Pros: - actually hit 12400MB/s read and 11,800MB/s write in Crystal Disk Mark - meeting the specs for the win! - Crucial was first out of the gate with a Gen 5 drive that *nearly* maxes out the Gen 5 interface. That's impressive, because when Gen 4 drives arrived, 5000MB/s was the max for quite a while before the 7000MB/s drives came out. Here Crucial was able to leapfrog the equivalent 10000MB/s drives almost immediately. Sure, 14000MB/s drives are on the horizon, but you're giving up very little sequential speed by jumping in now. - the heatsink does seem to keep temps down to reasonable levels, but given that any motherboard that has a Gen 5 slot at this point probably has a built-in heatsink, it begs the question of which is better. I considered testing this but decided it was too much to take on! One thing is for sure - this drive runs hot (mine hit 65C during an intense write session), and running without any heatsink just doesn't make sense.

Cons: - while sequential speeds are much higher than with Gen 4 drives, random speeds are about the same. Perhaps with more refinement, future Gen 5 drives will leverage the faster interface to improve random, but perhaps it will really come down to other drive components besides the interface, in which case Gen 4 drives likely would have benefitted too (although development is probably done at this point on those). - the upshot - this is an artificial way to reset prices on drives to double the price even if Gen 4 drives could have offered most users a very similar experience with additional tweaks.

Overall Review: I like the drive, and if you want to "max" out a system today it's a great choice. In my testing I benched it in both a Gen 5 slot and Gen 4 slot, and also benched against Gen 4 drives. I found that sequential was shockingly hitting the 12400MB/s spec on the Gen 5 slot, and of course was far lower in the Gen 4 slot (~7000MB/s). Interestingly, though, random performance was a mixed bag. In a few tests, running in the Gen 4 slot was the same or a bit higher, which just goes to show how little the interface impacts random performance. Also note that my older Gen 4 drive had only slightly slower random performance (and in some tests was higher), so again, when it comes to random, we are not getting the "leaps and bounds" increases that the sequential specs would have you believe.

Pros: This printer is very fast for an inkjet, reasonably quiet, and has a full-featured touchscreen as well as ample networking features. Following the setup process even allows you to secure a dedicated e-mail address for the printer, allowing you to send documents via e-mail directly to the printer! While the big selling point of this huge printer is the ability to print 11"x17" documents, I particularly like the ability to scan such documents, because it allows you to scan both pages of many books in a single pass and share the scan as a single one-page document..

Cons: There are three major issues I've identified with the printer: (1) I could not get the device to scan from its automatic document feeder. This is despite the fact that the ADF would grab the sheets, the screen would indicate that documents were loaded, and the ADF worked just fine if I selected copy. Every time I selected scan from the touchscreen, it would attempt to scan from the flatbed, which of course was empty. Perhaps this was just a glitch in my sample, but I consider it a pretty big problem. (2) photo printing is well below average for an inkjet. I've tested a number of much less expensive inkjets from Canon and Epson, and their photo quality was much better than this model's. Now, I realize this isn't being marketed as a photo printer, but it is an expensive inkjet, and buyers will probably expect that it can top photo inkjets at half the price. It cannot. And to be clear, I tested the printer with HP's most expensive premium photo printer paper. (3) Despite its enormous size, which you can see for yourself from the specifications, this printer has no internal paper output tray. I was shocked that I needed to use a flimsy flip-out tray to keep printed pages from shooting right out onto the floor. You really need to add another 6" of depth to position the printer on a table such that you won't risk walking into those extended trays.

Overall Review: I've owned a lot of inkjets, and none of them have impressed me all that much. There are a number of reasons for this: (1) They are slow to start up, often needing to clean their spray heads for minutes at a time before printing a single page; (2) they are slow to print, especially anything with color; (3) they are loud, especially when they shake back and forth during printing; and (4) ink dries up fast when not in use, and is expensive to replace. The Officejet Pro 7740 is a lot better in some regards, including startup time, noise, and the ability to print without shaking its foundation. But it's also bigger than most laser printers, even some color laser printers, and it costs quite a bit given its output quality.

Pros: This drive is less expensive than its closest competitor, is overall a good value for 2TB of storage (especially given that internal 2TB SATA drives, which you might also consider if you have a desktop, are not that much cheaper and limited to 550MB/s). It's twice that speed (well almost, see below). It's also very small, and includes a Type C cable (although it's quite short - you'll probably want a longer one).

Cons: As mentioned, the included cable is arguably a throw-away due to being too short, unless you're using this with a laptop where ports are easier to reach.

Overall Review: The rated speed can be achieved with the included cable when using a USB 3.2 2x2 port (i.e., 20Gb/s). Those are unusual, and given that this is spec'd as a USB 3.2 Gen-2 (10Gb/s) drive on Crucial's page, I would think it could hit the rated 1050MB/s speed on such a port. But it only hit 960MB/s on a 10Gb/s port. I was able to hit the full 1050 MB/s (in fact, 1055MB/s on both read and write) using a 3.2 2x2 port. The odd thing is that 2x2 drives (like Crucial's X10) are rated to 2100MB/s, so a standard 3.2 port should be able to hit half that (1050MB/s), but apparently can't. Anyway, just another example of USB marketing confusion! Another thing you have to very careful about is using USB Type A to Type C cables, for example if you don't have a free Type C port on your PC. Most of these are going to be USB 2.0 spec, and will drastically bottleneck performance. I got a paltry 45MB/s using such a cable, which is indeed the max of the ancient USB 2.0 standard. You can see all my benchmarks in a single image, with labels for the ports/cables used.

Pros: I needed a "relatively" compact GPU for an ITX build, and this was absolutely the largest GPU that could fit. This is not a compact GPU, but among high-end models, it's at the small end of the range, just a bit bigger than the AMD reference but with better cooling. Overall, I am very pleased - temps are excellent at load (around 72-74C max in 3DMark), and noise levels are reasonable.

Cons: The RTX 4080 gives you similar rasterization performance and higher RT performance, with much lower energy use.

Overall Review: - I'm using the Sliger S620 ITX case, and it was a struggle to wedge this card in even though the specs suggested I had some leeway, which is because with ITX builds, you often have more space inside than you do through the outer frame, and other components are already installed that get in the way of creative approach angles. So ITX builders beware! - While at launch it seemed the RX 7900 XTX would wipe the floor with the RTX 4080 just based on perf/dollar, it really hasn't worked out that way. I think it's telling that the RX 7900 XTX dropped in price faster than the RTX 4080, which does have distinct advantages in the latest games and is far ahead in terms of efficiency. But AMD gets points for trying, and if you don't care about RT, this is still a great choice thanks to the lower price.

Pros: So many pros, where do I start? Wireless - fantastic: no one can beat Logitech's Lightspeed system. It's ultra-fast and rock-solid. Battery life - fantastic: you get 34 hours of battery life at maximum (100%) brightness, over 130 hours at minimum (25%), and 1100 hours with no RGB lights. That should put to rest any fears about going with wireless, even in an RGB keyboard. Switches - fantastic: I was definitely concerned about whether the Kaihua switches in this model could compete with the big name switch manufacturer, but indeed, they are great, and a huge step up from the Romer-G switches in Logitech's previous wireless mechanical keyboard, the G613, which were super-mushy. Design - Fantastic: gone is all the fantastic plastic of every previous Logitech keyboard, replaced by beautiful aluminum and a svelte 22mm-thick profile. A total win.

Cons: So here's the deal: this isn't the best gaming keyboard I've used. It's not because there's anything wrong with the wireless system or the switches. It's because the keycaps are too small, too slick, and too flat. I just couldn't get a really good "grip" on them during gaming. For typing, however, they're excellent. The other issue, and this isn't limited to the G915, is that Logitech's GHub system has a lot of trouble staying connected to wireless devices. It's not that the keyboard drops from the PC, it most definitely doesn't. It's that GHub is clearly still beta, despite having been released in early 2019, and it has a lot of trouble keeping its device list in order. Very annoying, but at least it can be fixed some day.

Overall Review: I love this keyboard. It's really a powerhouse in terms of the tech - there's simply nothing else that offers what the G915 does, and that's because no other company could achieve it. I love the clicky feel for typing - it makes me more accurate for sure. It's fine for gaming, although there the responsiveness of the clicks isn't as important as the feel of the keys, and that's where the G915 shows its weakness. This is the ideal keyboard if you're mainly using it for professional office purposes, and want to game on the side.

Pros: Corsair has really stepped up its game with its new "2018" line of AF120 fans. Unlike previous models, these use hydraulic bearings, and I could tell that this fan was far quieter than previous Corsair fans I'd used. The lighting is also quite striking - four bright white LEDs are mounted in the fan hub.

Cons: This is a 3-pin fan, which is pretty unusual these days. It was perfect for use on my GPU liquid cooler, which only has a 3-pin connection to the PCB's fan controller, but some users may be surprised to find that it's not a 4-pin PWM fan.

Overall Review: The overall light dispersion of this fan is pretty different from most fans, where the lights are at the base of the hub. The hub is very bright lit, while the blades just get some ambient light shining off them. I think it looks cool, but it is different even from other Corsair RGB fans I have in my system right now. If you want a consistent look, you'll need identical fans.