I was fourteen or so when I went to the Gadget Show Live (once a big tech event in the UK which showed off the latest technology) in 2016 as a punter and overheard someone on a stand I'd visited mention they'd spent £1,000 on a custom gaming PC.

A thousand pounds. On a computer. I remember turning that figure over in my head (it's roughly $1,400) and not quite being able to make sense of it, not necessarily because I couldn't fathom how much money that was, but because at the time, it seemed like a lot of money to spend on a PC without any frame of reference as to what that price got you.

As it turned out, £1,000 would have bought you an upper mid-range system back then, and speccing a top-end system of the time would have added an awful lot more to my 'dream budget'. A properly specced 3XS system built around Intel's then-flagship Kaby Lake processor, the Core i7-7700K, and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080, would set you back around £1,700 including VAT.

Nvidia went one further with the venerable GTX 1080 Ti, which arrived in March 2017. It immediately became the card every serious PC gamer wanted, and pushed that high price even higher. Nonetheless, you still got an entire top-of-the-range PC for that price.

Here's what's strange about that number in 2026: it's roughly what you'd pay for a flagship graphics card alone. Nvidia's RTX 5090 should retail for roughly in line with what this entire PC cost, although the Asus ROG RTX 5090 Astral I've got for testing is over double the RRP of this PC, even taking inflation into account.

Intriguingly, the GPU that was the ceiling of consumer ambition in 2017 is now, in isolation, cheaper than a mid-range graphics card in 2026. Nvidia's GTX 1080 Ti launched at £699 / $699 (about AU$930); the RTX 5090 launched at £1,799, at least for the Founder's Edition card.

That's not a like-for-like comparison — flagship GPU pricing has always been a law unto itself — but it does tell you something about the economic difference between these two moments in PC gaming history.

Now, Scan has sent me that exact system, and I've plonked the GTX 1080 Ti Founder's Edition inside, and I've been running it alongside my own high-spec rig, with an RTX 5090 added for good measure, to see how the decade-old dream holds up.

What £1,700 bought you nearly a decade ago

Here's the entire spec sheet of the 3XS PC that Scan sent my way with the GPU swapped out:

• CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K
• Cooler: Corsair 240mm AIO
• GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti Founder's Edition
• RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4-3000
• SSD: Samsung 960 Evo 250GB SSD (supplemented with a further 1TB SSD for game storage in my case)
• Motherboard: Asus ROG Strix Z270F Gaming
• PSU: Corsair RM750x 750W White
• Case: Corsair Carbide 400C in white

On first impressions, I'm a fan of the Corsair Carbide 400C case, feeling it to be a quieter and more considered choice than a lot of the RGB-laden alternatives that were becoming increasingly common at the time. Coming in white adds a bit of style to proceedings, and it seems roomy enough for the build on offer here. The hinged door with glass window is a nice touch, too.

Inside, the Asus ROG Strix Z270F Gaming motherboard is decently feature-rich and adds a smattering of RGB in the top corner to sit alongside the white LEDs of the RAM and the stock case fan inside. The Samsung 960 Evo SSD would have been top spec at the time, but is the one component that feels particularly outdated. It's a fast, capable boot drive, but is easily filled up with a modern Windows 11 installation and a game or two. Back in 2017, you'd have definitely wanted a hard drive installed as well.

Then there's the GTX 1080 Ti Founder's Edition. Nvidia's reference cooler on the Ti was a meaningful step up from the blower-style designs of previous generations, with an open dual-fan layout that kept temperatures in check. It's a handsome card even by today's standards and feels more restrained than the AIB partner designs that surrounded it. Holding it in 2026 feels like handling something from a very specific and rather significant chapter in GPU history, given its legendary status.

The 1080 Ti has a reputation that outlasted the hardware cycle it was supposed to belong to. When Nvidia's RTX 2080 Ti arrived in 2018, it brought ray tracing and a steeper price — and offered only a slight bump in rasterisation performance that most 1080 Ti owners looked at the cost of upgrading and decided against it. Even now, folks are asking how good this card is today, which is testament to its performance - and indeed its reputation.

A modern point of reference

Of course, benchmark numbers are no good in isolation, so for comparison's sake, I'm putting the Scan system against my own personal gaming rig, with the added boost of the RTX 5090. Usually it'd be an RTX 4080 Super, but for a 'dream PC' angle, I needed to go with the modern dream. Here it is in terms of specs:

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
• Cooler: Noctua NH-D15
• GPU: Asus ROG Astral RTX 5090
• RAM: Corsair Vengeance 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5-6000 CL36
• SSD: Lexar NM790 4TB
• Motherboard: NZXT N7 B650E
• PSU: NZXT C1200 1200W 80+ Gold ATX 3.0
• Case: NZXT H9 Flow (2023)

That isn't too bad of a PC if I do say so myself, and yes, I could use faster RAM or a beefier AMD processor if I wanted to eke out as much performance as possible, but I haven't seen fit to upgrade just yet.

Benchmarking methodology

To see how this 2017-era PC performs in the big 2026, I thought it might be fun to run it through a range of games – both ones that are contemporaries of the system and some slightly more modern titles that might push it quite hard. I've also put it through a range of modern benchmark tests to gauge performance against the newer hardware.

To Scan's credit, the machine came running the latest version of Windows 11 25H2 and Nvidia's latest driver release for GTX 10-series desktop cards, driver 582.66, which was a security update released in June 2026.

I've also elected to run games hooked up to my 4K QD-OLED monitor to see how far we can really push this Scan system, running at 1080p, 1440p and 4K to give you a full picture. The RTX 5090 system has also been put through the same tests, as close as possible, to give some comparable results and a frame of reference.

Testing 2017-era games

Firstly, I thought it was correct to run the Scan system through some games that would be period-correct for the time this PC was released to give an idea of a baseline. All four titles were run at their maximum settings, for reference.

Far Cry 5 seemed an ideal first candidate, being from 2018, and at the Ultra preset with HD textures enabled, it managed a 113fps average at 1080p. Going up to 1440p pushed things to 95fps, proving some surprisingly playable results. It was only when I got up to 4K that things dipped immensely, with a 50fps average. For reference, the RTX 5090 system hit 186fps at 4K, which tells you something about how much the goalposts have moved.

I followed this up with the original Dirt Rally, a game that relies on a strong CPU to help alongside the 1080 Ti, so the Core i7-7700K has to do a fair bit of heavy lifting. At the Ultra preset, the 1080 Ti managed 127fps at 1080p and 126fps at 1440p — results so close together that the GPU clearly isn't the bottleneck at either resolution; the 7700K is setting the ceiling, and it's holding it pretty well. At 4K, the GPU gets more of a say, and results come in at a still-reasonable 79fps.

However, this revealed one of the bigger gulfs between the older system and my more modern option. The RTX 5090 system managed 304fps at 1080p, 267fps at 1440p, and 225fps at 4K — numbers so high they serve as a reminder of how differently the two machines interpret the same game.

The original Hitman, which uses DirectX 12 at maximum settings, returned 128fps at 1080p, 106fps at 1440p, and 59.5fps at 4K. The RTX 5090 system managed 203fps at 1080p, 191fps at 1440p, and 186fps at 4K — again, the gap narrowing considerably at lower resolutions before opening up at 4K.

I'd argue Rise of the Tomb Raider is the 1080 Ti's finest hour in this period-correct lineup. Running at the Very High preset in DirectX 12, it returned 144fps at 1080p and 110fps at 1440p. These are numbers that would have felt sky-high at the time and still feel impressive today. Even at 4K, the 59.7fps result is the most modern-feeling 4K figure of the four period titles, suggesting this is a game the 1080 Ti was particularly well-matched for, and a near-60fps average provides some very playable results even today.

That is, until you get the RTX 5090 involved – it posted 316fps, 302fps, and 281fps across the three resolutions in Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Trying newer games

The older game results paint a flattering picture of the 1080 Ti. However, modern titles are much less kind, as you might expect.

My first port of call was Cyberpunk 2077, perhaps this generation's Crysis equivalent, as it can be quite a demanding title for a range of systems. For the 1080 Ti, at the Ultra preset without any upscaling, it managed 52fps at 1080p — passable, if not quite the experience the game deserves — while 1440p dropped to 32fps, and 4K delivered a deeply unimpressive 13.9fps. Enabling FSR 2.1 Quality improved things to 62fps, 41fps, and 20.5fps across the three resolutions respectively, which at least makes 1080p feel workable.

Beyond that, it's a significant compromise. Ray tracing isn't an option here at all — the 1080 Ti simply has not got the hardware for it, and that means for 2026's most demanding titles, including Indiana Jones & The Great Circle that require hardware-based ray-tracing to even run, you won't be able to play them at all.

The RTX 5090, by contrast, ran the Ultra preset at 173fps, 148fps, and 116fps natively. Plus, a more modern card supplements its raw power with Nvidia's DLSS upscaler and fully-fledged RT performance. With DLSS Transformer enabled, those numbers climbed to 183fps, 170fps, and 167fps. With a combination of Cyberpunk 2077 at its RT: Ultra preset with DLSS Transformer enabled, it managed 130fps, 129fps, and 125fps at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. The gap between these two machines in Cyberpunk 2077 is the widest in my entire test suite, and the most instructive.

This is especially true when you take the multi-frame-gen tech Nvidia has put into these new Blackwell cards, acting as a multiplier for 'fake frames' for a smoother feeling experience, as long as you're starting with a solid enough base frame rate so too much latency isn't introduced. With the RT: Ultra preset, and the MFG multiplier set to 4x, the RTX 5090 system managed 511fps at 1080p, 452fps at 1440p and 355fps at 4K, widening the gulf even further.

Returnal tells a similar story for this matchup. The Epic preset returned 57fps at 1080p, 45fps at 1440p, and 27fps at 4K — the 1080p result is playable, but Returnal's fast-paced action makes anything below 60fps feel like a handicap, and 27fps at 4K is below any reasonable threshold. The RTX 5090 managed 231fps, 207fps, and 147fps at the same resolutions. In a game built around sharp reactions and split-second timing, that headroom matters more than in most.

Moving over to Rainbow Six Extraction, I had higher hopes for a more modern eSports-type title. The default Ultra preset includes a Dynamic resolution of 25-100% of the selected one, which is how I left it, revealing 126fps at 1080p, 85fps at 1440p, and a genuinely solid 66fps at 4K. It's the most comfortable the 1080 Ti looks across this entire modern test suite, and a reminder that there are modern titles that aren't particularly demanding, which are still playable on older hardware.

Meanwhile the RTX 5090-equipped modern PC scored 461fps at 1080p, 405fps at 1440p, and 272fps at 4K, and prove the benefit of the bevvy of high refresh rate OLED screens we've begun to see in recent years when paired with such powerful hardware.

For one final test, I thought it'd be interesting to try a super up-to-date Unreal Engine 5-based title in Black Myth Wukong, as one of the few titles that doesn't need any hardware-based ray-tracing, unlike a lot of its contemporaries.

I elected to step down to the Very High preset, with FSR enabled (with a resolution scale of 33 for 4K, 49 for 1440p and 66 for 1080p) and frame-gen on. The result was 46fps at 1080p, 44fps at 1440p, and 40fps at 4K, which make for some remarkably consistent numbers across different resolutions that make it clear that frame-gen is doing some form of heavy lifting to keep the output FPS so stable. The RTX 5090 managed 120fps, 122fps, and 119fps with the same settings.

Synthetic benchmark time!

The synthetic benchmarks tell a predictable story. The 7700K holds up reasonably well in single-core workloads — the gap to the 7800X3D is meaningful but not embarrassing, and is somewhere in the region of 50% depending on which test you trust.

Multi-threaded performance is a different matter, though, where nearly a decade of core count increases and architectural progress make the comparison increasingly one-sided.

On the GPU side, the picture is more interesting. In 3DMark Fire Strike — a DirectX 11 test that's broadly representative of the conditions the 1080 Ti was designed around — the RTX 5090 leads by roughly three time. Push to Fire Strike Ultra at 4K, and that becomes nearly five times, and the Time Spy results, which move into DirectX 12 territory, tell the same story: a 4x gap at 1440p becoming 4.6x at the Extreme variant.

The 1080 Ti doesn't just lose ground to newer hardware — it loses it disproportionately as resolution and API demands increase, which is worth keeping in mind as we come to a judgement on this entire system.

Summing up

The comparisons made here make for a fascinating reminder of just how much the PC gaming landscape has changed over the past decade.

In 2017, £1,700 bought you an entire dream machine built around the best consumer graphics hardware money could buy. In 2026, that same sort of money barely gets you through the door for a flagship GPU alone. The economics are strange, but the performance gulf is telling: the RTX 5090 system is several times faster in many of the tests here, especially as resolutions rise and modern rendering technologies come into play.

However, the old Scan system isn't the write-off those numbers might suggest when you drill down. The GTX 1080 Ti and Core i7-7700K remain a remarkably capable pairing in the games they were designed around, with high-refresh-rate 1080p and 1440p gaming still very much within reach for those older titles. Even some newer titles remain playable with sensible settings, although the lack of dedicated ray-tracing hardware and modern AI-assisted upscaling means there are increasingly firm limits to what the system can do.

That perhaps says more about how well balanced the original machine was than anything else. The 1080 Ti earned its legendary reputation because it wasn't merely fast for its time, but rather remained relevant for years afterwards, and even now it can still provide a decent experience in the right games. There are still folks talking about how well it does today, which is a testament to its legacy.

Admittedly, the rest of the system has aged more unevenly, with the 16GB of DDR4 memory and tiny 250GB boot drive feeling particularly constrained in 2026, but there is still something satisfying about using a PC that once represented the absolute pinnacle of enthusiast gaming so far removed from the original situation.

The modern machine is undeniably better in almost every measurable sense. It's dramatically faster, more capable at 4K, and supported by technologies that simply didn't exist when the GTX 1080 Ti launched. Features such as DLSS, frame generation and hardware-accelerated ray tracing have changed what we expect from a high-end graphics card, while high-refresh-rate OLED displays, such as the one both systems have been hooked up to from Philips, give all that extra performance somewhere meaningful to go.

Still, there is a certain charm to the 2017 system in my book. It represents a point when a top-end gaming PC felt aspirational but not entirely unattainable — when spending £1,700 could buy the whole dream, rather than just the graphics card. The hardware may no longer be cutting-edge, but it hasn't become entirely obsolete either. If anything, testing it against a 2026 flagship proves just how exceptional the GTX 1080 Ti was, and how long a genuinely well-specced gaming PC can remain enjoyable.

The goalposts have moved enormously, but the old dream still has plenty of game left in it.

Quordle was one of the original Wordle alternatives and is still going strong now more than 1,500 games later. It offers a genuine challenge, though, so read on if you need some Quordle hints today — or scroll down further for the answers.

Enjoy playing word games? You can also check out my NYT Connections today and NYT Strands today pages for hints and answers for those puzzles, while Marc's Wordle today column covers the original viral word game.

SPOILER WARNING: Information about Quordle today is below, so don't read on if you don't want to know the answers.

Quordle today (game #1658) — hint #1 — Vowels

* Note that by vowel we mean the five standard vowels (A, E, I, O, U), not Y (which is sometimes counted as a vowel too).

Quordle today (game #1658) — hint #2 — repeated letters

Quordle today (game #1658) — hint #3 — uncommon letters

Quordle today (game #1658) — hint #4 — starting letters (1)

If you just want to know the answers at this stage, simply scroll down. If you're not ready yet then here's one more clue to make things a lot easier:

Quordle today (game #1658) — hint #5 — starting letters (2)

Right, the answers are below, so DO NOT SCROLL ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM.

Quordle today (game #1658) — the answers

The answers to today's Quordle, game #1658, are…

• KAPPA
• WIDEN
• FOLIO
• STEEP

I love it when the correct guess pops into your head after a period of blankness.

I got this today with my final word of FOLIO, where the key was thinking of a word that ended in I-O.

Daily Sequence today (game #1658) — the answers

The answers to today's Quordle Daily Sequence, game #1658, are…

• CHEAP
• MONTH
• BROOM
• SOLVE

Quordle answers: The past 20

• Quordle #1657, Saturday, 8 August: FUROR, BUGLE, REUSE, SCOOP
• Quordle #1656, Friday, 7 August: AMISS, SHIRK, SALSA, RABBI
• Quordle #1655, Thursday, 6 August: AMUSE, BRAND, CEDAR, BLURB
• Quordle #1654, Wednesday, 5 August: MOUND, WRONG, STOOD, WEIRD
• Quordle #1653, Tuesday, 4 August: GOOEY, TARDY, HUMAN, CHALK
• Quordle #1652, Monday, 3 August: FUNGI, MUDDY, DEBUT, MANIA
• Quordle #1651, Sunday, 2 August: BOOTH, EASEL, REACH, MAKER
• Quordle #1650, Saturday, 1 August: OMEGA, BIRCH, SMOCK, EERIE
• Quordle #1649, Friday, 31 July: MANIA, SINGE, STOOL, LOFTY
• Quordle #1648, Thursday, 30 July: MODAL, IDLER, CHUMP, LUMPY
• Quordle #1647, Wednesday, 29 July: GAWKY, ALLOY, AUDIT, LATCH
• Quordle #1646, Tuesday, 28 July: SMITE, ROACH, RUDDY, GLOBE
• Quordle #1645, Monday, 27 July: TAFFY, FIGHT, GUILD, WAGER
• Quordle #1644, Sunday, 26 July: STOMP, LIMIT, FUNKY, STEAD
• Quordle #1643, Saturday, 25 July: SALON, SHEEN, BURST, GOURD
• Quordle #1642, Friday, 24 July: DOLLY, EDIFY, LAGER, PRANK
• Quordle #1641, Thursday, 23 July: LADEN, EVICT, WOVEN, SHIRE
• Quordle #1640, Wednesday, 22 July: COYLY, SINGE, AWASH, AWOKE
• Quordle #1639, Tuesday, 21 July: TRUSS, AXIAL, SWINE, THING
• Quordle #1638, Monday, 20 July: ICING, SLICK, GAILY, RISEN

Strands is the NYT's latest word game after the likes of Wordle, Spelling Bee and Connections – and it's great fun. It can be difficult, though, so read on for my Strands hints.

Want more word-based fun? Then check out my NYT Connections today and Quordle today pages for hints and answers for those games, and Marc's Wordle today page for the original viral word game.

SPOILER WARNING: Information about NYT Strands today is below, so don't read on if you don't want to know the answers.

NYT Strands today (game #889) - hint #1 - today's theme

NYT Strands today (game #889) - hint #2 - clue words

Play any of these words to unlock the in-game hints system.

• RANG
• WRATH
• FRIED
• RULER
• FLIRTED
• THERE

NYT Strands today (game #889) - hint #3 - spangram letters

NYT Strands today (game #889) - hint #4 - spangram position

Right, the answers are below, so DO NOT SCROLL ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM.

NYT Strands today (game #889) - the answers

The answers to today's Strands, game #889, are…

• LUXURY
• EXTRAVAGANCE
• TREAT
• INDULGENCE
• FRILLS
• SPANGRAM: IMWORTHIT

• My rating: Hard
• My score: 1 hint

It was hard to ignore the two Xs on the board, so that’s where I began first — spying LUXURY and then EXTRAVAGANCE, although I did manage to start the latter with the wrong letter E, quite a drag for a 12-letter word.

After this burst I ground to a halt and busied myself with finding some interesting non-game words. A hint gave me TREAT, but I had to spend a good couple of minutes staring at these five letters before I connected them in the right order.

After all this, I think I’m going to pamper myself with a scoop of vegan ice cream.

Yesterday's NYT Strands answers (Saturday, August 8, game #888)

• TRACK
• DROP
• LOOP
• CUTBACK
• TUNNEL
• CORKSCREW
• SPANGRAM: ROLLERCOASTER

If you're of a certain age, you'll remember the frisson of excitement around the launch of Gmail back in 2004. The idea of getting 1GB of storage space completely free of charge seemed wild — and all of your messages could be got at in a simple web browser tab.

As someone who had become accustomed to deleting emails to save space, and painstakingly moving over message archives manually every time I got a computer upgrade, this sounded fantastic. So did being able to get at my emails from any device I wanted, instantly (that seems less appealing these days, somehow).

Something else Gmail has done really well down the years is act as a hub for other email accounts, letting you import and send messages from other accounts inside the Gmail interface — with all the benefits of powerful search, filtering, and spam flagging tools. Now though, most of that functionality is going away.

These are features that I've relied on for decades inside Gmail, and it's going to make my email experience much more frustrating and fragmented.

What's changing

Charting the gradual dismantling of these features inside Gmail is tricky, because the updates have largely come through emails to users and updates to support documentation — there aren't really any official blog post announcements to point to (it's not surprising Google wants to keep all of this quiet).

The most recent news is that the ability to send emails from other accounts through Gmail is going away, and will be switched off completely from January 2027. If you currently send your Outlook or Yahoo messages through Gmail, as I do, you're going to have to find another solution from the start of next year.

A couple of other features are also being killed off in January 2027 as well, though these changes are ones we've known about for a while. You'll no longer be able to import messages from other accounts via the old POP protocol — something I've relied on for years to get emails from all of my various accounts into the same place — and you won't be able to use the Gmailify feature that essentially adds a few Gmail features (like spam protection) to your third-party accounts.

As someone who primarily uses Gmail on the web, and has several email accounts feeding into it, these are significant changes — and I'm not the only one upset about them. My current setup means I can have separate emails for work, app sign-ups, newsletters, and so on, and keep them all in Gmail for searching, filtering, and labeling, and it's been a simple and reliable setup.

Now I'm going to have to go back to jumping between three or four different email apps to check everything. Different rules, different storage limits, different interfaces. It's an annoying set of changes, which Google hasn't really explained — presumably the idea is to keep users focused on Gmail, and to cut costs.

What to do next

You do have a few options for trying to cling on to Gmail as a message hub, though none of them are ideal. You can get your third-party email account to auto-forward messages to Gmail — it means you'll have them in your Gmail archive for filtering and searching, though there's no 'send as' functionality.

This might cost you too: It's a paid-for extra for Yahoo Mail for example. That's particularly galling for me, because Yahoo is one of the accounts I feed into Gmail. I rely on it for newsletters, tickets, store accounts, general admin, and the like, and now I'm not going to be able to get at any of that inside Gmail.

Another option is to set up a desktop email client on Windows or macOS, which feels very old school. Gmail still supports the IMAP standard, and so do most other modern email services: all of your email will be together in one place, but you're only going to be able to access everything in one place from whatever desktop computer you set this up on.

Lastly, you can still add third-party accounts inside the Gmail app for Android or iOS. However, while this will let you view all your emails in one unified inbox, it won't actually move anything over to Gmail — if you open up the web app, your other accounts and all the messages inside them won't be there.

It's all a bit of a sorry mess, and I'm not sure exactly what I'm going to do going forward. What's certain is that I'm not going to be able to carry on as I have been, and that Gmail is going to be a significantly less useful email hub for me in the future.

Logitech Mobi Fold review

The Logitech Mobi Fold is, without question, the weirdest mouse I have ever used in my life.

This tiny, foldable travel mouse is focused on one thing above all: portability. Just like a clamshell phone from the noughties, it can fold in half, allowing you to easily slip it into your pocket if you’re working on the go. But even though the Logitech Mobi Fold’s exceptional portability is its clear USP, I have to ask… is it actually that necessary?

After all, a lot of mice are already highly compact, and if you’re working on the go, you’ve probably got a bag to hold your laptop or tablet, right? I’d bet that your bag can fit a laptop and a mouse, so arguably, the thing that makes this mouse so special isn’t actually that game-changing.

Still, the Mobi Fold has a few interesting features to run through, and you’re surely curious as to how such a strange model feels in use. So, after using the Logitech Mobi Fold as my main mouse for a few days, here’s how I’d rate it — and whether I think it can compete with the best mice around.

First things first, the Mobi Fold is incredibly easy to get set up. There’s a sync button on it that makes linking up to a windows laptop, Mac, or Android device incredibly seamless. There’s also an easy switch feature, making it incredibly speedy to flick between a range of devices.

But after I got set up with the Mobi Fold, and started using it to get some work done I have to say… it wasn’t amazing.

The Mobi Fold exhibits a few key issues that make it feel inferior to a standard compact or productivity mouse. First of all, it has a slightly bizarre build. Its V-shape form makes it feel awkward to grip, and when using it for extended periods, this caused me to feel some discomfort in my hand. It lacks the ergonomics of my everyday mouse, the Razer Viper V3 Pro, and even lacked its fluidity, meaning moving it across my desk felt clunky.

In addition, the touch-controlled scrolling is a bit inconsistent. It doesn’t provide the same tight control of a traditional mechanical scroll wheel, and again feels a bit lacking in terms of fluidity. Don’t get me wrong: it’s totally functional, but if you want the smooth, precise scrolling of a traditional mouse, the Mobi Fold may leave you wanting more.

My final critique is on the feel of the left and right buttons. While these are serviceable, they felt more stiff than I expected them to, especially towards the back and middle of the model. I did appreciate the muted sound of clicking the left and right buttons, but I wish they felt a bit more sensitive.

Despite all of this, there are some clear positives worth pointing out. First of all, the mouse offers great battery life. It supplies about 22 hours of continuous use, which easily got me through the work week, meaning I didn’t need to charge it at all during the testing period. Having said that, Logitech says that you can get an extra three hours of use from just one minute of charging, making it exceptionally practical for someone like me who often forgets to juice up their devices.

In addition, the Mobi Fold features customizable button controls through the Logi Options+ app. This enables you to adapt pointer speed, set the central touch panel to different functions (like paste, volume controls, or a keyboard shortcut), and more.

In terms of design, I’m also a fan of the rubbery texture of the mouse, which is very pleasant to the touch. It’s also worth noting that 36% of the plastics used in the Graphite colorway of the mouse I used are made from recycled materials. It’s 29% for the Lilac and Off-White variants, which look pretty stylish in my opinion.

Look, the Logitech Mobi Fold does well to stand out from the crowd. Its lightweight and foldable design undoubtedly makes it easy to travel with — even though I’d argue that standard mice are probably portable enough as they are. In addition, the customizable buttons, long battery life, and satisfying feel of the mouse are clear positives.

But for $79.99 / £69.99 / AU$129.95, the Mobi Fold ends up feeling like a relatively poor value for money option. Really, that comes down to one thing: its lackluster performance. With underwhelming ergonomics, as well as slightly stiff scrolling and buttons, the Mobi Fold feels like an idea that’s far more impressive in concept than it is in practice.

Logitech Mobi Fold review: price & release date

• $79.99 / £69.99 / AU$129.95
• Released in June 2026
• Available in four colors

The Logitech Mobi Fold released in June 2026, carrying a list price of $79.99 / £69.99 / AU$129.95. That price means it’s competing in the same price bracket as great models we’ve tested, such as the Keychron M6 8K, but a lot more than our favorite ultra-compact mouse, the Logitech Pop Mouse. It's available in four colors, including Graphite, Off-White, Lilac, and Sand.

Logitech Mobi Fold review: specs

Should I buy the Logitech Mobi Fold?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Logitech Mobi Fold review: also consider

How I tested the Logitech Mobi Fold

• Spent days using it as my main mouse
• Tried out its various features
• Took on the go to test its travel credentials

I spent multiple days testing the Logitech Mobi Fold, using it as my main mouse in the office and when working from home.

During my time with the Mobi Fold, I used it for general productivity, exhausted its various features, and even took it on the go to assess its on-the-go credentials. I typically had the mouse connected to my Windows PC, but I also tried it out with an Android phone.

More generally, I’ve spent years testing gadgets here at TechRadar, where I serve as an in-house Senior Reviews Writer. I’ve tried out a wide array of computing accessories, such as the Turtle Beach Command Series KB7 keyboard, as well as gaming gear, premium wireless headphones, power banks, and more.

• Read TechRadar’s reviews guarantee
• First reviewed: August 2026

It appears that the RAM crisis is getting worse than ever as we head further into 2026. I've been closely watching and reporting on memory price hikes — which were soon followed by other PC component cost increases — since this crisis first began, and the worrying thing is, I can't recall a gloomier stream of negative news than I've witnessed over the past few weeks.

That includes Samsung recently declaring that the RAM crisis is going to become more severe in 2027, and rumors that even mighty Apple is floundering in its attempt to secure new RAM supplies from China (as other notebook makers consider this alternative route to the three main memory chip giants: Micron, Samsung and SK Hynix).

Previous to that, we saw laptop maker Framework break news of a truly eye-opening cost increase for mobile RAM, just as one gauge of DDR5 pricing saw it jump in price to a new all-time high (after plateauing earlier this year). On top of that, the boss of SK Hynix voiced the opinion that 2027 will be the worst year in the RAM industry's history, and that the crisis is likely to be drawn out to the next decade.

This isn't just about RAM, of course, but other components, including CPU price rises, and devices themselves — PCs and laptops (and phones). But most notably over the past month it's been graphics cards in the crisis limelight. We've witnessed the resurrection of old GPUs to try to bolster stock levels of more affordable cards, and more recently we've been subjected to what seems like an endless parade of negativity about imminent price hikes.

Apparently, Gigabyte is set to increase the price tags of its graphics card to the tune of 20% to 40% in Japan, and MSI is going to jack up prices of Nvidia GPUs in China by 20% or more. Asus is supposedly preparing a similar 20% hike (as Wccftech reported).

Another recent gloom nugget is the assertion that Nvidia RTX 5000 models will get hikes of 30% in South Korea this month, and all of this pain is mainly rooted in the increased price of video RAM, of course. (Those cost increases are the reason the RTX 5000 Super refreshes have been delayed, according to the grapevine, as those rumored cards are packed with VRAM).

While a good deal of this is individual pieces of regional activity with GPU pricing, it's obvious that these hikes are happening as part of a concerted shift, one that will surely be reflected globally — it's not like Asian markets are in a bubble of their own.

The overarching theme is a worsening of price hike misery, and that the pricing storm is likely to intensify this year, and probably in 2027, too. While previously the RAM crisis has been more of a light-and-shade affair, now it feels like the depression has been turned up a notch. Whereas before, there was certainly more darkness than light, we've had notable spots of relief where an exec in the memory industry stepped forward and theorized that maybe things aren't as bad as we think. But lately those embers of optimism appear to have burned out.

To me, it feels like there's a shift underway towards a full acknowledgement that we really are going to experience a lot more pricing pain in the foreseeable future. If it's so bad that even Apple is purportedly scrambling to secure RAM supplies, and is having trouble doing so, I think it's time to turn up the worry meter by a notch or two.

What should you do?

Here's my advice on the current landscape with PC components and hardware (season it appropriately). Obviously, worrying isn't going to help you, but awareness of what might be sensible upgrades or purchases to make now will, based on the likelihood of hikes (we could call it the 'hike-lihood' – or maybe not). Nothing is certain about the future of components, of course, but it does feel like there's a clear area in which the potential price hikes are a bigger threat: GPUs.

As I discussed above, there's a lot of recent evidence that graphics card pricing is going up. Yes, it's a collection of rumors in the main, but there's a lot of it all pointing in a very similar direction — and a video RAM toll was always going to be exacted in the end. We've seen it already with higher-end graphics cards, and now I believe we're going to see it in the mid-range, and even budget models. Indeed, top-end GPUs are likely to get even more expensive as well.

If you're thinking about a GPU upgrade for this year or next, given all this, I think now really is the time to buy — especially with a lower-tier model, as you can still get more affordable graphics cards at their MSRP. Ditto for mid-rangers, although it's tougher to recommend higher-end Nvidia boards when they are already so expensive.

As noted, though, that could get worse. And granted, you may still want to wait for Black Friday — it's not that far off, and there might be some GPU deals then. However, I wouldn't bank on anything hugely compelling (or discounts that aren't offset by the price rises which are predicted to take hold in the next few months).

So, if there's one PC component that I think you should buy now, it's a graphics card. I think the signs are pretty clear on that (and see here for my recommendations on different models to consider). By extension, higher-end gaming laptops could also be a wise move for purchasing sooner rather than later. That's for the same reason, really — they have beefy (mobile) GPUs (with plenty of VRAM in some cases).

I don't think it's a bad move to buy any laptop, by the way, gaming or not (away from the higher-end), come your earliest window of opportunity. I think we'll see further price rises here, too, and RAM is going to cause more upward pricing pressures for notebooks — just look at Framework's recent revelation as mentioned.

What about RAM and SSDs themselves? While system memory kits and storage have already seen huge price rises, it now looks like there's worse to come (somehow).

On the other hand, there's a ceiling as to how expensive this stuff can get before buyers withdraw from what they see as an increasingly unrealistic and out-of-touch market. This is a much more difficult call to make, but if you can find something that looks relatively reasonably priced, I don't think you'll regret the purchase in the next couple of years. But that said, I can't recommend a RAM upgrade in particular at current pricing levels, unless it's unavoidable, frankly.

Above all, though, consider a GPU upgrade if you're in the market for a new card, or you think you'll need one in the next couple of years (yes, I think it's wise to be looking quite far down the road here).

The other thing to bear in mind is that there's a danger there will be a rush for GPUs, a flurry of buying that puts further strain on supply and therefore prices. As VideoCardz reports, one Japanese retailer has warned of Nvidia RTX 5000 graphics card sales increasing "sharply", even just with the news of rumored price increases — let alone the confirmation. Prices are already rising and restocks of the RTX 5070 Ti and RTX 5080 are already being labelled as "unstable", hinting that inventory could start to dry up quickly.

That's just one report, of course, and it pertains to the high-end of the market, so it's not something to start panicking about yet. But it does make some sense that if pricing begins to creep up, more PC owners may start to act on GPU upgrades. I wouldn't blame them, frankly.

Go onto any forum or mechanical keyboard subreddit these days, and it can be a minefield as to what people recommend. It's an essential wall of noise with regards to size, shape, switch type and even more that can be daunting if you're a first-timer or you're someone getting back into the hobby after years of being out of it.

I was speaking to a fellow tech journalist at Computex 2026 a few months ago, and he raised this exact point with me. After being out of the hobby for several years, he'd come back to find it being more confusing than ever before, which completely switched him off.

Likewise, I've often thought we've reached a state of choice paralysis compared to where the hobby was, say, a decade ago. Back then, you had only a handful of switch choices, and while we've since seen the democratisation of hot-swappable sockets, machined aluminium chassis and open-source software, it can be horribly overwhelming when it comes to the decisions that actually matter — layout, switch feel, and budget.

Before I go any further, let me give you my credentials – I've been a tech journalist for the best part of a decade, reviewing keyboards from brands big and small, and I've been involved in the mechanical keyboard hobby since before it hit the mainstream. I've seen this market go from a small niche to something that can feel genuinely impenetrable if you're coming to it fresh.

To be truthful, it doesn't have to be that complicated. Underneath all of that noise, choosing your first mechanical keyboard still comes down to a few simple decisions, which I'll guide you through below.

1. Pick a size

It might seem a bit of a strange, but a good starting point is thinking about what size of keyboard you'd like. I don't mean the physical dimensions of the 'board, rather the layout and arrangement of the keys.

Keyboards can come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from the typical full-size 100% down to ridiculously tiny 40% keyboards. So, let's divide them into categories.

Firstly, we've got between 60% and 65% layouts, which eschew a lot of features, such as a function row, nav cluster and number pad in the name of saving as much desk space as possible. These layouts have been popularised by gamers who need desk space for sweeping mouse movements and find the elements mentioned above quite redundant. Between the two, a 65% layout adds arrow keys and some navigation keys, which I think are non-negotiable for productivity work, but your mileage may vary.

Moving up a tad, we go to between 75% and TKL, or tenkeyless, keyboards. These bring back the function row and navigation cluster, giving you a lot more functionality than smaller layouts, while still chopping off the number pad. Personally, this is my favourite option, and I think a strong middle ground if you want to save space without sacrificing too much. I use this kind of layout a lot of the time, for what it's worth.

Then, you can go bigger, up to 96% and full-size 100% options that give you everything and the kitchen sink, number pad and all. It's what you're most likely used to, and if the number pad has become non-negotiable, then it's one of your only options. Opting for a 96%, also known as a '1800 layout', keyboard can give you the number pad while moving some keys around to save a little bit of desk space, if you want a slight compromise.

2. Pick a switch

This is perhaps the most difficult section, as each switch feels different, and we've got so many options these days it can be hard to know what's best for you. Muddying the waters further, the old color categories aren't quite as clear cut as they used to be.

For instance, a Red switch would usually be light and linear, a Black switch a heavier linear switch, a Blue switch tactile and loud with an audible click and a Brown switch soft tactile, with a slight bump halfway down the keypress.

Now, however, we've got switches named after everything from all the colors of the rainbow to planets, birds and more besides, and it can be so difficult to understand the minutiae behind how each switch feels.

My genuine advice is to order a switch tester – there are lots of them floating about on the internet – which can give you a range of different types of switch in one convenient place, and help you decide what you like.

When you've selected a tester, pay attention to how each switch feels – the worst thing you can do is bash each of them in turn with as much force as you can. Pay close attention to how it feels under finger with regard to consistency of the operating force as you go down the travel, and whether you like something that's linear with a smooth keypress or tactile, be it with a click or a bump.

Once you've honed in on a switch you like, then you can do some digging into which keyboard features those switches. Or, if you're up for a little bit of work, then you can pick up a bare-bones chassis with a hot-swappable PCB – this means it comes with no switches or keycaps, which you'll need to supply yourself.

Going for something hot-swappable is a key piece of advice I think – it saves the hassle of soldering, and gives you more freedom and choice. It's also dead easy to assemble a keyboard this way, even if you haven't done it before. Each switch will have little pins on the underside – line these up with holes in the PCB and push straight down until you hear it click into place. I recommend picking up more than enough switches to give you some spares in case you bend pins when putting them into the hot-swap sockets on the PCB.

The point here is that everybody has a different preference for switches and how they feel. There are other considerations, such as lubrication, which can make a switch feel smoother, and the acoustics of a case and how this plays into the sound signature you'd like, but that's getting into the weeds a little. It's important to make sure your case doesn't have any rattle or ping and has some form of sound dampening, but that's as far as I'd go at this point.

3. Set your budget

Pricing is arguably as integral as any other point of consideration for choosing a keyboard, as your budget can decide what kind you end up getting. It's worth going in with a list of features you'd like; good things to look for include PBT keycaps, good wireless connectivity and a sturdy chassis.

It's possible to get some excellent affordable choices (i.e. around £50–£70 / $60–$80) that seem to pack in everything when it comes to features: hot-swappable switches, versatile wireless connectivity, addressable RGB lighting and all the rest of it, but outside of a few options, some seem to sacrifice build quality by being mostly plastic, which can feel quite cheap and scratchy. At this tier, I'd do your research carefully and lean towards boards with a reputation for punching above their weight rather than just grabbing whatever looks good on paper.

Spending a little more and going into the very low triple figures is likely to net you a strong choice from the likes of Keychron with advanced software support and a machined aluminum chassis. That aluminum build makes a tangible difference in practice — it adds rigidity, dampens unwanted noise and gives the keyboard a solidity that plastic boards rarely match. I'm a great lover of the likes of the Q1 Pro and others from its range, which are an excellent starting point in the mid-range.

Beyond that, you can go further into the hundreds with something fully custom or a pre-built choice from the array of boutique manufacturers you'll find online. This isn't what I'd recommend to someone just starting out in the hobby — rather, it's something to consider if you're already knee-deep and have some spare cash to put towards making something truly personal. But it's worth knowing that world exists, because once you've caught the bug, it's a very natural place to end up.

Final thoughts

There are some elements here, such as even more niche layouts, that I haven't even touched on in this article, which proves how deep the mechanical keyboard hobby goes. However, that isn't the point of this article – it's just a (reasonably) quick explainer of key things to look for when you're picking up your first mechanical keyboard.

If you're ready to start shopping, I've looked at plenty of options at a range of prices I feel are worth your time over the years, while the wider TechRadar crew has reviewed hundreds of keyboards that are worth a mention. The Keychron Q1 Pro is a strong starting point (or there's the Q1 Ultra 8K if you want even more features at a premium price). Likewise, at a more affordable price point, the Gamakay TK75 V2 and Epomaker P65 are well-reviewed choices that tick the right boxes in my book. For a more comprehensive overview, our best keyboards guide is regularly updated and a good place to browse.

Ultimately, though, you can go in any direction you want to, and that's the beauty of this hobby. Just stick to some of the advice given here, and you should be in good stead to get a keyboard that's feature-rich, has the feel you're looking for, and at a price that isn't out of your budget.

Over the past month, it seems like every frontier model has broken free of its constraints and launched a devastating attack against one or more other companies.

One of OpenAI’s models escaped a testing sandbox and launched a very real attack against AI and machine learning company Hugging Face. Just days later, Anthropic revealed that multiple variants of its Claude model also escaped a sandbox that wasn’t properly sealed and began attacking the enterprise infrastructure of three companies.

Now, Meta has revealed that one of its models attacked another company’s infrastructure during testing. The accident has been pinned on a misconfiguration that allowed the model to access the internet. So why have so many incidents happened in such a short space of time?

Why are models escaping their sandbox?

In the cases of Anthropic and Meta, their models were being tested by a third party company called Irregular. Anthropic’s AI model was taking part in a "Capture the Flag" exercise, where the model’s raw offensive capabilities were tested without the usual safeguards. But the sandbox was left connected to the internet. A similar error to Meta’s own accidental escape.

During the OpenAI incident, the company was testing two versions of GPT‑5.6 Sol using the ExploitGym benchmark. Unfortunately, the AI models performed better than expected - chaining multiple attack vectors, stolen credentials, and zero-day vulnerabilities.

The main reason these models are escaping their testing environments is because they are designed to do exactly that. These AI models act like a massive team of highly-trained cybersecurity experts hunting for vulnerabilities and exploits. But what would take a team of humans days or weeks to accomplish can be done in hours, or even minutes, by these AI models.

It’s no wonder thousands of employees from AI firms are calling for a pause on the development of the technology, and Congress is considering an AI kill switch.

Expert perspectives on AI escapes:

OpenAI

• Nathaniel Jones VP, Security & AI Strategy, Darktrace:

What makes the OpenAI and Hugging Face incident important is that the models did not need malicious intent to cause harm. They were given the legitimate goal of solving a cybersecurity benchmark and found an unexpected route to the answers, escaping their test environment and compromising another organization in the process. From the models’ perspective, this appears to have been an effective solution to the task.

The AI's actions challenge the assumption that giving an agent a legitimate goal will produce legitimate behavior. As models become capable of pursuing objectives over longer periods, developers need to define not only what success looks like, but also which methods and boundaries remain unacceptable in reaching it. Those limits must also be enforced by the surrounding infrastructure, rather than relying on the model to respect them.

Security teams need to consider the AI systems operating in their own businesses as these capabilities rapidly evolve. Right now, many security systems focus on single actions. A single action by an agent may appear acceptable but as this incident shows, models are now capable of long, complex chains of reasoning and action that add up to a harmful outcome. Teams need a mindset shift to understanding AI agent behavior in its entirety, including the outcome it is working towards, in order to safeguard it.

Hugging Face's response also exposed a second tension. The company reportedly needed a Chinese-developed open-weight model because commercial models would not process genuine attack material. Its nationality is less important than the operational lesson that safeguards that cannot distinguish an attacker from an authorized investigator may constrain defenders more than adversaries.

OpenAI and Hugging Face deserve credit for investigating this together and discussing it publicly. Other AI developers should study it closely.

Anthropic

• Dr. Ilia Kolochenko, founder of global cybersecurity company ImmuniWeb:

This seems to be quite an unimpressive marketing move from Anthropic in response to the OpenAI / Hugging Face drama, which attracted a lot of attention from all over the world recently.

Operationally, it appears that due to the progressive deterioration of the quality of training data, new AI models are getting dumber. Cheating and breaking the law, instead of accomplishing specific tasks, is certainly not an indicator of intelligence. Given that organizations and companies of all sizes now vigorously undertake all possible measures to protect their data from being exploited for AI training purposes, AI companies face a huge shortage of the high-quality and current data they so desperately need. Ultimately, frontier models are trained on synthetic, low-quality or even malicious and poisoned data, undermining their so-called intelligence. The situation is unlikely to improve in the near future unless AI companies agree to pay a fair price for training data, but this will force most of them out of business.

Contemporary AI agents and LLM models tasked with security testing can – and almost certainly will – go rogue when security controls or safeguards are insufficient. Powerful LLMs are unpredictable by design and thus virtually uncontrollable by humans. Therefore, using frontier AI models for security testing might be extremely costly from the legal viewpoint. Under the existing laws on both sides of the Atlantic, if an AI agent or any AI-powered app escapes its sandbox and causes damage to a third party, the operator of the AI model will likely be liable for all the damage caused. Excuses like “AI did it” do not currently exist in the eyes of the law, leaving AI vendors on the hook. Criminal prosecution, under a narrow set of circumstances, is also not excluded.

The same is true for the end-users of AI: even if your security testing tool is powered by a third-party AI model, your company will likely be fully liable if something goes wrong. You may then file a lawsuit against the AI vendor that you used, but here your chances to succeed in a court of law are tiny due to countless contractual disclaimers and limitations of liability that will likely be enforceable against you. Therefore, if you plan to use agentic AI for security testing – think twice and talk to your lawyers. Otherwise, you may start getting summons to court on a daily basis.

Meta

• Alex Goller, Principal Solution Architect EMEA at Illumio:

The fact we've had similar situations happen three times now across the biggest AI players is simply ridiculous. We've seen guardrails intentionally loosened to test their limits – Meta's model didn't need to be clever to breach another company's systems.

The timing of conveniently finding the exact same problem either means it's a stunt or they weren't paying enough attention during testing. Either way, both answers are worrying.

If the model has internet access, it's a bit like leaving the door open and being surprised when the cat walks out. What is concerning is that the testing infrastructure meant to prove these models are safe failed on a basic control issue.

Fundamental cybersecurity hygiene still matters, and a frontier AI model is only as secure as the environment it's operating in.

Organisations need visibility into what AI systems can access and how they interact with the wider environment, along with controls that contain the impact when an agent behaves unexpectedly. That means keeping a close eye on egress traffic, so it’s flagged immediately when an agent tries to open unexpected outbound communication patterns that are not required to achieve its original goal. In the best case this would have been contained proactively.

We need to define exactly what an AI agent is permitted to do, rather than relying only on instructions about what it shouldn't do.

A German startup has debuted the world's first diamond-based quantum computing system to exceed 10 qubits.

The machine, built by engineers at Saxon Q, is a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) quantum computer, meaning it uses defects in synthetic diamonds as quantum bits (qubits) to perform quantum operations. Qubits can be manipulated to represent the 0s and 1s of data, as well as quantum states that are superpositions of both the 0s and the 1s.

The hardware is currently available in rack-mounted systems featuring up to 128 qubits, with 512-qubit configurations available for delivery next year. According to the company's road map, the goal is to scale to 10,000 qubits and beyond after 2030.

Although the technology existed before this debut, scientists have found it difficult to build systems beyond 10 qubits due to the difficulty of creating nitrogen vacancy qubits.

Although Live Science saw a technical white paper outlining how the technology works, there didn't appear to be any published research demonstrating a functional quantum computer based on the NV architecture operating with more than 10 qubits before this launch. It's still unclear exactly how well the firm's quantum computers stack up against other platforms.

Quantum mechanics and flawed diamonds

In the 1970s, scientists discovered that certain diamonds shone with a brilliant red light when illuminated in a specific way. Subsequent research determined that the optical shift was caused by annealing radiation damage that attracted isolated substitutional nitrogen atoms. In other words, nature occasionally produces a diamond that has a nitrogen atom where a carbon atom should be.

The unintegrated nitrogen atoms are drawn to the vacancy in the otherwise perfectly ordered carbon atoms inside the diamond. Although these flawed diamonds occur rarely in nature, scientists can create diamonds with nitrogen vacancies in laboratories.

Functionally, the single nitrogen atoms inside the vacancies act as if they were "trapped," and their electrons can "spin" independently of the electrons inside the surrounding carbon atoms.

Scientists exploit this "spin" feature by using special lasers to put the nitrogen atom's electrons in a specific state they measure as "zero." They can then use microwave pulses to precisely manipulate the electrons into numerous configurations, including quantum states that binary "bits" can't achieve.

Marius Grundmann, a professor of experimental physics at Leipzig University and co-founder of Saxon Q, said the breakthrough that allowed his firm to push past the 10-qubit barrier was a materials discovery.

When the Saxon Q team creates the vacancy inside its lab-grown diamonds, they co-implant sulfur. Per Grundman, “That's the key technology point. Because the sulfur lifts the chemical potential to a point that it's negatively charged. The sulfur supplies the electron; the sulfur also makes the vacancy attached to the nitrogen with a very high yield."

In other words, by co-implanting sulfur atoms, the Saxon Q researchers can express greater control over the individual qubits. Once the qubits are set with lasers and subjected to microwave pulses, they're ready for error correction. In a statement, Saxon Q representatives said the qubits achieved a 99.92% fidelity rate — fewer than one error per 1,000 operations — before error correction.

However, Grundmann told Live Science that the latest numbers as of July 22 showed 99.98% fidelity in single-qubit operations. That's comparable to state-of-the-art error correction results reported by other quantum computing labs, such as those from IBM and MIT, although it wasn't possible to independently verify the results.

Room-temperature quantum computing

It's difficult to compare Saxon Q's diamond-based NV systems with more established quantum computing platforms, such as superconducting qubits. Most recent research on NV systems has focused on quantum sensing applications, though at least one preprint study discusses hybrid NV/superconducting systems.

"We have a fully functioning quantum computer," Grundmann told Live Science. According to Grundmann, the company's quantum computers are on a par with those using other modalities. "We have a quantum computer that can execute quantum code that you can reach via the network, and it is a multiuser, multitasking, multicore system," he said.

If the Saxon Q systems ultimately prove comparable to existing solid-state quantum computing architectures, they'd be among the first generation of room-temperature quantum computers to reach performance similar to systems that require cryogenics and on-site monitoring.

The ease of setup is notable. Saxon Q's devices can be slotted into a standard computer rack and plugged directly into alternating-current power.

This provides a clear near-term advantage for clients who want to run algorithms on a quantum system without operating through the cloud. Grundmann said this could be especially important in edge computing scenarios, such as autonomous driving or robotics, where cloud communication could produce unacceptable latency.

Research comparing solid-state quantum systems indicates that superconducting quantum computers would typically operate faster than diamond-based NV systems. It's unclear, however, what the trade-off between processing speed and cloud latency would be or whether it could be addressed through scaling.

The current challenge to scaling diamond-based NV quantum computers beyond the 512-qubit range is the size of the chips. Saxon Q's current chips are limited to supporting either eight or 16 qubits. For more powerful systems, scientists will need to squeeze hundreds ‪—‬ or even thousands ‪—‬ of qubits onto a single array to support operations requiring hundreds of thousands or millions of qubits.

Can you match these ancient devices to their pictures? Find out with our computing quiz!

Boy, sure is a hot one today, huh? Okay, I get the irony: that's a take so cold you could use it to replace your freezing Wim Hof showers. But when the metaphorical mercury creeps this high, you've got to keep your cool. The same goes for your laptop, which is why you might want to grab a laptop cooling pad this summer.

Fortunately for you, I've spent this week testing every laptop cooling pad I can get my hands on to see which offers the superior AC for your computer. Not only that, but I've brought receipts — this piece has more graphics and graphs than election night coverage. So if you want objective numbers about which pad is genuinely gusty and which is all bluster, I've got the data you need.

I get that it can be tempting to overlook cooling your laptop during warm weather — I've been more worried this summer about tracking down a fan to keep myself cool than my laptops. But you overlook the best laptop cooling pads at your peril.

I still have vivid memories of the summer I redlined my laptop during a heatwave. While the video skittering should have been a hint, it was only when it stopped booting up and started bleeping SOS in Morse code that I began questioning my life choices. Turns out I'd burnt out the memory — quite literally: there were scorch marks on the inside of the case.

So at this time of year, it's worth considering whether a laptop cooling pad can help you out. And I can definitely help out there.

Laptop cooling pads: cooling

Temperature Rise Using Laptop Cooling Pad

The temperature rise during a stress test while using the laptop cooling pad on max settings

Temperature difference (°C)Temperature difference (°F)

Baseline

31.9

TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad

22.8

Klim Mistral

20.4

Klim Wind

19.5

Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad

18.4

TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad

17.9

Klim Ultimate

15.5

Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad

15.3

Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad

12

Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad

8

010203040

Temperature difference (°C) Data

Product	Value
Baseline	31.9
TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad	22.8
Klim Mistral	20.4
Klim Wind	19.5
Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad	18.4
TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad	17.9
Klim Ultimate	15.5
Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad	15.3
Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad	12
Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad	8

Baseline

57.4

TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad

41

Klim Mistral

36.7

Klim Wind

35.1

Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad

33.1

TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad

32.2

Klim Ultimate

27.9

Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad

27.5

Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad

21.6

Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad

14.4

015304560

Temperature difference (°F) Data

Product	Value
Baseline	57.4
TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad	41
Klim Mistral	36.7
Klim Wind	35.1
Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad	33.1
TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad	32.2
Klim Ultimate	27.9
Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad	27.5
Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad	21.6
Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad	14.4

Lower values indicate better cooling.

Assessing which laptop cooling pad is a breezy wonder and which is a wheezy blunder ultimately comes down to how frosty each model's cooling is. That's why I went through every pad I could get my hands on to see how much each one prevented our gaming laptop from heating up during a 3DMark stress test.

As you can see, by far the weakest cooling offered by any laptop cooling pad I tested was from the TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad. Compared to the 57.4°F / 31.9°C baseline rise of our gaming laptop alone, the C12 was only able to limit it to a 41°F / 22.8°C rise — that might be better than frantically waving a dish towel in its general direction, but only barely.

Probably the biggest disappointment of these tests was how the Klim Mistral performed. Not only did it seem to perform worse than the more affordable Klim Wind — resulting in 36.7°F / 20.4°C warming compared to the Wind's 35.1°F / 19.5°C — but it was pretty inconsistent to boot, achieving even worse results on a retest.

Skipping ahead a little, the laptop cooling pad I was most surprised by was the TECKNET. Although it's cheaper than quite a few of the pads I tested here, setting me back just $21.59 / £21.99, the 32.2°F / 17.6°C warming it presided over put it firmly in the top half of the pack. It's the little laptop cooling pad that could.

Given that the Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad and Klim Ultimate both achieved an almost photo finish, it would be easy to assume there's not much daylight between them. However, like a bottle of wine, you really need to weigh up what you're spending here to calculate its true value. And as the Liangstar costs $20.99 / £23.59 versus the Klim Ultimate's $44.97 / £44.97 price tag, that definitely takes the edge here.

But, frankly, there's a reason Llano is the absolute GOAT in my eyes. As you can see, it took both first and second place on my cooling pad podium. While the Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad stopped our gaming laptop from warming up more than 21.6°F / 12°C, the Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad kept it down to just 14.4°F / 8°C of warming. This boi makes liquid nitrogen look positively toasty.

Laptop cooling pads: noise levels

Previous

1 / 2

Next

Noise Level — cooling pad alone

Noise level of the cooling pad or laptop alone taken at head height and from 3 inches away

Head heightNear

Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad

71

Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad

64.5

Klim Mistral

52.6

Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad

45

TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad

43.5

Laptop alone

42

Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad

37.4

Klim Wind

36.2

TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad

36

Klim Ultimate

36

020406080

dB

Head height Data

Product	Value
Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad	71
Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad	64.5
Klim Mistral	52.6
Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad	45
TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad	43.5
Laptop alone	42
Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad	37.4
Klim Wind	36.2
TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad	36
Klim Ultimate	36

Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad

85

Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad

77

Klim Mistral

62.6

Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad

59

TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad

58

Laptop alone

60

Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad

50.2

Klim Wind

48.8

TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad

60

Klim Ultimate

46

0255075100

dB

Near Data

Product	Value
Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad	85
Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad	77
Klim Mistral	62.6
Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad	59
TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad	58
Laptop alone	60
Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad	50.2
Klim Wind	48.8
TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad	60
Klim Ultimate	46

Noise Level — cooling pad & laptop

Combined noise level of the cooling pad and laptop taken at head height and from 3 inches away

dB Head heightdB Near

Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad

64

Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad

57.5

Klim Mistral

51.5

TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad

45

TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad

45

Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad

45

Klim Ultimate

44.4

Klim Wind

44

Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad

44

020406080

dB Head height Data

Product	Value
Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad	64
Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad	57.5
Klim Mistral	51.5
TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad	45
TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad	45
Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad	45
Klim Ultimate	44.4
Klim Wind	44
Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad	44

Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad

79

Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad

69

Klim Mistral

61.5

TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad

58.5

TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad

58

Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad

59

Klim Ultimate

55.2

Klim Wind

58.5

Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad

61

020406080

dB Near Data

Product	Value
Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad	79
Llano V10 Gaming Laptop Cooling Pad	69
Klim Mistral	61.5
TopMate C12 Laptop Cooling Pad	58.5
TECKNET Laptop Cooling Pad	58
Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad	59
Klim Ultimate	55.2
Klim Wind	58.5
Almiuzi F2 Plus Laptop Cooling Pad	61

You may think that your gaming laptop makes a lot of noise. But believe me: that's scarcely more than a murmur compared to some cooling pads. Given they're essentially just an LED-adorned box with a whopping great fan inside, they can get pretty shouty. That's why I grabbed the sound level meter from my utility belt and started measuring like the world's nerdiest superhero.

Perhaps predictably, the pad that blows coolest blows loudest. While I love the Llano RGB Laptop Cooling Pad's glacial chilling, I can't get away from the fact that it's pretty noisy. I'm 5 foot 11 inches tall, and from my head height, I clocked it at 71dB — according to the Center for Hearing and Communication, that's roughly as loud as a coffee grinder or freeway traffic. In my book, that's a worthy price to pay for keeping your laptop cool, but it might not be ideal if you're planning to use it in the office.

In fact, you might assume there's an inverse relationship between cooling and fan noise. And while that does hold true for the most part, there are some interesting exceptions. For example, while I found the Liangstar Laptop Cooling Pad offered the third best cooling in my tests overall, it was substantially quieter than either of the Llanos, clocking in at a much less brash 45dB.

Conversely, the Klim Mistral manages to buck the trend in the other direction, running surprisingly loud compared to some of the other competitors here. At 52dB, it kicks out a similar level of noise as a fridge — which is pretty ironic given it offered some of the worst cooling in my testing.

And there are some surprising candidates for the winner's podium when it comes to sound levels. The TECKNET offers far from the worst cooling, and yet it ties for first place as the quietest pad on test here at 36dB — again, not at all bad given its super affordable price tag.

Honestly, though, if you want whisper-quiet running without sacrificing performance, my pro tip would be to check out the Klim Ultimate. Unlike Klim's two cheaper cooling pads, it offers very credible chilling while also measuring noise levels of 36dB from head height — that's apparently quieter than a library, which isn't known for being a raucous place.

Fundamentally, noise levels probably shouldn't be the deciding factor when picking your perfect laptop cooling pad. Both cooling power and budget come higher up the pecking order in terms of my personal preferences. But that doesn't mean you should ignore it completely — depending on where and how you use your laptop, you could find strapping a jet engine to the bottom of it to be a bit of a deal breaker.

Do I even need a laptop cooling pad?

Previous

1 / 2

Next

MacBook Air M5 encode test

Performance after an hour during a standard encode test both with and without cooling

Versus Comparison Data

Attribute	Benchmark — MacBook Air M5	Klim Ultimate — MacBook Air M5
Average FPS	2.52	2.77
Estimated encode time	122	114

Benchmark — MacBook Air M5Klim Ultimate — MacBook Air M5

VS

Benchmark — MacBook Air M5Klim Ultimate — MacBook Air M5

Average FPS (fps)

2.52

2.77+10%

Estimated encode time (minutes)

+7%122

114

Re-encoding a 4K stereo .mov file at highest quality, the MacBook Air M5 showed a modest reduction in throttling in terms of average FPS and encode time when using the Klim Ultimate laptop cooling pad.

Acer Predator Helios 300 encode test

Performance after an hour during a standard encode test both with and without cooling

Versus Comparison Data

Attribute	Benchmark — Acer Predator Helios 300	Klim Ultimate — Acer Predator Helios 300
Average FPS	2.8	2.8
Estimated encode time	115	113

Benchmark — Acer Predator Helios 300Klim Ultimate — Acer Predator Helios 300

VS

Benchmark — Acer Predator Helios 300Klim Ultimate — Acer Predator Helios 300

Average FPS (fps)

2.8

2.8

Estimated encode time (minutes)

+2%115

113

Re-encoding a 4K stereo .mov file at highest quality, the Acer Predator Helios 300 showed essentially no reduction in either average FPS or estimated encode time, suggesting limited heat-related throttling took place.

So it's pretty clear which cooling pads offer ice-cold AC and which sound like a tumble dryer breaking the sound barrier. But I've left the biggest question until last — do you actually need one at all?

Aiming to prove my theorem that 'cold CPU = good', I whipped up a quick encode test designed to stress out the CPU of several laptops over a longer period. In theory, after an hour, their core temperature should have risen, their CPUs throttled, and the length of the encode spiked and the encode rate dropped. Running the same test with one of our top cooling pads, the Klim Ultimate, would then show how much it could reduce this throttling.

On my MacBook Air M5, after an hour of using its passive cooling alone, the total estimated encode time had crept up to 122 minutes, and the average encode rate was sitting at 2.52 FPS. When I reran the test with the Klim Ultimate running on max cooling, that total encode time was trimmed to 114 minutes, and the encode rate had increased to 2.77 FPS. That's not a huge difference, but it shows the Klim Ultimate was able to trim back some of that temperature-related throttling.

Running the same test on our Acer Predator Helios 300 was a much more ambiguous experience. During my first run, the encode crashed within minutes, and during the second it crashed moments after the test concluded. So it was honestly far from stable.

I was able to eventually get some results, however, and they showed... nothing. Whether I was using the Klim Ultimate or not, the test results were essentially identical, with Handbrake clocking an estimated encode time of 115 minutes uncooled and 113 with the Klim's help. Meanwhile, the encode rate remained steady, sitting at a reasonable 2.8 FPS.

What does that mean? That I've wasted several hours of my life? Not quite. There are a couple of key conclusions to take away from this. One is that a performance laptop with whacking great fans built in is already pretty good at keeping itself cool. Shocking revelation, I know.

But probably the more critical takeaway is that the mileage you get out of a laptop cooling pad is going to vary depending on how well optimized it is for handling heat, as well as the kind of tasks you're doing. Had I tried to run Cyberpunk 2077 on max graphics settings with ray-tracing switched on, the Predator Helios 300 would likely have caused it to melt into the earth's core.

There's also another caveat. While it's definitely been warm the last week or so in the TechRadar testing lab, it hasn't reached the kind of desiccating highs that have hit both the US and UK in recent months. Past a certain point, any laptop will struggle in the heat. Forget CPU throttling — in that heat, I'd be more worried about your components liquefying like a chocolate bunny on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral.

In light of that, I'd say a laptop cooling pad is still worth exploring, especially if you tend to do a lot of resource-intensive tasks like 3D work, Photoshopping or gaming.

Any thoughts or personal experiences you'd like to share? Please feel free to chime in down in the comments!