Chinese PLA soldiers practice with FPV dronesClash Report Via TwitterChinas release of the DeepSeek chatbot has sent shockwaves through the U.S. stock market and beyond. The makers claim that the underlying DeepSeek-V3 model was trained for around $6m, a tiny fraction of the cost of rival U.S. systems, and with a tiny fraction of the computing power.This happened just after the U.S. had announced massive spending on AI infrastructure to build the sort of computing power which DeepSeeks makers say is no longer necessary. The launch has been described as Sputnik moment echoing events in 1957 when the Soviet Union shocked the world by taking a lead over America in the space race by putting the first satellite into orbit.Sputnik had obvious military implications: Americans were nervously aware of the Russian hardware now flying over their heads every ninety minutes. A Chinese lead in Large Language Models may look like a purely economic edge. But a new generation of AI-enabled drones could translate it into a military advantage.Putting An AI Crown On Drone SupremacyDJI Sky City, the global headquarters of the world's leading consumer drone marker DJI, in Shenzhen.VCG via Getty ImagesChina is the worlds largest producer of small drones. A single company, DJI of Shenzhen, commands an estimated 80% of the global consumer drone market. Although the company officially deplore military use of their product, DJI drones have become ubiquitous tools used by both sides in the war in Ukraine.MORE FOR YOULow-cost FPV drones, armed racing quadcopters, have become perhaps the most important single weapon in the ground war. These are assembled locally but many or most of the parts come from China.At present, almost all drones are flown by remote control. Skilled FPV pilots can score remarkable successes: 25-year-old Tymofiy Orel was awarded the title Hero of Ukraine for destroying 42 Russian tanks and 44 armored personnel carriers among other vehicles.In the past year or so small drones have been equipped with increasing levels of AI. In particular, U.S. makers Auterion are supplying Ukraine with Skynode-S boards, computers the size of a credit card optimized for machine-learning apps, for example locking on to a target and automatically flying the best route. Ultimately this could turn every drone operator into a Tymofiy Orel.In an address to RUSI in October, former Ukrainian Defense Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi noted how quickly the technology has evolved.When robots entered the battlefield [in 2022], there was laughter from the Western press and local generals, he said. However, by 2024, technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence, began to play a significant role in warfare.The next year is expected to see increasing numbers of AI-enabled drones on the battlefield in Ukraine. There are a number of challenges, including packing enough computing power on a small drone to run AI applications at speed, and training machine-learning systems to run reliably and efficiently.This is just the sort of technology that China appears to have gained with DeepSeek.From Virtual World To BattlefieldLLMs like DeepSeek have surprising applications including drone warfareGetty ImagesDeepSeek is based on a Large Language Model (LLMs), a specific type of AI trained on large amounts of text and excels in carrying out conversations in natural language. This might seem a world away from the challenge of flying a drone, but researchers have shown how LLMs can enhance drone operations. Much of this research comes from China.A 2024 paper provides a good overview of the field -- Large Language Models for UAVs [Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles]: Current State and Pathways to the Future, was written by Shanghai-based researchers who describe how LLM integration with drones can improve autonomous data processing and rapid decision-making.While they carefully avoid specific applications, the authors note that LLMs are exceptional at identifying specific objects, individuals, vehicles, or activities in video streams or images, providing detailed insights crucial for military and civilian surveillance operations.This translates into an ability to carry out complex commands like see if there are any vehicles on the track by the river or "fly at low altitude to the enemy position and approach from the South. The LLM allows the drone to accept orders, then report what it sees in natural language: no moving vehicles on the track, one burned-out truck as previously reported or there was no fire from the enemy positions, but heat sources show they are occupied.As well as communicating with humans, LLMs enable the drones to talk to each other in natural language. A group of drones can share findings and co-ordinate their actions based on their mission, and distributing tasks without human intervention. A reconnaissance drone might assign attack drones to specific targets, then send follow-ups on the ones which are not destroyed.Another Chinese paper from 2024 takes this further Manned and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Cooperative Combat Framework Based on Large Language Models describes work using LLMs to make fully autonomous aerial unmanned combat aircraft a reality. They envision a single human fighter pilot with a collection of robotic wingmen who react at machine speed and communicate in human language. Again, they leverage the planning and problem-solving abilities of the LLM to make it an effective pilot, able to respond rapidly to unexpected situations. (It would be weird but not surprising if the drones imitated human practice and gave themselves callsigns like Maverick and Iceman).Leveraging The DeepSeek AdvantageDeepSeek is claimed to have specific advantages over other LLMs, in particular that it is resource-efficient, meaning it needs less computing power than other models and suitable for edge applications like drones rather than data centers. In addition, the developers claim to have achieved results rapidly with less training data than comparable models.We do not know how capable DeepSeek really is. But a powerful, low-cost system that can be deployed on drones would be a useful asset for China at this point.China has the worlds biggest drone manufacturing base. They have a wealth of information about using these drones in combat with the tactics and techniques worked out by Ukraine and Russia in a war which has cost them nothing. And they have recently being developing their own drone combat units equipped with what look like low-cost commercial drones.Add LLM capability to the mix and China seems to hold all the cards for building an unbeatable drone force. Warfare is becoming increasingly a matter of drone vs drone. In the long run, the software may turn out to be the deciding factor as victory will go to the side with the smartest drones.

The GeForce RTX 5080 is Nvidia's new $1,000 GPU offering, coming in at half the price of the RTX 5090 with, unsurprisingly, half the specs. You get half the cores, half the memory bus, half the VRAM, and almost half the memory bandwidth.Nvidia has created a massive gap between the 5080 and 5090, clearly aiming to upsell gamers on the much faster and far more expensive RTX 5090 for those who can afford one. Additionally, this approach leaves them plenty of room to release more costly GeForce 50 Super series cards within the next 12 months, addressing the obvious VRAM limitations present in much of the Blackwell lineup. So that's fun.In terms of specifications, the RTX 5080 is only a minor upgrade over the RTX 4080 Super, which it is set to replace. The GeForce RTX 5080 features just 5% more cores, clocked a mere 3% higher. The only meaningful upgrade is the shift to GDDR7 memory, which on the same 256-bit wide memory bus boosts bandwidth by 30% thanks to its 30 Gbps memory speed Dj vu? You might as well call this the RTX 4080 Ti Super.GeForce RTX 5090GeForce RTX 4090GeForce RTX 5080GeForce RTX 4080 SuperGeForce RTX 4080Price $US MSRP$2,000$1,600$1,000$1,000$1,200Release DateJanuary 30, 2025October 12, 2022January 30, 2025January 31, 2024November 16, 2022ProcessTSMC 4NDie Size (mm2)750 mm2608.5 mm2378 mm2379 mm2Core Config21760 / 680 / 19216384 / 512 / 17610752 / 336 / 12810240 / 320 / 1129728 / 304 / 112L2 Cache (MB)96 MB72 MB64 MBGPU Boost Clock2407 MHz2520 MHz2617 MHz2550 MHz2505 MHzMemory Capacity32 GB24 GB16 GBMemory Speed28 Gbps21 Gbps30 Gbps23 Gbps22.4 GbpsMemory TypeGDDR7GDDR6XGDDR7GDDR6XBus Type / Bandwidth512-bit / 1792 GB/s384-bit / 1008 GB/s256-bit / 960 GB/s256-bit / 736 GB/s256-bit / 717 GB/sTotal Board Power575 W450 W360 W320 WThe previous-gen RTX 4080 Super likely wasn't heavily memory-limited, so the improvements here are expected to result in only a modest performance gains. Of course, we're about to dive into the numbers to confirm this.RTX 5080 vs RTX 4080 ThermalsBefore diving into the blue bar graphs, let's take a look at how Nvidia's Founders Edition version of the RTX 5080 handles thermals compared to the RTX 4080 FE. For this test, we used The Last of Us Part I running at 4K with maxed-out settings.After an hour of load inside an enclosed ATX case, the RTX 5080 reached a peak GPU temperature of 63C remarkable, given how quiet and compact this graphics card is. The fan speed peaked at 1,400 RPM and was virtually inaudible over our already very quiet case fans.The cores maintained an average clock speed of 2,655 MHz, with an average GPU power draw of 266 watts. Meanwhile, the memory temperature peaked at 72C, operating at a frequency of 2,500 MHz for a transfer speed of 30 Gbps.By comparison, the RTX 4080 FE peaked at 62C, with a memory temperature of 74C and fans spinning at just over 1,300 RPM. It's clear that the RTX 5080 design is more efficient, at least in terms of physical size. However, when ignoring the size difference, the thermal performance between the two cards is nearly identical.So, while the new FE model delivers great results in terms of thermals and efficiency, the real question is: how does it perform in terms of FPS? Let's find out.Test System SpecsCPUAMD Ryzen 7 9800X3DMotherboardMSI MPG X870E Carbon WiFi (BIOS 7E49v1A23 - ReBAR enabled)MemoryG.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-6000 [CL30-38-38-96]Graphics CardsGeForce RTX 4070 GeForce RTX 4070 Super GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super GeForce RTX 4080 GeForce RTX 4080 Super GeForce RTX 4090 GeForce RTX 5080 GeForce RTX 5090 Radeon RX 7700 XT Radeon RX 7800 XT Radeon RX 7900 GRE Radeon RX 7900 XT Radeon RX 7900 XTXATX CaseMSI MEG Maestro 700L PZPower SupplyMSI MPG A 1000G ATX 3.0 80 Plus Gold 1000WStorageMSI Spatium 1TB M470 PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2Operating SystemWindows 11 24H2Display DriverNvidia GeForce Game Ready 566.36 WHQL AMD Radeon Adrenalin 24.12.1Gaming BenchmarksMarvel RivalsStarting with Marvel Rivals at 1440p, the new RTX 5080 achieved 108 fps, making it just 8% faster than the 7900 XTX and 14% faster than the 4080 Super. It was also only 9% slower than the 4090, which isn't bad considering it should cost significantly less. Now, let's check out the 4K results.At 4K, the 5080 looks slightly more impressive, now showing a 16% lead over the 4080 Super and a 12% advantage over the 7900 XTX. While it is faster, the improvement isn't particularly significant in this scenario.S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of ChornobylNext, we have S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, where the 5080 is only 4% faster than the 4080 Super at 1440p and just 3% ahead of the 7900 XTX.Moving to 4K doesn't change much. Here, the new 5080 is 4% faster than the 7900 XTX and 9% faster than the 4080 Super, resulting in unimpressive gains.Counter-Strike 2The 5080 struggles in Counter-Strike 2, coming in 4% slower than the 4080 Super at 1440p and a significant 13% slower than the 7900 XTX.At 4K, the 5080 recovers slightly, beating the 4080 Super by a mere 5%, but still trails behind the 7900 XTX by 8%, making for a poor showing.God of War RagnarkThe God of War Ragnark results were also disappointing. At 1440p, the 5080 was just 4% faster than the 4080 Super and again fell behind the 7900 XTX, though only by a few frames.The 4K results are more promising, with the 5080 pulling ahead of the 7900 XTX by 9% and the 4080 Super by 8%. However, for a next-generation product, this is still a letdown though at least in this case, it was faster.Delta ForceFor some reason, the new GeForce 50 series GPUs perform particularly poorly in Delta Force. At 1440p, the 5080 was 10% slower than the 4080 Super and 12% slower than the 7900 XTX an abysmal result.Even at 4K, it remained behind both the 4080 Super and 7900 XTX. Although the gaps were reduced at this resolution, the overall performance remained poor.Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2The Space Marine 2 results are better, but still, the RTX 5080 was only 6% faster than the 4080 Super at 1440p and 18% faster than the 7900 XTX.At 4K, we see a 21% improvement over the 4080 Super, making it one of the better results so far. The 5080 was also 27% faster than the 7900 XTX, which is at least a more competitive showing.Star Wars Jedi: SurvivorPerformance in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is also disappointing. At 1440p, the 5080 was just 2% faster than the 7900 XTX and 5% faster than the 4080 Super.The 4K results are more favorable, but even then, the 5080 was only 15% faster than the 7900 XTX and 19% faster than the 4080 Super. While a 19% lead is a step in the right direction, it's still a modest gain for a new generation.A Plague Tale: RequiemA Plague Tale: Requiem delivers more reasonable gains compared to most other titles tested. The RTX 5080 was 15% faster than the 4080 Super at 1440p and 18% faster than the 7900 XTX.Oddly, however, at 4K, the RTX 5080 was only 11% faster than the 7900 XTX and 15% faster than the 4080 Super disappointing, as the margins didn't expand relative to the 1440p results.Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom LibertyEven in Cyberpunk 2077, performance remains underwhelming. At 1440p, the RTX 5080 was just 9% faster than the 4080 Super and 7% ahead of the 7900 XTX.Moving to 4K helped the 5080 slightly, but it was still only 10% faster than the 7900 XTX and 16% faster than the 4080 Super. Disappointingly, these are among the better margins we've seen for the new 50 series GeForce GPU.Dying Light 2 Stay HumanIn Dying Light 2, the 5080 was 12% faster than the 4080 Super at 1440p and 11% ahead of the 7900 XTX another underwhelming result.At 4K, the margins grew slightly, with the 5080 being 18% faster than the 7900 XTX and 20% faster than the 4080 Super. While these are some of the largest gains we've seen so far, they still fall short of expectations for a new generation.Dragon Age: The VeilguardDragon Age delivers only modest gains, with a 9% uplift over the 4080 Super at 1440p and a 15% increase over the 7900 XTX.The 4K results aren't much better, showing just a 16% improvement over the 4080 Super and an 18% gain over the 7900 XTX. While it's not nothing, these results are highly underwhelming for a next-generation product especially given how long we've waited for it.War ThunderIn War Thunder at 1440p, the 5080 only manages to match the 4080 Super. However, this still makes it significantly faster than the 7900 XTX, as Radeon GPUs perform poorly in this title when using the default DX11 mode. Performance is considerably better with DX12, but for now, that API remains labeled as "beta" and is not the default.At 4K, the RTX 5080 is just 3% faster than the 4080 Super and 12% ahead of the 7900 XTX, making for yet another set of unimpressive margins.Marvel's Spider-Man RemasteredPerformance in Spider-Man Remastered is disappointing. While 1440p results may be somewhat CPU-limited, this is not the case at 4K, yet the 5080 still only manages to match the 4080 Super and 7900 XTX.Hogwarts LegacyNext up is Hogwarts Legacy, where at 1440p, the 5080 is just 12% faster than the 4080 Super but actually 5% slower than the 7900 XTX.Increasing the resolution to 4K provides some improvement, with the 5080 now 22% faster than both the 7900 XTX and 4080 Super arguably the most impressive margin we've seen so far.The Last of Us Part IMoving on to The Last of Us Part I, the 5080 was only able to match the 4080 Super at 1440p, making it 6% slower than the 7900 XTX.At 4K, it managed to match the 7900 XTX and was 7% faster than the 4080 Super another disappointing result.Star Wars OutlawsThe Star Wars Outlaws results are equally disappointing. At 1440p, the 5080 was just 3% faster than the 4080 Super, though it did hold a 16% advantage over the 7900 XTX.At 4K, the 5080 was only 5% faster than the 4080 Super and 17% ahead of the 7900 XTX.StarfieldFinally, in Starfield, the 5080 was just 2% faster than the 4080 Super at 1440p while trailing the 7900 XTX by 2%.At 4K, it inched ahead of the 7900 XTX by a mere 3%, making it 8% faster than the 4080 Super. Ultimately, these are mostly single-digit gains, but let's move on to examine the average performance across the 17 games tested.Performance SummaryAlthough we didn't go over the 1080p numbers in detail, here's the average data for those interested. Essentially, the GeForce RTX 5080 only managed to match the 4080 Super at this resolution. It seems the Blackwell architecture struggles slightly more than previous generations at lower resolutions, and this isn't always due to a CPU bottleneck.At 1440p, we're looking at a mere 4% performance increase for the RTX 5080 over the 4080 Super just 4% on average or 5% over the 7900 XTX. That said, it's still better than the 2% uplift we saw from the 4080 to the 4080 Super, so perhaps things are improving after all.At 4K, the results don't improve much. Sure, the 5080 was, on average, 11% faster so at least we hit double digits but that's still quite underwhelming for a next-gen GPU. Compared to the original RTX 4080, it's only 14% faster, and when stacked against AMD's nearest competitor, it offers just an 8% gain over the 7900 XTX.Power ConsumptionThe good news is that power consumption is quite reasonable, at least based on our 1440p testing. Here, the 5080 consumed anywhere from 4% to 19% less power than the 4080 Super and significantly less than the Radeon RX 7900 XTX.Ray Tracing PerformanceUnfortunately, the RTX 5080 doesn't offer anything particularly impressive when it comes to ray tracing, delivering only an 11% increase over the 4080 Super at 1440p in Metro Exodus. However, this did make it nearly 50% faster than the 7900 XTX. As we always say, if you care about RT performance, a GeForce GPU is the way to go.At 4K, the results are similar, with the 5080 showing a 14% improvement over the 4080 Super.RT - Alan Wake IIThe Metro Exodus results are not an anomaly. In Alan Wake II at 1440p, there is very little difference between the 4080 Super and the 5080 in RT performance.At 4K, there is some separation, but even then, the 5080 only pulls ahead of the 4080 Super by 12% a highly underwhelming result.RT - Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom LibertyThe Cyberpunk 2077 results tell the same story, with the 4080 Super and 5080 delivering comparable performance at 1440p.At 4K, using quality upscaling with the ultra ray tracing preset, the 5080 averaged just 50 fps, making it only 6% faster than the 4080 Super.RT - Marvel's Spider-Man RemasteredIn Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered, there was no performance difference between the 5080 and the 4080 Super at either 1440p or 4K, with both tested using DLSS quality upscaling.RT - Dying Light 2 Stay HumanWe saw a 9% uplift in Dying Light 2 at 1440p for the 5080 over the 4080 Super, which, surprisingly, is one of the better RT gains observed so far.At 4K, the margin extended slightly to 10%, but at least the 5080 was 55% faster than the 7900 XTX.RT - Black Myth: WukongWith ray tracing enabled at 1440p using quality DLSS upscaling, Black Myth: Wukong averaged just 70 fps an 11% improvement over the 4080 Super. The 4K results followed the same pattern, making for highly disappointing gains, with no CPU bottleneck to blame for these results.Ray Tracing Performance SummaryThe GeForce RTX 5080 and 4080 Super delivered nearly identical performance with ray tracing turned on at 1080p, making the 5080 nearly 80% faster than the 7900 XTX.At 1440p, the 5080 was just 5% faster than the 4080 Super, while Radeon GPUs remained largely irrelevant in this category.Finally, at 4K with quality upscaling, the RTX 5080 was, on average, 9% faster than the 4080 Super. So much for improved RT performance.Cost per FrameMSRPIn a perfect world where GPUs sold at MSRP or perhaps not so perfect when we're talking about $1,000+ products if MSRP applied across the board, the RTX 5080 wouldn't look terrible. However, it certainly doesn't feel like a next-generation product, offering 11% better value than the RTX 4080 Super.For many months, the 4080 Super was readily available at its $1,000 MSRP, so this isn't anything new. Essentially, if you wanted this level of performance from a 16GB GeForce GPU, you could have gotten it a year ago.Retail PricingSupporting that point, if we look at the best pricing from mid-2024 many of which were available for most of the year if the RTX 5080 launches at $1,000, it will offer just an 8% improvement in value over a product that could have been purchased at least six months earlier.Furthermore, if ray tracing isn't a priority, the 7900 XTX arguably presents a better value. However, if the price difference is only $100, the RTX 5080 is likely the better buy. That said, considering how much older competing GPUs like the 7900 XTX and 4080 Super are, the 5080 remains an underwhelming release.What We LearnedSo there you have it the GeForce RTX 4080 Ti Super. Actually, it's probably not even that good.In terms of cost per frame, the 4080 Super offered nearly 20% better value than the 4080, whereas the RTX 5080 appears to be, at best, just 10% better value than the 4080 Super. Some may argue that the RTX 5080 should be compared to the original 4080, but that's nonsense.The RTX 4080 was essentially a failed product and that's not even referring to the "unlaunched" AD104 version. The $1,200 RTX 4080 we ultimately received was a disappointment, and most gamers agreed by not buying any. This led to stock sitting on shelves, forcing Nvidia to release the 4080 Super, which was essentially the same GPU in terms of performance but with a $200 price cut.Given that, it only makes sense to compare the RTX 5080 with the 4080 Super. Once you do, it quickly becomes clear that there's very little new on offer. Features like multi-frame generation can be useful, but they are highly situational. For the most part, you're not missing out on much, and the most exciting DLSS 4 features will be available on previous RTX GPUs anyway (which is great).GeForce 30 Series Owners Take NoteFor those still using GeForce RTX 30 series GPUs and holding out for nearly five years, the RTX 5080 is 67% faster than the RTX 3080 but comes with a 43% price increase. Adjusting for inflation, that price increase is closer to 20%. If we recalculate cost per frame with inflation in mind, the RTX 5080 has improved by 28% relative to the 3080.So, after all this time, it's not exactly an amazing upgrade. Without question, the 5080 comes with a premium, and a similar performance jump could have been achieved at least six months ago with the 4080 Super.Closing ThoughtsLooking back at the flagship GeForce RTX 5090, it delivers a somewhat disappointing gen-on-gen boost, providing approximately 30% more performance for what will be at least a 25% price increase. However, since this is more of a "price is no object" product, value can be overlooked to some extent in favor of raw performance. We just wish there was more to it.Now, if you consider that was underwhelming, then what should we make of the RTX 5080?If the RTX 5080 launches slightly above $1,000 and closely aligns with the 4080 Super in terms of value, then it really doesn't matter which one you buy. Of course, you might as well get the 5080 since it's newer, but beyond that, there's no compelling reason to choose it and certainly no reason to pay a premium.For the RTX 5080 to avoid the same fate as the original 4080, sitting on shelves unsold, it simply cannot be priced above $1,000. Hopefully, its MSRP will be more reasonable than how the 5090's shaping up. However, once reviews go live, we'll get a clearer sense of how the community feels and it's unlikely to be well received.Shopping Shortcuts:Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 on AmazonNvidia GeForce RTX 5090 on AmazonAMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX on AmazonNvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super on AmazonNvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super on AmazonAMD Radeon RX 7800 XT on AmazonAMD Radeon RX 7900 XT on Amazon

Forward-looking: Do 1 in 83 seem like high odds? They usually would, but as those are the chances that a newly discovered asteroid will slam into the Earth in 2032, you'd be forgiven for wishing that second number were a lot higher. Asteroid 2024 YR4 was discovered by the Catalina Sky Survey on December 25, 2024, when it was around 515,116 miles away from Earth.Half a million miles away doesn't sound like the asteroid is anything to worry about. But it has a rating of three on the Torino risk scale. This means that an asteroid or comet has a 1% or greater chance of impacting Earth, causing localized destruction. This rating is used for objects that are large enough to cause significant regional damage if they were to impact.Asteroid 2024 YR4 has a 1.2% chance of hitting our planet in 2032. The object is 180 feet across, around half the size of a football field, and if it were to hit us, the impact speed would be an estimated 10.76 miles per second.While the impact wouldn't be world-ending, the asteroid-launcher website suggests that the damage could be significant. With New York as the impact site, calculations show it exploding 2.8 miles above ground with the force of 12 megatons of TNT. 3.4 million people would die from the fireball, and almost 7 million people would receive second- or third-degree burns. Buildings within 5.4 miles would collapse, and nearly all trees within 8 miles would be knocked down.NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Center for Near Earth Object Studies writes that Asteroid 2024 YR4 has six possible impact events between 2032 and 2074. The one with the highest likelihood of impact will be on December 22, 2032.There is some good news, though. Level three on the Torino Impact Hazard Scale has the caveat that "Most likely, new telescopic observations will lead to re-assignment to Level 0," which is no hazard rating. // Related StoriesEarthSky notes that the only asteroid ever to have a higher score on the Torino scale was 99942 Apophis, which briefly had a rating of 4 on the Torino Scale in late 2004. It is now rated zero on the scale, though it wiped out most of humanity on August 23, 2029, in id Software's FPS Rage.

Nvidias RTX 5090 is almost here, but the January 30 release date doesnt necessarily mean immediate availability on the shelves. So far, it seems like stock levels will be highly limited for a while, which prompts some retailers to get creative. One Japanese retailer is now hosting a lottery, and the prize is a ticket that allows you to spend $2,000 and more on Nvidias best graphics card. Meanwhile, even MSI confirms that availability is going to be pretty scarce.The store, called Goodwill Nagoya Osu, said that itll begin selling the RTX 5090 on January 31, but you cant just walk in and shell out some of your hard-earned cash on a GPU. Youll have to gamble and hope for the best. Sales begin at 11 a.m., but only those who are lined up outside the store at 10.20 a.m. will be given a ticket. This peculiar ad was spotted by VideoCardz.Recommended VideosCamping outside a store is no news to a GPU enthusiast, as weve seen people setting up tents outside of Micro Center a couple of days ago. Thats a much longer wait, but at least those shoppers wont have to rely on luck to let them spend $2,000 and get their hands on Nvidias latest graphics card. However, we have also seen the lottery system used in the U.S. before during the GPU shortage, so its not that unusual we just havent had to deal with these types of shortages for a while now.Get your weekly teardown of the tech behind PC gaming RTX5090,RTX50801/3111GPU102010201/3023 pic.twitter.com/sWUh0p9nOa GOODWILL (@GW_Nagoyaoosu) January 29, 2025All of these somewhat extreme measures can be traced back to the limited stock weve been hearing about for the last week or so. It appears that at launch, the RTX 50-series will be hard to come by. While Nvidias Founders Edition is likely to be available, there may not be enough GPUs to meet the demand which is definitely saying something, given how expensive the card is going to be.Third-party cards are a gamble its hard to say which retailer and which manufacturer will have good availability on launch day. As reported by StinceBuilt, MSI has confirmed that itll be delaying the shipment of its RTX 5090 graphics cards, and the GPUs will not be available until February 6. Preorders will still open on January 30 as planned, though.What about the RTX 5080? Will that card be in stock? Check back tomorrow as well make sure to keep you posted on where to buy an RTX 5090 and an RTX 5080 on launch day.Editors Recommendations

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsDesign and remote controlConnections and portsUser interfacePicture and sound qualityPriceThe verdictChoosing one of the best streaming devices for your home is more complicated than ever, thanks to the breadth of options available today. While you can access the most popular streaming services through each individual app, these streaming set-top boxes deliver a home entertainment hub that lets you watch everything from one place, along with checking out connected home functionality, different apps, and even games. There are plenty of different options worth checking out, but today were comparing two of our favorites, Apple TV 4K and Google TV Streamer.Both of these streaming devices feature an intuitive user experience, thats streamlined and designed to get you watching within minutes. However, that doesnt make it easier to choose between them. Apple TV delivers access to a variety of apps, games, a free three-month subscription to Apple TV+, connects to Apple Smart Home devices, and you can even connect your AirPods for private jam sessions.Recommended VideosAlternatively, Google TV Streamer is a bit more affordable, connects to tons of apps, and to the Google Home ecosystem. Its a big step up from Chromecast with Google TV, trading out the flimsy dongle for a set-top box that easily integrates into any home theatre setup.RelatedSo which one is right for you? Lets take a look.Google TV Streamer replaces the venerable (if underpowered) Chromecast with Google TV. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsBefore we get into the nitty gritty, were going to be talking about the most recent versions of both of these devices. After all, you want to know whether the device currently available is the best option for you, right? Both Apple TV and Google TV Streamer are smart, stylish, small devices that will easily fit into your setup without taking up too much space. But lets take a closer look at each device up close.Apple TV 4k measures 3.7 inches wide, 3.7 inches deep, and 1.2 inches from top to bottom. It features the same glossy exterior as previous versions, and it looks great wherever you end up placing it. The 2022 model has updated the Siri remote with a USB-C charging port, making it easier to charge than earlier versions that used the Lightning port. This is also good news for anyone who hasnt fully bought into the Apple ecosystem, since youre more likely to have a USB-C charge cable lying around, than the Apple only lightning cables.Google TV Streamer is a huge jump forward versus the previous Chromecast dongle. It measures 6.4 inches wide, 3.0 inches deep, and 1.0 inches from top to bottom, weighing just 5.7 ounces. This set-top box is no longer a dongle, and features a raised design that hides its actual size. The remote has gotten a significant upgrade, delivering a larger body with more buttons, but keeping the matte plastic design from earlier iterations with Chromecast. Instead of a charging port, it runs off of 2 AAA batteries that are included with the device. This does mean it wont need to be charged regularly, but at the same time youll need to ensure that you have backup batteries in the house when the initial batteries eventually lose their charge.Apple and Google are both well designed when it comes to both the set-top boxes, and remotes, but with its slightly smaller footprint for home entertainment centers without much wiggle room, Apple takes the win here.Winner: Apple TV 4KApple TV 4K has a bare minimum of cables and ports just as youd expect from Apple. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsApple TV 4k boasts the new Apple A15 Bionic chip, making it beefy enough to let you enjoy your shows for years to come. Apple claims it will deliver up to a 30% jump in performance, which translates to better voice navigation, a more responsive user interface while scrolling, and faster load times when launching apps.When it comes to ports, Apple TV 4K has continued its trend of delivering only what you actually need. The 64GB model includes only a power port, and an HDMI slot, since its built to be used over Wi-Fi. The 128GB model adds an ethernet port, which is extra helpful if you have issues with connectivity over Wi-Fi, or you want to ensure you have the fastest possible connection.Google TV Streamer only has a single model available, and it includes an ethernet port, HDMI port, and a power port. This means you dont need to worry about choosing between models, because Google has included the ports necessary. However, this device only includes support for Wi-Fi5, and not Wi-Fi6. If you dont have a ton of devices running off of your home network, this shouldnt be an issue. However, for folks who have fully opted into a smart home ecosystem, this can slow Google TV Streamer down a bit.In the end, Apple TV takes the win here thanks to the A15 Bionic chip that gives it a leg up over Google TV Streamer in terms of speed. Its also a chip thats currently capable of doing way more than Apple TV is asking of it, making it a great option if you want a set-top box built to last for years to come.Winner: Apple TV 4KThe Google TV homescreen is still as busy as ever. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsWhen it comes to user interface, you want something that lets you easily navigate between apps and features, allowing you to find the shows you want to watch without scrolling endlessly to get there. Both Apple TV and Google TV Streamer feature a home screen that delivers previews of current popular shows, along with tiles to select different apps or features. However, they arent quite the same.Google TV Streamer has a lot going on when you turn it on. The top of the screen gives you quick links for the curatedFor You page, live programming, apps, and then programs youve saved in your library. On the top right you can access search, and the settings menu easily. There is a scrollable screen with current big-name shows or movies available that takes up about 50% of the screen. Under that youll seeTop Picks for You, which are built off of Googles algorithm. These are shows and movies that Google thinks youll enjoy based on your other viewing habits. Below that, youll find the apps that youve downloaded, with more recently opened apps further to the left.Alternatively, Apple TV 4K is much more pared down. In the upper right corner of the screen youll see your user icon, along with the current local time. About 70% of the screen is taken up by program previews for shows that Apple thinks youll enjoy. You can swipe up on the Siri remote to enter full screen mode, and view the entire preview to see the trailer in full, and if you hit the middle button on the Siri remote itll show you the program and where you can watch it. Under the preview, there is a line of apps and by scrolling down you can see the rest of the apps youve installed, along with the tile for the Settings menu.While both of these options deliver an easy to use interface, Apple TV 4K takes the win again. Its UI is far more curated, and lets you find everything easily without being overwhelming. In juxtaposition, Google TV Streamer delivers a bit too much on the home screen, making it feel cluttered and like too much is going on when you look at it.Winner: Apple TV 4KThe Apple TV homescreen is nearly all app icons. Simple. Easy. Clean. Phil Nickinson / Digital TrendsHaving a proper home theatre setup lets you enjoy your favorite shows like youve gone to the movies. From HDR delivering crystal clear picture, to wall-rattling surround sound, if youve spent time curating your AV setup, you want devices that can deliver everything youve prepared for. Thankfully, both Apple TV 4K and Google TV Streamer support a variety of HDR formats, along with immersive Dolby Atmossound.Both devices support HDR, HDR10+ and Dolby Vision for the best possible picture quality. Apples A15 chip does some heavy lifting, and you even have the option to enable spatial audio if youve connected your AirPods. Google TV Streamer also delivers top-notch quality from the onboard processor. This means both options can open and play even blockbuster movies from Disney+ and Netflix without waiting for a program to buffer along the way. If you opted for connecting your device to ethernet, the load times are even shorter.Since both devices deliver the same formats for picture and audio quality, were calling this one a tie. No matter which streaming device youre leaning towards, its more than capable of delivering a quality experience.Winner: TiePhil Nickinson / Digital TrendsThe most recent version of Apple TV 4K comes at two price points. You can snag the base 64GB model for $130, or grab the 128GB model with Wi-Fi and ethernet for $150. Spending an extra $20 may not be worth it for some people, but it is the only version of this streaming device that includes an ethernet port. It also doubles the onboard storage capacity, making it well worth the small bump in price.Google TV Streamer retails for $100, making it a more affordable option, while delivering many of the same features.This win goes to Google TV Streamer since its more affordable than either option available with Apple TV.Winner: Google TV StreamerJen Karner / Digital TrendsAt the end of the day, you need to choose between Apple TV 4K and Google TV Streamer, and its honestly a close race. Both streaming devices are stellar options delivering high quality picture and sound, an intuitive UI, and plenty of processing power. While Google TV Streamer is the more affordable option, Apple TV 4K is an option that is built not only to last, but to deliver the best possible experience, for years to come.Apple has put a ton of work into ensuring that Apple TV 4K will be a stellar device not only today, but for the foreseeable future. With Apples A15 Bionic chip, a less cluttered user experience, home connectivity, and a smaller overall size, it manages to squeak by and take the win. It is a bit more expensive than the competition, but theres good reason for that, and its why it remains our pick for the best all-around streaming device available today.Winner: Apple TV 4KEditors Recommendations

The company is vying to sell long-range strike weapons to the U.S. military.

The Silicon Valley-based startup said Chinese entities have tried to exfiltrate data from its tools.

Rod Stewart chartered a plane; John Mayer texted Dave Matthews. I didnt have to call anybodythe phone just rang.

I hate it here Trumps new head of DOT rips up US fuel efficiency regulations Secretary Duffy claims polluting more will make cars cheaper. Jonathan M. Gitlin Jan 29, 2025 9:11 am | 14 We can look forward to more air pollution and more climate change as a result of the Trump administration's policies. Credit: Getty Images We can look forward to more air pollution and more climate change as a result of the Trump administration's policies. Credit: Getty Images Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreUS President Donald Trump's pick to run the Department of Transportation was sworn in to his new job yesterday. And as widely expected, Secretary Sean Duffy moved to immediately rip up the nation's fuel efficiency standards.Duffy issued a memo soon after starting the job on Tuesday evening, ordering the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "to commence an immediate review and reconsideration of all existing fuel economy standards applicable to all models of motor vehicles produced from model year 2022 forward," with particular attention to the tougher new regulations put in place last year by the Biden administration."The memorandum signed today specifically reduces the burdensome and overly restrictive fuel standards that have needlessly driven up the cost of a car in order to push a radical Green New Deal agenda. The American people should not be forced to sacrifice choice and affordability when purchasing a new car," Duffy said in a statement.In his memo, Duffy repeats the Trump administration's messaging, claiming that making the nation's vehicles pollute more is necessary to "remove regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access," and that doing so will create "a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice."The memo also says that state waivers on vehicle pollutionsuch as California's legally enshrined right to regulate air quality within its bordershould be terminated, as it "function[s] to limit sales of gasoline-powered vehicles." It also calls electric vehicle subsidies an "ill-conceived government-imposed market distortion" that is making cars unaffordable.Duffy's attack on California's waiver was probably superfluoushis boss already issued an executive order doing just that upon being sworn in as president earlier this month.The first Trump administration spent much time attacking fuel efficiency and California's waiver, moves that were slowly reversed during the Biden administration. Even so, under former President Biden, the US Environmental Protection Agency moved to soften the incoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy regs meant to go into effect between model years 20272032.The updated regulations remained relatively strict but gave automakers more time to reach their targetsand allowed for a greater mix of hybrid vehicles.In a further attack on clean air and climate change mitigation, the acting administrator of the General Services Administration issued a memo late last week that barred the federal government from purchasing any zero-emissions vehicles. In 2021, former President Biden ordered that most federal vehicle acquisitions be zero-emissions vehicles by 2032.Jonathan M. GitlinAutomotive EditorJonathan M. GitlinAutomotive Editor Jonathan is the Automotive Editor at Ars Technica. He has a BSc and PhD in Pharmacology. In 2014 he decided to indulge his lifelong passion for the car by leaving the National Human Genome Research Institute and launching Ars Technica's automotive coverage. He lives in Washington, DC. 14 Comments

It's going to be a long year Streaming prices climb in 2025 after already surpassing inflation rates Five services started charging more in January. Scharon Harding Jan 29, 2025 7:30 am | 23 Credit: Getty Credit: Getty Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreIf you were hoping for a respite from rising streaming subscription fees in 2025, youre out of luck. Several streaming providers have already increased monthly and/or annual subscription rates, continuing a disappointing trend from the past few years, with no foreseeable end.Years of pricing and value concernsSubscribers have generally seen an uptick in how much money they spend to access streaming services. In June, Forbes reported that 44 percent of the 2,000 US streaming users it surveyed who engage with content for at least an hour daily said their streaming costs had increased over the prior year.Deloitte's 2024 Digital Media Trends report found that 48 percent of the 3,517 US consumers it surveyed said that they would cancel their favorite streaming video-on-demand service if the price went up by $5.Similarly, in a blog post about 2025 streaming trends, consumer research firm GWI reported that 52 percent of US TV viewers believe streaming subscriptions are getting too expensive, which is a 77 percent increase since 2020. It added that globally, the top reason cited by customers who have canceled or are considering canceling a streaming service was cost (named by 39 percent of consumers), followed by price hikes (32 percent).In its Digital Video Forecast and Trends Q1 2025 report, eMarketer (a marketing, ads, and commerce research firm that merged with Insider Intelligence in 2020) found that subscription fees for ad-free streaming tiers have greatly outpaced inflation and pay TV increases since 2023, as shown in the graph below: Credit: eMarketer Pay TV packages and inflation have increased at similar rates in recent years. But over the past two years, streaming has gotten much more expensive relative to both, eMarketers report says.And people seeking ad-free streaming have had an increasingly expensive time since 2020, the research firm noted: Credit: eMarketer Meanwhile, some research shows that subscribers consider the quality of content available on streaming services to be sub par and/or declining. Thirty-six percent of respondents in Deloittes March report, for example, said that "the content available on streaming video services isnt worth the price." A Q2 2024 TiVo survey of 4,490 people in the US and Canada ages 18 and up found that fewer subscribers perceive their streaming services as having moderate to very good content. In Q2 2022, the percentage was 78.6 percent for ad-free subscribers, compared to 74.5 percent in Q2 2024. Ad-supported services also reportedly saw a drop here, going from 74.2 percent in Q2 2023 to 60.8 percent in Q2 2024.Price increases are happening as several streaming services are cutting back on their content libraries," eMarketers report says. "These issues have contributed to consumer dissatisfaction. Meanwhile, streaming services are finally appearing more profitable on paper.Despite criticisms around streaming prices and value and streaming evolving into a costly, bundled affair la cable, many streaming services have already upped prices for 2025.Below is a breakdown of those price hikes and the reasoning provided, as well as other likely factors, for the increases.FuboPrices for all of Fubo's English-language streaming subscriptions increased by $5 per month, The Streamable reported on Friday. That makes the live sports streaming platform's cheapest plan $85 and its most expensive $95.The news follows efforts from Fubo to block Venu Sports, a proposed sports streaming app that would have offered sports channels from Fox, Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) for $43/month. The conglomerates behind the app canned Venu shortly after Fubo dropped its antitrust case against the proposed app team-up. At the same time, Fubo announced that Disney was planning to buy a majority stake in Fubo. It's no coincidence that there's some customer blowback around Fubo's price hike and the timing.I hate Fubo. They killed Venu so that they could raise prices?!?! Never will they see my [money] again, a Reddit user wrote on the FuboTV subreddit this week.When asked for comment on customer gripes, Jennifer Press, Fubos communications SVP, attributed the price hikes to rising costs from our programming partners." She added that Fubo only makes adjustments when necessary while noting discounts for new customers.The company's new pricing and potential merger come as it has never turned a profit since its January 2015 launch. In its fiscal Q3 2024 earnings report released in November, Fubo reported a net loss of $54.7 million, down from $84.4 million in Q3 2023.NetflixLast week, Netflix raised subscription prices by as much as 16 percent, depending on the plan. The new monthly prices took effect immediately and sent the cheapest ad-free plan (Standard) from $15.50 to $18, the Premium ad-free tier from $23 to $25, and the Standard With Ads plans from $7 to $8.While announcing higher prices, Netflix also unveiled its largest quarterly subscriber gain ever, with 18.91 million people subscribing for a total of 301.63 million. eMarketer predicts Netflix will make $17.12 billion in US subscription revenues in 2025. But for Netflix, that isnt enough.Netflix attributed its first price increase since 2023 to programming costs. Netflix CFO Spencer Neumann told investors that it will increase content spending from $17 billion in 2024 to $18 billion, emphasizing "big, scripted TV series," live events, and original programming, while growing impactful licensing opportunities.Further, the price hikes favor those willing to subscribe to Netflix with commercials, as the ad-free Standard plan got the biggest price bump. Netflix plans to double its 2024 ad revenue in 2025, and these new prices should help those efforts.Raising prices since 2012Along its path to being the largest streaming service, Netflix has constantly raised prices since 2012, as The Verge recently illustrated. Since 2012, monthly fees for Netflixs Standard ad-free plan have increased from $8 to $18 across seven price hikes. The Premium ad-free plan went from $12 in 2013 to $25 across six price hikes. Netflix released its ad-free standard plan in 2023 and has now issued a $1 price hike.Netflix wont report subscriber numbers to investors anymore, giving us less insight into whats driving its strategy. But co-CEO Greg Peters has shown a commitment to growing revenue one way or another, telling investors last week:"We earn, right now, only 6 percent of the revenue opportunity in the countries and segments that we currently serve. And as long as we continue to deliver on improving the variety, the quality of our TV and film slate, we gradually expand the offering with newer content types, we believe well be able to increase that share progressively every year."Netflix also has strong customer loyalty compared to other streaming services. In September, the service had lower churn rates than its rivals, per Antenna. (Antenna says it sources data from various data firms with millions of permission-based, consumer opt-in, raw transaction records." The research firm says it cleans and models this raw data, and then subsequently weighs the panel to correct for demographic and behavioral skews.) Credit: Antenna Discovery+On January 7, WBD raised prices on its streaming service that isnt Max, Discovery+. The services ad-free and ad-supported monthly plans each increased by $1, bringing the former to $6 and the latter to $10 for new customers. Old subscribers will start paying the new prices on or after February 7.Discovery+ last raised prices in October 2023, bumping the price for an ad-free monthly subscription by $2 to $9. WBD didn't provide any official reasoning for the new prices. It's possible that Discovery+ wasn't expecting much blowback, considering the service's relatively small user base and comparatively low prices (Discovery+ has equal or cheaper monthly rates than every major subscription streaming service).Of course, Max remains WBDs streaming darling, with more content (it also includes Discovery+) and a larger subscriber base than Discovery+. Notably, though, in a February 2023 earnings call, WBD CEO David Zaslav said that Discovery+ had "very low" subscriber churn and was profitable. The above bar graph from Antenna also shows Discovery+ having a lower churn rate than Max. Perhaps WBD feels more open to testing subscribers' limits with these advantages at play.AMC+On January 15, the higher prices for AMC+ that AMC Networks announced in December took effect. Subscribers to the cable channels on-demand streaming service, (which includes content from some of AMC+'s sister streaming services, including Shudder), increased the subscription fee for its monthly ad plan by $2, to $7. The monthly fee for AMC+'s ad-free subscription increased $1, to $10, and its annual ad-free subscription increased $8, to $96.In its announcement, AMC Networks seemingly sought to rationalize the higher rates by noting the addition of new seasons of TV shows for 2024 and 2025 and plans to introduce more exclusive new films.In its Q3 2024 earnings report announced in November, AMC Networks reported a 5 percent increase in streaming subscribers compared to fiscal Q3 2023. Streaming revenues also increased 7 percent, with AMC citing year-over-year subscriber growth and price increases." AMC Networks also makes a lot of money ($81 million in Q3) by licensing content. And with AMC+ being cheaper than nonproprietary streaming services licensing AMC content, it had an opening to pull more money from its growing subscriber base.AMC Networks' overall ad revenue declined 10 percent in Q3 due to linear ratings declines and a challenging ad market, partly offset by digital and advanced advertising revenue growth" and putting more emphasis on the need for streaming revenue.YouTube TVOn January 13, YouTube TV subscribers started paying higher rates, which Google announced in December. The pricing scheme increases the monthly fee for the basic plan by $10 (13.7 percent) to $83.In an email to subscribers, Google blamed the changes on the rising cost of content and the investments we make in the quality of service.But that doesnt explain why Googles announcement came three days after Google claimed via X that YouTube TV was not getting a price hike, after a Verizon promotion suggested that current pricing for the service was $83/month. The practice isnt a good precedent for the streaming service that became America's fourth-largest cable TV provider by subscribers in February. Wall Street research firm MoffetNathanson predicted in March that YouTube TV would become the largest pay TV service by subscribers in 2026.YouTube TV has seen regular price hikes since it debuted at $35/month in 2017. In 2018, it went to $40, then $50 in 2019, $65 in 2020, and $73 in 2023.That said, YouTube TV hasnt announced any profitability, though MoffettNathanson predicted early last year that the service would be profitable in 2024 (no updates yet). New prices help with that goal while bringing YouTube TV pricing closer in line with rival service Hulu + Live TV, which starts at $83/month but also includes subscriptions to Disney+ and ESPN+ with ads.Bonus: Sling TVSling TV also started charging $6 extra per month for all of its plans. That change technically started on December 20, 2024, but many customers will pay the new rate for the first time this month. Sling blamed the change on unspecified, industry-wide "rising costs." But Sling has also struggled to maintain subscribers (although, it recently enjoyed an uptick there) and revenue over the years, and parent company EchoStar has struggled to stay profitable in recent quarters.Scharon HardingSenior Technology ReporterScharon HardingSenior Technology Reporter Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She's been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Toms Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK. 23 Comments