Cases News Noctua Has Competition: HAVN Performance Fans, BF360 Case, & Engineering DataMay 23, 2025Last Updated: 2025-05-23We take an early look at HAVN’s new BF360 case and the company’s new unique fans at Computex 2025The HighlightsFor its new products, HAVN has put a heavy emphasis on thermal performance and acousticsHAVN’s upcoming BF360 case brings in new fans in the 180mm, 140mm, and 120mm categoriesHAVN’s 180mm fan uses a 40mm thick frame and special shaping on the hub for what HAVN claims will improve pressure performance across the hub Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.We visited HAVN’s lab in Taiwan during our Computex 2025 trip. We saw that they were experimenting with a 52mm thick fan for a case it was showing off. The company didn’t end up using that for its case and instead used a new fan design that we’ll discuss in this article.Editor's note: This was originally published on May 17, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsHost, WritingSteve BurkeCamera, EditingVitalii MakhnovetsMike GaglioneWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangDuring our visit, the company showed off its new BF360 case, which follows up their HS 420.  Taking a closer look at the company’s new fan design, you can see some careful shaping to the fan’s hub, which is supposed to help with guiding air flow. We’ll have to see how it performs in our testing, but the idea is taking a thicker fan approach and thickening it even more. The company ended up using a 40mm-thick fan, which should help with pressure.    The company also uses 2x180mm fans mounted to the front of the case.  While we were there, HAVN prepared some CFD simulations for the flow and some simulations for mechanical stresses, on the panel for example, which is pretty interesting.Taking a look at the BF360, the front panel pops out with a tug as it uses magnets to attach itself to the front of the case and has 3 plastic feet that help it snap in at the bottom. The interior of the case’s front panel has a removable fan tray. Its design is somewhat typical but refined from what we’ve seen. HAVN has done a lot of iterations on it. The top panel pulls off and its design is familiar to the HS 420 with its structural design. Once you remove the top panel, it exposes the case’s top fan/radiatory tray, which has rubber bumpers and a slide mechanism that lets you pull it out of the case, providing full access to the top of the chassis and should help with ease of installation. A lot of the steel on the case is either .8mm thick and there’s some that’s 1.0mm, which is thick by today’s standards. Taking a look at the backside of the case, we can see that it has marked cable management pathways, much like the HAVN HS 420 (read our review). This was kind of a nice thing for brand new system builders. Whereas the HS 420 used stickers, the BF360 incorporates it into the molding. Our understanding is that they may refine its design to try and get more light reflection so it’s easier to see. This is a nice attention to detail that adds to the ease of installation. HAVN learned from the HS 420 on the 3 and ½-inch drive support and improved its implementation. There are 2 bays on the back side of the case for those drives and they can be removed. HAVN also changed how it handles the grommets with the case. The string-like material in between is the same but there’s now a little rubber tab that helps to prevent it from popping out by accident once it’s filled with cables. The point here is that HAVN is trying to learn from what they’ve done with the HS 420 and to refine their designs. Taking a look at the BF360’s front panel, it’s supposed to look like stone, but is made of plastic as stone would be extremely heavy. Behind the front panel in the unit we saw are 2x180mm fans. HAVN has shoved a piece of steel at the top, which is supposed to prevent recirculation. This was a huge issue in old BitFenix cases, where due to the company’s design, it would recirculate hot air back into its fans. This design can improve performance in big ways.HAVN tells us that the best setup for the BF360 is to have the top front fan be intake and the top back fan be exhaust, providing you’re using 180mm fans on the top. This matches our testing for other cases in the past. We’ve also found that if you’re populated the top slots, doing intake in front of an air cooler works better because otherwise air gets in the front and would get stolen by an exhaust fan out of the top. The case we looked at had 4x180mm fans (2 in the front and 2 on top) and 1x140mm in the rear.   HAVN tried different types of power supply shroud designs. One had an angled scoop to bring in air from the front bottom 180mm fan. One design had what we’re calling a “toilet-bowl” design, but that ultimately didn’t go through. The next design we looked at featured a more cylindrical/conical design. We asked one of the company’s thermal engineers why that design didn’t work better as it looks like it would project air towards the GPU, which would be a hot spot, and the rep told us that going with a wider design ended up performing thermally better. HAVN provided us some numbers for that, which we’ll take a look at below, but we’ll eventually do our own testing if we can get an early sample. Taking a look at the first mock-up of the case, we can see some rails for the front fans. This design did not progress into the final. It uses a rail system and we’ve seen it in other cases. Corsair has implemented it and has a trademark for it which they call the “InfiniRail.”Looking at the second mock-up, the company moved to vertical rails coupled with horizontal slats. HAVN ended up ditching that design altogether and moved to a tray design, which is sort of moving to a tried-and-true approach. The company incorporated another change where they’ve stamped and folded the tooling. Then we took a look at a design that was closer to final, which has its full corner covered. HAVN showed us 3 different prototypes for the front panel of the case. The first one we looked at featured a wood panel design, which we’ve seen on a lot of cases lately. Wood has certain manufacturing challenges to consider. The white panel you see above is made of aluminum, which is very expensive.The last thing that HAVN is working on that they showed off are fans. There’s been a lot of fan development in the last few years. One of the big marketing phrases you hear a lot these days is LCP (liquid crystal polymer), which is something we talked a lot about at the last Computex. One of the benefits of LCP fans (which HAVN isn’t using here) is that you can get the blades way closer to the interior of the frame. The downside is that it’s incredibly expensive. We have an interview with Noctua’s Jakob Dellinger from 2 years ago that delves into how the company wanted to avoid using LCP for a long time but determined it was necessary to get the performance they wanted. HAVN isn’t using LCP but has designed a fan that has some “teeth” cut out on its blades, which is something we’ve seen before. The company has also shaped its fan hub to be able to scoop air in more. HAVN tells us that having the hub protrude out like a little mountain would offer the best performance but this presents clearance/compatibility issues, especially if you want to put a radiator up against it. Taking a look at the 180mm fan, there’s a 2.0mm distance from the blade to the frame of the fan. We asked if HAVN tried to get it closer and were provided with a lot of data. The company showed us 3 revisions. 1 had a 1.8mm spacing, another had 2.0mm of spacing, and the third had 2.2mm. What they ended up seeing for pressure in mmH2O, is that a 2.0mm spacing ran at 2.19. The 1.8mm fan ran at 2.23, which is an improvement. The CFM (cubic feet per minute) for both was nearly indistinguishable at around 165. The 2.2mm spacing, however, had a big drop off, which is a design they didn’t go with. It had a 2.21 mmH2O pressure, which is more or less within error of the others, but the 159.9 is where that drop off occurs in the CFM. Comparing the 1.8 vs the 2.0mm spacings, they are basically hitting diminishing returns. Seeing this information is nice. We imagine that the benefits here weren’t worth the yields and costs because getting the blades closer to the inner frame could lead to a bad yield during manufacturing or might have the blades expand and hit the frame as it ages with time. This is what happened with a lot of Enermax fans in the past.  Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)Now we’re going to go over HAVN’s first-part numbers, but we plan to do our own performance review of the case and fans once they’re available. First-party data should be looked at with some reasonable care. Thermal comparisons should only be made against their own results here, not against ours, as the benches are different. The flat, typical shroud style was comparable to the rectangular type in result, with the rectangular type slightly better. We think this will see a larger impact in our testing, but we'd need the three types to know for sure. The important comparison is against the cylindrical type, where HAVN saw worse results by a measurable amount. Performance worsened by 1-2 degrees on the CPU and about 2 degrees on the GPU. That's a large GPU temperature increase.In their next test slide, HAVN tested various fan configurations with the flat shroud. The results were mostly as expected: CPU performance is hurt drastically by having only a bottom intake fan, to no surprise.More interestingly, the ramp type shroud makes comparisons in "B" with a fan level with the top of it and "A" with a fan sunken to the floor of the ramp. The sunken approach resulted in marginally worse CPU thermals in A as compared to B, with GPU thermals mostly unchanged.This slide shows CFD simulation and flow mapping for ramp angles at 120 and 135 degrees. HAVN has drawn a few highlights around areas of re-circulation or heat accumulation, particularly marked at "1" where the 120-degree ramp angle shows worse areas of heat build-up. HAVN tested this in 5-degree increments from 120 to 140, finding that 135 was a good balance when noise normalized.In the above image, they show the fan spacing again, with a 20mm height increase benefiting performance.HAVN didn't shy away from competitive comparisons. The company says its BF 360 with its final front panel, shown above in light blue, had competitive performance against the H6. They also suggest significant reductions in flow resistance (which is a good thing) versus the Lancool 3, with the HS 420 also making some appearances here.HAVN began studying its slot spacing and porosity of the ventilation slots in the panels next. The company found that a ratio of length divided by depth being ideally about equal to 6 was optimal for minimizing flow resistance, with the only downside being potential structural challenges. These charts show their flow performance with different slot sizes.As shown in this set of images, the point is that HAVN is really mocking up a ton of different styles of panels, from the shrouds to the slot spacing, to try and determine the thermal performance and optimize for it. This is a major progression for them. It’s a lot of work to do all of this, which is cool to see. Of course, we have to test the product to see how it came together, but the CFM performance of type 4, as they called it, was the best, but we're ultimately looking at tiny differences here. Still, all of those small differences across the case will add up in theory.This image was cool: After all of this thermal testing, HAVN next did mechanical stress simulation for torsional forces against the panel, which allowed them to dial-in the thickness and makeup of the plastics.That continued in this image, where the so-called "type 4" gets another highlight.HAVN highlighted "Design C" for having a 0.8mm metal thickness with the chosen hole sizing.By shaping the fan hub itself to guide flow, HAVN claims that it can better maintain pressure across the hub of the fan and along the inner wall of the blades. This is the area of worst performance in every fan, so optimizing here can also help minimize dead zones behind the hub. HAVN says that the molded flow guide in the hub benefited its noise significantly. The company claims its flow rate also improved significantly for the guided hub.The image above is really cool. Referencing whale-fin evolution, HAVN used tooth-like leading edges on the fan to improve its thermal performance. We've seen this plenty of times in the past, but it never seems to stick around and we're not sure why. In this simulation though, HAVN suggests that the air stream is more uniform along the wavy blade design.Using a 30% glass fiber composite, HAVN saw performance with the new design slightly improve in CFM but largely improve in static pressure, going from 2.21 to 2.40 mmH2O.There's a ton more that HAVN did. The P/Q chart above shows the mock-up performance, including the stall region centrally. We'll save all this discussion for the review, though.HAVN had about 41 pages of this technical presentation, which is actually greatly appreciated. A lot of what remains will be covered in our review, so we'll leave that for now.The bearings are also interesting to talk about. These are called FDBs (Fluid Dynamic Bearings), depending on how you want to define that. We looked at one that was designed for the company’s 180mm fan. It was a 15mm-tall FDB.  One of the things with fans, in terms of the support, is how the fan’s rod seats into the bearing. As we’re told, the longer the bearing is, the more it will help with the wobble of the blades. Internally looking at the 15mm-tall bearing for the 180mm fan, you can see 3 grooved channels. In our bearings-factory tour, we learned that the grooves are part of the mechanism that allows the fluid to circulate to keep that pressure even across the bearing. That’s supposed to be what's special here but we don’t test bearings individually, but the idea is that 3 channels are supposed to help with the stability of the fluids across the bearing. For the 120mm fans, HAVN is going for roughly a 12mm tall bearing. The company claims that most are between 9-11mm tall for 120mm fans. HAVN allowed us to look at the company’s thermal chamber. There are pros and cons to HAVN’s solution. The pro is that it’s supposed to help control the thermal environment as it circulates the air. The downside to the chamber is that we found it can influence the results, though it depends on the chamber. We found that for our testing specifically, having a larger, open-room environment works better. It is very environment-specific. The company also had a flow-rate tester, which is similar to ours, that can do PQ charts, which the company used to test its new fans. It has a throttle control and a laser tachometer, which provides a reading of the speed of the fan. On one side of the flow-rate tester, there are tubes for the counter blower, which our system also has. Their flow-rate tester also has an air compressor, which is used for actuating some of the nozzles inside the system. We also saw that their flow-rate tester also came with an inexpensive desktop OEM computer (in this case, a ThinkCentre PC running an i5-12400).HAVN also has an acoustic chamber, which has a pass-through on the outside coupled with a noise meter, which collects noise levels. One thing we liked seeing once we looked inside the chamber is that we saw a mechanical rigging for the fan, which allows it to be free flowing. They put their microphone in the corner, which we used to do when we had a chamber of a similar size. Putting the mic here allows you to maximize the distance of the chamber by going diagonal, providing maybe a half a meter of space. They also have a foam floor as well, which makes it closer to an anechoic chamber as opposed to something like our hemi-anechoic chamber. Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.HAVN is targeting a launch around September for its new products at which point we aim to run our own benchmarks to see how it all performs.

AMD RX 9060 XT Specs & Price, Threadripper 9980X, 9970X, 9960X, & R9700 GPUsMay 21, 2025Last Updated: 2025-05-21We go over AMD’s Computex 2025 announcements which include the company’s new RX 9060 XT GPUs, Threadripper CPUs, AI Pro workstation GPU, and moreThe HighlightsAMD’s RX 9060 XT will have 8 and 16GB modelsAMD announced new Threadripper CPUs that include the 9980X, 9970X, 9960X along with PRO 9000 WX-series CPUsAMD also revealed the 9995WX, its new AI Pro workstation GPU, which will come with 128 AI accelerators, 32GB of GDDR6 memory, up to 1531 TOPS, and a 300W TDPTable of ContentsAutoTOC Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.IntroAMD just announced its RX 9060 XT GPUs (coming in two memory configurations). We already knew about these but the company just formally announced them. AMD also revealed its “Radeon AI Pro R9700” workstation GPU, and the company’s latest Threadripper 9000 series and Threadripper PRO 9000 WX-series of CPUs. Unlike NVIDIA, AMD actually wants people to know about its products rather than about anti-consumer, anti-free-press actions, so AMD not only announced the products and gave information on them, but will also be sending out review samples well in advance and without conditions - which normally isn’t worth mentioning, but is worth pointing out because of the recent NVIDIA issues.Editor's note: This was originally published on May 20, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsHostSteve BurkeCamera, Video EditingMike GaglioneVitalii MakhnovetsWritingTannen WilliamsWeb EditingJimmy ThangThe 9060 XT 16GB will be $350 with the 8GB model at $300. They will release on June 5th. The GPU die is the same for both models, but new from the 9070 (read our review) and 9070 XT (read our review) (which also shared a GPU die). The new die is Navi 44 for the 9060 XTs and sized at 199mm^2, down from 357mm^2 on the 9070-class cards.The company didn’t provide as many first-party testing results as they typically have in the past. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because all of those results have to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, but we’ll mainly just be sticking to the specs today. We plan to review these cards once they launch. Our understanding is that, unlike the 5060, AMD plans to continue sampling GPUs as usual.Just a heads-up: The information in this article is from a pre-briefing, so this is based on conversations with AMD and not the live presentation itself.AMD Radeon RX 9060 XTThe 9060 XT will come in 16GB and 8GB versions. As for the features that will be shared between the two: Each will have 32 compute units, 32 hardware RT accelerators, 64 of what AMD calls its AI accelerators, and a 3.13 GHz boost clock. Both models will run PCIe gen 5.0 x16 slots, DisplayPort 2.1a, and HDMI 2.1b. AMD also lists a range of 150W-182W for board power, which explains the single PCIe 8-pin connector pictured in the rendering of the GPU. In speaking with AMD, the lower end of the range is for 8GB models.For reference, AMD’s 9070 XT has 64 compute units, 64 RT accelerators, and 128 AI accelerators, or double the amount of the 9060 XT’s CUs and accelerators. The 16GB 9060 XT matches the memory capacity of both the 9070 and 9070 XT, but with a weaker core. These 9060 XTs will be direct competitors to NVIDIA’s 5060 Ti cards, even mirroring the same VRAM configurations. Despite identical memory sizes, NVIDIA’s 50 series cards utilize a newer GDDR7 memory compared to AMD’s GDDR6. As for how much that matters, that depends on the architecture and how much it’s going to rely on the memory bandwidth and that extra speed. We’ll look at it in testing and see how it performs in the real world. Additional differences include the 9060 XT’s use of PCIe 5.0 x16 as opposed to the 5060 Ti’s (read our review) PCIe 5.0 x8 interface. In benchmarking at x8 vs x16 on gen 5, it’s not going to matter. The place where it might matter is socketing it into an older board where cutting the lane count in half is going to become a restriction in some configurations.AMD’s first-party benchmarks compared it against the 8GB RTX 5060 Ti, which we think is fair since it’s a price-parity comparison. We’ll do our own benchmarking pretty soon in our review. AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9000 and PRO 9000 WX-Series CPUs Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)AMD also announced its newest Threadripper 9000 Zen 5 CPUs, including the 9980X, 9970X, and 9960X, codenamed “Shimada Peak.” These have been upgraded with increased memory support and enhanced AVX-512 for more demanding tasks.We’ll start with the standard AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9000 CPUs. This series includes the 9980X, 9970X, and 9960X.The 9980X is a 64C/128T CPU at 3.2 GHz base clock and with 256 MB of L3 cache. The 9970X has 32 cores, 64 threads, a 4.0 GHz base clock, and 128 MB of L3 cache. And finally, the 9960X will come with 24 cores, 48 threads, a 4.2 GHz base clock, and also 128 MB of L3 cache. All of these CPUs will also feature an up to 5.4 GHz max boost clock, PCIe 5.0, the same sTR5 socket, and a 350W TDP.For AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9000 WX-Series: The company announced six new CPUs, which include the 9945WX, 9955WX, 9965WX, 9975WX, 9985WX, and the flagship 9995WX. Starting with the 9945WX and working our way up, these chips will come with core counts of 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, and finally 96 cores for the 9995WX. This mirrors the existing and prior 7000 series CPU configurations just now on Zen 5. Both the PRO and non-PRO Threadripper CPUs seem to resemble the same basic specs as the 7000 series of Threadripper processors. In these spec sheets, with a higher max boost frequency for the 9000 series CPUs, but a lot of the rest is familiar. One notable difference between the PRO WX and the non-PRO series of Threadrippers is that the workstation series offers “AMD PRO technologies,” which AMD describes as, “a robust suite of enterprise-grade features including multilayered security, advanced remote manageability, and long-term platform stability.” Additionally, at least in the past, the PRO WX-series cards supported the WRX90 chipset in addition to the TRX50 chipset.AMD hasn’t announced any prices at this time, but the press-brief lists availability for July 2025, so we should be expecting to see these soon.AMD Radeon AI Pro R9700Finally, AMD introduced its latest AI Pro workstation GPU. Intel also just announced its new Pro GPUs this past week and we already have a tear-down up of the B60.For specs, this RDNA 4 card will come with 128 AI accelerators, 32GB of GDDR6 memory, up to 1531 TOPS claimed, and a 300W TDP.Compared to one of its predecessor, the Radeon Pro W7700, the new R9700 increases TFLOPS (FP16) from 56.54 to 96, increases AI accelerators from 96 to 128, upgrades to PCIe Gen 5 from Gen 4, and doubles the memory size from 16 to 32GB. Unfortunately, AMD’s press-brief didn’t include any CU, stream processors, or memory bandwidth info for the R9700, so we’ll have to wait to see those exact specs.Due to the R9700’s noticeable configuration improvements over its predecessor, the new GPU ends up being slightly more comparable to the Radeon Pro W7800 which has 140 AI accelerators, 32GB of GDDR6 memory, and 90.5 (FP16) TFLOPS. In its press-brief, AMD included a slide to illustrate how 32GB of VRAM gives users more options in their ability to load larger AI models by highlighting four models that would exceed 16GB of VRAM, but can be used with 32GB of VRAM instead. Additionally, due to the GPU’s ability to load models with larger parameters or that are less quantized, the GPU may also see an uplift in the accuracy of the model’s responses.To expand upon that point, AMD includes another chart labeled “Large AI Models Performance” where it compares an RTX 5080 (read our review) to its AI Pro R9700. Once again, this chart demonstrates how 32GB offers access to run larger models that 16GB just can’t handle. These results are expected. We think a more meaningful comparison might’ve been using the RTX 5090 that also has 32GB of VRAM. This would represent a more like-for-like scenario but we don’t do a lot of ML testing so we’ll leave that for someone else. AMD also shows off the card’s “Multi-GPU PCIe 5 platform” that allows users to connect 4 AI PRO R9700s for some extremely demanding models that need up to 128GB of combined VRAM and theoretically 4x the computing power.We didn’t receive a price for this card, but AMD lists an availability of July 2025. Conclusion Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.That’ll wrap it up for AMD’s announcements.Unfortunately, it’s a bit difficult to get an idea for performance based on the specs alone, and even harder to get an idea for the value for something without a price.Ideally, we’d be able to get our hands on some of these once they’re publicly available, which should be soon according to AMD’s press-brief.

Cases News Noctua Case x Antec Flux Pro, New Antec 900, & High Airflow CasesMay 20, 2025Last Updated: 2025-05-20We take a look at the new Antec x Noctua case along with Antec’s new 900 chassisThe HighlightsAntec and Noctua are partnering to make the Antec Flux Pro with NF-A12 G2 and NF-A14 G2 fans, 6 total, for a high airflow PC case with brown accentsAntec also showed off its new Antec 900 case, which uses a lot of aluminum and will have a variant that will come with 200mm Noctua fansTable of ContentsAutoTOC Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!IntroWe visited Antec’s booth at Computex where the company is showing off 2 new cases. Antec X Noctua Flux ProThe first case is a new version of the Antec Flux Pro, which we’ve previously reviewed. What makes it different is that it’s made in collaboration with Noctua and comes with Noctua’s fans.Editor's note: This was originally published on May 19, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsHost, WritingSteve BurkeCamera, Video EditingMike GaglioneVitalii MakhnovetsWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangThis is an interesting case because the Flux Pro was already a thermal chart topper and now the company is adding very expensive, but very high performing fans to it. We’re looking forward to testing it. In terms of changes Antec has made, besides changing the fans, they’ve added the word Noctua to it. The panel covering is also different. Antec tells us that the steel brown paneling on the case was difficult to match with Noctua’s brown hue. In general, we’ve heard that color matching for manufacturing is apparently very hard. Pretty much every factory we’ve been to has told us this. Antec told us it spent over a month trying to get the correct brown to make Noctua happy with how the color came out. It sounds like everyone is happy with the end result. Internally, the brown rubber grommets were apparently more difficult than the steel panels to be the correct shade of brown. You can’t use the same mixture between the 2 materials. The top of the power supply shroud is another steel component that is also brown. They are removable mesh inserts, which we talked about in our review of the Flux Pro. Other than the fans and color difference, the tooling of the case is the same.Noctua is also probably going to include the fan hub pictured above. There’s no ARGB support, which makes sense given their fans don’t have RGB LEDs. It’s simply an 8 PWM fan connector. The PCB has SATA power on one side. The case itself will ship with 6 fans, which is the same amount of fans that the original Flux Pro offered.    The case is the same size and layout as the original Flux Pro and has 2x120mm fans on the bottom (the original featured reverse blade fans on the bottom). The fans used here are the NF-A12 G2s, which are new fans. The rest of the case uses NF A14 G2 fans. This includes 3 of them in the front and 1 in the back. The G2 model we talked about in our NH-D15 G2 review has its fans slightly offset the RPM intentionally to try and avoid beat-frequency phenomenon and such that will create an undesirable noise. Looking at the back side panel of the case, the unit we saw had extension cables for its fans, which Noctua may also use, but that’s not certain at the moment given the build we saw is early. They’re pretty nice and we use them in our test benches. The case is essentially the same case we liked but with fans that should perform a little better or at least roughly the same with a different RPM. The price is currently TBD. The original Flux Pro is about $180 with its 6 fans. The Noctua case, however, comes with roughly $200 worth of Noctua fans. Doing the math, it seemingly adds up to a case amounting to around high $300s or $400s, we think. The case will be sold by Noctua and they are targeting a Q4 release date. The case is also supposed to include a tiny Noctua keychain. (New) Antec 900 Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)Antec is also bringing back the Antec 900, which originally came out way back in 2006. We know a lot of people in our audience had it.  There were 2 versions of the Antec 900. The 2006 model is the one most people probably remember. It was a very different time and the case was very well liked. If they launched it today, however, it wouldn’t work. Cable management back then didn’t exist as it wasn’t really a thing yet. It did get the thermal side right as they went with larger fans and it was heavily ventilated. So the company is trying to bring that back with a TBD named Antec 900 model. The case has a lot of aluminum in it. The model at Computex also came with Noctua fans, but they’re not brown. Specifically, the case featured Noctua’s black NF-A20s, which are fans we’ve reviewed and benchmarked. They did pretty well in our testing. Antec told us it will also provide a 6-fan variant of the case with the same fans used in the original Flux Pro, which is pictured above. Antec sort of disappeared for several years in the mid 2010s and then came back with the Antec C8 (read our review), in particular, and has re-emerged on our radar. This new version of the 900 is pretty different from the old one, which is a good thing at this point. The old one was a great case but isn't anymore. There’s going to be 2 versions of the case. 1 will come with dual 200 mm fans, potentially using Noctua ones. Pricing on the case is still TBD. We imagine one with Noctua fans will cost at least $300 or so and we don’t have pricing on the model that will come with 6 fans. The case will have fan rails for its front fans. The fan rails can be offset to different locations via a couple screws. The case we saw was set up for 200mm fans but they can also be moved to accommodate 180mm, 140mm, and 120mm fans. Looking at the top panel, it uses massive holes in its design coupled with a dust filter. In some ways, this is traditional. The upside is that the actual panel itself isn’t doing a whole lot other than just providing the structure, which means it’s not really getting in the way of airflow because of how huge the holes are. It’s really going to come down to the dust filter for how much air can get through. If you’re going to use the top panel for exhaust, we would recommend pulling the dust filter off because it’s not stopping a whole lot of dust. One other thing we wanted to point out is an inner plastic on the filter as it actually ends up completely obstructing the outermost row of holes. Antec has got to cover something to get it in there and we guess that they covered the outer row on all sides to create a symmetry aesthetic. This does make it lose a little bit of accessibility. Looking at the top of the case with the filter removed, you can see that there’s partial obstruction for motherboard clearance. The top of the case can accommodate 120 or 140mm fans. The top tray is held together by a couple of removable screws, which allow you to pull it out.   Removing the glass side panel, which is a gigantic piece of glass, gives us a better look at the inside of the case and exposes the region for the possible shroud top fans. Fortunately, Antec has ventilated the bottom side panel, which is good. There’s no filter included on it so it’s just a mesh panel. Antec has also punched a bunch of holes into the bottom of the case. So if the case uses shroud top fans, they should be able to breathe.  Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.Another thing we liked is that the dust filter is accessible and pulls out from the front. This is nice so you don’t have to pull the case away from a wall to remove it. The case also has big rubber standoffs for the power supply to sit on top of. It also has the iSHIFT PSU mount, which is also seen in Antec’s Flux series of cases.   For drives, it has 2 SSD mounts on top of the shroud and 3 on the back side of the case. The “cheese grater” of holes that you see in the image above means that it’s BTF compatible. The case also has 2 sets of grommets, which we like as it accommodates larger motherboards in case the board covers the first set of grommets. The back panel is also humongous and is perforated on the bottom, which is a good thing for breathability if there’s a shroud top fan. Our understanding is that in the 6-fan model, Antec wants to do the same exact configuration as in the Flux Pro. This means 2x120mm (probably reverse blade) on the shroud top and 4x140mm fans. The frame is aluminum and the motherboard tray is steel, which we think is .8 millimeters thick. Aluminum is very expensive. Sometimes case companies use it to employ a “premium” feel to cases. The plus side is that it makes the case a little lighter but will also make it more expensive. Currently, there are also additional tariffs on aluminum imports into the US, which could affect pricing even further. The case will be over $300. We’ll find out more probably towards the end of the year.  The last feature worth pointing out is that the front top panel with the front IO pops out. This provides access to the top, which is good for open-loop access and getting a radiator in and out.

PC Builds $8000* Disaster Prebuilt PC - Corsair & Origin Fail AgainMay 19, 2025Last Updated: 2025-05-19We test Origin's expensive PC’s thermals, acoustics, power, frequency, and perform a tear-downThe HighlightsOur Origin Genesis PC comes with an RTX 5090, 9800X3D, and 32GB of system memoryDue to poor system thermals, the memory on the GPU fails our testingThe fans in the system don’t ramp up until the liquid-cooled CPU gets warm, which means the air-cooled GPU temperature suffersOriginal MSRP: $6,050+Release Date: January 2025Table of ContentsAutoTOC Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!IntroWe paid $6,050 for Origin PC’s 5090-powered Genesis when it launched, or $6,500 after taxes. Today, a similar build has a list price of $8,396. Markup is $1,700 to $2,500 over DIY. This computer costs as much as an RTX Pro 6000, or a used car, or a brand new Kia Rio with a lifetime warranty in 2008 with passenger doors that fall off…The point is, this is expensive, and it also sucks.Editor's note: This was originally published on May 16, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsTest Lead, Host, WritingSteve BurkeVideo Editing, CameraMike GaglioneTesting, WritingJeremy ClaytonCameraTim PhetdaraWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangThe RTX 5090 is the most valuable thing in this for its 32GB of VRAM, and to show you how much they care about the only reason you’d buy this prebuilt, Origin incinerates the memory at 100 degrees Celsius by choosing to not spin the fans for 8 minutes while under load. The so-called “premium” water cooling includes tubes made out of discolored McDonald’s toy plastic that was left in the sun too long, making it look old, degraded, and dirty.But there are some upsides for this expensive computer. For example, it’s quiet, to its credit, mostly because the fans don’t spin…for 8 minutes.OverviewOriginally, this Origin Genesis pre-built cost $6,488 – and that’s after taxes and a $672 discount off the initial sticker price of $6,722. We ordered it immediately after the RTX 5090 launch, which turned out to be one of the only reliable ways to actually get a 5090 with supply as bad as it was (and continues to be). It took a while to come in, but it did arrive in the usual Origin crate.We reviewed one of these a couple years ago that was a total disaster of a combo. The system had a severely underclocked CPU, ridiculously aggressive fan behavior (which is the opposite of the system we’re reviewing today), chipped paint, and a nearly unserviceable hardline custom liquid cooling loop. Hopefully this one has improved. And hopefully isn’t 1GHz below spec.Parts and PriceOrigin PC RTX 5090 + 9800X3D "Genesis" Part Prices | GamersNexusPart NameRetail Price 4/25MotherboardMSI PRO B650-P WIFI$190CPURyzen 7 9800X3D$480Graphics CardNVIDIA RTX 5090 Founders Edition$2,000RAMCorsair Vengeance DDR5-6000 (2x16GB)$93SSD 1Corsair MP600 CORE XT 1TB PCIe 4 M.2 SSD$70Custom Loop"Hydro X iCUE LINK Cooling" / Pump, Rad, Block, Fittings$712Fans12x Corsair iCUE LINK RX120 120mm Fan$360CaseCorsair 7000D Airflow$240PSUCorsair RM1200x SHIFT 80+ Gold PSU$230RGB/Fan Controller2x Corsair iCUE Link System Hub$118Operating SystemWindows 11N/AT-ShirtORIGIN PC T-ShirtN/AMousepadORIGIN PC Mouse PadN/AShipping"ORIGIN Maximum Protection Shipping Process: ORIGIN Wooden Crate Armor"N/A???"The ORIGIN Difference: Unrivaled Quality & Performance"PricelessTotal retail cost of all parts as of April 2025$4,493We’ll price it out based on the original, pre-tariff $6,050 build before taxes and with a 10% off promo. Keep in mind that the new price is $7,500 to $8,400, depending on when you buy.The good news is that nothing is proprietary – all of its parts are standard. The bad news is that this means we can directly compare it to retail parts which, at the time we wrote this piece, would cost $4,493, making for a $1,557 markup compared to the pre-tax subtotal. That’s a huge amount to pay for someone to screw the parts together. Given the price of the system, the MSI PRO B650-P WIFI motherboard and 1TB SSD are stingy and the 7000D Airflow case is old at this point. The parts don’t match the price.Just two months after we ordered and around when it finally arrived, Origin now offers a totally different case and board with the Gigabyte X870E Aorus Elite. The base SSD is still just 1TB though – only good enough for roughly two or three full Call of Duty installs. The detailed packing sheet lists 22 various water cooling fittings, but, curiously, the build itself only has 15, plus one more in the accessory kit, making it 16 by our count. We don’t know how Origin got 22 here, but it isn’t 22. Hopefully we weren’t charged for 22. Oh, and it apparently comes with “1 Integrated High-Definition.” Good. That’s good. We wouldn’t want 0 integrated high definitions.Similar to last time, you also get “The ORIGIN Difference: Unrivaled Quality & Performance” as a line item. Putting intangible, unachievable promises on the literal receipt is the Origin way: Origin’s quality is certainly rivaled.Against DIY, pricing is extreme and insane as an absolute dollar amount when the other SIs are around $500-$800 markup at the high end. In order for this system to be “worth” $1,500 more than DIY, it would need to be immaculate and it’s not. The only real value the PC offers is the 5090. Finding a 5090 Founders Edition now for $2,000 is an increasingly unlikely scenario. Lately, price increases with scarcity and tariffs have resulted in 5090s closer to $2,800 or more, so the markup with that instead would be $777 if we assume a 5090 costs $2,800. That’s still a big markup, and the motherboard is still disappointing, the tubes are still discolored, the SSD is too small, and it still has problems with the fans not properly spinning, but it’s less insane.Build QualityGetting into the parts choices:This new Genesis has a loop that’s technically set up better than the last one, but it only cools the CPU. That means we have a $6,500 computer with water cooling, but only on the coolest of the two silicon parts -- the one that pulls under 150W. That leaves the 575W RTX 5090 FE to fend for itself, and that doesn’t always go well.Originally, Origin didn’t have the option to water cool the 5090. It’s just a shame that Origin isn’t owned by a gigantic PC hardware company that manufactures its own water cooling components and even has its own factories and is publicly traded and transacts billions of dollars a year to the point that it might have had enough access to make a block... A damn shame. Maybe we’ll buy from a bigger company next time.At least now, with the new sticker price of $8,400, you can spend another $200 and add a water block to the GPU. Problem solved -- turns out, we just needed to spend even more money. Here’s a closer look at Origin’s “premium” cooling solution, complete with saggy routing that looks deflated and discolored tubing that has that well-hydrated catheter tube coloring to it.The fluid is clean and the contents of the block are fine, but the tubing is the problem. In fact, the included drain tube is the correct coloring, making it even more obvious how discolored the loop is.Corsair says its XT Softline tubing is “UV-resistant tubing made to withstand the test of time without any discoloration or deforming.”So clearly something is wrong. Or not “clearly,” actually, seeing as it’s not clear. The tubing looks gross. It shouldn’t look gross. The spare piece in the accessory kit doesn’t look gross. The coolant is even Corsair’s own XL8 clear fluid, making it even more inexcusable.We’re not the only ones to have this problem, though – we found several posts online with the same issue and very little in the way of an official response from Corsair or Origin. We only saw one reply asking the user to contact support.Even without the discoloration, it comes off as looking amateurish from the way it just hangs around the inside of the case. There’s not a lot you can do about long runs of flexible tubing, unless maybe you’re the one building it and have complete control of everything in the pipeline... There is one thing we can compliment about the loop: Origin actually added a ball valve at the bottom underneath the pump for draining and maintenance, which is something that we directly complained about on the previous Origin pre-built. We’re glad to see that get addressed.The fans in the build are part of Corsair’s relatively new LINK family, so they’re all daisy chained together with a single USB-C-esque cable and controlled together in tandem by two of Corsair’s hubs. It’s an interesting (if expensive) system that extends to include the pump and CPU block – both of which have liquid temperature sensors.Tear-down Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)We’re starting the tear-down by looking at the cable management side. Opening up the swinging side panel, we noticed masking tape on the dust filter, which we’re actually okay with as it’s to keep it in place during shipping and is removable.  Internally, they’ve included all of the unused PSU cables in the system’s accessories box, which we’ll talk more about down below. The cable routing makes sense and is generally well managed. While they tied the cables together, not all of the ties were tied down to the chassis. The system uses the cable management channel for the 24-pin connector. Overall, it’s clean and they’ve done well here. Looking at the other side of the system, we can see that the power cable leading into the 5090 is mostly seated, and isn’t a concern to us. Removing the water block’s cable, it had a little piece of plastic which acted as a pull tab. That’s actually kind of nice.Removing the screws on the water block reveal that they are captive, which is nice. Looking at the pattern, we can see that they used pre-applied paste via a silk screen. That allowed contact for all 8 legs of the IHS, which looked good with overall even pressure. The block application was also good. Looking at how well all of the cables were seated, everything was fine from the CPU fan header down to the front panel connectors. Removing the heat sync off the NVMe SSD, we didn’t see any plastic on the thermal pad, which is good. Look at the 16GB DDR 6000 RAM modules, they are in the correct slots and Origin outfitted them with Corsair 36-44-44-96 sticks, which are not the greatest timings. Examining the tightness of all the screws on the motherboard, we didn’t encounter any loose screws. Removing the motherboard from the case, everything looked fine. Looking at the motherboard out of the case, it’s a lower-end board than we’d like to see out of a premium system. Looking at the fans, they are immaculately installed, which is partially due to how they’re connected together. This results in a very clean setup.  The back side of the PC has a massive radiator. And overall, the system has very clean cable management and the assembly was mostly good. This relegates the system’s biggest issues being the value and its water-cooling setup. We didn’t drain the loop so we’re going to keep running it and see what it looks like down the road. Thermal BenchmarksSystem Thermals at Steady StateGetting into the benchmarking, we’ll start with thermals.Right away, the 96-degree result on the memory junction is a problem -- especially because this is an average, which means we have spikes periodically to 100 degrees. The technical rating on this memory is 105 degrees for maximum safety spec. This is getting way too close and is hotter than what we saw in our 5090 FE review. This is also when all of the thermal pads are brand new. The Origin pre-built uses a large case with 12 fans, so it should be impossible for the GPU to be this hot. The Ryzen 9800X3D hit 87C at steady-state – which is also not great for how much cooling is in this box. All of the various motherboard and general system temperature sensors fell well within acceptable ranges.Finally, the watercooling parts provide a couple of liquid temperatures. The pump is on the “cool” side of the loop and read 36.7C at steady state, while the coolant in the block on the “hot” side of the loop got up to 41.3C. You typically want liquid temperature to stay under 55C (at the most) to not violate spec on the pump and tubing, so this is fine.We need to plot these over time to uncover some very strange behavior.CPU Temperature vs. Fan Speeds Over TimeCPU temperature during the test starts out on a slow ramp upwards during the idle period. When the CPU load first starts, we see an immediate jump to about 72C, a brief drop, then a long and steady rise from roughly 250 seconds to 750 seconds into the test where it levels off at the 87C mark. The VRM temperature follows the same general curve, but takes longer to reach steady-state. Adding the liquid temperatures to the chart shows the same breakpoints.Finally, adding pump and fan speeds gives us the big reveal for why the curves look like this. The pump stair steps up in speed while the temperatures rise, but the fans don’t even turn on for over 8 minutes into the load’s runtime. Once they’re actually running, they average out to just 530RPM, which is so slow that they might as well be off.This is an awful configuration. Response to liquid temperature isn’t new, but this is done without any thought whatsoever. If you tie all fans to liquid temperature, and if you have parts not cooled by liquid like VRAM on the video card, then you’re going to have a bad time. And that’s the next chart. But before that one, this is an overcorrection from how Origin handled the last custom loop PC we reviewed from the company, which immediately ramped the fans up high as it could as soon as the CPU started doing anything. Maybe now they can find a middle ground since we’ve found the two extremes of thoughtless cooling.GPU Temperature vs. Fan Speeds Over TimeThis chart shows GPU temperatures versus GPU fan speed.The GPU temperature under load rises to around 83C before coming back down when the case fans finally kick on. As a reminder, 83-84 degrees is when NVIDIA starts hard throttling the clocks more than just from GPU Boost, so they’re dropping clocks as a result of this configuration.The 5090’s VRAM already runs hot on an open bench – 89 to 90 degrees Celsius – and that gets pushed up to peak at 100C in the Origin pre-built. This is unacceptable. Adding the GPU fan speed to the chart shows us how the Founders Edition cooler attempts to compensate by temporarily boosting fan speed to 56% during this time, which also means that Origin isn’t even benefiting as much from the noise levels as it should from the slower fans. Balancing them better would benefit noise more.As neat of a party trick as it is to have the case fans stay off unless they’re needed in the loop, Origin should have kept at least one or two running at all times, like rear exhaust, to give the GPU some help. Besides, letting the hot air linger could potentially encourage local hot spots to form on subcomponents that aren’t directly monitored, which can lead to problems.Power At The WallNow we’ll look at full system load power consumption by logging it at the wall – so everything, even efficiency losses from the PSU, is taken into account.Idle, it pulled a relatively high 125W. At the 180 second mark, the CPU load kicks in. There’s a jump at 235 seconds when the GPU load kicks in.We see a slight ramp upwards in power consumption after that, which tracks with increasing leakage as the parts heat up, before settling in at an average of 884W at steady state. AcousticsNext we’ll cover dBA over time as measured in our hemi-anechoic chamber.At idle, the fans are off, which makes for a functionally silent system at the noise floor. The first fans to come on in the system are on the GPU, bringing noise levels up to a still-quiet range of 25-28dBA at 1 meter. The loudest point is 30.5 dBA when the GPU fans briefly ramp and before system fans kick in. CPU Frequency vs. Original ReviewFor CPU frequency, fortunately for Origin, it didn’t randomly throttle it by 1GHz this time. The 9800X3D managed to stay at 5225MHz during the CPU-only load portion of torture test – the same frequency that we recorded in our original review for the CPU so that’ good. At steady state with the GPU dumping over 500W of heat into the case, the average core frequency dropped by 50MHz. If Origin made better use of its dozen or so fans, it should hold onto more of that frequency. BIOS ConfigurationBIOS for the Origin pre-built is set up sensibly, at least. The build date is January 23, which was the latest available in the time between when we ordered the system at the 50 series launch and when the system was actually assembled.Scrutinizing the chosen settings revealed nothing out of line. The DDR5-6000 memory profile was enabled and the rest of the core settings were properly set to Auto. This was all fine.Setup and SoftwareThe Windows install was normal with no bloatware. That’s also good.The desktop had a few things on it. A “Link Windows 10 Key to Microsoft Account” PDF is helpful for people who don’t know what to do if their system shows the Activate Windows watermark. Confusingly, it hasn’t been updated to say “11” instead of “10.” It also shepherds the user towards using a Microsoft account. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but we don’t like how it makes it seem necessary because it’s not and you shouldn’t. There’s also an “Origin PC ReadMe” PDF that doesn’t offer much except coverage for Origin’s ass with disclaimers and points of contact for support. One useful thing is that it points the user to “C:\\ORIGIN PC” to find “important items.”That folder has Origin branded gifs, logos, and wallpapers, as well as CPU-Z, Teamviewer, and a Results folder. Teamviewer is almost certainly for Origin’s support teams to be able to remotely inspect the PC during support calls. It makes sense to have that stuff on there. The results folder contains an OCCT test report that shows a total of 1 hour and 52 minutes of testing. A CPU test for 12 minutes, CPU + RAM, memory, and 3D adaptive tests for 30 minutes each, then finishing with 10 minutes of OCCT’s “power” test, which is a combined full system load. It’s great that Origin actually does testing and provides this log as a baseline for future issues, and just for base expectations. This is good and gives you something to work from. Not having OCCT pre-installed to actually run again for comparison is a support oversight. It’s free for personal use at least, so the user could go download it easily.There weren’t any missing drivers in Device Manager and NVIDIA’s 572.47 driver from February 20 was the latest at the time of the build – both good things. There wasn’t any bundled bloatware installed, so points to Origin for that.iCUE itself isn’t as bad as it used to be, but it’s still clunky, like the preloaded fan profiles not showing their set points. PackagingOn to packaging.The Origin Genesis pre-built came in a massive wooden crate that was big enough for two people to move around. Considering this PC was $6,500 after taxes (at the time), we’re definitely OK with the wooden crate and its QR code opening instructions.Origin uses foam, a fabric cover, a cardboard box within a crate, and the crate for the PC. The case had two packs of expanding foam inside it, allowing the GPU to arrive undamaged and installed. The sticker on the side panel also had clear instructions. These are good things. Unfortunately, there’s a small chip in the paint on top of the case, but not as bad as the last Origin paint issues we had and we think it’s unrelated to the packaging itself.AccessoriesThe accessory kit is basic, and came inside of a box with the overused cringey adage “EAT SLEEP GAME REPEAT” printed on it. Inside are the spare PSU cables (that we’re happy to see included), an AC power cable, stock 5090 FE power adapter, standard motherboard and case accessories, a G1/4 plug tool and extra plugs, and a piece of soft tubing with a fitting on one end that can be used to help drain the cooling loop. All of this is good.Conclusion Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.During this review process, the price went even higher. You already shouldn’t buy this, but just to drive it home:Now, for the same configuration, the Genesis now costs $7,557 after the discount, off the new sticker price of $8,396. That’s an increase of over $1,000, making the premium over current DIY pricing roughly $1,700-$2,500.Now, there are good reasons for the price to go up. Tariffs have a real impact on pricing and we’re going to see it everywhere, and tariffs are also outside of Corsair’s control. We don’t fault them for that. But that doesn’t change the fact that the cost over DIY is so insanely elevated. Even Corsair’s own competitors offer better value than this, like Maingear.At $8,400 sticker price, you’d have to be drunk on whatever is discoloring Origin’s loop to buy it. Nobody should buy this, especially not for gaming. If you’re doing productivity or creative work that would seriously benefit from the 5090’s 32GB of VRAM, then look elsewhere for a better deal. This costs nearly as much as an RTX Pro 6000, which has 96GB of VRAM and is better.It would actually be cheaper to get scalped for a 5090 on Ebay and then buy the whole rest of the computer than to buy this Origin system. That’s how crazy this is.The upcharge, even assuming a 5090 price of $2,800, is just way too high versus other system integrators. Seriously, Alienware is cheaper at this point – by thousands of dollars. Alienware.We can’t recommend this PC. Ignoring the price, the memory on the video card is hitting 100 degrees C in workloads when the fans aren’t turning on because the fans are set to turn on based on the liquid temperature and the liquid doesn’t touch the GPU. For that reason alone, it gets a failing grade. For our thermal testing, pre-builts have to pass the torture test. If they don’t, they instantly fail. That’s how it always works for our pre-built reviews. This system has, unfortunately, instantly failed.

Cases A New Best: Fractal Meshify 3 Case Review, Thermal Benchmarks, & NoiseMay 15, 2025Last Updated: 2025-05-15We analyze the Fractal Design Meshify 3’s design, specs, build quality, LEDs, and thermalsThe HighlightsThe Meshify 3 comes with 3 fans and focuses on looksAt its price category, there’s a lot of stiff competitionOverall, we like the caseOriginal MSRP: $140 to $220Release Date: May 2025Table of ContentsAutoTOC Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!IntroToday we’re reviewing the Fractal Meshify 3. It ranges from $140 to $220 depending on the level of “integrated atmospheric lighting” you want, but to be fair to Fractal, it does look good with the angular mesh front panel. The good news upfront with this review is that we actually like the case overall.Editor's note: This was originally published on May 15, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsTest Lead, Host, WritingSteve BurkeTesting, WritingPatrick LathanCamera, Video EditingVitalii MakhnovetsCameraTim PhetdaraAndrew ColemanWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangFractal's has added some interesting new features: an air guide in front of the PSU shroud that genuinely helps GPU thermals in our testing, excellent cable aligner clips, and a bizarre PSU filter that blends seamlessly into the side of the case.This case was going to launch months ago, but was quietly pulled from shelves by Fractal at the last minute because the PCIe slots were too tight. Multiple reviewers, including us, noticed that these PCIe slots were too tight for GPUs to slot properly, an issue we had recorded in our notes for the review and were about to film when Fractal sent an email that it was halting the launch. Fractal manually reworked this, meaning someone went through all the cases and shaved them down.Originally, Fractal would have launched just before the worst of the tariffs, but now is launching into a far more expensive import situation. Fractal says that, for now, its MSRP is unchanged.But we’re here to review the case. We have a 3-hour documentary about the tariffs’ impact.The case comes with 3 fans and clearly has a focus on looks with its lighting and front panel design, but also manages to make a number of mechanical choices that affect cooling.Let’s get into the Meshify 3 review.Meshify 3 Ambience Pro RGB OverviewThis is Fractal's third generation of Meshify cases, starting with the Meshify 3 and the larger Meshify 3 XL. We're reviewing the shallow front-to-back Meshify 3 today, which is the size equivalent of the first generation's Meshify C and the second generation's Meshify 2 Compact (watch our review). The Meshify C (watch our review) was $90 at launch in 2017, followed later by the Meshify 2 (watch our review) at $110.The Meshify 3 is launching from $140-$220 (depending on SKU). It’s not distant from Fractal’s Torrent case. We liked that case. It’s priced at around $190 to $230. The increased Meshify series cost goes towards new features.The flashiest new feature is the "integrated atmospheric lighting" in the top-tier Ambience Pro RGB SKU. Fractal also has committed to proprietary connectors for these cases, which we’re not thrilled about. Fractal additionally has a web tool for the new Adjust Pro fan and RGB hub.The cases are sold at $140 for 3x 140mm fans without LEDs, $160 for 3x 14mm RGB fans using proprietary connectors, and $220 for 3x RGB fans with a lighting control hub and additional case lighting around the front panel, shroud, and power button.Meshify 3 Ambience Pro RGB SpecsMeshify 3 TG3.5"/2.5" mountsUp to 2x HDD or 4x SSDDedicated 2.5" mounts2 (6 total)5.25" drive bays0Expansion slots7Motherboard compatibilityE-ATX (max 277 mm), ATX, mATX, Mini-ITXPower supply typeATXFront interface1x USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 Type-C 20Gbps2x USB 3.0 5Gbps1x Combined Mic/AudioTotal fan mounts6x 120 mm or 5x 140 mm + 1x 120mmFront fan mounts3x 120/140 mm (3x Momentum 140 mm PWM/RGB Included)Top fan mounts2x 120/140 mmRear fan mounts1x 120 mmSide fan mountsN/ABottom fan mountsN/ADust filtersPSUFront radiatorUp to 280/360 mm (max 155 mm width)Top radiatorUp to 280/240 mm (max 148 mm width)Rear radiator120 mm (max 128 mm width)Bottom radiatorN/APSU max length180 mmGPU max length349 mmGPU max height176 mm (7 slot) including cablesCPU cooler max height173 mmCable routing space34.5 mmCable coverYesCable organizers3x Cable Aligners, 3x Internal Straps, 3x Rear External StrapsCaptive thumbscrewsTop Rad. Bracket, PSU BracketTool-less push-to-lockSide Panels, Bottom Filter, Front Panel, Top Panel, PSU BracketCase MaterialSteelLeft side panelTempered GlassRight side panelIndustrial SteelCase dimensions (LxWxH)423 x 229 x 507 mmCase dimensions w/o feet/protrusions/screws423 x 229 x 483 mmNet weight8.0 kgPackage dimensions (LxWxH)596 x 350 x 550 mmGross weight10.3 kgSpecs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinionsThe BuildLet’s get into the build quality and features.Some of the exterior is similar to the Torrent, especially the way the top panel slides off. Unlike the Torrent, the top panel is mesh in the Meshify 3, although only the central portion is actually open due to the thick plastic frame underneath. The front panel pops off from the bottom like the North cases, and the top edge (in the Ambience Pro RGB) has pogo pins to connect the ambient front panel lighting.There are three plastic "cable aligners" that can be snapped over the main cable channel. We found them to be well-placed and surprisingly sturdy even with large bundles of power supply cables wedged behind them. Our only complaint is that they're keyed for no discernible reason other than preventing users from flipping the Fractal logo upside-down. The cable management space behind the motherboard is a uniform depth at just over 3cm across the entire case. There's a massive cutout above the motherboard that runs its entire length, although the cutout at the bottom is undersized and difficult to use when an ATX board is installed. Overall, cable management is above average thanks to the cable aligners and the amount of space, with some velcro straps on the back for exterior cable management. The PSU shroud terminates in a plastic "air guide" angled up towards the GPU. It reminds us a little of the NZXT toilet bowl fan from the 2022 H5 Flow (watch our review), but more so the extremely similar "PSU optional cover plate" from Corsair's old 5000D Airflow (watch our review). The 5000D Airflow's single intake fan wasn't positioned to make that part matter, though, whereas the Meshify 3's intake-heavy configuration will actually benefit.The only discrete dust filter in the case is for the PSU. It ejects from the side, which is always a plus for ease of removal, but it's also built into the leg of the case so that there's no externally visible handle. This is completely unnecessary, but it's one of those small features that shows the care that was put into the case's appearance and great attention to detail.Drives can be mounted to a set of adjustable brackets behind the motherboard tray; Fractal has provided a complicated compatibility matrix, but basically, you can either fit up to 2x 3.5" drives or 4x 2.5" drives. An additional 2x 2.5" drives can be attached directly to the floor of the case underneath the air guide, but if you use those slots, you may want to leave the air guide out to make cables accessible.The front of the case can fit either 3x 120mm fans or 3x 140mm fans. The rails rotate to switch between the two sizes and there are cutouts at specific heights for each individual fan, which means the rails don't obstruct the fans at all, but also there's little freedom to reposition fans or mix and match different sizes. All Meshify 3 SKUs ship with three front fans preinstalled, so this is less of an issue than it would be on a bare chassis. When fans are installed on the rails, the fans and rails can be removed as a single unit by undoing two screws, which is awesome.The removable top bracket is extremely easy to work with and fits radiators up to 280mm with plenty of room. Simultaneously installing a 360mm radiator at the front of the case would technically be possible using standard 30mm thick rads, but without much room left for fittings, fans, or thicker radiators, so we don't recommend it. Fractal notes that the front mount is compatible with 360mm (3x120) radiators of up to 420mm total length with the air guide or 445mm without it. Critically though, this does not mean support for 420mm (3x140) radiators.If any radiators are installed at the front of the case, the cable bar has to be shifted back, which makes it harder to route power cables. In addition, maximum GPU length in the Meshify 3 is already only 349mm, and installing a front radiator directly eats that clearance. We recommend relying on the top radiator slot or moving up to the Meshify 3 XL if you really need space for liquid cooling and especially for longer cards.Along the same lines, Fractal claims compatibility with so-called E-ATX boards up to 277mm wide, but that describes the maximum size that can be installed without completely blocking cable cutouts. Realistically, if you want to install anything even slightly larger than ATX, you should be looking at the Meshify 3 XL instead. Even with a normal ATX board, we shifted the cable bar all the way forward to leave space for the 24-pin power cable.As a finer detail point, we’re happy to see that Fractal has finally compromised by adding screw holes to the plastic tabs on the side panels. If you want to add some extra security while moving your case, you can put screws through the tabs to lock them down.The fans and LEDs are complicated and confusing, so that’ll require a whole section -- but we’ll get into the thermal testing first.Meshify 3 Ambience Pro RGB Thermals Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)Fractal's review guide claims that the RGB fans are quieter, lower CFM, but higher static pressure (at max speed) than the non-RGB versions of the same fans. Our thermal results with the stock fans are representative of the RGB case SKUs, though any major physical reasons for performance would still be reflected. The standardized fan test is representative of the Meshify 3 in general.For reasons we’ll explain in the fan control section, we had no way to skip the fan hub and connect the fans directly to the motherboard as we usually would for testing. We validated that the fans reached their rated max speed of 1,800RPM +/- 10% with a laser tachometer. However, the tach signal sent back by the Fractal Adjust Pro hub doesn't line up with standard 4-pole fan behavior: HWiNFO misreports 2295 RPM when the fans are really spinning at just over 1,800 RPM in reality. Fractal's software accounts for this and reports RPM accurately.As for comparison cases, we’ll mostly focus on the Antec C8 ARGB (read our review) and Antec Flux Pro (read our review) as close matches. The closest match in appearance and function may be Fractal's own Torrent Compact RGB. We haven't added the Torrent Compact back to our charts since our testing overhaul, but in our review, it performed similarly to the larger original Torrent. That is in our charts, so we can use that as a rough equivalent.We have plenty of other cases on the charts for your own comparisons. Let’s get into the data.CPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-NormalizedWe’ll start with noise-normalized thermals. We use our hemi-anechoic chamber that we spent $250,000 building for validating the noise levels, which allows us to heavily control the noise floor and get super accurate capture.This is the chart. The Fractal Meshify 3 dominates here, planting itself as the new chart leader and within error of the prior leaders. The Meshify 3's all-core average of 40 degrees Celsius over ambient and 44 degrees for the P-cores is significantly better than previous efforts from the Meshify 2 Compact (watch our review) at 48 degrees average and the Meshify C at 54. Those two cases shared a basic design. The Meshify 3 is more of a departure; Fractal has added an airflow guide to the bottom of the case, the stock fans are higher performance, and all three stock fans are installed in the front of the case. That's an arrangement that's worked well for CPU cooling in the North XL (read our review) and Torrent using our test bench, and evidently it works extremely well in the Meshify 3, which is now the coolest case on the chart. The Torrent was a little warmer than the Meshify 3 at 42 degrees above ambient, while the Meshify 3 is instead tied with the previous best results from the Lian Li Lancool 216 (watch our review) and Lancool 207 (read our review). The Antec Flux Pro is a case that Fractal is likely specifically targeting for competition and, like the Lian Li cases, it's within one degree of the Meshify 3. This test is a weak point for the Antec C8 ARGB, which averaged 50 degrees due to its bottom intake layout.GPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-NormalizedHere’s the chart for GPU thermals when noise-normalized.GPU cooling performance in the Meshify 3 was also strong. The equivalent cases from the previous Meshify generations didn't have particularly strong stock performance, with the Meshify 2 Compact averaging 52 degrees above ambient for the GPU and the Meshify C averaging 57. This is still noise-normalized, so it's not purely a matter of more powerful fans in the Meshify 3, which averaged 43 degrees for the GPU and 46 for the GPU memory. Judging by the performance of the North XL and the Torrent here, it seems possible that the Meshify 3's air guide actually does do something. The North XL and its conventional (although ventilated) full-length PSU shroud averaged 44-45 degrees for the GPU depending on the chosen side panel, while the Torrent with its top-mounted PSU and complete lack of a shroud at the bottom of the case averaged 40 degrees. The Meshify 3 with its shroud and air guide averaged 43 degrees, right in the middle. There are more variables at work here, though, so we need another test to know for sure.As for the other highlighted competitors, the Antec C8 ARGB averaged 42 degrees and the Flux Pro averaged 41. Technically they both beat the Meshify 3's 43 degree average, but they're all among the best performing results on this chart.GPU Full Load Thermals - Full SpeedAs part of our full speed testing, we ran a test pass with a cardboard box extension taped onto the end of the PSU shroud to bring it up flush with the front intake fans. This test is at full speed case fans and controlled CPU and GPU fans.Without this extension, the GPU in the Meshify 3 averaged 41 degrees above ambient versus 45 degrees with it. That's a significant increase with the extension, and it shows that it made sense to shorten the shroud and angle it up like a skate ramp. Adding the extension also raised noise levels from a baseline of 37.5 dBA to 38.7 dBA, which we can only really confidently state is a real difference because of our investments in the hemi-anechoic chamber and our test equipment. This is a real change. Although hardly a detectable difference to the human ear, it is a real one and some people might notice it. Fractal’s new shroud design is superior to a square-edge one both thermally and acoustically.Since we've already seen that the Meshify 3 outperforms its predecessors when noise-normalized, it's no surprise at all that it outperforms them when its 1,800 RPM stock fans are maxed out. 37.5 dBA for the Meshify 3 is definitely louder than the 31-32 dBA levels from the Meshify C and Meshify 2 Compact, but thermal performance isn't even close, with the Meshify C only able to maintain GPU temperatures at 56 degrees above ambient. The C8 ARGB tied the Meshify 3's GPU temperature in this test, which is impressive for the Meshify 3 given that the C8 ARGB has bottom intake fans pointed directly into the GPU. The stock Flux Pro and Torrent remain chart toppers at 38 degrees and 39 degrees respectively thanks to their overkill stock fans; this is also evident from the noise levels, with the Torrent's powerful fans pushing it to a maximum of 42.3 dBA to the stock Meshify 3's 37.5 dBA.GPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized FansStandardized fan testing is next.All of the Meshify 3 SKUs ship with fans, so we're just going to use the standardized fan test as an opportunity to compare directly against the previous Meshify generations when they have the same loadout. The Meshify 3 has three defined 140mm fan mounting locations at the front, so rather than sticking our two 140mm intake fans somewhere in the middle, we were forced to pick either the upper two slots or the lower two.The Meshify C and Meshify 2 Compact both had GPU averages of 47 degrees above ambient, while the Meshify 3 literally bookended the chart at 41 degrees with the fans in the lower slots and 53 degrees in the upper ones. If you alter the stock fan configuration, be sure to at least keep one fan in the bottom slot at the front of the case.CPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized FansOn to CPU thermals while using standardized fans: There wasn't much difference in CPU thermals between the upper and lower slot tests; although the upper slot technically did better with an all-core average of 39 degrees, the lower slot arrangement is preferable due to the GPU thermals we just discussed. The Meshify C and Meshify 2 Compact tied at 41 degrees all-core, not that far from the Meshify 3's 40 degree average.VRM & RAM Full Load Thermals - Noise-NormalizedReturning to the noise-normalized results, the Meshify 3 tied the Flux Pro for the best VRM temperature on the chart at 27 degrees above ambient. That's significantly better than its predecessors at 35 degrees for the Meshify 2 Compact and 39 for the Meshify C. The Torrent averaged 29 degrees and the C8 ARGB with its bottom intake layout averaged 33. The ventilated case roof and airflow definitely help here.The SPD hub (or the RAM temperature average) was better, with the Meshify 3's average of 20 degrees above ambient beating all other stock case results on the chart. The Torrent at 21 degrees and Flux Pro at 22 were also high performers, while the C8 ARGB's more GPU-focused cooling left it with a warmer 24 degree average.Fans and LEDsAnd now we’re back to the topic of fans and LEDs.The Momentum RGB fans connect through daisy-chained USB Type-C connectors. Fractal describes the connector as "Proprietary USB-C," meaning that the connectors are just USB-shaped out of convenience; the fans are NOT USB devices. This part confused us, so here's a breakdown:The regular Meshify 3's fans use regular 4-pin PWM fan connectorsThe Meshify 3 RGB's fans use Fractal proprietary connectors, but they're pre-routed with an adapter that terminates in a regular 4-pin fan connector and a 3-pin ARGB connector, so the fans can be connected to a normal motherboard out-of-the-boxThe Meshify 3 Ambience Pro RGB has the same fans as the other RGB SKU, but they're pre-routed to Fractal's Adjust Pro hub. A "legacy splitter" cable is included for OUTput so that regular ARGB devices can be daisy-chained onto Fractal's devices, but the INput adapter cable from the Meshify 3 RGB is not included. In other words, if you get the Ambience Pro RGB, you're using the hub (or waiting for Fractal to sell an adapter cable separately)The Adjust Pro Hub can be controlled through a web tool or Microsoft's Dynamic Lighting feature. Fractal can get away with using a simple web app because the Pro Hub is just a USB device, so it doesn't need low-level access to control the motherboard's fan and RGB headers. There’s no launch-on-startup bloatware and the settings are saved locally to the hub. Currently, the app claims to be fully compatible with Chrome, Opera, and Edge (but not Firefox). A sustained internet connection isn't required for this. We were glad to see Dynamic Lighting compatibility, even if it's not perfect. For instance, if you enable Dynamic Lighting, it breaks Fractal's tool, and if you haven't activated Windows then you can't disable Dynamic Lighting without editing the registry.Fractal's software has a selection of prefab lighting patterns to show off the gen 2 lighting, but the default Northern Lights pattern may be our favorite. The indirect lighting around the edges of the front panel and across the PSU shroud are mostly striking in a dark room. It's unfortunate that such a big part of the case's appeal is limited to the $220 version.Meshify 3 Ambience Pro RGB Conclusion Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.We like the Meshify 3 overall, but we're torn on several points. As an immediate positive, as reviewers who don’t normally comment a whole lot about looks, we do think they did well to pull off the LEDs and front panel on the Meshify 3. Fractal has consistently done well to execute on this style.As for the more difficult points: First off, the Meshify C launched at $90 and the Meshify 2 Compact at $110. Those weren't the lowest prices in context. The Meshify C, however, was on the affordable end of the scale even for that time. Given that Fractal picked the Meshify 3 MSRPs well before the new tariffs, we believe there's a good chance they'll go up. The Meshify 3 isn't in the medium-budget tier you might assume based on the history of the series. If you're looking for cases in that vein, Lian Li has options like the Lancool 217 (watch our coverage), while Antec has some equivalents to the Meshify 3 RGB like the C8 ARGB and Flux Pro.That's not to say that the Meshify 3 isn't worth the money, just that it’s embattled on all sides. There are a lot of options in this price category, which is good for consumers. The build quality is on par with what we expect from Fractal based on the last few years' worth of cases like the North (watch our review) and Torrent. It’s built well. Thermal performance was extremely good, and although the specs are different for the non-RGB fans as we've explained, we can assume that the performance is also extremely good for the non-RGB case variants. Based on that, the $140 and $160 options are the most competitive.As for the $220 Ambience Pro RGB, it's basically a $60-$80 upcharge for lighting, but we really like that lighting. That is, however, a big price jump. If you're considering the Ambience Pro RGB with the extra cost for the lighting, you should be comparing it to other flagship showy cases like the HAVN HS420 (read our review) or HYTE Y70 (read our review) (if you can buy one as they can be difficult to find in the US due to the tariffs). You should also look through Fractal's documentation carefully to make sure you like the RGB ecosystem of software and connectors before you commit.You can check out the competition like the Flux Pro, C8, and Corsair’s FRAME 4000D (read our review). We have more reviews coming up, but overall, we like Fractal’s new case.

Cases Corsair Remembered How to Make a Case: Frame 4000D RS ARGB ReviewMay 13, 2025Last Updated: 2025-05-13We analyze Corsair’s FRAME 4000D’s design, specs, build quality, and thermalsThe HighlightsCorsair’s new FRAME 4000D case reprises concepts from the company’s 4000D case but completely overhauls its designThe motherboard tray, power supply shroud, and other components are modular and intended to be replaceable with 3D printable componentsThe FRAME 4000D case puts Corsair on a much better path than its other recent casesOriginal MSRP: $95-$110Release Date: January 7, 2025Table of ContentsAutoTOC Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)IntroToday we’re reviewing the Corsair Frame 4000D and the case is modular in some interesting ways. For instance, the motherboard tray and power supply shroud/tray can come out. And that’s what gets us to the name “frame.” It’s a frame of a case and it can be reconfigured.It’s actually pretty well built. There’s some really good build quality to the case. The fan rail system at the front comes off with a pull and has what Corsair calls “3D Y-shaped patterns.” While the front panel looks flimsy, it’s actually strong due to its depth. The steel stamping for the cable management shroud area is also relatively high build quality.The reason we’re excited about this case is because Corsair lately has really sucked with some of its cases, but the Frame 4000D doesn’t and that’s encouraging.Editor's note: This was originally published on May 8, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsTest Lead, Host, WritingSteve BurkeTesting, WritingPatrick LathanVideo Editing, CameraMike GaglioneCameraTim PhetdaraWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangIn addition to the case’s modularity, it also has trademarks:The new InfiniRail(TM) fan mount is joined by Corsair’s 3D Y-pattern airflow pattern, and better yet, Corsair says this case is “50 Series Ready,” which is impressive, because not even NVIDIA was 50-series ready.This is the Corsair Frame 4000D, and overall, we like it. It’s an interesting case. The case is the successor to Corsair's long-lived and highly popular 4000D (and its 4000D Airflow and 4000X variants) which we first reviewed back in 2020 and even liked. In spite of the name, the Frame 4000D is an entirely new design, which means we're going to have to say "Frame 4000D" every single time we mention it and can’t shorten it to 4000D as that’s a different case. We suspect part of the reason for the similarity is to enable the classic reuse-the-old-Newegg-listing trick: those 1,000+ five-egg reviews are almost all for the original 4000D, not the Frame 4000D, but it gets to share them on the same listing. Corsair also occasionally refers to the "Frame 4000 Series" sans-D, so we may see a Frame 4000X at some point.The case ranges from $95 without fans to the $110 RS ARGB with 3x 120 ARGB fans. It’s targeting the modern budget range. There's a $100 middle step as well with fans but no ARGB. Based on discussion with Corsair, it sounds likely that the MSRPs will increase due to tariffs, but we don't have hard numbers for what those increased prices would be.The Frame 4000D is interesting because Corsair has gone all out with the gigantic holes in the front panel: functionally, they're close to having no front panel at all. Corsair Frame 4000D OverviewThe differentiating factor for the Frame 4000D is that it's intended to be modular, with users able to buy or 3D print alternate components. This is reiterated constantly in Corsair's marketing materials, including public blog posts: "FRAME is all about customization and we have some exciting things on the horizon. In addition to parts that will be available for direct purchase, We have modelled some blanks of the PSU shroud and motherboard tray, so you can download [...] these from Printables and customize them however you like."Corsair Frame 4000D Specs4000D Series (2019)FRAME 4000D SeriesDimensions (mm):466 x 230 x 453 mm487 x 239 x 486 mmMaterial:Steel, Tempered GlassSteel, Tempered GlassIncluded Fans:2x SP120 or 3x AF120 RGB ELITENone or 3x RS120 or 3x RS120 ARGBIncluded Controllers:NoneNoneFan Compatibility:Front: 3x 120mm, 2x 140mmTop: 3x 120mm, 2x 140mmSide: NoneBottom: NoneRear: 1x 120mmFront: 3x 120mm, 2x 140mm, 2x 200mmTop: 3x 120mm, 2x 140mm, 2x 160mmSide: 3x 120mm, 2x 140mmBottom: 2x 120mmRear: 1x 120mm, 1x 140mmRadiator Compatibility:Front: 360mm, 280mm, 240mmTop: 280mm, 240mmSide: NoneBottom: NoneRear: 120mmFront: 360mm, 280mm, 240mmTop: 360mm, 280mm, 240mmSide: 360mm, 280mm, 240mmBottom: NoneRear: 120mmExpansion Slots (Main):7 Horizontal (2 Vertical)7 Horizontal (3 Vertical)Motherboard (Main):Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX, ATX, E-ATXMini-ITX, Micro-ATX, ATX, E-ATXStorage:2x 2.5" SSDs2x 3.5" HDDs4x 2.5" SSDs2x 3.5" HDDsClearances:PSU: 220mmCPU Cooler: 170mmGPU: 360mm (335mm w/ fan)PSU: 220mmCPU Cooler: 170mmGPU: 430 mm (405 mm w/ fan)Dust Filters:Front, Top, PSU, SideFront, PSU, SideFront I/O:USB 3.2 Gen1 Type-A (x1)USB 3.2 Gen2 Type-C (x1)Headphone/Microphone (x1)PowerResetUSB 3.2 Gen1 Type-A (x2)USB 3.2 Gen2 Type-C (x1)Headphone/Microphone (x1)PowerResetPower Supply:ATX (Not Included)ATX (Not Included)Warranty:2 Year2 YearThe BuildThe rotatable vertical GPU mount is one of three major features that genuinely live up to Corsair's promise of modularity, the other two being the PSU shroud and the motherboard tray (which can be removed with four screws). This is vital: being able to eventually buy or print individual components is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with the case's design. With these three features, we're comfortable saying that the Frame 4000D is more modular than a typical case. It's also possible to swap the glass and mesh side panels to either side of the case, but this won't be useful until Corsair sells side panels individually or introduces more case SKUs.The vertical GPU mount is surprisingly quick to set up: by loosening two thumbscrews around the expansion slot covers, the entire set of seven slots can be removed and rotated 90 degrees. A riser cable can then be installed and supported by two standoffs installed on the surface of the PSU shroud. Using the built-in mounting holes, a maximum of three vertical slots are usable. Obviously Corsair intends for you to purchase a Corsair riser cable, but if you want to use your own, the holes are spaced 122mm apart.The Frame 4000D has old school pop-out fill and drain ports at the top and bottom of the chassis, which we also really appreciate. Open-loop compatibility fits well with the modular philosophy that Corsair is pushing.So far, these things are good. If we’re picking antiquated hills to die on, paper manuals will be one of them: We'd like to see a paper manual included with the case in addition to the version on Corsair's blog. The benefit of the online guide is that it can be updated; for example, the online manual now explains what the point of the strip of mylar in the accessory kit is, whereas we had to email Corsair (it covers the reverse-connector holes in the motherboard tray when they're unused). A paper manual can’t be updated, which is a downside as much as it is an upside: The upside is that a company can’t gaslight a customer if something proves incompatible and is retconned. It’s also just more convenient to build a computer with a physical manual.But then again, maybe Corsair doesn’t deserve paper manuals since its own digital manual incorrectly lists the screw count and steps for removing the power supply shroud. With a digital one, they’ll be able to make as many mistakes as they want and the only people who will know about them is everyone who read this article. For the record, it’s 3 screws, not 2. And the diagram is also incorrect.There's another, larger piece of black mylar in the kit, but the manual devotes less explanation to this one, simply saying that if you "don’t want your cables visible through the bottom mesh quarter-panel, swap the translucent insert for the color-matched blank-out insert included in the Accessory Box." The case also has a Lian Li-ish strip of mesh ventilation below the glass side panel and it ships with the translucent insert. If you install fans in the two 120mm slots on top of the PSU shroud, we'd recommend getting rid of the inserts entirely.The Frame 4000D uses the so-called "InfiniRail" system. At the front of the case, there are two metal rails that hold up to 12 plastic clips. The rails slide in and out for 120mm or 140mm mounting, and the clips slide up and down the whole length of the rails. Technically, the rails can fit 200mm fans at their maximum width, but only by forgoing the clips and mounting directly to the rails. At the top of the case, Corsair took the simpler approach of using a single sliding rail and no clips. The system is more complicated than it strictly needs to be, but our only real complaint is that there are exactly twelve clips included with the base model Frame 4000D, with no spares in case one breaks.The only significant fit-and-finish issue with our review sample was that one of the plastic pieces of the ball snap fasteners had popped out of the chassis in shipping. We were able to find it and put it back, but just like the InfiniRail clips, Corsair didn't provide any extras (like some other manufacturers do). As for build quality, construction of the Frame 4000D feels more delicate than the older 4000 series cases. This is partly a tradeoff for the more breathable mesh pattern, flexible fan mounting, and removable components. All of these things get exchanged for rigidity. Corsair apparently intends to sell Frame 4000D components individually as well, but we don't see any on the store as of this writing.On the positives for build quality, the elaborate stamped 3D pattern on the front panel is much sturdier than it looks. We'll have thermal results later in this review, but the Frame 4000D's front panel appears more open than the 4000D Airflow's (watch our review) while retaining most of its rigidity.There's a cable cover at the front of the case that can be installed in one of two positions, but as is frequently the case, we were only able to use it in the forward position because of the ATX power cable. The other position is better suited to back connect motherboards, of which ASUS BTF, MSI Project Zero, and Gigabyte Project Stealth have been validated by Corsair to work. The cable cover is extremely easy to remove, requiring only a single screw, and it's equally easy to slot the side fan mount from the accessory kit in its place. The side fan mount is another feature that will become more interesting if Corsair introduces a Frame 4000X or other variant with a sealed front panel.Cable management is good with tons of velcro straps behind the motherboard tray, but the best route for the 24-pin cable is along the cable bar, which isn't an option if the side fan mount is installed instead. Front I/O cables are neatly sleeved and the whole I/O unit pops off with two screws, so it would have been nice to allow alternate mounting locations (like in the O11D EVO), especially since having the I/O at the bottom of the case has become unusual these days. Even still, we like the modularity of it. They are delivering on that. As for storage, drives can be mounted on two plates, one behind the motherboard tray and one under the PSU shroud. Each plate can mount either two 2.5" drives, one 3.5" drive, or one "iCUE LINK System Hub controller." We'll be interested to see whether Corsair comes up with a modular solution to fit more drives, but for now, that's it.The default location of the GPU anti-sag arm is on the cable cover, too far forward to benefit anything except the longest GPUs, especially if the cable cover is shifted to its forward position.It can be moved a step further back by using the "mini mount" in the accessory kit, but there's no way to do any finer adjustment, and you should look for a different solution if you really think your GPU needs that support. Appearances are subjective. For some, a possible downside of the Frame 4000D's increased modularity is that it doesn't have the clean, uninterrupted lines of the original 4000D cases. We'll leave it at that; you can form your own opinion.Corsair Frame 4000D Thermals Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.The $95 base model Frame 4000D that we were sent for review didn't include any stock fans, so Corsair sent along a pack of three RS120 ARGB fans. We used these fans to match the stock configuration of the $110 Frame 4000D RS ARGB, which is how the case is marked on our charts. According to Corsair's spec sheets, the ARGB fans have the same specs as regular RS120s, so these results are also representative of the $100 Frame 4000D RS (non-ARGB)'s performance.CPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-NormalizedWe’ll start with noise-normalized thermals when using our hemi-anechoic chamber to establish the noise levels.Under full load with the case fans adjusted to hit our 27 dBA noise normalization target, CPU temperature in the Frame 4000D averaged 43 degrees Celsius above ambient, or 47 degrees on just the P-cores. That's a significant improvement over the original 4000D Airflow's average of 49 degrees (53 on the P-Cores), but that's to be expected since the older case has only two fans and splits them between the front and rear of the case.Relative to the rest of the chart, the Frame 4000D performed fairly well here. The Phanteks XT Pro Ultra is comparable in price and design, but it split the difference between the Corsair cases, with the Frame 4000D still a couple degrees cooler. The Lancool 207 (read our review) remains the budget case to beat with averages of 41 degrees across all cores and 45 on the P-Cores, while the NZXT H5 Flow 2024 (watch our review) and Phanteks G400A (watch our review) performed similarly well. The G400A remains difficult to find in the US.GPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-NormalizedMoving to GPU thermals under full load in the same noise normalized test, the Frame 4000D averaged 45 degrees above ambient, with 49 degrees for the memory and 59 for the unshown GPU hotspot. That's another victory over the original 4000D Airflow, which averaged 49 degrees for the GPU temperature, but again that's with two fans to the Frame 4000D's three.The G400A effectively tied the Frame 4000D in this test, while the H5 and XT Pro UItra didn't do as well. The XT Pro UItra averaged 47 degrees for the GPU, a couple degrees warmer than the Frame 4000D. The Lancool 207 remains near the top of the chart for cooling. To learn more about that one, you can check out our Best Cases round-up from last year or our original review for more info on that case's pros and cons.CPU Full Load Thermals - Full SpeedAt full speed, the Frame 4000D's CPU thermal performance continues to scale fairly well for its price, while the 4000D Airflow falls further behind. The Frame 4000D's noise levels and performance were essentially tied with the Phanteks XT Pro Ultra here, with the Frame 4000D averaging 40 degrees above ambient, or 43 on the P-Cores. The G400A performed similarly as well, but with a lower 37dBA noise level to the Frame 4000D's 43dBA, while the Lancool 207 remains an outlier with both lower temperatures and lower noise levels, making it a lot better here than really most of these other cases.CPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized FansThe standardized fan test has always had limited usefulness, but this is one of the places it’s useful.It’ll help us evaluate the Frame 4000D's unusual front panel by comparing it against other cases with an identical set of fans and placements including the 4000D. Average all-core CPU temperature was 40 degrees above ambient and the P-Cores were 44 degrees. That's reasonably well-matched to established mesh-fronted cases like Fractal's Meshify 2 Compact (watch our review) and North XL (read our review), and extremely close to SilverStone's recent FARA 514X (read our review). The Frame 4000D is also significantly better than the 4000D Airflow when normalizing to the same fans, reinforcing Corsair’s improvements to the chassis design itself.No matter how open the front panel is, though, the fans still have to pull air through Corsair's filter as well, so it makes some sense that some single-layer mesh designs like the Lancool 207, Pop Air RGB (watch our review), and Flux Pro (read our review) perform slightly better here, although the G400A also did fairly well with two layers.GPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized FansIn the same test, GPU temperature in the Frame 4000D averaged 43 degrees above ambient, tying it with most of the cases we just mentioned (Lancool 207, Pop Air RGB, and Flux Pro), while the XT Pro Ultra did unusually poorly with an average of 50 degrees.As a side note, GPU thermals with the 4000D Airflow were abysmal in this particular test relative to the rest of the chart. That differs from what we saw 5 years ago using our old test hardware, which demonstrates the value of retesting these cases now that we've switched to new components and a flow-through GPU design.VRM & RAM Full Load Thermals - Noise NormalizedAs a final note, the VR VCC sensor averaged 30 degrees above ambient in the noise-normalized test with the Frame 4000D. That puts it at the cooler end of what we typically see from cases, with only a couple of outliers like the Lancool 207 and Flux Pro dropping to the 27 degree mark. The same goes for the SPD Hub average of 24 degrees above ambient (which is the RAM temperature), with relatively few cases on the chart dropping below 22 degrees. Both these sensors indicate normal internal case temperatures.Corsair Frame 4000D Conclusion Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!Of the existing Frame 4000D SKUs, the Frame 4000D RS at $100 is a decent deal, especially given how tightly packed the SKUs’ prices are. Going from 0 fans to 3 fans is worth $5, and going from no RGB to ARGB may or may not be worth another $10. We need Corsair to follow through with more modular case components (like the alternate front panels it showed in the trailer) to make it really interesting, or at the absolute least offer some more printable files. The Lancool 207 remains king in terms of min-maxed price-to-performance, but the Frame 4000D is a reasonable alternative to budget Phanteks cases like the G400A and XT Pro Ultra, or potentially some Montech cases (which we'll be adding more of to the charts shortly). As a successor to the existing 4000 series, we like the Frame 4000D functionally. Some of the finer attention to detail elements like the geometric patterns and yellow accents remain, just with a more complex appearance than previously.Corsair has mentioned that it may have to increase prices, but we don’t yet have final details on what that amount might be on this case. We don't encourage panic buying, but if you've decided that the Frame 4000D is the case for you and it's currently in stock at MSRP, we wouldn't recommend waiting around for a discount. Overall, this is a job well done by Corsair. It is a much better return to form as compared to something like the 6500D (read our review) from last year.

Cases Montech HS01 Pro & HS02 Pro Case Review: Thermal Benchmarks, Build Quality, & NoiseMay 1, 2025Last Updated: 2025-05-01We put Montech’s new Montech HS01 and HS02 cases through a variety of benchmarks that include thermal performance, acoustics, and tests for build qualityThe HighlightsThe HS02 Pro is a fishtank-style case with a curved cornerThere are many ATX cases that can compete with the HS01 on the marketWhat makes the cases interesting is that they can easily invertOriginal MSRP: $130 (HS01 Pro with fans), $140 (HS02 Pro with fans)Release Date: April 2025Table of ContentsAutoTOC Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.IntroWith removable feet that can be swapped from the top to the bottom, Montech has 2 new cases that can quickly invert. Those two cases are based on the same chassis: They are the Montech HS01 Pro and HS02 Pro cases, differentiated by the glass or mesh, and each includes 5 fans.Editor's note: This was originally published on April 30, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsTest Lead, Host, WritingSteve BurkeTesting, WritingPatrick LathanCamera, Video EditingVitalii MakhnovetsCameraTim PhetdaraWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangMajor points of interest include the recessed motherboard tray, ventilated rear chamber cover, and abnormal power supply location up in the front. It’s not all good news, however. The power-supply area has some ventilation problems we’re not happy about, but there are some mechanical upsides. The rear fans remove as a single piece without becoming a proprietary nightmare, which is a welcomed feature. The case tries to plan around back-connect boards, running into the chicken-or-egg problem that both boards and cases are facing.As always, we have some critiques of the case, but we were also overall happy with its build quality and assembly. The cases land at $130 to $140 with fans or $100 to $110 without them. SpecsModel NameHS01 PROHS02 PROColorBlack / WhiteBlack / WhiteDimensions(L*W*H) 480*235*368mm (Case) / 563*323*573mm (Carton)480*235*368mm (Case) / 585*334*532mm (Carton)MB SupportATX /Micro-ATX / Mini-ITX (Back-Connected MB Supported)ATX /Micro-ATX / Mini-ITX (Back-Connected MB Supported)Front I/OUSB3.0*2 / Type-C*1 / Mic*1 / Power Button / Audio*1 / LED Button*1USB3.0*2 / Type-C*1 / Mic*1 / Power Button / Audio*1 / LED Button*1PCIe Slots77Compatibility / MaximumCPU Cooler 170mmGPU 400mmPSU 200mm ATX / SFXCPU Cooler 175mmGPU 420mmPSU 200mm ATX / SFXDrive Support / Maximum3.5” HDD 22.5” SSD 43.5” HDD 22.5” SSD 4Pre-installed Fan(s)Bottom 120mm*3Rear 120mm*2Bottom 120mm*3Rear 120mm*2Fan SupportTop 120mm*3Front 120mm*3 / 140mm*2Bottom 120mm*3Rear 120mm*2Top 120mm*3Bottom 120mm*3Rear 120mm*2Radiator SupportTop 120 / 240 / 360mmBottom 120 / 240mmRear 120mmTop 120 / 240 / 360mmBottom 120 / 240mmRear 120mmDust FilterBottomBottomEAN4710562747621 / 47105627447124710562741377 / 4710562745719Warranty1 Year1 YearSpecs copied from manufacturer materials, please read review for our own measurements and opinionsThe BuildMontech is probably best-known for its King 95 chassis. The company has had some hits and some misses since it started, but the HS01 and HS02 blur the lines between a more traditional case and a dual-chamber case.The big marketing play is toward inversion. Cases have inverted in the past, but some of the original invertible cases we covered were difficult to flip around and required dozens of screws.Modern invertible cases, like the be quiet! Light Base series, have made this process way faster.Inversion is the headlining feature of the HS cases, and the process is extremely easy. The top cover moves to the bottom, the bottom filter and legs move to the top. That's it. The process is optionally toolless: the legs are magnetic, but they can also be screwed into place when the case isn't inverted. The main downside of making the process so simple is that aspects of the case which are designed to work right-side-up aren't altered at all in the inversion process, so the side panels and rear fan bracket are installed upside-down when the case is inverted and the PSU power switch becomes inaccessible. Other aspects of case configuration are also easy to deal with. The top panel is magnetic and pulls off easily. The company uses a rubber/fake leather strap at the back. The rear two-fan bracket comes off as a single unit (which we liked), and the rear expansion slots rotate vertically with minimal effort. Removing the top panel gives immediate access to the PSU switches (like power and eco mode), as well as the RGB hub connections in Pro variants.The HS02 has what Montech calls "an 8° Curved Glass front pane." It’s not 8 degrees -- it’s 90, so maybe they meant the radius of the bend was 8mm. The media kit came complete with an illustration of the corner with an 8° label though. Either way, the bend is, in fact, 90 degrees in total, and the front panel butts up against the side panel to look (sort of) like a continuous pane, similar in some parts to the King 95. It's not as impressive as the HAVN HS420 (read our review), but it's definitely less expensive. The glass panels are beveled where they meet the angled plastic pillars for a flush fit.The chassis design strikes us as being optimized for back-connect boards. Back-connect boards have gotten some traction, but they aren’t a significant portion of the market yet. Case makers have a challenge: It's too early to prioritize back-connect at the expense of compatibility with normal boards (unless marketing specifically for a back-connect board), but also, not building for it at all means no adoption of change.The motherboard and fans have what Montech describes as a "sink-in design," meaning that ATX or even mATX boards are surrounded by metal on all sides. As a consequence, it's difficult to reach board connections with normal motherboards (which is most of them): for example, we were forced to use the stock flat EPS12V cables for our SilverStone PSU because our custom-sleeved CableMod replacements couldn't cleanly fit. Routing the 24-pin cable required an uncomfortable bend, and fitting the USB headers into place was nearly impossible. There's no good route for the GPU power cable either, although that's a common issue with open-bottomed cases and not specific to Montech.The PSU area leaves a lot to be desired: Unfortunately, we end up with 3 layers of blockages from the PSU case mesh, the interior cover door mesh, and the exterior panel mesh. The two case panels overlap and obstruct each other, which already overlap with the PSU ventilation. Stacking 3 layers atop each other reduces flow and increases resistance, which can increase noise or minimally reduce cooling. Fortunately, PSUs tend to be less thermally sensitive, but we’d like to see fewer overlapping obstructions.With the PSU fastened down, we found our normal SilverStone PSU pushed the cover up without screws to hold it in place, which we added.The PSU mounting bracket can be rotated to mount either a standard ATX or a smaller SFX PSU; this bracket then slides into place and is screwed to the top of the chassis. There's no particular reason to use an SFX PSU with this case. The extension cable that runs from the rear of the case to the bracket at the front must be routed through the bracket before it's installed.This is mostly an air cooling case, which is how we’re testing it. Radiator support is restricted, though. The front of the HS02 obviously doesn't support radiators since there are no mounts, but even in the HS01, the PSU placement overlaps with the front fan mount. That means there's only space for mounting on the outside of the chassis, and only normal 25mm thick fans fit (no radiators and no extra-thick fans). At the top of the case, Montech claims support for radiators up to 123mm wide, which is a strict limit due to the bumps on the ATX PSU bracket that pokes through, leaving small bumps to interfere with clearance. The bottom mount works fine for radiators other than obstructing the bottom edge of ATX boards, but Montech (correctly) doesn't claim compatibility above 240mm due to the cramped space. There's no 140mm-wide radiator compatibility in either case, and only the HS01 has support for any 140mm fans.Generally speaking, we don't like all the plates and covers and brackets that Montech has stuffed into the HS01 and HS02. They hide some cable clutter, sometimes at the cost of thermals, but most clutter would be invisible behind the steel side panel anyway. There are times where we like this type of feature, but with this case, there are already tradeoffs in the depth and the accessibility for some connectors in some areas. Sacrificing more of that for the metal plates can sometimes work against it. Even still, cable management space is generous, but we'd happily trade some of that space for better access to normal motherboard connectors and some small clearances in the main chamber.Moving on to the hardware: Cases generally include a set of "SSD" screws for attaching 2.5" drives. The HS01 and HS02 do not, however: as the manual notes, every screw included in the accessory kit is 6-32 TPI. The cases claim compatibility with up to four 2.5" drives, so the screws are a strange omission. It’s not a big deal to bring your own screws, but not standard for a case to cut this corner.The front panels of the HS01 and HS02 aren't directly interchangeable since there are some differences to the support structures, like the support corner pillar in the HS01 and some plastic trim in the HS02 that’s not on the HS01. This was inconvenient for our testing, but it's unlikely to ever come up from a customer perspective, so it doesn’t matter much unless you wanted to swap it later.All variants include ARGB lighting strips at the bottom of the case, with the Pro cases also including ARGB fans and a built-in controller. The fans use separate (standard) connections for ARGB and fan control, which we generally prefer, but it does lead to a confusing mess of wires. If you've bought into one of the proprietary RGB ecosystems, the Pro cases really aren't the best for working with that.  Thermals Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)The Pro variants ship with fans and the non-Pros do not, so all stock tests shown here represent Pro performance. We tested the HS01 stock and inverted, but Montech's marketing materials push the "natural airflow" chimney effect angle, so by that logic, inverting the case without rearranging the fans should lead to worse performance. We'll see.CPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-NormalizedWe’ll start with noise-normalized CPU thermals, which means we use our hemi-anechoic chamber in the lab to collect highly controlled noise data for comparison.Inverting the case didn’t produce a significant change. The HS01 Pro ran at about the same temperature in both tests. The glass panel versus mesh panel also had minimal impact.The stock fan layout is the same in both cases, meaning that the HS01's mesh front won’t do much unless the fans are re-arranged; if anything, it could allow some air to escape where we’d rather keep it in. The CPU averaged 49 degrees Celsius above ambient in the HS01 Pro, 52 degrees on the P-cores, and the results for the inverted HS01 and for the HS02 were within the normal range of variance. The fans were run at slightly different speeds in each of the three configurations to hit the 27 dBA threshold, which is where the chamber comes into play (as we can actually measure those tiny acoustic differences now), but that wasn't enough to make a difference thermally.Montech's own moderately more expensive King 95 Pro with a glass front beat the HS cases in this test with an average of 47 degrees above ambient. The Antec C8 ARGB (read our review) is also more expensive, but it has relatively weak CPU cooling with the stock fan layout, and the HS cases beat it by 1-2 degrees. More traditional designs like the Lancool 207 (read our review) and 216 (watch our review) fly past the HS01 and HS02, setting a ceiling and giving perspective on cooling. The G400A (read our review) also accompanies these two.GPU Full Load Thermals - Noise-NormalizedThe range for the GPU thermal results was just as tight, with the inverted HS01 averaging 42.8 degrees above ambient and the HS02 averaging 43.2, which is within variance, but that’s still not even one full degree of difference. It's not a surprise that the chimney effect isn't a factor when active airflow is involved, nor is it a surprise that changing the front panel has no impact when there aren’t any fans installed at the front of the case.Although the different configurations didn't make much difference, the HS cases performed well overall for GPU thermals, respectably close to the C8 ARGB's 42 degree average. Like the C8, the HS cases have bottom intake fans that force cool air directly into and through the GPU and with minimal obstruction beyond a dust filter. The King 95 Pro also has bottom intake fans, but they're less effective, resulting in a 48 degree average. The Flux Pro and Lancool 207 remain leaders here, but one is in a different price class and both are different styles.GPU Full Load Thermals - Full SpeedFull speed case fans are next, dropping the noise control and testing GPU thermals.At full speed, we can finally see a difference between at least the regular and inverted HS01 results, with the inverted layout averaging 40 degrees above ambient to the regular layout's 42 degrees above ambient. The bottom intake fans move enough air that flipping them to the top of the case where they can breathe more freely is beneficial. The inverted layout also directed slightly more noise towards our mic placement, but not enough for an audible difference at 38.5 versus 38.0 dBA. The regular HS02 result closely matched the HS01 result at 42 degrees, but the HS02 was quieter (as measured from the front) due to its solid front panel blocking noise egress. The drop to 35.8 dBA is noticeable, if barely. However, remember that at the 27 dBA threshold performance and noise levels were both equal.As before, the Antec C8 ARGB's GPU cooling is on par with the performance of the HS cases at 41 degrees above ambient, with noise levels equivalent to the HS01. The King 95 also averaged about 37 dBA, but with worse GPU thermals, averaging 46 degrees.CPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized FansOur standardized set of fans can't be installed in the HS02 due to the lack of 140mm mounts, which made this test simple. We installed the two 140mm intake fans at the front of the HS01 and the single 120mm exhaust in the lower of the two rear slots.With this layout, average CPU temperature was 41 degrees above ambient and 45 degrees for the P-cores. For this case specifically, those are lower than the stock results, but that's not surprising given the more direct airflow aimed at the CPU cooler. It’s also completely normal performance for a mesh-fronted case in this test, landing between the Fractal Meshify 2 Compact (watch our review) and Phanteks P400A Digital (watch our review). The Antec C8 and King 95 Pro results on this chart were both tested with side intake, so performance is predictably worse than the HS01.GPU Full Load Thermals - Standardized FansOn the other hand, moving to the normal front-to-back layout with the standardized fans hurt GPU thermals. Removing the stock bottom intake fans that made the HS01 competitive in this category led to an average GPU temperature of 45 degrees above ambient, which isn't terrible, but allowed the King 95 Pro and C8 ARGB to take the lead at 43 degrees for both. Montech's stock fan layout seems like the best compromise.VRM & RAM Full Load Thermals - Noise NormalizedTo finish things off, we'll move back to the noise normalized testing. VRM thermals were nearly identical for each of the three tested configurations, averaging 33 degrees above ambient in the HS02 Pro, which lands the HS cases in the middle of the chart between the C8 ARGB at 33 degrees and the King 95 Pro at 31.The SPD Hub sensor readings from the RAM told a similar story: all three configurations averaged close to 25 degrees above ambient, close to the C8 ARGB's 24 degree average, although the King 95 Pro scored well in this specific instance at 21 degrees.ConclusionGrab a GN Soldering & Project Mat for a high-quality work surface with extreme heat resistance. These purchases directly fund our operation, including our build-out of the hemi-anechoic chamber for our acoustic testing! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)Montech's strength has always been in the budget space. The Montech HS01 Pro and HS02, however, are sort of in that mid-range category with their prices. The recent tariff situation is obviously going to affect that market. Montech contacted us to confirm MSRPs a few days prior to launch, so hopefully these prices will stay stable for some time.As a fishtank case with a curved corner, the $140 HS02 Pro is a reasonably priced alternative to the more expensive cases that match that description like the HAVN HS420, Antec C8 Curve, HYTE Y60 (watch our review), or even Montech's own King 95 Pro. We seriously recommend watching the build section of our video review, because there were some features we didn't like, but it's up to you to decide whether the savings are worth it. If you use a back-connect motherboard, that may solve many of the issues we saw, including with cabling.The HS02's thermal performance wasn't abysmal or amazing. It was fine. Of these two cases, we're more willing to accept middling performance from the one that looks interesting, in other words, the glass-fronted option. The HS01 has greater cooling potential thanks to its mesh-front panel, but it's also more generic: there aren't a ton of fish-tank cases that can compete with the HS02's price, but there are many, many $100-$150 mesh-fronted cases that can compete with the HS01. These include options like the Lian Li Lancool 207, Fractal North (watch our review), Phanteks G400A, or many of the other cases we've reviewed in the past couple years are all viable alternatives to a mesh-fronted case. There’s a lot of competition at that price class. If you love Montech’s case here or really like how it looks, we can say “it’s fine.” We do think the fish-tank version makes a little more sense for most people. If you really want a mesh case, there are better alternatives.

GPUs Get It Together, NVIDIA | Terrible GPU Driver StabilityApril 14, 2025Last Updated: 2025-04-14We investigate whether NVIDIA’s new drivers are behind the recent GPU instability issuesThe HighlightsWe read through numerous user reports and set forth to replicate NVIDIA’s stability problemsNVIDIA has major driver instability problems right now, and that impacts newer RTX 50 series cards as well as RTX 40 and 30 series GPUsWe found issues with setups using DLSS4, frame generation, G-Sync, and even just the monitor ports in a multi-monitor setupTable of ContentsAutoTOC Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)IntroHow the tables have turned. NVIDIA, is now playing the role of AMD circa Vega, which is not good. NVIDIA’s drivers have had stability problems since the launch of its RTX 50 series GPUs and we’ve been able to replicate them.In one game, we had system crashes after enabling NVIDIA’s frame generation, which is unfortunate since it marketed the 50-series on the back of MFG and fake frames. We had reboots loading into Cyberpunk, crashes and driver errors in Tomb Raider, and issues with screen distortion and artifacting.Editor's note: This was originally published on April 6, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsTest Lead, Host, WritingSteve BurkeCamera, Video EditingVitalii MakhnovetsTesting, Writing, ResearchTannen WilliamsWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangBut these issues didn’t show up in our review of the 50-series, which was our first hint that it’s related to a driver version issue. Game developers have recently begun recommending rolling back to older NVIDIA drivers: inZOI, the studio which NVIDIA has heavily promoted for partnership with its AI features, threw NVIDIA under the bus, stating, “Using driver versions 572.xx or later may result in occasional frame drops or stuttering [...] If issues persist, we recommend installing version 566.36.” This driver is from December. Developer Neople stated, “Using driver versions 572.xx or later may result in occasional frame drops or stuttering.”This aligns with our findings from the past week, where we’ve been trying to replicate these issues that have been widely reported online. Interestingly, we found that the order of the monitors in Windows, as in the display out order of monitor 1 and monitor 2 in the OS via the actual hardware connection to the video card, seemed to affect stability. User reports commonly note various display problems like black screens, flickering, and sometimes even unprompted system reboots and crashes to desktop. This includes other types of crashes too, like crashing to desktop. Upon a closer inspection, it wasn’t only 50-series users dealing with the issues. Many users of NVIDIA’s previous generations of GPUs, particularly the 40 and 30 series, are also affected by the recent drivers. Several users speculated on the impact of multiple monitors, the impact of mixed or higher refresh rates, and even how NVIDIA’s own G-Sync might be affecting the driver stability. There’s been at least one megathread on Reddit with hundreds of reports and these issues have been in the news since the launch of the 50-series. We’ve been able to replicate these issues and have isolated some of the causes. We also have some stopgap solutions. They’re not great, but may help for the time being. This also applies to multiple card generations. As far as we know, it impacts the 30 to 50 series GPUs.  User reports seem to point to driver 566.36 as the most stable recent driver. This version was released on December 5th, 2024, just prior to the 50 series launch in January. In the four months since that driver’s release, NVIDIA has posted six GeForce Game Ready Drivers and at least four GeForce “Hotfix” Drivers specifically aimed at fixing bugs and system crashes.Testing ConfigurationTime to get into our testing configuration.In order to better understand the driver problems that previous generation NVIDIA users are currently experiencing, we attempted to recreate some of the issues ourselves. Before we began, we went through an assortment of user reports to find games, system configurations, and specific settings that seemed especially problematic to get a starting point for our testing.For our testbench setup, we used a modified version of our standard test bench. We also bought a couple games that people had particular issues with. Our standard GPU review bench did not exhibit any of the issues with drivers initially, so we modified it.Components included these:CPU: 9800X3DGPU: 4070 SuperMonitors: Dual-monitor setup using an Acer 4K 60Hz monitor (not G-Sync compatible) and a Dell Alienware 1080p 360Hz monitor that is G-Sync compatible, which we ran at 240Hz. Both were connected via DisplayPort. And this part is important: In Windows, we manually set the monitor order:Monitor 1: Acer 4K displayMonitor 2: Alienware monitor, which was checked as the main display in the Windows settings). Motherboard: ASUS ROG X670E HeroRAM: 2x16GB (32) of DDR5 6,000Mhz Trident Z5PSU: EVGA 1600 T2Driver version: We used 572.83 initially as it was the most recent when we began our testing, which was released on March 18th, 2025So we have a very intentional mix of different resolution displays, different G-Sync compatibility, different refresh rates, and, of course, we’re going to change the drivers as we go through our testing.Our first goal was to simply identify a game crashing. From there, we’d recollect what occurred leading up to the failure and then document a process that we could follow to ensure the crash happened every time. Once we were able to consistently reproduce the complication, we’d change one variable at a time while keeping all others the same in order to isolate the factors involved and determine possible causes. For each instance, we separately disabled G-Sync, frame generation, DLSS, and sometimes other settings (depending on the game). We also moved to a single monitor and then swapped output ports on the GPU between the two monitors for each game issue we experienced. Suffice it to say, this all took a while.Broad Findings Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.Here’s what we found:In our testing on NVIDIA’s most recent driver, 572.83, we found four different instances of game crashes that could be consistently reproduced. In Star Wars Outlaws, we experienced failures after selecting “resume” in the startup menu. In Marvel Rivals, we’d observe system reboots either directly after applying frame generation in the pre-menu settings, or after applying the settings and then exiting to desktop from a match. In Cyberpunk 2077, we encountered reboots when loading into the game. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, when running the in-game benchmark we faced a game crash along with a driver error. After rolling back to a previous driver, we could no longer replicate any of these same failures on any of these games. And that’s the reason this took a week or 2 to put together because we tried to isolate to see if it was a game problem, something relating to NVIDIA, or NVIDIA settings in that game.Based on our initial findings, we believed the driver issues may be affecting some users that are operating on a specific combination of hardware and displays/graphics settings. Specifically, those using two monitors with G-Sync and frame gen enabled. We also found something really interesting regarding the physical output ports on the GPU itself and how the monitors are identified in Windows display settings. We don’t fully understand it yet, but we’ll go over that observation shortly.We have more findings to go over first.Less Conclusive FindingsDLSS and Reflex may also factor into the equation, but unfortunately we weren’t able to make a clear determination. In some games, DLSS or Reflex is automatically enabled when using frame gen. Meaning, we weren’t always able to fully isolate each of these variables because one will force the other. Additionally, sometimes lowering the refresh rate to 120Hz on our second monitor would resolve issues, while other times it didn’t. Something that especially stood out to us was that we could only replicate 3 of the 4 failures when both monitors were connected via DisplayPort and when monitor 2 was checked as the main display in Windows settings. As seen in the image above, when our Acer monitor was plugged into what we’re calling slot 3 and our Alienware monitor was plugged into what we’re calling slot 2, we didn’t have any issues. But when we swapped the slots the monitors plugged into, effectively converting “monitor 1” to “monitor 2” within Windows and vice versa, and then made monitor 2 the main display, we saw the crashes again consistently. This is less to do with the physical ports being used and more to do with how Windows and the drivers are treating the monitors in their “1” and “2” slots. We couldn’t tell you why this behavior causes issues, but if you’re having trouble, swapping monitors 1 and 2 could potentially help.We actually found this by accident. The day after we recorded our first game crash, we reconfigured the bench and began trying to trigger it again, but couldn’t. It wasn’t until we realized that the only difference was that the DP output slots on the GPU had been changed. After switching them back to the original position, we were suddenly able to observe the failure again. To our surprise, this same circumstance appeared in multiple games.Game CrashesAs for similarities between the issues: In Star Wars Outlaws, Marvel Rivals, and Cyberpunk 2077 (all games that natively support DLSS 4), we were unable to produce a failure when either G-Sync or frame gen were disabled. We also separately couldn’t trigger a crash after swapping output slots or on a single monitor setup.DLSS 4 and frame gen are also problems here. It’s not just the monitor order or the monitor ports.The error in Shadow of the Tomb Raider was different from the games previously discussed. This game was unaffected by G-Sync. It also doesn’t feature a frame gen setting (at least the version we tested doesn’t). Additionally, it experienced the same failures on a single monitor and after swapping output slots. So none of the other issues we’ve talked about thus far were the cause for Shadow of the Tomb Raider.Instead, we were able to boil this problem down to having “RTX Shadow Quality” set to Ultra in the in-game settings. And we know for a fact that this didn’t always cause a crash because we have run tests on it with RTX Shadow Quality set to Ultra in prior versions of our benchmark suite with different drivers. In regards to our analysis, the main commonality between all four of these games is that they crashed on NVIDIA’s most recent drivers at the time of testing, but after rolling back to 566.36, we were no longer able to trigger that same error. Rolling back to driver version 566.36 doesn’t guarantee that crashes will stop. From what we’ve read online, there are still issues with that driver. In our case, we are unable to prompt the same failures we had previously been able to. This, along with various user reports, seems to suggest that driver 566.36 is currently the most stable driver that NVIDIA has released recently. 566.36 is from December and predates the launch of the RTX 50 series, so would not be compatible with 50-series cards.There are a lot of other issues reported online, but that’s what we’ve replicated so far.Many users saw problems in games that didn’t occur until after multiple hours of gameplay. As much as we’d like to, we can’t spend several hours playing a random game to see if it will possibly crash. It’s just too unpredictable. On the same note, just because we weren’t able to repeat our failure when we turned G-Sync or frame gen off, doesn’t mean that turning these options off will solve all problems, but hopefully it’ll help some of you.Other Common IssuesThere were some other issues we commonly saw in our research:We’ve seen multiple reports that there’s an issue with waking from sleep or resuming from idle states and we were able to create at least one of these by accident. We noticed on one of our personal PCs that there were issues waking the system from sleep when the PC had been idle. And on wake, the monitors appear to turn on but don’t receive any signal and the screens remain black. Fixing this required a PC reboot. Windows has its own decades of issues with sleep and S3 states, so it’s hard to specifically pinpoint who’s at fault for this one between NVIDIA and Microsoft.Another issue we’ve seen going around has to do with the alt+tab shortcut acting buggy and freezing games when switching windows while playing a game. We did occasionally encounter this bug, but it wasn’t something we saw every time and seemed to be resolved pretty easily by pressing the Windows key or alt+tabbing back into the game. Again, this one is difficult to pinpoint between NVIDIA and Microsoft. NVIDIA Driver NotesNVIDIA has had some driver notes addressing parts of this, despite the driver not fixing everything.In NVIDIA’s 572.83 driver release notes, one open issue states, “[Cyberpunk 2077/Half-Life 2 RTX] PC may bugcheck with error 0xd1 when playing game while using DLSS Frame Gen + G-SYNC [5144337].” We’re glad that issues relating to frame gen and G-Sync are being acknowledged, but we’d like to see more from NVIDIA here. This is a relatively vague description and only mentions two games that are affected by this much larger issue. NVIDIA has also had multiple hot fixes. We’ve reported on some of them where it’s saying it’s trying to fix issues with the original 50 series and then just basically everything. Suggestions for Those AffectedWe’ve known that NVIDIA has shifted its focus towards larger business clients and away from its gaming market. That’s fine -- but it shouldn’t be screwing up areas where it has long had such refinement. NVIDIA is known for its driver stability, and the company, in its series of screwups for 2025, is starting to chip away at that in an era where AMD’s drivers have become relatively stable. These driver issues are another mark upon NVIDIA’s tarnished gaming reputation with the 50-series launch as the company shifts focus, but losing prior-gained ground shouldn’t be in the cards, and NVIDIA hopefully will recognize that these issues are damaging to its long-term brand credibility.We’ll end off with some suggestions for users experiencing issues:For non-50 series users who are confronted with game crashes on NVIDIA’s latest drivers, we’d first recommend swapping the order of your display outputs on the GPU itself. We don’t fully understand how effective this fix is yet, but it’s simple and worked for us. We’d also suggest swapping cables to HDMI, which is not ideal, to see if that changes anything as a stopgap.If you don’t feel strongly about G-Sync or frame generation being enabled, we would then suggest disabling one of those settings and see if you’re able to resolve the issue that way until NVIDIA is able to get its s*** together. Considering NVIDIA’s whole marketing gimmick lately has been frame generation, this is a bad solution for NVIDIA, but hopefully it’s a stopgap.If neither of the above work for you, our last suggestion would be to rollback to a previous driver. If you’re able to recall a specific driver that you previously used that didn’t cause any problems for you, we’d advise reinstalling that one. In our case, 566.36 seemed to remedy our problems and seems to be shared by users as one of the more stable ones currently available. As general process control, we’d recommend installing drivers directly from NVIDIA’s website and disconnecting from the internet for installs and uninstalls. We always uninstall previous drivers using Display Driver Uninstaller (DDU) in safe mode, pause windows updates, and perform a clean install before reconnecting to the internet. It’s not something that we experienced, but we have seen user reports claiming that installing drivers using the NVIDIA App led to certain issues, and reinstalling the same driver but from NVIDIA’s website instead solved those problems. Conclusion Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.Unfortunately, all of these suggestions are only temporary workarounds, and we can only wait for a new NVIDIA driver to provide a legitimate solution and get it together. This has been an absolutely abhorrent and completely embarrassing launch for the company. This is the worst NVIDIA launch we’ve covered and it may be the worst GPU series launch we’ve ever covered. That’s saying a lot considering AMD has had some impressively bad drivers for years. NVIDIA has taken that over. At least with Intel Arc and its Alchemist GPUs, our expectations were low, and Intel has taken notable steps to address its issues. NVIDIA, on the other hand, continues to fumble in impressively bad ways. This is the type of thing that helps the company lose market share. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor the driver situation and will provide an update when we find a more stable solution provided by NVIDIA.

GPUs More Marketing BS: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti Review & Benchmarks vs GTX 1060, 4060 Ti, & MoreApril 17, 2025Last Updated: 2025-04-17We benchmark the RTX 5060 Ti against the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB, the RTX 3070 Ti, 3080, RX 9070, and dozens of other GPUsThe HighlightsNVIDIA’s RTX 5060 Ti ships in either 8GB or 16GB variantsCounter to NVIDIA’s claims, the 5060 Ti does not offer a “50x” performance increase over a GTX 1060The 5060 Ti is about 13%-27% better than the 4060 Ti at 1440pOriginal MSRP: $430Release Date: April 16, 2025Table of ContentsAutoTOC Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)IntroThe shortest possible conclusion upfront is that the 5060 Ti is about 13%-27% better than the 4060 Ti at 1440p, typically in the range of 20-25%. At 1080p, the new card is 11-24% better, typically about 18-20%. Against the 3060 Ti from 5 years ago, the 5060 Ti at 1440p is 16-39% improved, depending on the game. 1080p posted 21-40% gains, with a huge exception in Black Myth with ray tracing enabled, where there was a 56% uplift. The 3060 Ti was also the card that the 4060 Ti sometimes lost against.For older devices or possible used candidates, the closest alternatives (by performance) to pay attention to in our charts will be the 3080 (watch our review) and 3070 Ti (watch our review), which often flank the 5060 Ti, and the 7700 XT (read our review) or 7800 XT (read our review) on AMD's side.Editor's note: This was originally published on April 16, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsTest Lead, Host, WritingSteve BurkeTesting, EditingMike GaglioneWritingJeremy ClaytonCamera, Video EditingVitalii MakhnovetsCameraAndrew ColemanWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangBut pricing is the big challenge today. NVIDIA says that this card has an MSRP of $430, with the 8GB variant at $380 and RTX 5060 non-Ti at $300, launching in May. The 5060 Ti cards launch today with the reviews. We only have the 16GB model right now. We might look at the 8GB version later.Full transparency up-front. We’re keeping this review as simple and focused as possible, mostly because we’re currently traveling with a big story we’re working on. We still have dozens of gaming charts, but we wanted to be clear on that. We’re also going to keep our concluding thoughts simple because we need to see how the actual pricing shakes-out before making firmer judgments, which means there’ll be more discussion in the coming weeks -- likely in HW News or potentially another dedicated story.With that out of the way, here’s a quick version of the specs:The short version is that NVIDIA’s RTX 5060 Ti ships in either 8GB or 16GB variants. The review samples we’re aware of are the 16GB model. There shouldn’t be any difference between these beyond the memory, from what we’re told. These cards have 4608 CUDA cores, 144 TMUs, and a gacha box of ROPs. Memory bandwidth is rated at 448GB/s with a memory bus of 128-bit, which is why we have the multiples of 8GB for memory.The RTX 5070 technically has a lower memory capacity at 12GB. Theoretically, they could do a 24GB model, but these options stem from the bus width and controller choices.The RTX 5060 non-Ti will ship in May and have 3840 CUDA cores with an 8GB framebuffer, also on a 128-bit bus.AMD’s competition will include the, in theory, RX 9060 series, for which we don’t have full details yet. We’ll hear about that more likely next month.We’re keeping it simple today, so let’s just get into the benchmarks.RTX 5060 Ti Gaming BenchmarksFFXIV 4KFinal Fantasy 14 at 4K is up first.This one was bad for the RTX 4060 Ti, with the card landing at an abysmal 41 FPS AVG as compared to the 3060 Ti FTW3’s 48 FPS AVG. RIP EVGA. We explained this regression in our 4060 Ti review previously, which we titled “Do Not Buy.” Spoiler alert: The conclusion was to not buy it.The 5060 Ti isn’t really competing with the 4060 Ti here: It’s competing with the 3060 Ti, and against that, we see an uplift of 12% to 54 FPS AVG. The improvement over the 4060 Ti looks more impressive, but that’s because the 4060 Ti sucks. The uplift over its 41 FPS AVG was 31%. The RTX 5070’s 78 FPS AVG has it about 43% ahead of the 5060 Ti.Used RTX 3070 (watch our review) and 3070 Ti cards might be worth exploring: We saw completed and sold listings on eBay ranging from $270 to $340, which would put them below the 5060 Ti if it even hits its marketed MSRP, which it probably won’t. The 3070 is about equal to the 5060 Ti, with the 3070 Ti slightly ahead.AMD’s RX 7800 XT is its closest performer to the 5060 Ti, landing at 58 FPS AVG and leading the 5060 Ti by almost 7%. AMD’s RX 7600 (watch our review) falls way down the chart and runs at 32 FPS AVG. But then again, AMD does overall poorly in this particular game, with its 9070 XT (read our review) down below the RTX 5070. We talked about that in our 9070 series reviews.Finally, NVIDIA’s claimed 50x performance increase over the GTX 1060 (watch our revisit) doesn’t come to fruition when not arbitrarily enabling and disabling favorable settings. The 1060 ran at 16 FPS AVG. 16 x 50 is 800 FPS, which would be 4x the performance of an RTX 5090 (read our review). We’ve gone beyond an RTX 5070 = 4090 and to a RTX 5060 Ti = RTX 9090. In reality, the 5060 Ti is 236% ahead. That’s still a big jump, but no need to stretch the truth about it.FFXIV 1440pAt 1440p, the RTX 5060 Ti landed at 104 FPS AVG, which has it functionally tied with the 3070 Ti’s 108 FPS AVG and only slightly ahead of the 7700 XT’s 98 FPS AVG or 3070’s 97 FPS AVG. The lead over the 3060 Ti is now 16%, or about 25% ahead of the 4060 Ti. These gains are down from 4K. Lows are where you’d expect them for each card, with no meaningful differences.The 5070 is about 47% ahead of the 5060 Ti, slightly up from the lead at 4K.AMD’s 9070 ran at 126 FPS AVG here, producing a 22% advantage. The MSRP is higher, but then so is everything, including the companies that set these prices.The GTX 1060 ran at 33 FPS AVG here, the 1650 (watch our review) at 23 FPS, 6500 XT (watch our review) at 31 FPS, and 3050 (watch our review) at 45 FPS AVG. Predictably, the 5060 Ti is a big improvement over all of these, but again, not 50x.FFXIV 1080pAt 1080p, the 5060 Ti ran at 160 FPS AVG. That’s about the same as the 7700 XT and slightly ahead of the 3070 Ti. It’s finally moving up the relative ranking compared to Ampere. We think you’d still be better off with a used card right now. The 4060 Ti ran at 133 FPS AVG here, so the 5060 Ti improves by 20%. Against the 3060 Ti, the 5060 Ti is about 25% better. The 4060 Ti is finally better than the 3060 Ti when at 1080p, so those two have flipped as well.The lower-end round-up includes the GTX 1060 at 51 FPS AVG, 3050 at 66, 1070 (watch our review) at 70, and 2060 (watch our review) at 83. The 6600 (watch our review) ran at 86 FPS AVG and AMD’s 7600 ran at 107 FPS AVG.Black Myth: Wukong - 4KBlack Myth: Wukong is up now, first at 4K. The 5060 Ti ran at 31 FPS AVG. That’s obviously unplayable and is because of the resolution and settings, but it’s still useful for relative scaling.The result has it about equal to a 7800 XT. The 3080 leads by 18%, with the 5070 leading by 29%. The 3070 Ti ran a lower framerate than the 5060 Ti in this one.Let’s move to something more playable.Black Myth: Wukong - 1440pAt 1440p, the 5060 Ti ran at 57 FPS AVG and landed right between the 7800 XT and RTX 4070 (watch our review). These are all effectively tied. The 5070 held a 72 FPS AVG, or 27% ahead. That’s slightly down from 4K. The 5060 Ti is ahead of the 3070 Ti by 13%, the 4060 Ti by 27%, and the 3060 Ti by 34%. This is one of the games where the 4060 Ti and 3060 Ti are right next to each other. AMD’s 7600 ran at 31.6 FPS AVG and isn’t really in the same class of card as what we’re reviewing today. Its 7800 XT and 7900 GRE (read our review) are the most comparable, but in theory, the inbound 9060 XT should be fighting in this territory.Black Myth: Wukong - 1080pAt 1080p, the 5060 Ti pushed 81 FPS average with lows where you’d expect given the average. There is no particularly special frametime consistency benefit.The 5060 Ti ends up at about the same level as the RTX 3080 and RTX 4070 (watch our review). The 5070, which still doesn’t equal a 4090 (no matter what NVIDIA says), and its 98 FPS AVG puts it 21% ahead of the 5060 Ti.As for the last generations, NVIDIA’s new 5060 Ti leads the 4060 Ti by 24%, or the 3060 Ti by 40%. AMD’s 7900 GRE is its closest card here, slightly ahead of the 5060 Ti, with the 7800 XT just behind. Intel’s B580 cards are at around 46 FPS AVG, which has them similar to the RX 7600.Starfield - 4KIn Starfield at 4K, the 5060 Ti ran at 41 FPS AVG with lows at 34 and 29, proportional to the cards around it. This puts the 3080 ahead of the 5060 Ti and the 5060 Ti ahead of the 3070 Ti. AMD’s 7800 XT outdoes the 5060 Ti by 18%, with the more expensive 9070 non-XT up at 63 FPS AVG.The RTX 5070 ran at 54 FPS AVG here, 32% ahead of the 5060 Ti. We’ll move to 1440p for prior generations.Starfield - 1440pAt 1440p, the 5060 Ti landed at 65 FPS AVG. Unfortunately for NVIDIA, this is a terrible result: The 4060 Ti was at 58 FPS AVG, narrowing the uplift to only 13.4%. That isn’t a big improvement. The lead over the 3060 Ti’s 50 FPS AVG is 30%, also not that impressive for two generations.AMD’s 7800 XT leads the 5060 Ti by 15.5%, with the 9070 (read our review) obviously way ahead given its higher theoretical price and positioning.For those considering used options, the 5060 Ti only outdoes the 3070 Ti by about 8%, making it a reasonable alternative that might save some money.Starfield - 1080pAt 1080p, the 5060 Ti held an 82 FPS AVG with lows positioned about the same as everything around it. The 3070 Ti’s 76 FPS AVG encroaches on the 5060 Ti’s result and, from an actual human perspective, would look about the same. The 4070 outperforms the 5060 Ti by 16%, with the 5070 ahead by 26%. The 4060 Ti’s 74 FPS AVG means the 5060 Ti is about 11% better, overall a boring generational jaunt. The uplift over the 3060 Ti is 28%.Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 4KDragon’s Dogma 2 at 4K is up next.The 5060 Ti ran at 40 FPS AVG, so it’s nearly exactly tied with the 3070 Ti. The 0.2 FPS AVG advantage is well within run-to-run variance. Lows are also tied. AMD’s 7800 XT is 17% ahead of the 5060 Ti’s average FPS, with the 5070 ahead by 41%.We’ll move to lower resolutions to look at the prior generation 60 and 60 Ti-class cards.Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1440pAt 1440p, the 5060 Ti ran at 70 FPS AVG, planting it right in the middle of the 3080 and 7700 XT. The 3070 Ti is right behind with a 65 FPS AVG, with the 4060 Ti at about the level of the 3070. The new 5060 Ti leads the 4060 Ti by 22% and the 3060 Ti with its 53 FPS AVG by 32%.AMD’s 7600 is far down this chart, so it’ll need something newer in the 9060 class to compete here. Intel’s B580 is also down near the RTX 4060 and RX 6600 XT (watch our review).As for what’s better than the 5060 Ti: Other than the 3080, the 4070 is about 12% better and 5070 is about 37% higher average FPS.Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 1080pAt 1080p, the 5060 Ti ran at 93 FPS AVG, landing between the 3080 and 7700 XT again. The improvement over the 4060 Ti is just 19%, followed by the 3060 Ti’s 68 FPS AVG for an uplift of 36%. The 3070 Ti gives the 5060 Ti just a 10% lead, doing better than the 4060 Ti.As for the GTX 1060, considering 50x its performance would put it over 1,100 FPS, we’d say NVIDIA missed the mark on this by orders of magnitude.Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty - 4KCyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty is next. This is newer data, so we haven’t re-run the 4060 Ti, 4060, and 3060 series cards through here yet. We’ll show it anyway for the other comparisons.At 4K/Ultra without RT first, the RTX 5060 Ti ran at 31 FPS AVG. This has it meaningfully ahead of the 3070 Ti by percentage, improved by 19%. The 7800 XT leads the 5060 Ti by about 10% here, with the 5070 about 30% ahead of the 5060 Ti.Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty - 1440pAt 1440p, the 5060 Ti ran at 68 FPS AVG, putting the 5060 Ti between the 3080 and 3070 Ti. The 5070 ends up about 30% ahead with its 88 FPS AVG, meaning that, if we just pretend that the MSRP numbers stick, you’re paying about 1% more money for every 1% more performance between the 16GB 5060 Ti and 5070. Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty - 1080pAt 1080p, the 5070 is down to a 27% lead over the 5060 Ti. The 5060 Ti now leads the 3070 Ti by 20% and the 3070 non-Ti by 27%. The 7800 XT is about 8% ahead of the 5060 Ti here.Let’s move to something where we have last-gen numbers.Dying Light 2 - 1440pDying Light 2 at 1440p is one of the situations that was bad for the 4060 Ti versus the 3060 Ti: The two cards are indistinguishable, with performance identical between them. The RTX 5060 Ti ran at 74 FPS AVG, so it outperforms the 4060 Ti (and therefore 3060 Ti) by about 23%. It took them two generations, but they’ve finally beaten the 3060 Ti in this game. The 4070 is about 6% better than the 5060 Ti here, with the 7800 XT about 14% ahead. The 5070 leads the 5060 Ti by 44% here, so if anything, the 5060 Ti stands to make the 5070 look better. Against the Intel B580’s 63 FPS AVG, NVIDIA’s 5060 Ti is about 17% better in one of the better B580 showings. Dying Light 2 - 1080p1080p has the 3060 Ti and 4060 Ti again roughly adjacent to one another, with the 5060 Ti leading the 4060 Ti by 19%. The 5060 Ti’s lead has diminished from the 1440p result. The 5060 Ti is similar to the 7700 XT’s performance here, including in lows, with the 4070 leading the 5060 Ti by almost 9%.Against older cards, the 5060 Ti improves on the GTX 1060 by not 50x, to nobody’s surprise, and instead by about 3.8x. Even with MFG, you would not get 50x. Maybe with DLSS at Ultra Sh*t quality and upscaling from 144p, we’re not certain you could squeeze 50x out of this lemon, though. You’d have to go out of your way to hurt the 1060.For those still on an RTX 2060, you can expect about a doubling of performance to the 5060 Ti in a scenario like this. Resident Evil 4 - 4KResident Evil 4 is up now, first at 4K and without ray tracing. The RTX 5060 Ti ends up performing about the same as the 7700 XT. The RTX 4070 leads the 5060 Ti by about 10-11% here, at 63 FPS AVG to 57, with the 5070 leading by 38%. That’s similar to what we’ve seen elsewhere so far. The 3060 Ti also launched for $400. Adjusted for inflation, that amounts to $491. The new card is $430. So things haven’t changed that much. The price is similar/slightly lower and performance has hardly improved. The improvement over the 2060 is about 135%. Resident Evil 4 - 1440pAt 1440p, the 5060 Ti leads the 3070 Ti by 13% and the 4060 Ti by 23%, followed by the 3060 Ti at 36.5%. The reduced resolution has benefitted the 4060 Ti marginally, allowing it to distance itself from the 3060 Ti. The B580 (read our review) is actually around the 3060 Ti’s performance, excepting 1% lows.As for the RTX 5070, which remains not a 4090 (watch our review), NVIDIA’s biggest lie leads the 5060 Ti by 36%. AMD still doesn’t have a new and direct competitor here, but probably will in May in the 9060 series. For now, the 7700 XT is the closest and outperforms the 5060 Ti slightly.RTX 5060 Ti Ray Tracing Benchmarks Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!Ray tracing is up next. These games are generally a heavier load, so we have a mix of upscaled benchmarks and of native resolution benchmarks, but all of them are with RT on now.Ray Tracing - Black Myth: Wukong 4KIn Black Myth: Wukong at 4K upscaled, the RTX 5060 Ti landed at 29 FPS AVG. That has it ahead of the RX 9070, which is more of a problem for AMD than it is a positive for NVIDIA. We already knew this about this game and AMD, though. The 9070 XT ends up about tied with the 5060 Ti here, and actually, the 3090 non-Ti (watch our review) at 29.8 FPS AVG is only about 3-4% ahead of the 5060 Ti. This game remains heavily favored for NVIDIA, especially with ray tracing. The RTX 5070 has a large lead at 40 FPS AVG, although its memory capacity can prove problematic in some of these heavier scenarios. The 5070 leads by 39% here. The 5060 Ti also shows more meaningful gains over the 3070 Ti in this test than in some of the raster tests, at 31% improved.Ray Tracing - Black Myth: Wukong 1080pAt 1080p upscaled, the 5060 Ti's 74 FPS AVG has it ahead of the 9070 XT, 3090, and 3080. It also leads the 4060 Ti by 19% and the 3060 Ti's 48 FPS AVG by 57%.The generational RT uplift is helping the 5060 Ti distinguish itself more here than it did when rasterized.Against the first-gen ray tracing 60-class card, the RTX 2060, we're seeing a 175% improvement.Ray Tracing - Dragon’s Dogma 2 4KIn Dragon's Dogma 2 at 4K and with ray tracing, the RTX 5060 Ti ran at 35 FPS AVG and roughly tied (but technically led) the 3070 Ti. That has it better than the 2080 and 2080 Ti of years past, although the 3080 still manages to best the 5060 Ti. AMD's 7900 GRE outperforms the 5060 Ti slightly, with its newer 9070 cards performing up around 3090 Ti levels -- but at a higher theoretical base MSRP than the 5060 Ti.Ray Tracing - Dragon’s Dogma 2 1440pAt 1440p with RT, the 5060 Ti ran at 62 FPS AVG and kept the lows consistent with the average. There's nothing particularly impressive or bad for the frametime consistency and lows. It’s just kind of where we’d expect it. The 4070 and 7800 XT are about 9% ahead of the 5060 Ti. And for that matter, the 3080 is around that same area. The 5070's 82.8 FPS AVG is around 34% ahead of the 62 FPS for the 5060 Ti. We've seen higher in other games.As for the lower-rank cards, the 4060 Ti ran at 49 FPS AVG and yields a 26% uplift to the 5060 Ti. The 3060 Ti isn't far behind the 4060 Ti in this one, but at least they're in the order you'd expect them to be. Ray Tracing - Dragon’s Dogma 2 1080pAt 1080p, the 5060 Ti's 82 FPS AVG landed it between the 3080 and 7700 XT again. This has been consistent. This result gives it a 20% improvement over the 4060 Ti and 37% improvement over the 3060 Ti.Ray Tracing - Dying Light 2 4KDying Light 2 is up next. Dying Light 2 at 4K upscaled with ray tracing has the 5060 Ti at 31.8 FPS AVG and exactly tied with the 7900 GRE for average and 1% lows. The 5070 improves to 43.7 FPS AVG, or 37% once again. This seems to be a fairly consistent percentage improvement to the 5070.Ray Tracing - Dying Light 2 1440pAt 1440p upscaled with RT, the 5060 Ti ran at 60 FPS AVG. We haven't yet re-run the 4060 Ti or 3060 Ti in this one, leaving us to compare instead with the 7900 GRE -- where they're about equal -- and the 3080, which remains a bit ahead of the 5060 Ti. The 5070 leads at 81 FPS AVG, or 34%.Ray Tracing - Dying Light 2 1080pAt 1080p, we re-introduce the 4060 Ti and 3060 Ti. The 5060 Ti's 87 FPS AVG has it about 20% ahead of the 4060 Ti, which itself was only 11% ahead of the 3060 Ti. The B580 is actually somewhat close here, roughly tying the 3060 Ti. As for AMD, the 7900 GRE remains the next closest to the 5060 Ti.Ray Tracing - Resident Evil 4 4KResident Evil 4 is up with ray tracing now, first with 4K and upscaled. The 5060 Ti's 67 FPS AVG has it tied with the 7700 XT, including in the 1% and 0.1% lows. The 4070 and 3080 lead these results, as they have for the past games. The 5070 leads the 5060 Ti by 36%, close to prior results. As for the 4060 Ti, its 52 FPS AVG gives the 5060 Ti a lead of 30% for one of the larger gaps.Ray Tracing - Resident Evil 4 1440pAt 1440p, the 5060 Ti again falls between the 7700 XT and RTX 3080. The lead over the 4060 Ti is narrowed to 24% now, with the uplift over the 3060 Ti at 39%.Ray Tracing - Cyberpunk 1080p RT MediumIn Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty at 1080p RT Medium, the 5060 Ti ran at 63 FPS AVG and sat between the 7900 GRE and 7900 XT. The lead over the 3070 Ti is about 10 FPS AVG here, or 17%. The 5070's 82 FPS AVG has it 31% ahead of the 5060 Ti, down in relative improvement from other benchmarks.Ray Tracing - Cyberpunk 1080p RT UltraAt 1080p and with RT Ultra, the 5060 Ti ran at 50 FPS AVG (which is really not bad when considering how heavy this workload is), or just ahead of the 7900 XT Hellhound. The 3070 Ti hit 40 FPS AVG here, with lows suffering for the 0.1% value. The 5060 Ti's lows are OK in this one, supported by the 16GB capacity.Conclusion Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.We’ve provided the benchmark numbers above. At the very least, you have the data you need to figure out if an upgrade makes sense for you. This is going to be one where we withhold full value judgment until it properly launches because we do not trust the MSRP to persist for the majority of purchasers.It certainly isn’t going to 50x a GTX 1060, though.GPU Price Comparison | GamersNexusApril 2025Used pricing is an average of recent sale prices for used cards on Ebay.GPUPrice at RetailPrice UsedRTX 5060 TiMSRP $430N/ARTX 4070New: No 1st Party AvailableOpen Box: $600$621RTX 4060 Ti (16GB)N/A$540RTX 3080Open Box: $520$449RTX 3070 TiOpen Box: $487$358RTX 3060 TiN/A$266RX 7900 GREN/A$627RX 7800 XTN/A$556RX 7700 XTN/A$472RX 6950 XTN/A$575The 16GB RTX 5060 Ti’s MSRP is set at $430, whether or not we see it at that. That’s better than the previous 16GB 4060 Ti’s launch MSRP of $500, which was atrocious. The 4060 Ti 8GB model was $400, so 8GB more memory used to be a $100 upsell, but no one bought that, so now it’s a $50 upcharge. Accounting for inflation favors the 5060 Ti over the 4060 Ti for the 16GB models with MSRPs. Nearest performance neighbors to the 16GB RTX 5060 Ti are typically the RTX 3080 and RX 7800 XT above, and RX 7700 XT and RTX 3070 Ti commonly below.We’d love to dig into value comparisons between the 5060 Ti and its current competitors, but the availability of GPUs at retail in this price bracket ($380-$480) is terrible. Using Newegg as a representation shows only 9 SKUs of any video card sold by Newegg in stock in that price range, and only one of them is actually brand new. It’s an EVGA RTX 3060 XC (not a Ti) for $440, which is an awful price.So without any new cards to buy in this price bracket, we can look toward used options -- and this is where we think people should be seriously looking.The RX 7900 GRE was around $627 average for sold listings, followed by the RX 6950 XT and 7800 XT at $556-$575 on average and the RX 7700 XT at $472 average.There’s a potential edge case where a good deal on an RX 6950 XT could be an interesting higher-performing wild card – but that’s only if you’re entirely focused on raster performance, and you’re willing to hunt for a deal on one around $500. Higher power consumption is also something to consider. NVIDIA’s 5060 Ti is more efficient.A used RTX 3070 Ti at $358 average would be a good lower-performing budget option below the MSRP of a new RTX 5060 Ti of any capacity. We found some that were in the upper $280-$290 to lower $310 range, which would be worth seriously considering. VRAM may be limiting in some situations. The RTX 3080 is going for around $449 and typically beats or is close to the 5060 Ti. The 3080 isn’t cheap enough on the second-hand market yet to get our strong recommendation in this specific scenario. That’s doubly the case for used RTX 4070s at the time of writing, which are newer and have been selling for $621 on average.And that brings us to what we’ve said a lot in the past: if your computer is doing what you need it to do and if you don’t feel a need to upgrade, then we’d say hold off. But some people do either “need” to buy new devices to replace aging hardware or just really want the escape of building a PC, which we also appreciate and relate to. It’s just going to come down to your price tolerance.Right now, we really don’t have the answers. We’re trying to figure them out, which is why we’re currently flying all around the US at our own expense to talk to companies about the pricing situation. We hate to not be able to give a value judgment at the end of a review, but until this card is actually available -- which will coincide with the launch of this review -- we just can’t know what it’s going to cost.Once it is, we’re going to do a recap either in the news or standalone.Just for context: We just met with a distributor that buys hundreds of thousands of GPUs per year. Last week, we saw their cost to buy RTX 5090s. The cheapest was around $2,400 up to $3,000, and that’s their cost. That means $2,000 is impossible. We’re not sure to what extent that’ll affect the 5060 Ti cards, especially after the launch period where pressure to maintain the price is off.Now maybe that’ll change with the partial tariff exemptions, but those are up in the air.

GPUs AMD Fake Frame Image Quality, AFMF, & FSR 4 vs. FSR 3.1 ComparisonApril 21, 2025Last Updated: 2025-04-21We compare AMD's in-game frame generation, AFMF, and FSR against “native” rendering in many gamesThe HighlightsOur tests were performed using an AMD RX 9070 XT and RX 7900 XTXWith frame generation, you still get some really nasty images that aren’t representative of how the game was intended to lookFSR 4 generally improves image quality and stability over prior versionsTable of ContentsAutoTOC Grab a GN15 All-Over Print Component Mouse Mat for a high-quality mousing surface that'll fit your keyboard & mouse. These mouse mats use a high-quality yellow rubber underside, a blue stitched border for fray resistance, and are covered in PC parts. This is the best way to support our work and keeps us ad-free to support consumer-first reviews!IntroToday, we're giving AMD the NVIDIA treatment: We're inspecting AMD's fake frames to compare them to real frames, but we aren't yet comparing NVIDIA's fake frames to AMD's fake frames, because that'll come later.That means that this article will include frame-by-fake frame analysis of AMD's generated images versus native-only rendering.Editor's note: This was originally published on April 8, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsTest Lead, Host, WritingSteve BurkeTesting, Writing, QCPatrick LathanJeremy ClaytonVideo EditingVitalii MakhnovetsTim PhetdaraAndrew ColemanWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangSometimes, you can see ghost images, such as in Kratos' swing over this snowy background, where there's a blurring of the axe and arms as AFMF, or Advanced Fluid Motion Frames from AMD, interpolates in-between frames. We'll also talk about FSR 4 vs. prior FSR iterations and native: In some scenes, like the one above, image clarity and stability are greatly improved over prior FSR versions. The Ultramarine's armor and hanging cables both show significant improvement in the newer version versus the older.In other scenes, like the one above showing an air assault, we can see heavy warping with FSR 3.1, but still modulation with FSR 4 for the flying units. The ground assault shows issues with shadows pulsing underneath the Tyrannids in both versions. Smeared trails behind NPCs and barrels are improved upon with FSR 4, but sometimes still present.So, we'll be looking at AMD's Fidelity FX Super Resolution version 4 with the new RX 9070 XT (read our review) GPUs and comparing it against the prior version. This is an image quality specific test, and like we said in the NVIDIA coverage of DLSS and MFG, not all fake frames are created fake equal. This will look at that in part. What we're not doing here yet is comparing FSR 4 and AFMF to DLSS and MFG. That might be a later piece if there's interest, but we need to lay the groundwork for each technology independently first.One important thing to remember with all of this, just like with NVIDIA’s that we looked at, is that we’re closely inspecting these images today for image quality. That means we’re pausing things and zooming in. In real play, it’s likely that some of these differences would go unnoticed at full speed and “zoomed out.” One other note is that YouTube/video compression makes things sometimes difficult to fully appreciate.Let’s get into it.FSR 4 OverviewAMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) upscaling has finally moved into the “AI” buzzword era with FSR 4’s machine-learned Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model co-developed with Sony. Sony and AMD announced a collaboration effort back in December of 2024, dubbed “Project Amethyst.”Sony strongly implied that it’s going to use a rebranded version of FSR 4 as its own “PSSR” in order to target 1080p native rendering on the PS5 Pro, but with the upscaler doing the work to output a good looking image at “4K.” On the PC side, FSR 4 will only run on the new Radeon RX 9000 series graphics cards for the time being, with no official word on back-porting to RX 7000. We’re unsure at this time whether it’s a technical limitation or a product segmentation move on AMD’s part.The official support list for FSR 4 has 36 games at the time of writing, which is late March. That’s not a lot, but the number will hopefully grow as more games are updated. Several of the listed games are big Sony titles as well, indicating that the company is serious about utilizing the tech, but also shows the partnership between them.The previous generation, FSR 3.1, is technologically distinct from its predecessor (FSR 3) by way of being implemented as a modular .dll file rather than being entirely baked-in to the game. This paves the way for future revisions of FSR to be more easily implemented by the game developers or just in general.FSR 4 also uses a .dll file, and can be swapped-in officially in FSR 3.1 games via a driver-level override in AMD’s Adrenaline software in a very similar way to NVIDIA’s DLSS override. However, the games have to also be on AMD’s official whitelist to get the toggle to appear in the driver software. Unofficial tools like OptiScaler open the door for a lot more flexibility, but we haven’t tested them yet so we can’t make a recommendation, but there’s stuff like that out there.AFMF 2.1 OverviewAMD also includes in-game frame generation, or “fake frames,” under its FSR umbrella, and we haven't seen any indication from AMD that its in-game framegen algorithm has changed since FSR 3.1. In AMD's words, "Advanced frame generation interpolation technology when used with AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) 3 inserts 1 frame between existing ones."However, AMD also has separate driver level frame generation known as Advanced Fluid Motion Frames (AFMF) that can be applied without in-game support. AFMF 2.1 is a new introduction alongside FSR 4.0. To use it, you need AMD Software: Adrenalin Edition 25.3.1 or newer, RX 6000 or newer, and a DX11, 12, or Vulkan game. RX 6000 only supports AFMF in exclusive fullscreen mode, while RX 7000 and newer support borderless windowed, and the AMD 9070 (read our review) reviewer guide stated that "in-game display setting should be set to borderless fullscreen mode." And that's a lot of rules, but keep in mind that Smooth Motion, NVIDIA's answer to AFMF, is exclusive to the RTX 50-series. NVIDIA has stated that "support for GeForce RTX 40 Series GPUs will be coming in a future update." We're focusing on AFMF 2.1 here, so this isn't a direct 1:1 equivalent to the piece we just ran on NVIDIA's in-game frame-gen, but we’ll also be looking at the frame generation performance for AMD. For this article, the performance we care about is image quality, and not the actual literal framerate performance. That will be a separate test along with potentially latency. This is an isolated test so that we can build foundational knowledge first, just like we did for NVIDIA. The direct comparison would be NVIDIA Smooth Motion versus AMD Fluid Motion Frames, but we’re focusing on just AMD today. That comparison may come later.As for FSR testing, our FSR comparisons will focus on FSR 3.1 vs. FSR 4, with a couple references to native capture as an anchor. We captured everything at 4K resolution with FSR running at the Performance preset, meaning it’s upscaling from 1080p base render resolution. We disabled anti-aliasing, camera effects, and motion blur where possible to get the cleanest images we could.The objectives today are purely image quality, not performance. We’ll be comparing frame-by-fake-frame image quality, FSR iteration quality, and looking at behavioral patterns in general.Let’s get into the image quality comparisons.Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine 2First up is Warhammer 40K Space Marine 2. Like everything else we tested for this piece, FSR 4 support comes by way of the driver-level override. We used the High graphics preset, turned off camera shake, and set motion blur to off; however, we found the latter doesn’t actually work and motion blur persists regardless, but that’s a game thing.ArmoryWe’ll start the comparisons with a scene in the Armory, or “Armouring Hall” in native Grimdark. Even before walking forward, the difference between FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 is stark. Static elements like the floor of the walkway that shift and shimmer heavily with FSR 3.1 are now stably locked-in. On top of that, the entire image is much clearer and more detailed. Examples of this include the floor, where we see improved image stability and clarity, the Ultramarine’s armor showing similar improvements in a side-by-side, the distant hanging cables, and the tech priests’ hoods. Distant candle flames that can’t even be made out with FSR 3.1 are visible with FSR 4, bringing them back into existence.As we walk forward and the… we’ll call it a “kiosk,” drops down, the difference in clarity is so obvious it’s almost like looking at two different resolutions. No matter where you look there’s improvement. The fine details under the main monitor, the tech priest’s mask, and even just the general contrast and visual discernability of all the mechanical arms and tubes are all vastly improved. We double-checked our settings and confirmed that they were running as intended for a like-for-like comparison, so it really is just that much better in this example.This is a very promising start for FSR 4.Let’s compare FSR 4 to native 4K. Space Marine 2 forces either TAA or upscaling at all times (even at native), so we went with the default of TAA for the native capture. We also did this in our DLSS comparison, which showed how some scenarios, like Cyberpunk, can actually look worse than upscaling because of TAA.The flickering and shimmering on the floor in Space Marine 2 we saw with FSR 3.1 is also present at native with TAA. That makes FSR 4 look even more impressive here – even at the performance preset – since it’s taming an undesirable behavior. We said this before, but we shouldn’t be seeing things that look worse with all defaults at native than with an upscaling technology. General detail before moving – like in the floor, walls, and priest hoods – is a toss-up between native with TAA and FSR 4 Performance mode. That’s simultaneously a critique of TAA and a praise of FSR 4. The green orb far in the distance looks very slightly better with native TAA. As the “kiosk” drops down, the level of detail between native with TAA and FSR 4 Performance is very close. However, we think FSR 4 actually comes out slightly ahead – most obviously in the round speaker-looking elements on top of a couple of the monitors.Like we said in the DLSS piece, upscaling should never look better than “native,” and game developers shouldn’t be leaning on upscaling technologies in this way. The only reason it ever does look better is because of issues such as those with TAA, which is the default here.CommandWe’ll briefly look at another indoor scene in the campaign’s command bridge before moving on to a mission. Again, everything is sharper, clearer, and easier to discern when using FSR4. Gadriel’s face, Titus’ hair, and Chairon’s armor – particularly the chest decoration – stand out as night-and-day differences.Looking at the bridge’s holographic map area, FSR 3.1 suffers from distracting flickering on some of the round grates (underneath the three skulls and on the right side of the main terminal). Switching to FSR 4 almost entirely eliminates this behavior. The thin lines within the hologram that shimmer and boil with FSR 3.1 come across as much cleaner with FSR 4. The other ship visible out the left windows doesn’t show much difference, however.It could be that the largest areas of improvement with FSR 4 are in dimly-lit or low contrast scenes. We’ll test that with the next comparison.“Decapitation” Mission - Scene 1Loading into the “Decapitation” Operations mission gives us a brighter outdoor area. While the marine’s armor is again visibly better-looking with FSR 4, the effect on the rest of the scene is more subtle, more like lifting a haze rather than a transformation. You can clearly see this in the texture of the ground and on the shoulders of the statues.Once in motion, FSR 3.1 starts to deteriorate, but FSR 4 keeps the image clean. Unfortunately, the bugged permanent motion blur makes it hard to draw a distinction between the two FSR revisions while the marine is rolling down the stairs. Elements such as the detail in the inlaid stone floor and the buildings to the right look better during motion with FSR 4. So far, it looks like most of the FSR 3-to-4 improvements are visible in motion.“Decapitation” Mission - Scene 2Strafing to the side shows off a huge improvement favoring FSR 4 over FSR 3.1. Every single element on screen looks better with FSR 4 – the textures on the sides of the stairs, the statues, the murals against the far wall, and the guardsmen. It again gives the impression of running at a higher resolution.This would be a very interesting scene to compare the most up to date implementations of DLSS and FSR head-to-head in a future piece.“Decapitation” Mission - Scene 3Last for Space Marine 2 is an upscaling torture test by way of a slow pan of the Tyrranid assault. The flying creatures passing over the front of the massive building cause the windows to warp and blur heavily when using FSR 3.1. It still happens with FSR 4, but to a lesser extent. This is close to a worst case scenario for any upscaler, period.In both the air and on the ground, FSR 3.1 causes the creatures to blur into a mass, sometimes phasing in and out of existence or blending together. FSR 4 isn’t totally immune here either, but again does a way better job than the prior version.Since this scenario is so hard on upscalers, let’s compare to native with its forced TAA again. Watching the flying creatures in front of the windows shows us what it’s supposed to look like, free of the heavy warping seen with FSR 3.1, or even the warping-lite modulation seen with FSR 4.Looking at the ground assault again shows just how well FSR 4 is handling this relative to FSR 3.1. It’s very close to the look of the native capture, but still suffers from an effect that makes the shadows underneath the Tyrranids appear to pulse and shift underneath them. At this level of fine detail and chaotic movement, even native with TAA struggles a little bit with grain and warp. Some areas are cleaner, but like we said earlier, this particular game has toss-up comparisons between them.Monster Hunter WildsMonster Hunter Wilds is up next. We used the High graphics preset, but turned off anti-aliasing and camera effects like motion blur, vignette, and depth of field. We also reduced camera shake to its minimum levels. Cutscenes are entirely in-engine, which is useful, so we got a mix of those with some actual in-game capture.Title ScreenTaking a quick look at the title screen animation shows little difference between FSR 3.1 and FSR 4. Textures and edges are slightly sharper with FSR 4. The stippled effect on fur as seen with FSR 3.1 is also almost entirely gone with FSR 4. There’s not much else to discuss here so we’ll move on.OasisJumping into the actual game at the point you choose your weapon by the small oasis shows an ugly pattern superimposed over the sand when using FSR 3.1 that goes away with FSR 4. It doesn’t make the game unplayable or anything, but it’s pretty distracting.When talking to Alma, we can see that FSR 4 handles the fine strands of her hair a little better than FSR 3.1 does. It also adds sharpness to the weapons immediately to her left. While running towards the training barrel, we see that FSR 4 keeps the detail of the hunter’s clothes and equipment sharper. It’s not a huge difference, however.Going to CampThe long cutscene that takes you to the main camp shows much the same. FSR 4 has a slight advantage to image quality via sharpness and minor detail enhancement. Hair, fur, and feathers benefit the most by way of FSR 4 reducing the appearance of patterns or stippling superimposed over them.One clear difference is in trails behind objects moving across a patterned background. For example, when the two Felynes drop the barrel, it leaves a smeared trail behind it on the wooden walkway, as does the NPC on the left side of the screen and the unfortunate Felyne as it falls backwards. We think FSR 3.1 handles this very poorly – FSR 4, while not perfect, definitely does better.Considering what we saw in Space Marine 2, the less drastic differences between FSR revisions in Monster Hunter Wilds is surprising.Marvel RivalsThe final game we'll analyze for FSR upscaling is Marvel Rivals. To keep things consistent, we used the training range to gather footage.Rocket JumpStatic scenes don’t differ much between FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 in Rivals, possibly because of the game’s art style and strong default sharpening filter. We’ll need to look at movement to suss out the differences, and blasting forward with Rocket’s dash is a good place to begin.Even before dashing, we can see a blob of pixels around Rocket’s head getting distorted in the FSR 3.1 recording, which isn’t nearly as pronounced with FSR 4. As soon as we blast forward, FSR 3.1 turns into an over-sharpened, grainy mess, as seen on Rocket’s gun, jetpack, tail, and the ground below. FSR 4 is able to cope with the sudden movement far more gracefully, and only gets bad around the finer points of detail like the spikes on Rocket’s knees and the hair/fur on his head.Rocket StrafeNext we strafed to the side while shooting. Before moving, we can see a repeating pattern overlaid on the left side of the ground, similar to what we saw in Monster Hunter Wilds, that’s not present with FSR 4.Once we do start moving and shooting, FSR 4 retains more detail in the bullet trails than with FSR 3.1. After dropping off the first ledge and reloading, FSR 3.1 responds to all the motion by giving everything in the vicinity of Rocket’s model a kind of deep-fried-meme look, and ghosting on the trailing edge of his jetpack. There’s still a little bit of ghosting with FSR 4, but it’s greatly reduced – and the deep-fried look is gone.Rocket WallrunLast, we tried a wallrun. FSR 3.1 handled it overall better than we anticipated, but still left horrible ghost images as Rocket climbs up across the purple banner. FSR 4 still has them slightly, but they’re not noticeable to us at full speed in real-time.For the rest of the run, there’s not a huge difference between the two FSR revisions outside of a slight clarity advantage and reduced ghosting with FSR 4.AFMF 2.1 Image Comparisons Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)We’re getting into the AFMF and frame generation comparisons now. We’ll play some side-by-side, frame-by-frame comparisons while setting this section up.For comparison purposes, we selected games that support in-game frame generation to compare with driver-level changes. In the real world, you should almost always opt for in-game frame generation over AFMF at the driver if in-game is available. The most obvious downside of AFMF is that it has no awareness of UI elements, so menus, text, and icons may be distorted (although we saw NVIDIA struggle with this even with in-game frame generation).All footage for AFMF comparisons was captured at 4K 120FPS. A 7900 XTX (watch our review) with Adrenalin 25.2.1 was used for AFMF 2.0 capture and a 9070 XT with Adrenalin 25.3.1 was used for everything else. AFMF Search Mode was set to High and Performance Mode was set to Quality, the recommended settings for our setup. AMD is more direct than NVIDIA about recommending framegen only in scenarios where the game can already run at at least 60FPS, and we stuck to that recommendation.As with NVIDIA framegen, the vendor's capture utility (Radeon ReLive in this case) was the most practical way to capture, but because we can't manipulate the rate of frame generation (like we could for NVIDIA), we'll have to rely more on frame-by-frame comparisons. We constantly had issues with AMD's Record & Stream tab disappearing after reboots, so if AMD is reading this, please fix that (and yes, our IGP is disabled).Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine 2We used the same settings for Space Marine 2 that we did for the FSR comparisons, with Resolution Upscaling set to FSR and Render Resolution set to Native since it can't be explicitly disabled. We set Motion Blur Intensity to Off even though the setting doesn't work. Framegen worked with fullscreen enabled, so we left that setting alone.ScreenshakeWe’ll start with the worst-case scenario.We recorded an additional scene in Space Marine 2 to show the downsides of frame generation. These clips aren't tightly controlled or synchronized; we just loaded into the main hub and shook the mouse around violently, so we’ll freeze frame some parts to show the issues. Besides making it very obvious that motion blur was still on (despite being toggled off), this allows us to see multiple frames where AFMF is definitely applied on top of UI elements like the "Assemble" waypoint. Applying frame generation on top of UI elements can cause ghosting and duplication of UI elements, which just looks bad. We can compare this to the in-game frame generation option, which is also a garbled, muddy mess in this scenario, with distortions around the edges that almost look like eye floaters. It completely breaks in this scenario, but perfectly preserves the UI layer even in the worst frames. Rapid movements like this aren't out of the question for mouse-and-keyboard users. They’re especially common in certain types of games, like shooters in particular where a fast or twitchy response necessitates them. Compared to native, these types of rapid movement scenarios are a worse experience with frame generation.ArmoryOur armory scene is relatively slow, but we can still see the effects of frame generation on moving limbs versus native rendering. The telltale sign of generated frames here is the slight blurring of detail on the marine's armor in frame-by-frame playback, like the back of his right leg as he passes under the light, but this is only really visible when closely examining individual frames in a specific location. The mandatory motion blur and application of FSR also help disguise the generated frames, since both of these effects lead to the same kind of temporal smearing that generated frames are subject to.The frame-by-frame playback of AFMF 2.0 versus 2.1 reveals greater differences, with a prominent secondary image surrounding the marine's right arm in advance of its movement in the next "real" frame. This only affects moving elements of the scene; there's no noticeable sign of frame generation in the relatively static background even with the older version.“Decapitation” Mission - Scene 1By rolling down the stairs, we can see a weak point of frame generation, although the inescapable motion blur makes it harder to detect. There are multiple frames where the fine details on the marine's armor are blurred, like the bottoms of his boots where lines are lost. Moving frame by frame with native and AFMF 2.1 capture side by side, there's a clear difference between the even and predictable motion blur and the irregular, faded outlines of generated frames. The marine's feet change position more than any other part of his armor during the dive and roll, which is why they're especially prone to blurring and transparency.The generated frames are also identifiable by ghosting behind the bullets being fired in the background, with classic ghosting behavior causing an undesirable look. In our recent piece discussing NVIDIA's framegen, we noted similar behavior with raindrops that made the rain effects look softer and more transparent in motion.Comparing AFMF 2.0 to 2.1 at similar framerates, 2.1 appears to have less ghosting than 2.0, which should help make the effect less noticeable during gameplay. In each generated frame of the AFMF 2.0 capture, there's a clear secondary image of the marine in advance of the next real frame, as we noted to a lesser degree in the armory scene. Blurring and loss of detail can be issues, but ghosting is a much more visible downside of framegen and one that can ruin the experience. A comparison to in-game frame generation at the same timestamp demonstrates that it's predictably much better at preserving detail, since it's given more information to work with directly from the game engine. The in-game generation causes a crisp outline in advance of the marine's movement, visible above around his gun and his arms, but the detail within his boots isn't distorted at all. This could still lead to the shimmering outlines that we saw with NVIDIA's framegen, but the individual frames are closer to reality than with AFMF.“Decapitation” Mission - Scene 2We'll start off this next scene with another native comparison to establish which elements are due to regular motion blur and which are due to frame generation. The AFMF 2.1 capture matches native with its rendered frames, but it's interspersed with generated frames where the marine's armor loses sharpness on the fast-moving legs. That's clearly the area we need to focus on, so we can move to a 2.0 versus 2.1 comparison with that knowledge.Walking sideways in front of a light background makes the difference between 2.0 and 2.1 more obvious, with 2.1 showing some slight irregularities around the edges of the marine's legs where 2.0 shows massive secondary images. As usual, the resulting effect would be easier to notice in motion if there weren't already other blurring effects forced on us with this game.God of War RagnarökGod of War ran well above 60FPS on the 9070 XT even at Ultra, which made it harder to capture generated frames, so we kept our testing brief. The ultra preset was used with motion blur, film grain, and camera shake disabled. We expected FSR to be forced when in-game framegen was enabled, but the options menu didn't reflect that, so the scaling method was set to TAA and the quality to Native for all tests (scaling cannot be explicitly disabled).AxeAs expected, the moments of rapid movement during Kratos' windup and swing are the most difficult for AFMF to deal with. Whereas the native capture clearly shows each frame of his arms and the axe as it moves, the AFMF 2.1 capture has individual frames with obvious attempts at interpolation. This is most noticeable directly on the models, since the trail of particles behind the axe is already an intentional smear.By swinging Kratos' axe in front of the white snowy background, we can clearly see ghost images with the older AFMF 2.0 frame generation. Direct frame by frame comparison is more difficult here due to the lower frequency of generated frames, but it's clear that the generated frames with 2.0 more commonly have ghosting around the axe and even Kratos' model. 2.1 shows some artifacts as well, but it's usually in the form of unevenness in the outline of the axe and Kratos' arm as they swing forward, while the core of his model is better preserved.Checking back against God of War's specific implementation of in-game frame generation, we see the same behavior as in Space Marine 2 where the details of Kratos and the axe are excellently preserved, but there's a distinct outline where framegen has done its version of content aware fill in the area that those objects will occupy in the next real frame. In comparison, the fullscreen AFMF 2.1 effect has more distortion around the usual axe and arm area.LogThe movement of the axe in this small QTE was too rapid for either 2.0 or 2.1 to keep up with, with the large deltas between frames leading to a similar appearance from both AFMF versions. The head of the axe appears doubled in some generated frames, with additional distortion around the handle. It's difficult for any type of frame generation to compensate for large deltas between frames, which is part of why AMD recommends running at 60FPS before turning it on (with latency being the other part).Marvel RivalsMarvel Rivals is next.Mantis 3Starting with the jump pad, we can see at the beginning of this scene that both AFMF 2.0 and 2.1 show ghosting on the rings that rise up from the pad. Once in motion, both iterations have trouble keeping up with the rapid movement, but 2.1 does a moderately better job of preserving Mantis' outline. The distance between the secondary image and the core of Mantis' model with 2.0 creates a greater blurring effect, and although the generated frames with 2.1 only roughly maintain the shape of her hands and feet, the resulting silhouette is stronger. As she approaches the apex of the jump, the distortion occurs in the background instead, with 2.0 more commonly showing doubling of scenery elements like the railing immediately in front of her.Marvel Rivals' in-game frame generation version behaved in the same way as God of War's and Space Marine 2's,  with crisp outlines around the next known position of Mantis' model, visible above the knees in these frames, coupled with some afterimages trailing behind the arms. The overall effect is still far cleaner than AFMF, especially since the artifacts only apply to Mantis' model, leaving the scene behind her almost completely clear of framegen problems.Mantis 2We don't recommend using framegen for games like Marvel Rivals where latency is a concern and rapid mouse movements are common. Framegen is kind of like v-sync in that at best it's a cosmetic upgrade maybe, and at worst it's a source of latency. In this scene, we can see distortion around Mantis' hands with AFMF 2.1 in advance of the motion they're about to make as she fires, but a rendered frame was buffered in order to generate that image, whereas without framegen, rendered frames are simply delivered when they're ready.Notice also that with AFMF, Luna Snow's nametag is distorted on the first frame where the camera shakes, which is a further disadvantage of AFMF versus in-game frame generation. Using the in-game option, the nametag is preserved.Cyberpunk 2077In Cyberpunk, we used the High preset without ray tracing and set FSR 3 to Native AA, since FSR was required in order to enable in-game framegen.CarFirst is a car scene. Keeping an eye on the headlight beam as it passes over shrubs and rocks to the right of the road, we can see that the scenery appears to wiggle slightly with AFMF 2.1 as the generated frames don't place objects in precisely the correct location. With AFMF 2.0 in the same areas, there's a much simpler loss of detail as every generated frame is a blurry mess. The area on the shoulder that tracked slightly wrong with 2.1 is instead completely layered with a ghost image with 2.0; we prefer the newer version here, but native rendering without fake frames still looks cleanest.Moving to a 2.1 versus native comparison, we can see that the wiggling behavior is definitely an artifact of AFMF and not something carried over from the original native render. The native capture has fewer frames, obviously, but the objects to the right side of the road track in a clear, straight line between frames as opposed to the slight side-to-side shifting with AFMF 2.1. Native should typically be crisper, even if less smooth, so this makes sense.BenchmarkUsing the game's built-in benchmark scene, we can again see that 2.1 is more prone to distortion in areas where 2.0 would blur and ghost, with the vertical pillar here turning into a wavy line in fake frames. As the camera passes the corner with pages from the Night City Journal, 2.1 does a much better job of preserving text and fine detail where 2.0 just ghosts. Moving to a later part of the scene, frame by frame playback reveals more distortion visible with 2.1 as the camera passes over the barbed wire fence: straight lines remain clear with 2.1, but they don't remain straight. As usual, 2.0's equivalent is a fully duplicated ghost image of the fence in each generated frame.Again, we can check back against the native footage for confirmation that the behavior we're seeing comes from AFMF. The horizontal fence bars are straight and uninterrupted in each frame of the native capture, whereas they're frequently broken up and uneven in the AFMF 2.1 footage, although AFMF 2.1 does do a fairly good job of preserving the scene behind the fence without major framegen distortion.Conclusion Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.In terms of image quality, FSR 4.0 is an improvement over FSR 3.1. And AFMF 2.1 is an improvement over 2.0. Both of these are good things because if those weren’t the case, then AMD is using numbers wrong. Whether or not it’s worth using these technologies at all is more situational, just like with DLSS. First of all, it’s going to be highly specific to the games and also the person playing them. The use case for these, take FSR for example, is definitely a good alternative to lowering the settings, but when we’ve polled our audience in the past, there are a lot of people who prefer to lower the settings than to use an upscaling approach like FSR or DLSS. It’s really going to be something that users should toggle and decide if they like. While that might sound like a wishy-washy answer, that is the answer. It is very situational. The good news is that it’s easy to turn these technologies on and off to see if you like it. Some people will prefer the higher graphics quality with the potential image quality losses that upscaling technologies provide and other people won’t. Going back to whether it’s worth turning on, the best answer we can provide is that we think it’s a good alternative, just like DLSS, to lowering settings in some games compared to running games at lower performance. So if you’re trying to fix performance issues and you want the higher settings, generally speaking, both the newest versions of DLSS and FSR work well for that. In the games we tested using FSR 4.0 as an override was an improvement over past versions, which is good. While AMD has made improvements to these technologies, the question you should ask is whether you want to use them at all. With frame generation, you still get some really nasty images that aren’t representative of how the game was intended to look. You get ghosting, doubling up of images, and distortion of text. A lot of people will see that and want to turn it off. This will also depend on the game. It’s a little less clear what the decision should be on the upscaling front because it will depend on how much you’re struggling to run a particular game. It becomes a choice of sacrifice between graphics settings or image quality crispness. For some people, it may not be a choice if the game is running too poorly. Overall, FSR 4, just like DLSS 4, is an improvement over its preceding version. This is what we want to see. But like DLSS, the degree of improvement on the scale of a little bit better vs totally transformative, it’s going to be closer to the a-little-better side. It won’t change how you fundamentally see games. Next, we may look at FSR 4 vs DLSS vs XeSS in a future content piece. That will let us look at the direct comparison between competitors.

Tariffs TimelineApril 23, 2025Last Updated: 2025-04-24We provide a detailed breakdown and timeline of the tariffs impacting the United StatesThe HighlightsThe US has imposed wide-spread tariffs on most of the countries in the worldOur timeline chronicles the shifting nature of the tariffsTariffs have impacted the pricing and availability of hardware in the US Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)Our timeline below accompanies our deep-dive investigation into the impact of the tariffs roll-out on the computer hardware industry. Our investigation focused on not just the percentages, but specifically, the way in which they were announced and applied. We flew around the country to meet with factories in the US, manufacturers who use contract manufacturing in other countries (like China, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, so forth), German manufacturers, and more. Our interview list included Hyte, Thermal Grizzly, Protocase/45 Drives, iBUYPOWER, CyberPower PC, Corsair Components, freight forwarding company Straight Forwarding, and Louis Rossmann of Rossmann Repair.You can find that video embedded below. Below that, we have included the entire timeline of tariff changes that we could find. It is dated back to 2018. Please note that we have likely missed a few things, as this situation changes nearly daily and our regular coverage spectrum has not traditionally included following these changes; however, we believe we have compiled all of the major changes that are directly relevant to this story, particularly as it relates to computer hardware. This was a huge team effort at GN and required a massive investment in travel and time to complete our 3-hour documentary. If you find it educational, we ask that you please support us directly by buying something from our store. You can find high heat resistant project and soldering mats, PC building Modmats, T-shirts with paper launch GPUs or Honey Pots from our lawsuit against PayPal, copper-plated stainless steel mule mugs with thermal conductivity written on them, tabletop gaming dice with embedded inductors or cats, and more. Thank you.CreditsHost, Writing, Lead EditingSteve BurkeLead Camera, Storyboarding, EditingVitalii MakhnovetsPre-Cut, LabelingMike GaglioneTim PhetdaraAnimations, LabelingAndrew ColemanWriting, ResearchJimmy ThangBen BensonUS Tariffs TimelineThis timeline is sorted chronologically. We have attempted to present it as neutrally as feasible and from a place of covering the impact and events. As a part of this effort, we are also including links to sources with ideologies we may not agree with, but which we believe are appropriate for establishing the timeline of events.Note on SourcesOur intent is to cite primary sources, including government documents, and a variety of secondary sources. In some cases, we link only to secondary news stories. This can occur when a government announcement happens during briefings or interviews with reporters.Background: Tariffs During The First Trump Administration & Biden Administration Jan. 22, 2018: The Trump Administration imposed tariffs on solar panel components and residential washing machines. Solar panel components had a 30% tariff, which would decline over four years. The administration levied a tariff of 20% on the first 1.2 million imported washers, which could increase to 50%. March 8, 2018: President Trump announced a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% tariff on aluminum imports for many countries, not including Canada and Mexico. Federal Register (1, 2)NPR May 31, 2018: The Trump Administration imposed a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% tariff on aluminum imports for Canada, Mexico and the European Union. The administration said it had “reached arrangements on steel with Australia, Argentina, and Brazil, and with Australia and Argentina on aluminum.”June 29, 2018: Canada announced tariffs targeted at U.S. steel and aluminum products, in addition to other goods. The tariffs would go into effect on July 1, 2018. Sept. 18, 2018: The United States issued $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports, citing the need to protect “intellectual property.” Government Trade ReleaseMay 17, 2019: The United States removed tariffs for steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico.July 1, 2020: The USMCA - a trade agreement among the United States, Canada and Mexico - goes into effect. USMCA TextSept. 30, 2021: In a Politico interview, a Biden administration official said the United States will “build on” existing tariffs that are levied against China.PoliticoMay 14, 2024: The Biden Administration increased tariffs on imports from China for electric vehicles, solar cells, lithium-ion vehicle batteries, and semiconductors, among other products. Tariff increases ranged from 25% to 100%. Sept. 13, 2024: The Biden Administration finalized tariff rates and exceptions from the May tariff announcement. Updates included new timing, rates and exclusions for some medical devices, solar manufacturing equipment, and wafers. Government Trade Release Tariffs During The Second Trump Administration  Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.Monday, Jan. 20 On inauguration day, President Trump said the U.S. government would implement 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, starting on Feb. 1. SourcesAssociated PressSunday, Jan. 26 The Trump Administration said it would impose 25% tariffs on imports from Colombia after an immigration dispute. In response, the Colombian government threatened 25% tariffs on imports from the United States. The situation deescalated after the two countries reached an agreement.  SourcesSaturday, Feb. 1The Trump Administration announced 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. Energy imports from Canada would have a lower tariff rate of 10%.The Trump Administration announced 10% tariffs on imports from China. The tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China would go into effect on February 4. SourcesMonday, Feb. 3The Trump Administration agreed to a 30-day pause on tariffs with Canada and Mexico after negotiations. President Trump told reporters that the European Union could face tariffs soon.SourcesTuesday, Feb. 4The United States imposed a 10% tariff on imports from China, as announced on February 1. China announced new tariffs on imports from the United States, including a 15% duty on coal and liquefied natural gas. China also announced 10% tariffs on imported crude oil, agricultural machinery, and pickup trucks. These tariffs would go into effect on February 10. China announced export controls on several minerals and began investigating Google for antitrust violations. SourcesChina - Government Documents (1, 2, 3)Associated PressCNNBBCMonday, Feb. 10In a continuation of tariffs from 2018, the Trump Administration announced a 25% tariff on imported steel and aluminum, which would go into effect on March 12. The administration stopped providing exemptions for steel and aluminum imports from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, the European Union, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. To avoid confusion with other tariff names, we will refer to these as steel tariffs and aluminum tariffs going forward. China’s tariffs on imports against the United States went into effect, as announced on Feb. 4. SourcesThursday, February 13The Trump Administration announced the Fair and Reciprocal Plan, a trade plan intended “to reduce [the United States’] large and persistent annual trade deficit in goods and to address other unfair and unbalanced aspects of [its] trade with foreign trading partners.” The White House said the trade plan would determine “the equivalent of a reciprocal tariff with respect to each foreign trading partner.” To avoid confusion with other tariff names, we will use the reciprocal tariff naming for these specific tariffs going forward.  SourcesMonday, March 3The Trump Administration raised tariffs on imports from China from 10% to 20%. SourcesTuesday, March 4The United States’ 20% tariffs on imports from China go into effect. The United States’ 25% tariffs on imports from Canada go into effect. The United States taxed Canadian energy imports at 10%, rather than 25%. The United States’ 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico go into effect. SourcesChina announced tariffs of 10%-15% on U.S. farm and food exports and added 10 U.S. companies to its unreliable entity list. SourcesChina - Government Documents (1, 2) Reuters (1, 2)XinhuaCanada announced 25% tariffs on many U.S. imports. The Canadian government said the tariffs would cover U.S. goods worth C$30 billion (~$20.7 billion) immediately. SourcesWednesday, March 5 The Trump Administration paused tariffs on cars coming into the United States from Canada and Mexico for one month. According to White House officials, the pause happened after President Trump spoke with leaders of Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis. SourcesThursday, March 6The Trump Administration paused tariffs on some products from Canada and Mexico that are compliant with the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), a free trade agreement. White House officials informed media outlets that 50% of Mexican imports and 38% of Canadian imports are compliant with the USMCA.  SourcesMonday, March 10  As announced on March 4, China began imposing 10-15% tariffs on many farm products from the United States, including soybeans, wheat, corn, beef and chicken. SourcesWednesday, March 12 The United States’ 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports go into effect. Canada increased its tariffs on U.S. imported steel and aluminum products by 25%. The Canadian government said the affected products include tools, computers, servers, and display monitors, among other products. The tariffs would go into effect on March 13. The European Union responded with its own tariffs against the United States. The EU said that its countermeasures could “apply to US goods exports worth up to €26 billion.”SourcesThursday, March 13President Trump threatened the European Union with a 200% tariff on European alcohol. SourcesMonday, March 24The Trump Administration issued an executive order that would impose a tariff of 25% on imports from countries that import oil from Venezuela, starting on April 2. SourcesWednesday, March 26The Trump Administration announced a plan to impose 25% tariffs on imported automobiles and car parts, such as engines, transmissions, and electrical components. Tariffs would begin on April 3. The administration included exemptions for USMCA-compliant auto parts.SourcesThursday, March 27Industry impacts:Hyte announced higher prices due to incoming tariffs: Hyte blog Wednesday, April 2 Consistent with the Fair and Reciprocal Plan from February 13, the Trump Administration announced reciprocal tariffs on many countries. In addition, the administration announced a 10% tariff on nearly all countries. The administration said the 10% tariff rate would go into effect on April 5. The reciprocal tariffs would go into effect on April 9. As stated on February 13, the administration implemented different reciprocal tariff rates for many trading partners. Examples: Vietnam - 46%Thailand - 36%Taiwan - 32%Japan - 24%European Union - 20% The administration added a 34% reciprocal tariff to China, on top of the existing 20%, bringing the total to 54%.SourcesThursday, April 3As announced on March 26, the Trump Administration's 25% tariffs on imported automobiles went into effect. The administration delayed tariffs on automotive parts until a date no later than May 3. SourcesIndustry impacts:META PCs issued a statement about possible price increases: Statement Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!Friday, April 4China’s government said it will impose additional tariffs of 34% on U.S. goods starting on April 10. China announced export controls on several rare earth minerals. SourcesChina - Government Documents (1, 2)CNNTom’s HardwareIndustry impacts:Hyte published an update on price increases: Hyte statement. iBUYPOWER issued a statement about the tariff impacts: iBUYPOWER statement.Nintendo delayed Switch 2 pre-orders to the United States: Statement to IGN.Saturday, April 5The Trump Administration’s 10% tariff goes into effect for many countries, as announced on April 2. SourcesMonday, April 7Industry impacts:Framework paused sales of several Framework Laptop 13 models to the United States: Twitter statement. Tuesday, April 8The Trump Administration increased the tariff rate on imports from China by 50%. Through an executive order, the administration amended the reciprocal tariff rate for China from 34% to 84%. This tariff rate increase was in addition to the 20% tariff rate from March 4. SourcesIndustry impacts:Reports surfaced of Razer stopping laptop sales to the United States. Razer did not publicly confirm this, but U.S. consumers were unable to buy laptops on Razer’s website. SourcesWednesday, April 9The Trump Administration’s reciprocal tariff rates went into effect shortly after midnight. Later that day, with the exception of China, the Trump Administration paused many reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. The administration did not pause the 10% tariff on imports from April 5. China responded with an additional 50% tariff on U.S. imports. U.S. goods shipped to China now faced an 84% tariff, when accounting for the existing 34% tariff from April 4. The Trump Administration raised tariffs on imports from China to 125%.The European Union approved new tariffs against the United States. The EU said details would come later. SourcesIndustry impacts:Per a report in Nikkei, a newspaper in Asia, Apple requested suppliers to air ship premium devices to the United States before the April 9 tariff deadline. Framework increased prices and delayed some shipments to the United States: Framework blog Thursday, April 10 The Trump Administration clarified to reporters that the 125% tariff on Chinese imports was in addition to the previously announced 20%. The White House confirmed the tariff rate for imports from China is 145%. The European Union paused its tariffs against the United States. As announced on April 4 and April 9, China’s tariffs on imports from the United States go into effect.SourcesFriday, April 11 China increased tariffs on imports from the United States from 84% to 125%. China said the new tariff rate would go into effect on April 12. SourcesIndustry impacts:Per a report in Commercial Times, multiple OEMs paused laptop shipments to the United States. The reported companies included Dell, HP, and Lenovo. Mashable reached out to the three OEMs for comment; Mashable has not published a comment yet. Friday, April 11 - Saturday, April 12 On April 11, the US federal government published guidance stating that some electronics, including smartphones and computers, are exempted from the reciprocal tariffs. Media reported that the exemptions are intended to help U.S. technology companies like Apple. SourcesSunday, April 13 President Trump said the United States will announce tariffs on semiconductors soon. An administration official clarified that tariff exemptions for electronics are “temporary.” SourcesMonday, April 14In a meeting with reporters, President Trump said he may give tariff exemptions to automobile manufacturers. SourcesAssociated PressIndustry impacts:NVIDIA announced that it will begin building AI supercomputers within the United States: NVIDIA blogTuesday, April 15In a White House fact sheet, the administration said imports from China face tariffs of up to 245% on certain goods, including electric vehicles, when accounting for all previous tariffs. SourcesWhite House Fact SheetFriday, April 18The federal government announced fees for ships made in China destined for US ports. The fees could begin in October and increase over time. SourcesSunday, April 20The Chinese government warned countries about cooperating with the United States on trade at the expense of China’s interest. According to a translation via the BBC, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said, “China firmly opposes any party reaching a deal at the expense of China's interests. If this happens, China will never accept it and will resolutely take countermeasures.”SourcesTuesday, April 22The US Department of Commerce “determined that imports of solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam are being dumped into the U.S. market.” The Internal Trade Commission, a separate agency, will make the final decision on tariffs. SourcesHelpful Timelines Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.Please consider watching our investigation for more information.

Features Insecure Code vs. the Entire RGB Industry | WinRing 0 Driver, ft. Wendell of Level1 TechsApril 28, 2025Last Updated: 2025-04-28We provide the rocky history of WinRing 0 and share how important it’s been to the PC industryThe HighlightsThe WinRing 0 driver has propped-up the fan control and RGB industry for over a decadeSecurity updates have broken WinRing 0’s codeThis has resulted in a mad dash for hardware vendors to re-develop RGB and fan control softwareTable of ContentsAutoTOC Our fully custom 3D Emblem Glasses celebrate our 15th Anniversary! We hand-assemble these on the East Coast in the US with a metal badge, strong adhesive, and high-quality pint glass. They pair excellently with our 3D 'Debug' Drink Coasters. Purchases keep us ad-free and directly support our consumer-focused reviews!IntroThere’s one piece of obscure 2007 code that has propped-up the entirety of the fan control and large parts of the RGB industry. It’s a driver called WinRing0, and now, the software that uses it to control hardware through Windows is breaking.If you're like us, you've always felt some sense of looming dread when you install a piece of software that controls fans or LEDs.There's something ominous about a half-baked app with a broken UI taking control of hardware in meat space.Editor's note: This was originally published on April 17, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsHost, WritingSteve BurkeWriting, ResearchPatrick LathanVideo EditingVitalii MakhnovetsTim PhetdaraWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangAs always, being pessimistic about this kind of thing has eventually paid off, with Hyte emailing us in March and The Verge posting a story about WinRing0 being flagged as a threat by Windows Defender (that article is worth a read for the statements provided by several developers). We contacted our own list of developers, and then reached out to Wendell from Level1Techs to help us talk through the technical aspects. This article explores the history and story of the WinRing 0 driver.History Part 1: WinRing0's CreationWinRing0 is a library originally released in 2007 by Noriyuki Miyazaki [宮崎 典行] (AKA hiyohiyo), and he regrets it.The developer is best-known for CrystalDiskMark and CrystalDiskInfo. According to the active GitHub repository, "WinRing0 is a hardware access library for Windows" and "WinRing0 library allows x86/x64 Windows applications to access I/O port, MSR (Model-Specific Register), [and] PCI." Basically, WinRing0, the driver, is a unique open-source window into hardware. Over the years, it's become the equivalent of that XKCD comic for small developers who can't afford to develop and certify their own loopholes for controlling hardware like RGB LEDs and fans. If you're part of a small team that wants to distribute software for monitoring or controlling any of the hardware in a PC, WinRing0 has been the go-to option.Hiyohiyo announced the end of development in February 2010, stating (in Japanese) that "WinRing0 is essentially a library that should not exist [...] I wanted to share the joy of low-level programming with as many developers as possible, so I developed and released WinRing0 after fully understanding the various issues, but I had no choice but to accept that this is no longer acceptable in today's age." He repeated that sentiment to us in an email, saying that "I consider it a complete youthful indiscretion on my part not to have accepted the changing times." The final update from hiyohiyo was WinRing0 2.0.0 in July 2010, where he intentionally removed almost all functionality, apologized again, and described the project (again, in Japanese) as a "big failure."There’s something sad about that sentiment. For better or worse, the WinRing0 driver was actually not a big failure: A ton of hardware companies transacting hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue have relied upon it; however, this is probably why hiyohiyo views it as a failure.Technical ExplanationGiven what WinRing0 is -- a method of low-level access to hardware -- it makes sense that hiyohiyo has distanced himself from the project so much, especially since he currently collaborates with Microsoft. The releases of Windows Vista in 2007 and Windows 7 in 2009 made it increasingly clear that Microsoft is no longer in the business of letting you f*ck around with this stuff: Windows was moving away from low-level programming. The idea of old-school unrestricted memory access is scandalous these days. As Martin Malik of HWiNFO stated to The Verge, "since the driver has access and doesn’t restrict the range, it can read/change other processes, secrets in memory or protected kernel registers. This is very dangerous." As hiyohiyo stated when closing WinRing0 development 15 years ago, "If you think about why the OS restricts access to I/O ports, physical memory, MSR, etc., and why signing kernel-mode drivers is mandatory since Vista x64, you will understand."We don't want to get too into the weeds here, but kernel-mode is the alternative to user-mode. We interviewed Wendell from Level1Techs, who went on to explain:“What is the kernel? [You may have] heard of the Linux kernel but Windows has a kernel, too. So the kernel is responsible for management of your system; so process management, memory management, hardware abstraction, security isolation, and system calls, which is like a programmer's calls, like the kernel is going to provide this programmer's interface. You call [it] as a programmer and then the kernel goes off and does something. And so the buck stops with the kernel. So your programs just run and they don't have to deal with things like, ‘which processor am I running on,’ ‘how do I allocate memory?’ It just says I would like to allocate memory and the kernel [asks] how much memory would you like and then you get an address and then that's all handled; memory management, all of the abstraction for all those kinds of things. So the kernel is really the smallest, lowest part of your operating system and it is typically engineered to be as uncomplicated as possible. It's only as complex as necessary to do the task and if it has bugs that leads to a lot of problems, not just in terms of system instability but also security issues and that sort of thing.Sometimes it's fun to think of it abstractly. Your computer is a bus and all of the apps on the bus are the passengers. The kernel is the driver of the bus and your computer hardware is like the engine, the wheels, the door, the brakes, and that kind of thing. The driver gets to decide how to use everything safely and effectively and if one of the passengers wet willies the driver then that's bad because it may put everybody in danger.”The only reason that analogy is a bit confusing is because Wendell uses the word “driver” to explain the operation of the vehicle and he uses the word bus to explain the vehicle. With that in mind, let's take time to explain WinRing0's namesake: security Ring 0. Wendell elaborates, “There's a lot of ring 0 drivers as it turns out. Ring 0…kernel mode. I'm not a Windows developer [as my] day job but kernel operating system…it kind of makes sense. The things that are close to the hardware are ring 0 and they're supposed to have a relatively low surface area. If you are running an application and the application does something bad, which is ring 3, I believe, the application crashes. If you're running something at ring 0 and it crashes, it has the potential to affect the entire system and so the entire system will crash. Windows blue screens are probably ring 0. What has really accelerated Microsoft giving the boot to ring 0 is the CrowdStrike thing. This has been a problem forever but the CrowdStrike thing taking out the vast majority of infrastructure that runs Windows and Crowdstrike…Microsoft sees this as a problem and so this is basically a casualty of war.Ideally you have things running in user mode ring three, all things running in user mode ring three. And so all of your software runs at ring 3 and the driver is very small and very low level and very lightweight and doesn't need to run quite as low level as ring 0 but is still sort of in the administrative permissions mode. But at a very low fundamental level, you can use software to update your BIOS and that is a pre-boot environment. You could have malware that lives in your BIOS. I would prefer having a motherboard that has a jumper so that when I want to re-flash the BIOS, I physically have to move a little switch to say yes.”When we brought up Asus Armory Crate, Wendell added, “It goes the other way too, the BIOS could run arbitrary software.”Kernel-mode drivers are almost always hardware device drivers, and within the x86 structure these (typically) occupy the highest security ring alongside the kernel: Ring 0. This is why a device driver literally named WinRing0 getting handed out to anyone who wants it might be a little alarming to Microsoft. As confusing as it is, Wendell's still pretty positive on the basic concept of security rings: “The ring 0, ring negative 1, ring 1…that’s all very tightly coupled with hardware features of x86 to provide isolation, which is great. There's different approaches from AMD and Intel, but there is there is a hardware aspect of this that is very nice for users as well so it's not just like you're entirely reliant on a 100% Microsoft software solution but a lot of this is how Microsoft has chosen to implement the various security levels but it dovetails with a lot of functionality that is at the hardware level, which is nice because the hardware is trying to protect you from code that shouldn't be executed.”Digital Signatures Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.Microsoft's method for mitigating those concerns has been to require digital signatures for kernel-mode drivers in all Windows versions since 64-bit Vista. A digital signature is a certificate issued by a "trusted Certification Authority" (CA) that verifies that: "the file, or the collection of files, is signed. The signer is trusted. The certification authority that authenticated the signer is trusted. The collection of files was not altered after it was published." Back when WinRing0 was first published, individuals (in Japan) could sign drivers themselves, which hiyohiyo did. More expensive and difficult-to-obtain Extended Validation (EV) certificates were required starting in the Windows 8 era, and they're only issued to businesses, but old drivers were grandfathered in.Over the years when installing a piece of software, you might have seen some kind of popup about the driver signatory, the lack or the presence of a signature. And we see this a lot with the prototype versions of software where they haven't signed it yet but as for why digital signatures are a useful idea in general, we turn again to Wendell who stated:“As part of Microsoft’s strategy to deal with…driver signing, in general, any kind of executable signing is actually sort of fun and interesting. It’s a fun and interesting way of approaching security. If you right click on basically any executable on any modern Windows system and you look at the properties, you can see that the executable is digitally signed. That's an identity thing [that indicates] this is from [a particular] company. Drivers are a great way to hide malware and so it has to kind of be a walled garden and so the certificates you have on a website are really not [too] different or the executables from programs are really not [too] different from what you have for a driver. Basically you create the driver. You submit it to Microsoft and well, the submit-it-to-Microsoft process doesn't actually technically have anything to do with signing, but theoretically, Microsoft looks at you as a company and says ‘Okay, yes, we're going to be able to do business with you.’ And you get something that you can sign that is trusted and it is it is the standard certificate signing process where [you say] ‘here is my certificate’ [and] I'm going to send this somewhere that will then say: ‘okay, yes, we are going to sign the certificate that you have asked for except instead of being based on a hash or something ephemeral, it's based on the hash of the actual binary of the driver.’ And so this driver with this hash has been signed and if somebody tampers with the driver or changes it then the cryptographic signature will no longer match and the driver doesn't work anymore and so it's a nice way to affirm that something has signed off on the contents of this driver and this driver is good.”Wendell also interestingly pointed out that CAs can be broken into and certificates can (and have been) stolen, but that's a subject for a different time.So, hiyohiyo apologized for pulling the plug and refusing to maintain WinRing0's certification back in 2010, seemingly with the expectation that its certification would be pulled and everyone's projects would break: "WinRing0 was discontinued without any alternative plan in order to avoid the worst case scenario of the signature being revoked" and  "if the digital signature for WinRing0 is revoked, all WinRing0-based applications will be unable to start in an x64 environment."History Part 2: WinRing0's AdoptionThat brings us to the second part of WinRing0’s history.WinRing0 actually became a foundational element of many, many projects, and some of those projects—like Open Hardware Monitor, later forked as LibreHardwareMonitor—would themselves become foundational to even more software on top of that. So there are nested layers of reliance on something that hasn’t really been even maintained or even liked by its original developer for 15 years. Seriously: You have very likely encountered WinRing0 in some capacity, and with the changes Microsoft is making for security reasons, a lot of those software encounters would no longer work today.And that’s for good reason: Over the years, hiyohiyo's concerns were repeatedly validated.In 2019, HP got in hot water for including WinRing0 pre-installed in its HP Touchpoint Analytics service "preinstalled on most HP PCs." This became a massive security concern from one of the biggest OEMs.In 2020, WinRing0 was named in another CVE, or Common Vulnerability and Exposure, for EVGA's Precision X1. In 2021, it was Crucial's turn. Even though specific software was called out each time this happened, HP, EVGA, and Crucial were using the same 1.2.0 version of WinRing0 that everyone else was. As GermanAizek put it to us, "The driver was made in 2007. CVE in 2020. Microsoft started blocking it in 2025. Vulnerability has been around for 18 years." As for why Microsoft hasn't blocked it before now, according to OCCT, "They haven't done it yet because big corporations were lazy enough to use it in their software in the past, so that would invalidate their own software, so they cannot do it right away."And the list of software that has used it at some point, and therefore software that has had vulnerabilities and attack vectors, is huge: CapFrameX (but not PresentMon), Precision X1, Crucial MOD, HP Touchpoint Analytics, SignalRGB, OpenRGB, and many more are on the list.The issue isn't that Precision X1 or Crucial MOD or any of the vast array of affected software (CapFrameX, OpenRGB, SignalRGB, at least some versions of Afterburner, et cetera) are compromised: the issue is that they install an insecure driver (WinRing0) that's then accessible to any other software that wants it, including malware. This is precisely what happened with actual malware SteelFox starting in 2023; the vulnerability is real and has been actively exploited for profit. This isn’t just some proof of concept, this is an actual, in-the-wild malware that has been used to illicitly make money. Calling it "theoretical," as CapFrameX did, is irresponsible and dangerous, and it's not really relevant whether the software that installs the driver is itself safe. To quote OCCT:"It's vulnerable as f*ck."And here’s what Wendell thought, “If you say the last time the driver was meaningfully updated was in 2008 and it has not yet been exploited by malware, then that's a miracle.” We had to interject and say that it has been exploited by malware. For another example of a Ring 0 driver problem (not WinRing 0), check out what Wendell had to say about Crowdstrike, “So what happened was Crowdstrike has a ring 0 malware detection driver and Crowdstrike is otherwise very good software. It's very effective at what it does. It's an interesting security architecture. They made a mistake in their software and as a result of the mistake, the system tried to jump to memory address zero or start executing memory address zero. I don't really remember exactly what the details were but it was something obviously incredibly stupid and there was no safety rails for anything at this level and so systems would crash. And it was an impossible situation because the system would [consistently] boot and crash. If you were lucky after the 20th or 30th time, it would do that, the system would notice and deal with it and so Microsoft is saying ‘this is the wild west. We’ve got to deal with this ring 0 problem immediately and software like CrowdStrike cannot run at ring 0. We as operating system vendors have to provide a lower level facility to let these software vendors do what they need to do but without compromising the integrity of an update process without compromising the integrity of a boot process to provide fallbacks' and that sort of thing. As a result of that…I mean, internally, Microsoft has known this is an issue almost since day one. They didn't care until millions of machines had very large problems, basically every crowd customer that got the update.”Beyond the current wave of Windows Defender alerts, WinRing0 and similar drivers also have a tendency to get flagged by software like Easy Anti-Cheat due to their ability to read and rewrite memory. You can make your own judgement about how serious the issue is, but these are not false positives. We want to make sure that’s clear. It isn’t a “false positive,” it’s just a true positive.As hiyohiyo stated fifteen years ago: "although a general-purpose hardware access library such as WinRing0 1.x is very useful for prototyping, developers would need to develop dedicated device drivers for public release." But there needs to be a better, secure solution to gain access to this control and hardware. There is one and there has been one. As a developer, the 100% proper by-the-books response to this (from talking to numerous people) is to drop WinRing0, develop your own dedicated driver for your specific product, and obtain a signature for it. This is apparently the path that EVGA took back in 2020 after that CVE we mentioned.  New signatures for kernel-mode drivers are really only accessible to large companies, though, with smaller dev teams unable to afford dedicating their time and money (in recurring payments) to the process, not to mention the software development work. Other manufacturers, including Hyte, have informed us that EVGA was somewhat propping-up fan control and RGB software by getting signatures on the driver. We’ve had a tough time trying to verify some of these claims, but that seems to be the belief held by, for example, Hyte. Therefore, WinRing0 has been eternally recycled and eternally frozen at vulnerable version 1.2.0. If you dig around in LibreHardwareMonitor's source code (for example), it references WinRing0.sys 1.2.0.5 from July 2008, which makes sense: hiyohiyo's next release included a reference in a patch note, saying that "it would have been an easy fix if only a digital signature could be obtained, but since the kernel mode driver cannot be updated, this was scrapped." According to Martin Malik of HWINFO64, this day of reckoning has been a long time coming, with Microsoft repeatedly warning that the driver would be blocked.Again, we've heard unconfirmed reports that EVGA possibly took up the maintenance for WinRing0's digital signature in the post-2010 era, possibly arranging for its renewal (as we understand that certificates expire over time) or just convincing Microsoft not to revoke it. If EVGA had any involvement, it probably ended in 2020 when the company stopped using WinRing0, or at least in 2022 when the company basically halted operation. Microsoft's statement to The Verge that "we are aware of reports about gaming and monitoring applications being flagged as a threat due to the use of unsigned versions of the WinRing0 driver" implies that the driver is now unsigned, which could be a further clue that EVGA was doing some kind of upkeep behind the scenes.Somehow, we continue to learn EVGA’s impact beyond its GPUs.The Future of WinRing0All of this is a problem, because there are limited tools to control hardware through the OS -- and for good reasons -- but there needs to be something, and currently, many of those tools are breaking or broken. Or insecure.That brings us to the future of WinRing0.The easiest solution to all this would be to patch WinRing0 itself. After hiyohiyo's last constructive contribution in 2009, Herman Semenov [Герман Семёнов] (AKA GermanAizek) took over maintenance in 2019, initially with the goal of optimizing crypto mining with access to CPU MSR registers. As he stated to us, "around 2023, many people wanted to build WinRing0 Windows driver themselves to increase mining hashrate, even though it was much more difficult than just mining on Linux."In a weird way then, crypto mining potentially provided something directly useful to those controlling hardware for non-mining use cases.Development accelerated in 2023 as other members contributed to the project, adding x64 support and fixing some BSOD triggers in the old driver. Eventually, the team applied patches to address the open CVE from 2020. Critically, this fork of WinRing0 remained unsigned: only the un-optimized, insecure version from 2008 had the valid signature vital to projects like LibreHardwareMonitor.This is where HYTE has stepped in. HYTE originally contacted us with the story, stating that it wants to take the version of WinRing0 that GermanAizek's team has been updating, submit it to Microsoft for signing, and fork LibreHardwareMonitor to integrate the patched, signed driver. HYTE would then take on the responsibility of paying Microsoft, basically replacing EVGA’s assumed role in this chain.The direct benefit is that HYTE's own software can continue to function, while the rest of the industry gets to keep using WinRing0 (and LibreHardwareMonitor) without getting auto-quarantined by Windows Defender.GermanAizek told us that "these fixes restrict the use of the driver only to programs running with administrator rights." This is certainly safer, but (as Martin Malik of HWiNFO warned The Verge), this just means that an app has to be run as admin before it can access the driver. We asked Wendell about this. Specifically about running things as admin and how much that might help. Here’s his response:“That's probably not unreasonable. Short of Microsoft getting involved and offering a better solution or somebody that is that deep in the Microsoft kernel driver developer ecosystem, that's probably what it would take: somebody that has very deep intricate knowledge of the operating system and also knows what the operating system is capable of. As far as I know, you're on your own to implement a lot of the functionality that would be needed to do that. So this driver is probably still your best hope to do that. Microsoft probably doesn't want to adopt the driver, which would also be a reasonable outcome. At the same time, Microsoft probably doesn't want to re-implement the functionality that's in the driver, but how this is usually done is you peel away the minimum functionality and you stuff that in your ring 0 driver and then you have all of the other stuff live somewhere else. And that ring 0 driver, you trust not to be able to be manipulated to access memory, it's not supposed to or write to a bus address that it's not supposed to be able to.”So, as Wendell helped us understand, the idea that a combination of patches and signatures can fix the root cause of the problem is arguably misguided. We contacted Franck Delattre of CPUID (CPU-Z, HWMonitor), who explained that CPUID has had similar difficulties with its own software. "In order to fix the problems, we had to move a big part of the user code into the kernel code, in the unique goal of reducing exposure. We could do that because only our code uses our driver, but for a generic driver like WinRing0, this was simply not possible since its functions were used in a different context by the different application. To go further, this means that no replacement of WinRing0 is possible, at least not with the same genericity that WinRing0 provided until today." In other words, the thing that makes WinRing0 uniquely useful is the same thing that makes it dangerous. GermanAizek is literally the frontman for the "fixed" version of WinRing0. He told us that "personally, I migrated to Linux and BSD systems because Windows has become really insecure, and as a Unix developer, such operating systems really seem convenient to me." He also openly asked that developers use the InpOut32 driver instead of WinRing0 (although we've seen other developers express concerns about that as well).OCCT has also announced that it will be providing a publicly-available but closed-source alternative to WinRing0, and it's possible that other organizations will follow suit.Wendell informed us that there are other bigger-picture alternatives, “For sensors and fan speed, one way that you could solve this architecturally is to just move it to a USB controller. That's slightly more cost or if somebody wants to build in a USB client interface then that's probably a marginal cost increase. I'm slightly surprised it hasn't gone in that direction but I'm also slightly surprised because this is a problem for Windows server in the context of the system management bus because servers need access to the system management bus and kind of hilariously, you have the out-of-band management that also has access to the system management bus so like servers have a whole other computer inside them that has access to the system management bus and the same controllers and so you can use that computer within a computer to monitor the sensors. You could just not have that and plug it into USB in the case of client computers. Like I say, we put important things on the system management bus and so like controlling CPU voltage probably should be on the system management bus. Controlling fan speed…You could probably do that through USB, but when it's through USB, the chipset and other things probably are not able to control fan speed. So you end up with a chipset that needs a system management bus so low-level parts of the system can make those controls but user overrides have to come through another path like through USB or something that's low security. Or Microsoft can provide a reasonable facility that is reasonably locked down to access the system management bus facility.”Conclusion Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)That’s the story of how this small piece of code has supported an entire industry and its software for 15 years now, even in spite of its own developer disowning it and regarding it as not only a mistake, but a failure. We feel bad for hiyohiyo who now is powerless to stop people from using his youthful development project, but these multi-million and billion dollar companies have the resources to develop a responsible alternative. That includes Microsoft, Razer, and everyone else. That brings us around to what power an end user has, if any.Our recommendation is to do what your antivirus software says: if Windows Defender quarantines WinRing0, let it happen, and if anyone tells you to ignore the warnings, treat them with extreme skepticism. Some manufacturers and developers have called these “false positives,” but they are not. They are real positives, and there are real vulnerabilities that have been used which can exploit your machine.Microsoft appears to have paused the "ban" as of this writing, but it's only a matter of time. If everything goes according to plan, though, the patched driver should be usable soon thanks to HYTE, at which point you can decide whether requiring admin privilege for access meets your personal standard for security. For whatever it's worth, the Windows Dynamic Lighting RGB control feature continues to be developed, although it doesn't feel great to be railroaded into using it just because Microsoft bricked the alternatives. Still, it's probably the right direction for Microsoft with Wendell stating, “There is one aspect of this where Microsoft is doing the right thing and that is RGB control. Windows 11 allows you to control RGB directly in the operating system. Microsoft [shouldn’t take] half measures here and add some fan controls and or at least provide a programming interface. [Microsoft doesn’t] have to [provide] a GUI for fan control like it did with RGB control but wherever that's plumbed in, [Microsoft should] go ahead and plumb in the other stuff. It's really not any more complicated than that.”Thanks to the various developers that provided quotes for this piece, as well as Wendell.