossy surface means it’s often covered by fingerprints. There’s also a small “Zenbook Series” logo on the laptop’s outer hinge.

Opening the laptop reveals a focus on functionality, as there’s not too much going on here visually aside from the chiclet-style keyboard and large touchpad. The keyboard does sit inside a sloping tray, which is nice, but what’s more noticeable is that opening the laptop’s lid also lifts the keyboard off your desk at up to a three-degree angle for easier typing.

The left side of the laptops houses two USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C ports and one HDMI 2.1 connection. The right side similarly has just a single USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A port and a microSD card reader. The big missing port is a 3.5 mm audio jack; you get a USB Type-C dongle in the box for that. You also get a USB Type-A dongle for RJ-45 Ethernet. Those adapters cut into the device’s portability. For instance, plugging in both dongles as well as the charger will use up all of your ports.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Zenbook 13 is on the smaller and lighter side when it comes to portability. At 11.97 x 7.99 x 0.55 inches and 2.5 pounds, it edges out similarly specced competitors on most measurements. The 13 inch MacBook Pro with an M1 chip is 11.97 x 8.36 x 0.61 inches and 3 pounds, while the HP Spectre x360 14 is 11.75 x 8.67 x 0.67 inches and 2.95 pounds. The Dell XPS 13 9310 comes the closest to giving the ZenBook decent competition on size, hitting 11.6 x 7.8 x 0.6 inches and 2.8 pounds.

Productivity Performance of Asus ZenBook 13

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The ZenBook 13 UM325SA is our first time looking at a Ryzen 5000U series chip, which brings AMD’s latest CPU generation to the ultraportable market. While our Ryzen 7 5800U ZenBook 13 configuration with 16GB of RAM and 1TB M.2 SSD didn’t quite beat Apple’s new M1 chip, it generally outperformed Intel Tiger Lake ultraportables like the i7-1165G7 HP Spectre x360 14 and XPS 13 9310. The Ryzen 7 5800U has eight cores and 16 threads, while Intel’s U-series Tiger Lake processors go up to four cores and eight threads.

In Geekbench 5, which is a synthetic benchmark that attempts to capture general performance, the Asus ZenBook 13 hit 6,956 points in multi-core tests and 1,451 points in single-core tests. That’s above the 5,925 multi-core/1,316 single-core scores earned by the MacBook Pro with an M1 processor running Geekbench via Rosetta 2 emulation. The M1 running a native Geekbench test performed much higher, although native M1 Geekbench isn’t exactly comparable to what we ran on the ZenBook. The ZenBook also generally beats our Tiger Lake competition. For instance, the HP Spectre x360 14 earned 4,904 multi-core/1,462 single-core scores and the Dell XPS 13 9310 earned 5,319 multi-core/1,521 single-core scores. Those single-core scores are closer to our ZenBook’s output, but the laptops fall far enough behind on multi-core to outweigh that benefit in most cases.

The ZenBook 13 led the pack in file transfer speeds. When transferring 25GB of files, the ZenBook 13 did so at a rate of 1,068.21 MBps, while the XPS 13 9310 followed behind at a rate of 806.2 MBps. The MacBook Pro M1 hit a rate of 727.04 MBps, and the Spectre x360 14 trailed behind with a score of 533.61 MBps.

The ZenBook 13 and MacBook Pro M1 were significantly faster than our Tiger Lake machines in our Handbrake video-editing benchmark, which tracks how long it takes a device to transcode a video from 4K to FHD. The ZenBook 13 completed this task in 9:18 and the MacBook Pro M1 did it in 7:44. Meanwhile, the Spectre x360 14 and XPS 13 9310 were much slower with scores of 18:05 and 18:22, respectively.

We also ran our ZenBook 13 through Cinebench R23 for 20 runs in a row to stress test how well it operates under an extended load. The average score among these tests was 7,966.40, and the CPU ran at an average clock speed of 2.43 GHz and average temperature of 66.72 Celsius (152.1 Fahrenheit).

Display on Asus ZenBook 13

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Aside from a new Ryzen 5000U chip, the ZenBook 13 UM325SA also packs a new 1920 x 1080

OLED

display. That’s an improvement over 2020’s

Tiger Lake model

, which had an

IPS

-level screen.

I tested this display by watching The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and was impressed by the color and brightness, but a little disappointed by the screen’s viewing angles and reflectivity. While the red on Falcon’s outfit popped and shadows and other blacks were deep, I found that the image tended to wash out when looking at the screen from over 45 degrees away horizontally. Vertical angles were more generous, but the issue with horizontal angles persisted regardless of whether I watched in a high or low-light environment. I also found that even in low light environments, reflectivity was an issue, as I could frequently see my outline on the screen. Still, this didn’t outweigh the excellent color and brightness for me.

Our testing backed up my experience, with the ZenBook 13’s color only being beaten by the HP Spectre x360 14, which also had an OLED screen when we tested it. The ZenBook’s DCI-P3 color rating was 96.5%, while the Spectre’s was 139.7%. The MacBook Pro M1 had a much lower 78.3% DCI-P3 color rating, while the Dell XPS 13 9310 followed behind with a 69.4% DCI-P3 color rating.

The ZenBook was closer to the bottom of the pack in terms of brightness, though given that all of our competitors were also packing bright screens, this isn’t really a mark of low quality. It had 375 nits of average brightness, which is above the Spectre’s 339 nits, but below the MacBook Pro M1’s 435 nits score. The XPS 13 led the pack with a score of 469 nits, but any of the screens are still plenty bright.

Keyboard and Touchpad on Asus ZenBook 13

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The ZenBook 13 UM325SA boasts a chiclet membrane keyboard that’s not too different from what you’ll find on most other ultraportables, but is nonetheless comfortable to use thanks to a slight angle and a cushiony feeling on keypresses.

The Zenbook’s lid is designed to lift its keyboard off your desk at up to a three-degree angle when opened, and while it doesn’t sound like much, that slight elevation helps for both comfort and typing accuracy. I wasn’t any faster than my typical 75 words-per-minute when typing on this keyboard, but I did find myself making fewer typos and my fingers didn’t feel as strained.

That comfort comes from keypresses that feel satisfyingly soft and pillowy, as well as wide keycaps that keep your fingers from feeling cramped or getting lost.

What’s perhaps more interesting than the keyboard is the touchpad, which is a generous 5.1 x 2.5 inches. It uses precision drivers and is perfectly smooth yet has enough friction for precise input, plus it tracks multi-touch gestures without issue. But that’s not what makes it interesting. What stands out here is the toggle-able touchscreen numpad built into it.

By holding the touchpad’s top-right corner for about a second, a numpad overlay will appear on the touchpad. You can still move your mouse cursor as usual in this mode, but you’ll also be able to tap on the overlay to input numbers as well as simple arithmetic commands like addition, subtraction and multiplication. Further, by swiping the touchpad’s top-left corner, your laptop will automatically open the calculator app.

This isn’t our first time seeing these features on a ZenBook, but they still remain novel here. The idea is to make up for the keyboard’s lack of a number pad, but unfortunately, this solution leaves much to be desired. The simplest issue is that touch input is unreliable and often requires users to self-correct by looking at what they’re touching. It also tends to lack comfort due to a lack of tactile feedback. Those two problems take away the major strengths tenkeys tend to have over number rows, but they’re not the only issue here.

While the numpad shortcut works well enough, the swipe to either bring up or dismiss the calculator can be finicky, and it’s not too unusual for it to not register a few times before working. It’s also unusual from a user experience perspective that the calculator shortcut uses a different input method than the numpad, and that the logo indicating where to swipe bears no resemblance to a calculator, but instead looks more like a social media share button.

While you can safely ignore the touch-based numpad without losing any utility over competitors, it doesn’t add much convenience to the device and comes across like a gimmick. At the very least, it does result in a larger touchpad than usual.

Audio on Asus ZenBook 13

The Asus ZenBook 13 UM325S comes with bottom-firing Harman Kardon speakers. And despite the ultrabook’s small size, they work well for both bass and volume.

I tested the ZenBook’s speakers by listening to Blinding Lights by The Weeknd, and they got loud enough at max volume to fill my whole 2-bedroom apartment, even through doors. Bass was also plenty present, capturing both the song’s drum beats and low synth without losing too much information. I couldn’t exactly feel it in my chest, but I also didn’t feel like part of the song was getting cut or drastically losing its impact, which is impressive on a laptop this size.

Unfortunately, the compromise here is that high notes did tend to get a little tinny as the volume got louder. While I had a decent listening experience at volumes lower than 60%, the distortion became noticeable and eventually annoying as I got higher than that level.

There’s also DTS audio software on board that lets you swap between different presets for music, movies and games, and lets you access a custom mode to boost certain parts of your audio like treble and bass. This mostly tended to affect sound mixing rather than quality, but helped me keep my general system volume down, which reduced tinniness to a minimum.

Upgradeability of Asus ZenBook 13

The ZenBook line has a history of being difficult to upgrade, and that’s the case here as well. That’s because some of the screws you’d need to remove to open up the device are hidden under the laptop’s feet. There’s no guarantee you’ll be able to get these feet back on after removal, so we skipped opening up the laptop for this review.

When we reached out to Asus, we were told that the ZenBook 13 UM325SA uses soldered RAM, though you can access and swap out the M.2 SSD if you wish.

However, given that you might end up having to replace your laptop’s feet in the process, we’d suggest being careful about your configuration choices before buying.

Battery Life of Asus ZenBook 13

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The ZenBook 13 UM325SA enjoyed a long 13 hours and 36 minute battery life in our benchmark, which continuously streams video, browses the web and runs OpenGL tests over Wi-Fi at 150 nits of brightness. That put it well above the HP Spectre x360 14’s 7:14 score and the Dell XPS 13 9310’s 11:07, with only the MacBook Pro M1 beating it. That laptop lasted for 16:32.

Heat on Asus ZenBook 13

We took the ZenBook’s temperature after 15 minutes of YouTube videos, and found that the touchpad registered 73.4 degrees Celsius (164.12 Fahrenheit), the center of the keyboard between the G and H keys hit 83.3 degrees Celsius (181.94 Fahrenheit) and the laptop’s underside was mostly 84.7 degrees Celsius (184.46 Fahrenheit).

That said, the underside as a whole has a lot of surface area, and its rear-center (just in front of its underside vent) did hit 94.6 degrees Celsius (202.28 Fahrenheit).

Webcam on Asus ZenBook 13

The ZenBook 13 UM325SA has a single 720p webcam with IR capability for Windows Hello. While it has strong color accuracy, I found that photos I took with it suffered from low quality and a lot of artifacting. It also didn’t adjust well to heavy or low light.

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The colors were natural, but it still almost feels as if I have a filter on. I’d be nervous taking an important work call on this device.

Software and Warranty of Asus ZenBook 13

The Asus ZenBook 13 UM325SA comes with minimal utility software, excluding the extended McAfee total protection trial that’s turned on by default when you get the system. We uninstalled this fairly early on, as some antivirus programs can lower benchmark performance.

Aside from that, you have DTS audio processing for swapping between different presets that tune the speakers for music, movies or gaming. You also have AMD Radeon software, where you can adjust your PC’s power mode, view usage stats for different components and launch games.

Most of Asus’ utility software limited to the MyAsus app, which lets you run diagnostics, troubleshoot, perform updates and the like, all from one place.

There’s also typical Windows pack-ins like Spotify, the weather app, and Microsoft Solitaire Collection.

Configurations of Asus ZenBook 13

We reviewed the ZenBook 13 UM325SA with a Ryzen 7 5800U processor, integrated Radeon Vega graphics, a 13.3-inch 1920 x 1080 OLED display, 16GB of LPDDR4X-3733 memory and a 1TB M.2 SSD. That’s the top configuration for the AMD version of this laptop.

Official pricing info is still a little undefined at the moment, though we’ve been told that the price range for this line of Zenbooks is $750 – $1000. We’d assume that our laptop would come in closer to the top of that range. CPU options for this laptop include the Ryzen 5 5500U, the Ryzen 5 5600U, the Ryzen 7 5700U and the Ryzen 7 5800U. Some of those CPUs are split between the UM325UA and UM325SA models, though there isn’t much difference on these devices other than that CPU selection.

You can also choose to lower your RAM and SSD capacities for a cheaper price, although Asus hasn’t given us details on available options as of publishing.

Bottom Line

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

AMD’s Ryzen processors have, as of late, had a reputation for strong productivity performance and value, and those features stand out in how the latest Asus ZenBook 13 leverages the new Ryzen 5800U chip. Despite costing a maximum of $1,000 at its highest configuration, it easily stands above Intel Tiger Lake competitors that reach as high as $1,600, all while touting a gorgeous OLED display.

In our productivity tests, the only ultraportable that beat the ZenBook 13 was the M1-equipped MacBook Pro 13, which we tested in an $1,899 configuration (and starts at $1,299). Yet despite costing slightly more than half of that price tag, the ZenBook was still in the MacBook’s general range, and never once lost to an Intel competitor.

Granted, some of those Intel competitors have special features. The HP Spectre x360 14 is a convertible, and the Dell XPS 13 has a premium design and a 1920 x 1200 resolution. But they also perform worse while costing more, and even though this ZenBook is still largely plain when it comes to bonuses, it does have a beautiful new OLED display.

There are a few quibbles here and there, like the slim port selection or the near-useless touch-based numpad. But overall, this device is the definition of punching above your weight class.

(Pocket-lint) – Apple has revealed its new iMac – available in a single 24-inch size, it brings Apple’s own M1 processors to the iMac lineup as well as a new, thin-bezel design and seven colour finishes.

Here we’re pitching it alongside the 2020 27-inch model featuring Intel processors. We’re expecting this version to be replaced by a new-style, Apple M1-powered model in due course, perhaps with a 32-inch size – certainly, it’s set to be bigger than the 27-inch size we believe. That model will probably have an upgraded Apple Silicon processor, maybe the M2.

The old 2019 21.5-inch iMac model seems to still be available, but we suspect Apple will just be selling off old stock.

squirrel_widget_4537609

Design

2020 iMac: Familiar aluminium design with a black display surround
2021 iMac: New thinner design, seven different colour finishes

The iMac 2021 takes the iMac design up a level. It’s still very recognisable as an iMac and has the same ‘strip’ under the display, but is significantly thinner, without the bulge around the stand. There are also much thinner bezels with a white surround instead of black.

Crucially the 2021 iMac is now available in seven different colour finishes, however, not all are available to all buyers. There are two different models with very small differences. Primarily this is in the graphics, which we’ll come onto shortly, and two additional USB-C ports on the higher-end model. But whereas the ‘two ports’ model is available in four finishes, the more expensive ‘four ports’ model is available in all seven.

The 2019/2020 iMac retains the familiar aluminium design with a black display surround.

Apple

Displays

2020 iMac: 5K 27-inch display
2021 iMac: 24-inch 4.5K display

The older 2020 iMac features a 5K 27-inch display which has been in use for several years – as we’ve said above we expect it to be replaced by a larger model at some point soon, perhaps 32-inches. The new 2021 iMac introduces a 24-inch 4.5K display with smaller bezels than the 27-inch.

The 2019 21.5-inch iMac still appears to be available, though expect it to go end-of-life soon.

Apple

Processor and graphics

2020 iMac: Various Core i5/i7 options topped out by 3.6Ghz 10-core Core i9-10900K, AMD Radeon Pro graphics
2021 iMac: 8-core Apple M1 processor with 7 or 8 core graphics

The 2020 iMac is available with Intel’s 10th Generation Core i processors (Comet Lake) in 6- and 8-core variants of the Core i5 and i7. You can also upgrade to the range-topping 3.6Ghz 10-core Core i9-10900K that’ll Turbo Boost to 5GHz. We had this in our review model and as you’d expect, it absolutely flies.

For the 2021 iMac, both two-port and four-port models have an 8-core Apple M1 processor under the hood. The graphics are where things differ slightly, with 7 or 8 core graphics respectively. The graphics options on the 2020 Intel iMac are varied, with several AMD Radeon Pro options, maxxing out at the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT with 16GB of GDDR6 memory.

Storage and peripherals

2020 iMac: dual USB-C/Thunderbolt 3, four USB-A ports and an SD card slot
2021 iMac: Dual Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports, extra pair of USB-C ports on four-port model
All iMacs come with a Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse, 2021 iMac available with Touch ID version of Magic Keyboard

The two-port 2021 iMac gives you dual Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports, while the four-port version gives you two additional USB-C ports.

There are stacks of storage options on the 2020 Intel iMacs and you can specify up to a huge 8TB of storage, On the 2021 M1 iMacs though, things are a little more limited – we know the M1 chip is currently limited to 2TB of storage, and you can specify this on the four-port version. On the two-port version you can only get up to 1TB of storage.

The 2020 Intel iMac has two dual USB-C/Thunderbolt 3, four USB-A ports and an SD card slot. So the USB-A and SD slots are gone on the 2021 version. The headphone jack moves from the rear on the 2020 model to the side on the 2021 iMac and the Ethernet port moves to the power brick (yes really), as part of the magnetically attached power cable.

All iMacs come with a Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse, but the high-end four-port 2021 iMac has a special Magic Keyboard with Touch ID. You can also upgrade the standard Magic Keyboard on the two-port version to the Touch ID model.

squirrel_widget_32084713

Verdict

The 2021 24-inch iMac is a clear step forward, but while it clearly supercedes the 2019 21.5-inch iMac, it’s not a complete replacement for the 2020 27-inch model. That’s because of the storage, processor and graphics options available on that model – and the power of the high end Core i7 and Core i9 options.

We expect there to be a new larger iMac this year to replace the 27-inch model as well, probably with a new M2 processor.

Writing by Dan Grabham.

(Image credit: Codemasters)

EA and Codemasters revealed the F1 2021 system requirements for the upcoming PC launch on Steam. The long-running annual series looks set to add a few extra twists and turns this round, with enhanced ray tracing visuals. That means you’ll likely benefit even more from having one of the best graphics cards driving the game, alongside one of the best CPUs for gaming powering the engine. The game currently has a launch date of July 16, 2021. Here are the minimum and recommended PC specs:

Minimum System Requirements for F1 2021

Processor: Intel Core i3-2130／ AMD FX-4300
Memory: 8GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTX 950 ／ AMD Radeon R9 280
Ray Tracing: Nvidia RTX 2060 / AMD RX 6700 XT
Storage: 80GB
API: DirectX 12, DirectX Raytracing (DXR) optional
OS: Windows 10 64-bit (1709 or later, 2004 or later for ray tracing)

Recommended Requirements for F1 2021

Processor: Intel Core i5-9600K／ AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
Memory: 16GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti ／ AMD Radeon RX 590
Ray Tracing: Nvidia RTX 3070 / AMD RX 6800
Storage: 80GB
API: DirectX 12, DirectX Raytracing (DXR) optional
OS: Windows 10 64-bit (1709 or later, 2004 or later for ray tracing)

Both the minimum and recommended system specs are relatively tame until you add in ray tracing. For the CPU, Codemasters lists a relatively ancient Core i3-2130 or an FX-4300. Intel’s CPU is a 2-core/4-thread chip running at 3.4GHz, while AMD’s old FX-4300 is a 4-core/4-thread chip running at up to 4.0GHz — though the FX-series used a CMT (Clustered Multi-Threading) approach that shares some resources between pairs of CPU cores. Most likely, older CPUs could also suffice, though there’s no mention of expected performance. The recommended CPUs meanwhile are far more capable: 6-core/6-thread 4.6GHz for Intel, and 6-core/12-thread 4.2GHz for AMD, with updated architectures compared to the minimum spec.

The GPU will likely play a bigger role, particularly if you want to dip your toes into the ray tracing waters. The GTX 950 and R9 280 hail from 2015 and 2014, respectively, with Nvidia’s card roughly matching a GTX 1050 and AMD’s card coming in a bit ahead of an RX 560. Recommended graphics hardware easily more than doubles performance, with the GTX 1660 Ti and RX 590. And if you want ray tracing, you’ll need at least an RTX 2060 and preferably an RTX 3070 from Nvidia, or an RX 6700 XT and preferably an RX 6800 from AMD.

The remaining F1 2021 system requirements look pretty standard: 8GB RAM, 16GB recommended, 80GB of storage (preferably on an SSD), and of course Windows 10 64-bit — build 2004 (the May 2020 update) is needed for ray tracing, or 2017’s Creators Update build 1703 will suffice for standard rendering.

Our big question regarding the graphics overhaul is how ray tracing will be put to use. Codemasters published Dirt 5 late last year, with a patch adding AMD-promoted ray tracing in March 2021 (press were provided a preview build in December). Unfortunately, the RT effects are only for shadows — one of the least important uses of ray tracing in our opinion. We’d like to see options for RT reflections and lighting as well, but of course that requires more powerful RT hardware.

Given F1 2021 will also launch on the latest consoles, which are less potent than high-end PC graphics cards, we’re not expecting much in the way of dramatically enhanced graphics thanks to ray tracing. Perhaps we’ll be pleasantly surprised this summer.

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD is releasing Adrenalin driver 21.4.1 today with several improvements for some of the best graphics cards, as well as a host of new updates to AMD Link and Radeon Software. These include features such as CPU monitoring in the Radeon Software, a new GPU stress-testing utility, and a Windows 10 app for AMD Link.

AMD Link — AMD’s remote desktop program — has been updated to version 4.0, and includes an all-new Windows 10 app for use on any Windows 10 device. No longer are you constrained to using AMD Link on a smart TV or Arm-based smartphone/tablet. AMD also added a few extra features including 144 fps streaming support, trackpad sensitivity support, and 5.1 surround sound support.

For Radeon Software, AMD added several additional features that should make the app easier to use and more useful. In the streaming department, AMD has added a new automatic quality function that allows Radeon Software to dynamically adjust your stream quality (if you’re streaming from Radeon Software), to ensure a stable and good quality stream. Plus, you can now choose which monitor you want your video to stream from if you have multiple monitors.

Probably the most exciting feature for enthusiasts is the addition of CPU monitoring inside Radeon Software specifically for Ryzen CPUs. In the past, Radeon Software’s performance metric utility was limited to monitoring the GPU. Now it has been upgraded to measure Ryzen CPUs as well.

For users who are color blind, AMD has added a new collard deficiency correction tool that allows users to adjust his or her monitor to the three major color blindness types.

A few other noteworthy additions are an updated bug reporting tool from AMD that will automatically pop up when an error occurs on your system to help AMD find and kill more bugs. Another one is AMD crash defender, which is quite interesting in that it will stop a predicted crash or BSOD from occurring on your system. If this system really works, it should be a really handy feature to have.

Finally, AMD has added DX12 support to Radeon Anti-Lag, full support for AV1 decode and DRM-protected content, and new custom install options that allow you to choose how much AMD’s software gets installed (if at all) with the Radeon drivers.

If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

On paper, the Surface Laptop 4 is a Surface Laptop 3 with better chips.

In look and feel, very little has changed from the last generation. Sure, there are differences here and there: the Laptop 4 is ever-so-slightly thinner, and there’s a new “Ice Blue” color option. But you get the same 3:2 touchscreen, the same port selection, and the same design.

The big changes are on the inside. You can configure both the 13.5-inch and 15-inch Surface Laptop models with either Intel’s 11th-Gen processors or AMD’s Ryzen 4000 processors. Microsoft promised that these improvements would deliver significantly better performance and battery life than the previous Surface generation.

So this review will largely focus on the new system’s performance. But my priority wasn’t to compare the 15-inch Surface Laptop 4 that we received to its predecessor. For one, the Laptop 3 set a low performance bar — it had mediocre battery life, and couldn’t even play a 4K 60FPS video without stuttering, so even a competent budget laptop would blow that out of the water. But more importantly, there’s another company out there that recently made a huge chip upgrade to its flagship models, which has left most other 2020 chip upgrades in the dust: Apple, with its Arm-based M1. So my big question when looking at AMD’s new Ryzen 7 Surface Edition (also known as the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U Microsoft Surface Edition because of course it is) is: Does it beat Apple’s M1?

The answer is no. For the most part, it’s still not quite as good. But that may not matter to Surface Laptop 4 buyers — at least, not yet.

First, a quick tour of the Ryzen 7 Surface Edition. This chip isn’t AMD’s top gun; it’s part of the Ryzen 4000 generation, and the Ryzen 5000 mobile series has been out for a few months now. It’s a bit disappointing to see that the Surface is still using the older Ryzen chips, since much of the new generation is based on a new architecture (Zen 3, to the 4000 series’s Zen 2) that has delivered performance gains.

Of course, that doesn’t make the Ryzen 7 4980U a bad chip. Ryzen 4000 chips outperform Intel’s 10th Gen Comet Lake processors across the board. The 4980U in particular has eight cores, and AMD’s excellent Radeon integrated graphics. Note that the M1 also has eight cores, but those cores aren’t created equal. An easy way to think of it is that AMD’s chip has eight all-around-pretty-good cores, while Apple’s chip has four high-performance cores and four weaker cores. You’ll see that difference reflected in our benchmark results later on.

In addition to that processor, the 15-inch Surface Laptop 4 I reviewed comes with 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage. It costs $1,699. The most comparable M1 MacBook Pro is also $1,699. If you’re not looking to spend that much, you can get the 15-inch Laptop 4 for as low as $1,299 for 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, which puts it neck-in-neck with the entry-level MacBook Pro, but with a bigger screen. The 13.5-inch Laptop 4 is priced more closely to the fanless MacBook Air, starting at $999 for a Ryzen 5 4680U, 8GB of RAM, and 256GB of storage. Then, there are the Intel models. You can get a 13.5-inch system with a Core i5 starting at $1,299 (also with 8GB of RAM and 512GB of storage), and a 15-inch system with a Core i7 starting at $1,799 (16GB of RAM, 512GB of storage). It’s all quite confusing, so I recommend visiting Microsoft’s site for yourself to mix and match.

The 13.5-inch model comes in Platinum, Ice Blue Alcantara, Matte Black, and Sandstone. The 15-incher comes in Platinum and Matte Black.

To see how our test system stacks up, I ran various synthetic benchmarks as well as a 5-minute, 33-second 4K video export in Premiere Pro. See the results below:

Surface Laptop 4 15-inch benchmarks

Benchmark	Score
Benchmark	Score
Cinebench R23 Multi	8144
Cinebench R23 Single	1242
Cinebench R23 Multi looped for 30 minutes	8077
Geekbench 5 CPU Multi	7028
Geekbench 5 CPU Single	1163
Geekbench 5 OpenCL / Compute	14393
PugetBench for Premiere Pro	176

Right off the bat, this system is a huge improvement over the Surface Laptop 3. It took 16 minutes and 33 seconds on the video export, where its predecessor took over three hours. (16:33 is a slower time than we’ve seen from many Intel models, but that’s expected since AMD chips don’t support Intel’s Quick Sync.) The Laptop 4 also beats multi-core synthetic results we’ve seen from Intel’s top Tiger Lake chips in the MSI Prestige 14 Evo and the Vaio Z, as well as the 16-inch Intel-based MacBook Pro,

Intel models max out at a quad-core Core i7-1185G7.

But the more interesting comparison is to the M1 machines. The Surface Laptop 4 solidly beats both the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air on Cinebench R23 Multi, and that task alone — it lost to both machines on every other test we ran, including all three Geekbench tests, the Puget for Premiere Pro benchmark, and the Premiere Pro export. That may seem confusing but (again) it makes sense when you think about the architecture of both chips — the Ryzen chip does better on the task where it can show off all eight of its powerful cores. That indicates that you’ll do well with the Surface Book if you’re running heavy multicore workloads, where you’re more suited to the M1 if you’re primarily doing pretty much anything else.

Of course, that’s far from the whole story. The reality is that most people who want a 15-inch screen probably don’t care if there’s a better-performing 13-inch machine floating around. And the MacBook that’s comparable in size — the MacBook Pro 16 — is significantly more expensive than the Surface Laptop 4, and comes with older Intel chips. So why am I comparing this device to M1 systems, you may ask? Really, I’m benching this laptop against an imaginary 16-inch M1 MacBook Pro, which (rumor has it) will launch sometime in the third quarter of this year. Given the results I’m seeing here, the release of a machine like that would make the Surface Laptop 4 a tougher purchase to justify.

That said, there are two big advantages the Ryzen-powered Surface Laptop 4 could very well have over a 16-inch M1 MacBook. The first is battery life. I got an average of 10 hours and 52 minutes using this device as my primary driver, which is some of the best battery life I’ve ever seen from a 15-inch laptop, and one of the best results I’ve seen from a laptop this year. That beats both of the M1 MacBooks, and destroys the 16-inch Intel MacBook as well. If there’s an area where Microsoft really makes its case, it’s here.

The Laptop 4 also knocks cooling out of the park. The Laptop 4’s fans did a really excellent job cooling the system. Throughout my fairly standard load of office multitasking (including around a dozen Chrome tabs, Spotify streaming, and the like), the chassis remained downright cold. During the more intense tests I ran, the CPU remained steadily in the mid-70s (Celsius) with occasional spikes up to the mid-80s — jumps up to 90 were rare. I was able to run our 4K video export several times in a row without any negative impact on results, and I didn’t see a huge dip in Cinebench results over a 30-minute loop either.

The screen maxed out at 370 nits — a bit dim for outdoor use, as you can see here.

If you’re a fan of the 15-inch Surface Laptop’s design, you’ll be happy to know it hasn’t changed much. One of the big advantages of this device is how thin and light it is, at just 0.58 inches thick and 3.4 pounds. For context, it’s almost a pound lighter than the 16-inch MacBook Pro, and over half a pound lighter than the lightest Dell XPS 15. It’s actually only a bit heavier than the 13-inch MacBook Pro.

With that said, those who aren’t diehard Surface fans may find the Laptop 4’s design a tad dated. In particular, the bezels around the 3:2 screen are quite chunky. That makes sense on a convertible device like the Surface Book 3 or the Surface Pro 7, which you need to be able to hold as a tablet, but doesn’t fit as well on a clamshell. If you put the Laptop 4 next to any member of the XPS line, you’ll see how much sleeker and more modern the latter looks. That doesn’t mean the Laptop 4 is ugly; it’s just falling further behind other Windows laptops each year.

The port selection is also the same, which is good news and bad news. The Laptop 4 retains a USB-A port, which I stubbornly believe is still a necessity for modern laptops (looking at you, Apple and Dell). But there is just one, and neither the Intel or AMD model supports Thunderbolt on their lone USB-C ports, which is disappointing on a laptop at this price. The Surface Laptop could certainly do with more port options, even if it’s competitive with what Apple and Dell are offering in terms of numbers. (In addition to the USB-A and USB-C, you get a headphone jack and Microsoft’s proprietary charging port.)

The Windows Hello webcam is fine, delivering a serviceable picture, and the dual far-field microphones had no trouble picking up my voice. The speakers, which now support Dolby Atmos 9, sound quite clear, with good volume and bass and percussion that are audible (though not booming). Despite having Atmos speakers, our Laptop 4 unit didn’t come preloaded with Dolby Atmos software or anything similar to tune the audio.

All 15-inch models have an aluminum body.

My least favorite part of this laptop is the keyboard. It’s just a bit flat and mushy for my taste. I respect that some people prefer wider, flatter keycaps, of course. But I would take an XPS 15, MacBook, or Surface Book keyboard over this one — it’s just not quite as snappy or satisfying.

Overall, it’s tough to identify a true competitor to the 15-inch Surface Laptop 4. Put it next to a Windows workstation like the $1,200 entry-level Dell XPS 15 and the Surface wins on power, battery life, and weight. It’s a good purchase for someone who wants an excellent combination of efficiency and multicore performance in a 15-inch chassis, but doesn’t need the grunt of a discrete GPU.

The keyboard is backlit and has 1.3 mm of travel.

But that window of opportunity may be closing, because there’s very likely a larger M1 MacBook Pro on the way. I think there’s a good argument that people in the group described above (who don’t need a device right this second) should sit back and wait to see what Apple does in the next few months before committing to Microsoft’s machine, provided they don’t have a hard preference for operating systems.

On the other hand, even if the larger MacBook Pro is spectacular, there are some advantages the Laptop 4 will certainly retain (it runs Windows, and it’s built like a Surface Laptop) and some it will probably retain (it’ll likely be lighter than the MacBook Pro 16). And, of course, plenty of people need a laptop right now. In today’s market, among today’s 15-inch laptops, the Surface Laptop 4 is a pretty damn good buy. Microsoft didn’t change much about the outside — but on the inside, it really pulled through.

Photography by Monica Chin for The Verge

Radeon RX 6000
(Image credit: AMD)

Tech outlet Chips and Cheese has published a new study that compares the memory latency between AMD and Nvidia’s latest graphics cards. The results paint RDNA 2 with a lower memory latency in comparison to Ampere. But it should be noted that lower latency may not directly correlate with real-world performance.

Similar to processors, modern graphics cards leverage a multi-level cache hierarchy system. Ampere sticks to a more traditional setup with a L1 and L2 cache. RDNA 2 (Big Navi), on the other hand, has the L0, L1, L2 and Infinity Cache, which essentially acts as L3 cache. Both architectures leverage contrasting designs so it’s interesting to see which comes out on top. On paper, RDNA 2 has more levels to go through on the way to the memory.

To measure the memory latency with graphics cards, Chips and Cheese utilized a methodology that’s normally applied to processors. The publication used pointer chasing benchmarks in OpenCL to assess both the cache and memory latency. The outlet used the Radeon RX 6800 XT and GeForce RTX 3090 as test rabbits.

Ampere vs. RDNA 2 Memory Latency (Image credit: Chips and Cheese)

In general, RDNA 2 had lower memory latency as compared to Ampere on all levels. Chip and Cheese’s results confirmed that the Infinity Cache only added an extra 20ns penalty over a L2 hit. RDNA 2’s memory latency was in the same ballpark as Ampere, despite having to go through more cache levels to reach its destination.

Traveling from the L1 cache to the L2 cache on Ampere requires over 100ns. In comparison, RDNA 2’s L2 cache is only 66ns apart from its L0 cache, regardless of having a L1 cache in between them.

Chip and Cheese concluded that it requires a lot of cycles to circulate the GA102 die, given its size (628 mm²). The publication thinks that RDNA 2’s low-latency L2 and L3 caches give it an edge over Ampere in small workloads. This could explain why RDNA 2 graphics cards excel in gaming at lower resolutions.

Our Verdict

With a Ryzen 9 5900X and an RTX 3080, both liquid-cooled for quiet operation in a compact case, Corsair’s One a200 is easy to recommend–if you can afford it and find it in stock. Just know that your upgrade options are more limited than larger gaming rigs.

For

+ Top-end performance
+ Space-saving, quiet shell
+ Liquid-cooled GPU and CPU

Against

– Expensive
– Limited upgrade options

For a whole host of reasons, AMD’s

Ryzen 9 5900X

and Nvidia’s

RTX 3080

have been two of the hardest-to-find PC components since late last year. But Corsair has combined them both in a handy, compact, liquid-cooled bundle it calls the Corsair One a200.

The company’s vertically-oriented One desktop

debuted in 2018

and has since been regularly updated to accommodate current high-end components. This time around, the options include either AMD or Intel’s latest processors (the latter called the One i200), and Nvidia’s penultimate consumer GPU, the RTX 3080.

Not much has changed in terms of the system’s design, other than the addition of a USB Type-C port up front (where an HDMI port was on previous models). But with liquid cooling handling thermals for both the CPU and graphics in a still-impressively compact package, there’s really little reason to change what was already one of the

best gaming PCs

for those who want something small.

The only real concern is pricing. At $3,799 as tested (including 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD and a 2TB HDD), you’re definitely paying a premium for the compact design and slick, quiet cooling. But with the scarcity of these core components and the RTX 3080 regularly

selling for well over $2,000 on its own on eBay

, it’s tough to discern what constitutes ‘value’ in the gaming desktop world at the moment. You may be able to find a system with similar components for less, but it won’t likely be this small or slick.

Design of the Corsair One a200

Just like the

One i160

model we looked at in 2019, the Corsair One a200 is a quite compact (14.96 x 7.87 x 6.93 inches) tower of matte-black metal with RGB LED lines running down its front. To get some sense of how small this system is compared to more traditional gaming rigs, we called

Alienware’s Aurora R11

“fairly compact” when we reviewed it, and it’s 18.9 x 17 x 8.8 inches, taking up more than twice the desk space of Corsair’s One a200.

The 750-watt SFX power supply in the a200 is mounted at the bottom, pulling in air that’s expelled at the top with the help of a fan. And the heat from the CPU and GPU will mostly be expelled out either side, as both are liquid cooled, with radiators mounted against the side panels.

The primary external difference with the updated a200 over previous models is the replacement of an HDMI port that used to live up front next to the headphone/mic combo jack and pair of USB-A ports. It’s been replaced with a USB-C port. That makes for three front-facing USB ports, a surprising amount of front-panel connectivity for a system so compact. But there are only six more USB ports around back (more on that shortly).

Overall, while the design of the One a200 is pretty familiar at this point, it still looks and feels great, with all the external panels made out of metal. Just note that the matte finish does easily pick up finger smudges.

Specifications

Processor	AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard	ASRock B550 Phantom Gaming-ITX/ax
Memory	32GB (2x16GB) Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200
Graphics	Liquid-cooled NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 (10GB GDDR6X)
Storage	1TB M.2 NVMe; 2TB 2.5″ SATA HDD
Networking	802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6), 2.5 Gb Ethernet
Ports	Front: 2x USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) Type-A, 1 USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) Type-C ; Combination Mic/Headphone Jack; Rear: 4x USB USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) Type-A, 2x USB 3.2 Gen 2 (Type-A, Type-C), Ethernet, HD Audio, 3x DisplayPort, 1x HDMI
Video Output	(3) DisplayPort 1.4a (1) HDMI 2.1
Power Supply	750W Corsair SFX 80 Plus Platinum
Case	Corsair One Aluminum/Steel
Operating System	Windows 10 Home 64-Bit
Dimensions	14.96 x 7.87 x 6.937 inches (380 x 200 x 176 mm)
Price As Configured	$3,799

Ports and Upgradability of the Corsair One a200

Since the Corsair One a200 is built around a compact Mini-ITX motherboard (specifically the ASRock B550 Phantom Gaming-ITX/ax), you won’t quite get the same amount of ports that you would expect with a larger desktop. Since we already covered the three USB ports and audio jack up front, let’s take a look at the back.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Here you’ll find four USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps) Type-A ports, plus two USB 3.2 Gen 2 (one Type-A and one Type-C). Also here is a 2.5 Gb Ethernet jack, three analog audio connections and connectors for the small antennae. The ASrock board also includes a pair of video connectors, but since you’ll want to use the ports on RTX 3080 instead, Corsair has blocked them off behind the I/O plate so most people wouldn’t even know they’re there.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The video connections from the RTX 3080 graphics card live next to the Corsair SF750 power supply, and come in the form of three DisplayPort 1.4a ports and a single HDMI 2.1 connector.

As for internal upgradability, you can get at most of the parts if you’re comfortable dismantling expensive PC hardware. But you can’t add any RAM or storage without swapping out what’s already there (or at least without removing the whole motherboard, more on that soon). That said, the 32GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 RAM, 1TB PCIe 4.0 Force MP600 SSD and 2TB Seagate 2.5-inch hard drive that’s already here are a potent cadre of components. If you need more RAM and storage (as well as more CPU cores), there’s a $4,199 configuration we’ll detail later.

To get inside the Corsair One a200, you don’t need any tools, but you’ll want to be a bit careful. Press a button at the rear top of the case (you have to press it quite hard) and the top, which also houses a fan, will pop up. But before you go yanking it away in haste, note that it’s attached via a fan cable that you can disconnect after first fishing the plug out from a hole inside the case.

To access the rest of the system you’ll have to remove two screws from each side. But again, don’t be careless, as radiators are attached to both side panels via short tubes, so the sides are a bit like upside-down gull-wing doors. You can’t really remove them without disconnecting the cooling plates from the CPU and GPU.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

It’s fairly easy to remove the RAM, although the 32GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 occupies both of the slots. The 2TB Seagate 2.5-inch hard drive is also accessible from the left side, wedged under the PCIe riser cable that’s routed to the GPU on the other side.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

At least the 1TB Force MP600 SSD on this model is mounted on the front of the motherboard under a heatsink, rather than behind the board on the i160 version we looked at a couple years ago.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

You can open the right panel as well, though there’s not much to do here as the space is taken up by the GPU, a large radiator and a pair of fans mounted on the heatsink to move the RTX 3080’s heat through the radiator and out the vents on the side.

As with previous models, you should be able to replace the RTX 3080 with an air-cooled graphics card at some point, provided it has axial rather than blower-style cooling, and that it fits within the physical constraints of the chassis. But given that the RTX 3080 is the

best graphics card

you can buy, you may be ready for a whole new system by the time you start thinking about swapping out the graphics card here.

Aside from wishing there were more USB ports on the motherboard, I have no real complaints about the hardware here. If I were spending this much, I’d prefer a 2TB SSD, but at least the 1TB model Corsair has included is a PCIe 4.0 drive for the best speed possible. Technically the ASRock motherboard here has a second PCIe 3.0 M.2 slot, where you could install a second SSD. But it’s housed on the back of the motherboard, which would mean fairly major disassembly in cramped quarters, and remember that you’d have to disconnect the pump/cooling plate from the CPU before even attempting to do that.

Gaming Performance on the Corsair One a200

With AMD’s 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X and Nvidia’s RTX 3080 running the gaming show inside Corsair’s One a200 — and both of them liquid-cooled — we expected Corsair’s compact power tower to spit out impressive frame rates.

We pitted the a200 against

MSI’s Aegis RS 11th

, which also has an RX 3080 but an 8-core Intel Rocket Lake Core i7-11700K, and a couple other recent gaming rigs we’ve tested.

Alienware’s Aurora Ryzen Edition R10

sports a stepped down Ryzen 7 5800X and a

Radeon RX 6800XT

. And

HP’s Omen 30L

, which we looked at near the end of 2020, was outfitted with a last-generation Intel Core i9-10900K and an RTX 3080 to call its own.

While the Corsair One a200 didn’t walk away from the impressive competition, it was almost always in the lead in our gaming tests. And that’s all the more impressive given most of the systems it competes with are much larger.

Image 1 of 5

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 5

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 5

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 5

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 5

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

On the Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmark (highest settings), the game ran at 147 fps at 1080p on the One a200, and 57 fps at 4K. The former ties it with the Aegis for first place here, and the latter beats both the Aegis and the Omen 30L, just slightly, giving Corsair’s system an uncontested win.

In Grand Theft Auto V (very high settings), the Corsair system basically repeated its previous performance, tying the MSI machine at 1080p and pulling one frame ahead of both the Omen and the MSI at 4K.

On the Far Cry New Dawn benchmark, the MSI Aegis pulled ahead at 1080p by 11 fps, but the One a200 still managed to tie the MSI and HP systems at 4K.

After trailing a bit in Far Cry at 1080p, the One a200 pulled ahead in Red Dead Redemption 2 (medium settings) at the same resolution, with its score of 117 fps beating everything else. And at 4K, the Corsair system’s 51 fps was again one frame ahead of both the MSI and Alienware systems.

Last up in Borderlands 3 (badass settings), the Corsair system stayed true to its impressive form. Its score of 137 fps at 1080 was a frame ahead of the MSI (and ahead of everything else). And at 4K, its score of 59 fps was only tied by the HP Omen.

Aside from the One a200’s gaming performance being impressive for its size, this is also one of the quietest high-end gaming rigs I’ve tested in a long time. Lots of heat shot out of the top of the tower while I played the Ancient Gods expansion of Doom Eternal, but fan noise was a constant low-end whirr. The large fan at the top does its job without doing much to make itself known, and the radiators on either side help move heat out of the case without adding to the impressively quiet noise floor.

We also subjected the Corsair One a200 to our Metro Exodus stress test gauntlet, in which we run the benchmark at the Extreme preset 15 times to simulate roughly half an hour of gaming. The Corsair tower ran the game at an average of 71.13 fps, with very little variation. The system started out the test at 71.37 fps on the first run, and dipped just to 71.05 fps on the final run. That’s a change of just a third of a frame per second throughout our stress test. It’s clear both in terms of consistent performance and low noise levels that the One a200’s cooling system is excelling at its job.

During the Metro Exodus runs, the CPU ran at an average clock speed of 4.2 GHz and an average temperature of 74.9 degrees Celsius (166.8 degrees Fahrenheit). The GPU’s average clock speed was 1.81 GHz, with an average temperature of 68.7 degrees Celsius (155.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Productivity Performance

While the Ryzen 9 5900X isn’t quite as potentially speedy on paper as the top-end 5950X (thanks to a slightly lower top boost clock and four fewer cores), it’s still a very powerful 12-core CPU. And paired with Nvidia’s RTX 3080, along with 32GB of RAM and a fast PCIe 4.0 SSD, the Corsair One a200 is just as potent in productivity and workstation tasks as it is playing games.

Image 1 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 3

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

On Geekbench 5, an overall performance benchmark, the Corsair system was just behind the leading systems in the single-core tests, with its score of 1,652. But on the multi-core test, it’s 11,968 was well ahead of everything else.

The Corsair PCIe Gen 4 SSD in the a200 blew past competing systems, transferring our 25GB of files at a rate of 1.27 GBps, with only the HP Omen’s WD SSD also managing to get close to the 1GBps mark.

And on our Handbrake video editing test, the Corsair One a200 transcoded a 4K video to 1080p in an impressive 4 minutes and 44 seconds, while all the other systems took well more than 5 minutes to complete the same task. Video editors in particular will be able to make good use of this system’s 12 cores and 24 threads of CPU might.

Software and Warranty for the Corsair One a200

The Corsair One a200 ships with a two-year warranty (plus lifetime customer support) and very little pre-installed software. Aside from Windows 10 Home, you get the company’s iCue software, which can be used to control both the lights as well as the system fans. The company even seems to have avoided the usual bloat of streaming apps and casual games like Candy Crush, which ship with almost all Windows machines these days.

Configuration Options for the Corsair One a200

If you’re after the AMD-powered Corsair a200 specifically, you have two configuration options. There’s the model we tested (Corsair One a200 CS-90200212), with a 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X, 32GB of RAM, a 1TB PCIe Gen 4 SSD, 2TB hard drive, and an RTX 3080 for $3,799. Or you can pay $400 more ($4,199) to step up to the 16-core Ryzen 5950X and double the RAM and SSD to 64GB and 2TB respectively (Corsair One Pro a200 CS-9040010). The latter configuration is overkill for gaming, but the extra storage, RAM and four more CPU cores are well worth the extra money if you can actually make use of them.

For those who aren’t wedded to AMD, there’s also the Intel-based Corsair One i200, which now includes 11th Gen “Rocket Lake” CPU options, with up to a Core i9-11900K and an RTX 3080, albeit running on a last-gen Z490 platform. It starts a little lower at $3,599. But that model is currently out of stock with any current-generation Intel and Nvidia components, leaving exact pricing up in the air as of publicatioon.

We tried to do some comparison pricing, and were able to find a similarly equipped HP Omen 30L, as HP often sells gaming rigs on the more-affordable side of the spectrum. But when we wrote this, all Omen 30L systems with current-generation graphics cards were sold out on HP’s site. We were able to

find an Omen 30L on Amazon

with an RTX 3080 and an Intel Core i9-10850K, along with similar RAM and storage as our Corsair a200, for $3,459. That’s about $340 less than the a200, but the Omen 30L is also much larger than the a200 and has a now last-generation CPU with fewer cores, plus a slower SSD.

Bottom Line

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

With one of

the best CPUs

and graphics cards, both liquid cooled and quiet, in an attractive, compact package, Corsair’s One a200 offers a whole lot to like. The $3,799 asking price is certainly daunting, but in these times when that graphics card alone is selling on eBay regularly for more than $2,000, the Ryzen 9 5900X often sells for close to $800, and even most desktops with current-gen graphics cards are mostly sold out, it’s tough to which high-end gaming rig is more or less of a bargain than something else.

If you spend some time looking you can probably find a system with similar specs as the Corsair One a200 for a bit less. But unless and until the ongoing mining craze subsides, that system probably won’t cost substantially less than Corsair’s pricing. And with its impressively compact shell, quiet operation, and top-end performance in both gaming and productivity, the a200 is easy to recommend for those who can afford it. Just know that upgrading will be a bit more difficult and limiting than with a larger desktop, and if you need lots of USB ports, you may want to invest in a hub.

GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
(Image credit: Lok LOK/Facebook)

Facebook user Lok LOK has snapped various photographs of shipping boxes with MSI graphics cards that are reportedly heading to the U.S. One of the boxes seemingly contains MSI’s unreleased GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Ventus 3X 12G OC, lending credence to the rumors of GeForce RTX 3080 Ti’s arrival in May.

However, the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti isn’t the only SKU that MSI is sending to Los Angeles. Nvidia’s flagship GeForce RTX 3090 is also part of the shipment although we couldn’t see the exact model of the graphics card. The other photographs also showed a few boxes of MSI’s Radeon RX 580 Armor 8G OC and GT 710 2GD3 LP. Both graphics cards are outdated by today’s standards, but given the ongoing shortage, anything is better than nothing. Furthermore, the Radeon RX 580 is still the one of the best mining GPUs that money can buy.

According to the latest rumors, the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti could arrive with 10,240 CUDA cores, 80 RT cores and 320 Tensor cores. The leaked photographs paint the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti with 12 GB of memory, putting to rest the ongoing debate of hether it would come with 12GB or 20GB. The memory chips should be GDDR6X clocked at 19 Gbps. Across the rumored 384-bit memory interface, the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti should be good for a memory bandwidth up to 912.4 GBps.

Image 1 of 3

MSI GPU Shipment (Image credit: Lok LOK/Facebook)

Image 2 of 3

MSI GPU Shipment (Image credit: Lok LOK/Facebook)

Image 3 of 3

MSI GPU Shipment (Image credit: Lok LOK/Facebook)

There is strong but unverified information that Nvidia is reworking its Ampere silicon to put a halt to Ethereum mining. If that’s the case, the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, which is reportedly based on the GA102 die, will debut with Nvidia’s reveamped silicon with improved anti-mining mechanisms. Word around town is that once mining activity is detected, the algorithm slashes the hash rate down to 50%.

While Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 3090 can go toe-to-toe with AMD’s Radeon RX 6900 XT, the Ampere offering also costs $500 more. Nvidia has a respectable Ampere lineup, but the chipmaker doesn’t have anything that competes in the $1,000 bracket. The reason for the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti’s existence is to face Radeon RX 6900 XT at the $999 price mark.

If you’ve been hunting for a high-end Ampere graphics card, we encourage you to keep your eyes peeled in the upcoming weeks. We don’t know just how many units are en route to the U.S. but they’ll likely sell out fast. The reality of the matter is that the graphics card shortage doesn’t look like it’ll improve anytime soon. What little of the graphics cards that make their way to U.S. retailers will in all probability sell out quickly.