AMD

big-tech-basically-took-trump’s-unpredictable-trade-war-lying-down

Big Tech basically took Trump’s unpredictable trade war lying down

AMD, Apple, bytedance, china, Donald Trump, Features, intel, NVIDIA, Policy, reciprocal tariffs, tariffs, tiktok, trade war / /

From Apple gifting a gold statue to the US taking a stake in Intel.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

As the first year of Donald Trump’s chaotic trade war winds down, the tech industry is stuck scratching its head, with no practical way to anticipate what twists and turns to expect in 2026.

Tech companies may have already grown numb to Trump’s unpredictable moves. Back in February, Trump warned Americans to expect “a little pain” after he issued executive orders imposing 10–25 percent tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trading partners, including Canada, China, and Mexico. Immediately, industry associations sounded the alarm, warning that the costs of consumer tech could increase significantly. By April, Trump had ordered tariffs on all US trade partners to correct claimed trade deficits, using odd math that critics suspected came from a chatbot. (Those tariffs bizarrely targeted uninhabited islands that exported nothing and were populated by penguins.)

Costs of tariffs only got higher as the year wore on. But the tech industry has done very little to push back against them. Instead, some of the biggest companies made their own surprising moves after Trump’s trade war put them in deeply uncomfortable positions.

Apple gives Trump a gold statue instead of US-made iPhone

Right from the jump in February, Apple got backed into a corner after Trump threatened a “flat” 60 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, which experts said could have substantially taxed Apple’s business. Moving to appease Trump, Apple promised to invest $500 billion in the US in hopes of avoiding tariffs, but that didn’t take the pressure off for long.

By April, Apple stood by and said nothing as Trump promised the company would make “made in the USA” iPhones. Analysts suggested such a goal was “impossible,” calling the idea “impossible at worst and highly expensive at best.”

Apple’s silence did not spare the company Trump’s scrutiny. The next month, Trump threatened Apple with a 25 percent tariff on any iPhones sold in the US that were not manufactured in America. Experts were baffled by the threat, which appeared to be the first time a US company was threatened directly with tariffs.

Typically, tariffs are imposed on a country or category of goods, like smartphones. It remains unclear if it would even be legal to levy a tariff on an individual company like Apple, but Trump never tested those waters. Instead, Trump stopped demanding the American-made iPhone and withdrew other tariff threats after he was apparently lulled into submission by a gold statue that Apple gifted him in August. The engraved glass disc featured an Apple logo and Tim Cook’s signature above a “Made in USA” stamp, celebrating Donald Trump for his “Apple American Manufacturing Program.”

Trump’s wild deals shake down chipmakers

Around the same time that Trump eased pressure on Apple, he turned his attention to Intel. On social media in August, Trump ordered Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to “resign immediately,” claiming he was “highly conflicted.” In response, Tan did not resign but instead met with Trump and struck a deal that gave the US a 10 percent stake in Intel. Online, Trump bragged that he let Tan “keep his job” while hyping the deal—which The New York Times described as one of the “largest government interventions in a US company since the rescue of the auto industry after the 2008 financial crisis.”

But unlike the auto industry, Intel didn’t need the money. And rather than helping an ailing company survive a tough spot, the deal risked disrupting Intel’s finances in ways that spooked shareholders. It was therefore a relief to no one when Intel detailed everything that could go wrong in an SEC filing, including the possible dilution of investors’ stock due to discounting US shares and other risks of dilution, if certain terms of the deal kick in at some point in the future.

The company also warned of potential lawsuits challenging the legality of the deal, which Intel fears could come from third parties, the US government, or foreign governments. Most ominous, Intel admitted there was no way to predict what other risks may come, both in the short-term and long-term.

Of course, Intel wasn’t the only company Trump sought to control, and not every company caved. He tried to strong-arm the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in September into moving half its chip manufacturing into the US, but TSMC firmly rejected his demand. And in October, when Trump began eyeing stakes in quantum computing firms, several companies were open to negotiating, but with no deals immediately struck, it was hard to ascertain how seriously they were entertaining Trump’s talks.

Trump struck another particularly wild deal the same month as the Intel agreement. That deal found chipmakers Nvidia and AMD agreeing to give 15 percent of revenue to the US from sales to China of advanced computer chips that could be used to fuel frontier AI. By December, Nvidia’s deal only drew more scrutiny, as the chipmaker agreed to give the US an even bigger cut—25 percent—of sales of its second most advanced AI chips, the H200.

Again, experts were confused, noting that export curbs on Nvidia’s H20 chips, for example, were imposed to prevent US technology thefts, maintain US tech dominance, and protect US national security. Those chips are six times less powerful than the H200. To them, it appeared that the Trump administration was taking payments to overlook risks without a clear understanding of how that might give China a leg-up in the AI race. It also did not appear to be legal, since export licenses cannot be sold under existing federal law, but government lawyers have supposedly been researching a new policy that would allow the US to collect the fees.

Trump finally closed TikTok deal

As the end of 2025 nears, the tech company likely sweating Trump’s impulses most may be TikTok owner ByteDance. In October, Trump confirmed that China agreed to a deal that allows the US to take majority ownership of TikTok and license the TikTok algorithm to build a US version of the app.

Trump has been trying to close this deal all year, while ByteDance remained largely quiet. Prior to the start of Trump’s term, the company had expressed resistance to selling TikTok to US owners, and as recently as January, a ByteDance board member floated the idea that Trump could save TikTok without forcing a sale. But China’s approval was needed to proceed with the sale, and near the end of December, ByteDance finally agreed to close the deal, paving the way for Trump’s hand-picked investors to take control in 2026.

It’s unclear how TikTok may change under US control, perhaps shedding users if US owners cave to Trump’s suggestion that he’d like to see the app go “100 percent MAGA” under his hand-picked US owners. It’s possible that the US version of the app could be glitchy, too.

Whether Trump’s deal actually complies with a US law requiring that ByteDance divest control of TikTok or else face a US ban has yet to be seen. Lawmaker scrutiny and possible legal challenges are expected in 2026, likely leaving both TikTok users and ByteDance on the edge of their seats waiting to see how the globally cherished short video app may change.

Trump may owe $1 trillion in tariff refunds

The TikTok deal was once viewed as a meaningful bargaining chip during Trump’s tensest negotiations with China, which has quickly emerged as America’s fiercest rival in the AI race and Trump’s biggest target in his trade war.

But as closing the deal remained elusive for most of the year, analysts suggested that Trump grew “desperate” to end tit-for-tat retaliations that he started, while China appeared more resilient to US curbs than the US was to China’s.

In one obvious example, many Americans’ first tariff pains came when Trump ended a duty-free exemption in February for low-value packages imported from cheap online retailers, like Shein and Temu. Unable to quickly adapt to the policy change, USPS abruptly stopped accepting all inbound packages from Hong Kong and China. After a chaotic 24 hours, USPS started slowly processing parcels again while promising Americans that it would work with customs to “implement an efficient collection mechanism for the new China tariffs to ensure the least disruption to package delivery.”

Trump has several legal tools to impose tariffs, but the most controversial path appears to be his favorite. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants a US president unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

Seizing this authority, Trump imposed so-called “reciprocal tariffs” at whim, the Consumer Technology Association and the Chamber of Commerce told the Supreme Court in a friend-of-the-court brief in which they urged the justices to end the “perfect storm of uncertainty.”

Unlike other paths that would limit how quickly Trump could shift tariff rates or how high the tariff rate could go, under IEEPA, Trump has imposed tariff rates as high as 125 percent. Deferring to Trump will cost US businesses, CTA and CoC warned. CTA CEO Gary Shapiro estimated that Trump has changed these tariff rates 100 times since his trade war began, affecting $223 billion of US exports.

Meanwhile, one of Trump’s biggest stated goals of his trade war—forcing more manufacturing into the US—is utterly failing, many outlets have reported.

Likely due to US companies seeking more stable supply chains, “reshoring progress is nowhere to be seen,” Fortune reported in November. That month, a dismal Bureau of Labor Statistics released a jobs report that an expert summarized as showing that the “US is losing blue-collar jobs for the first time since the pandemic.”

A month earlier, the nonpartisan policy group the Center for American Progress drew on government labor data to conclude that US employers cut 12,000 manufacturing jobs in August, and payrolls for manufacturing jobs had decreased by 42,000 since April.

As tech companies take tech tariffs on the chin, perhaps out of fears that rattling Trump could impact lucrative government contracts, other US companies have taken Trump to court. Most recently, Costco became one of the biggest corporations to sue Trump to ensure that US businesses get refunded if Trump loses the Supreme Court case, Bloomberg reported. Other recognizable companies like Revlon and Kawasaki have also sued, but small businesses have largely driven opposition to Trump’s tariffs, Bloomberg noted.

Should the Supreme Court side with businesses—analysts predict favorable odds—the US could owe up to $1 trillion in refunds. Dozens of economists told SCOTUS that Trump simply doesn’t understand why having trade deficits with certain countries isn’t a threat to US dominance, pointing out that the US “has been running a persistent surplus in trade in services for decades” precisely because the US “has the dominant technology sector in the world.”

Justices seem skeptical that IEEPA grants Trump the authority, ordinarily reserved for Congress, to impose taxes. However, during oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett fretted that undoing Trump’s tariffs could be “messy.” Countering that, small businesses have argued that it’s possible for Customs and Border Patrol to set up automatic refunds.

While waiting for the SCOTUS verdict (now expected in January), the CTA ended the year by advising tech companies to keep their receipts in case refunds require requests for tariffs line by line—potentially complicated by tariff rates changing so drastically and so often.

Biggest tariff nightmare may come in 2026

Looking into 2026, tech companies cannot breathe a sigh of relief even if the SCOTUS ruling swings their way, though. Under a separate, legally viable authority, Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on semiconductors and any products containing them, a move the semiconductor industry fears could cost $1 billion.

And if Trump continues imposing tariffs on materials used in popular tech products, the CTA told Ars in September that potential “tariff stacking” could become the industry’s biggest nightmare. Should that occur, US manufacturers could end up double-, triple-, or possibly even quadruple-taxed on products that may contain materials subject to individual tariffs, like semiconductors, polysilicon, or copper.

Predicting tariff costs could become so challenging that companies will have no choice but to raise prices, the CTA warned. That could threaten US tech competitiveness if, possibly over the long term, companies lose significant sales on their most popular products.

For many badly bruised by the first year of tariffs, it’s hard to see how tariffs could ever become a winning strategy for US tech dominance, as Trump has long claimed. And Americans continue to feel more than “a little pain,” as Trump forecasted, causing many to shift their views on the president.

Americans banding together to oppose tariffs could help prevent the worst possible outcomes. With prices already rising on certain goods in the US, the president reversed some tariffs as his approval ratings hit record lows. But so far, Big Tech hasn’t shown much interest in joining the fight, instead throwing money at the problem by making generous donations to things like Trump’s inaugural fund or his ballroom.

A bright light for the tech industry could be the midterm elections, which could pressure Trump to ease off aggressive tariff regimes, but that’s not a given. Trump allies have previously noted that the president typically responds to pushback on tariffs by doubling down. And one of Trump’s on-again-off-again allies, Elon Musk, noted in December in an interview that Trump ignored his warnings that tariffs would drive manufacturing out of the US.

“The president has made it clear he loves tariffs,” Musk said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Big Tech basically took Trump’s unpredictable trade war lying down Read More »

riot-games-is-making-an-anti-cheat-change-that-could-be-rough-on-older-pcs

Riot Games is making an anti-cheat change that could be rough on older PCs

AMD, anti-cheat, gaming, intel, Riot games, Tech, valorant, Vanguard / /

But Riot says it’s considering rolling the BIOS requirement out to all players in Valorant‘s highest competitive ranking tiers (Ascendant, Immortal, and Radiant), where there’s more to be gained from working around the anti-cheat software. And Riot anti-cheat analyst Mohamed Al-Sharifi says the same restrictions could be turned on for League of Legends, though they aren’t currently. If users are blocked from playing by Vanguard, they’ll need to download and install the latest BIOS update for their motherboard before they’ll be allowed to launch the game.

Newer PCs are getting patched; older PCs might not be

An AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D in a motherboard with a 500-series chipset. It’s unclear whether these somewhat older systems need a patch or will get one. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The vulnerability is known to affect four of the largest PC motherboard makers: ASRock, Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI. All four have released updates for at least some of their newer motherboards, while other boards have updates coming later. According to the vulnerability note, it’s unclear whether systems from OEMs like Dell, Lenovo, Acer, or HP are affected.

ASRock’s security bulletin about the issue says it affects Intel boards based on the 500-, 600-, 700-, and 800-series chipsets; MSI only lists the 600- and 700-series chipsets. Asus is also missing the 800-series, but says the vulnerability affects boards based on even older 400-series Intel chipsets; Gigabyte, meanwhile, covers 600-through-800-series Intel chipsets, but is also the only vendor to mention patches for AMD’s 600- and 800-series chipsets (any motherboard with an AM5 socket, in short).

Collectively, all of these chipsets cover Intel’s 10th-generation Core processors and newer, and AMD Ryzen 7000 series and newer.

What’s unclear is whether the boards and chipsets that go unmentioned by each vendor aren’t getting a patch because they don’t need a patch, if they will be patched but they just aren’t being mentioned, or if they aren’t getting a patch at all. The bulletins at least suggest that 400- and 500-series Intel chipsets and 600- and 800-series AMD chipsets could be affected, but not all vendors have promised patches for them.

Riot Games is making an anti-cheat change that could be rough on older PCs Read More »

ram-and-ssd-prices-are-still-climbing—here’s-our-best-advice-for-pc-builders

RAM and SSD prices are still climbing—here’s our best advice for PC builders

AMD, gaming, intel, NVIDIA, Tech / /

I would avoid building a PC right now, but if you can’t, here’s our best advice.

The 16GB version of AMD’s Radeon RX 9060 XT. It’s one of the products to come out of a bad year for PC building. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The 16GB version of AMD’s Radeon RX 9060 XT. It’s one of the products to come out of a bad year for PC building. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The first few months of 2025 were full of graphics card reviews where we generally came away impressed with performance and completely at a loss on availability and pricing. The testing in these reviews is useful regardless, but when it came to extra buying advice, the best we could do was to compare Nvidia’s imaginary pricing to AMD’s imaginary pricing and wait for availability to improve.

Now, as the year winds down, we’re facing price spikes for memory and storage that are unlike anything I’ve seen in two decades of pricing out PC parts. Pricing for most RAM kits has increased dramatically since this summer, driven by overwhelming demand for these parts in AI data centers. Depending on what you’re building, it’s now very possible that the memory could be the single most expensive component you buy; things are even worse now than they were the last time we compared prices a few weeks ago.

Component Aug. 2025 price Nov. 2025 price Dec. 2025 price
Patriot Viper Venom 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR-6000 $49 $110 $189
Western Digital WD Blue SN5000 500GB $45 $69 $102*
Silicon Power 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 $34 $89 $104
Western Digital WD Blue SN5000 1TB $64 $111 $135*
Team T-Force Vulcan 32GB DDR5-6000 $82 $310 $341
Western Digital WD Blue SN5000 2TB $115 $154 $190*
Western Digital WD Black SN7100 2TB $130 $175 $210
Team Delta RGB 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR5-6400 $190 $700 $800

Some SSDs are getting to the point where they’re twice as expensive as they were this summer (for this comparison, I’ve swapped the newer WD Blue SN5100 pricing in for the SN5000, since the drive is both newer and slightly cheaper as of this writing). Some RAM kits, meanwhile, are around four times as expensive as they were in August. Yeesh.

And as bad as things are, the outlook for the immediate future isn’t great. Memory manufacturer Micron—which is pulling its Crucial-branded RAM and storage products from the market entirely in part because of these shortages—predicted in a recent earnings call that supply constraints would “persist beyond calendar 2026.” Kingston executives believe prices will continue to rise through next year. PR representatives at GPU manufacturer Sapphire believe prices will “stabilize,” albeit at a higher level than people might like.

I didn’t know it when I was writing the last update to our system guide in mid-August, but it turns out that I was writing it during 2025’s PC Building Equinox, the all-too-narrow stretch of time where 1080p and 1440p GPUs had fallen to more-or-less MSRP but RAM and storage prices hadn’t yet spiked.

All in all, it has been yet another annus horribilis for gaming-PC builders, and at this point it seems like the 2020s will just end up being a bad decade for PC building. Not only have we had to deal with everything from pandemic-fueled shortages to tariffs to the current AI-related crunch, but we’ve also been given pretty underwhelming upgrades for both GPUs and CPUs.

It should be a golden age for the gaming PC

It’s really too bad that building or buying a gaming PC is such an annoying and expensive proposition, because in a lot of ways there has never been a better time to be a PC gamer.

It used to be that PC ports of popular console games would come years later or never at all, but these days PC players get games at around the same time as console players, too. Sony, of all companies, has become much better about releasing its games to PC players. And Microsoft seems to be signaling more and more convergence between the Xbox and the PC, to the extent that it is communicating any kind of coherent Xbox strategy at all. The console wars are cooling down, and the PC has been one of the main beneficiaries.

That wider game availability is also coming at a time when PC software is getting more flexible and interesting. Traditional Windows-based gaming builds still dominate, of course, and Windows remains the path of least resistance for PC buyers and builders. But Valve’s work on SteamOS and the Proton compatibility software has brought a wide swath of PC games to Linux, and SteamOS itself is enabling a simpler and more console-like PC gaming experience for handheld PCs as well as TV-connected desktop computers. And that work is now boomeranging back around to Windows, which is gradually rolling out its own pared-down gamepad-centric frontend.

If you’ve already got a decent gaming PC, you’re feeling pretty good about all of this—as long as the games you want to play don’t have Mario or Pikachu in them, your PC is all you really need. It’s also not a completely awful time to be upgrading a build you already have, as long as you already have at least 16GB of RAM—if you’re thinking about a GPU upgrade, doing it now before the RAM price spikes can start impacting graphics card pricing is probably a smart move.

If you don’t already have a decent gaming PC and you can buy a whole PlayStation 5 for the cost of some 32GB DDR5 RAM kits, well, it’s hard to look past the downsides no matter how good the upsides are. But it doesn’t mean we can’t try.

What if you want to buy something anyway?

As (relatively) old as they are, midrange Core i5 chips from Intel’s 12th-, 13th-, and 14th-generation Core CPU lineups are still solid choices for budget-to-midrange PC builds. And they work with DDR4, which isn’t quite as pricey as DDR5 right now. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Say those upsides are still appealing to you, and you want to build something today. How should you approach this terrible, volatile RAM market?

I won’t do a full update to August’s system guide right now, both because it feels futile to try and recommend individual RAM kits or SSD with prices and stock levels being as volatile as they are, and because aside from RAM and storage I actually wouldn’t change any of these recommendations all that much (with the caveat that Intel’s Core i5-13400F seems to be getting harder to find; consider an i5-12400F or i5-12600KF instead). So, starting from those builds, here’s the advice I would try to give to PC-curious friends:

DDR4 is faring better than DDR5. Prices for all kinds of RAM have gone up recently, but DDR4 pricing hasn’t gotten quite as bad as DDR5 pricing. That’s of no help to you if you’re trying to build something around a newer Ryzen chip and a socket AM5 motherboard, since those parts require DDR5. But if you’re trying to build a more budget-focused system around one of Intel’s 12th-, 13th-, or 14th-generation CPUs, a decent name brand 32GB DDR4-3200 kit comes in around half the price of a similar 32GB DDR5-6000 kit. Pricing isn’t great, but it’s still possible to build something respectable for under $1,000.

Newegg bundles might help. I’m normally not wild about these kinds of component bundles; even if they appear to be a good deal, they’re often a way for Newegg or other retailers to get rid of things they don’t want by pairing them with things people do want. You also have to deal with less flexibility—you can’t always pick exactly the parts you’d want under ideal circumstances. But if you’re already buying a CPU and a motherboard, it might be worth digging through the available deals just to see if you can get a good price on something workable.

Don’t overbuy (or consider under-buying). Under normal circumstances, anyone advising you on a PC build should be recommending matched pairs of RAM sticks with reasonable speeds and ample capacities (DDR4-3200 remains a good sweet spot, as does DDR5-6000 or DDR5-6400). Matched sticks are capable of dual-channel operation, boosting memory bandwidth and squeezing a bit more performance out of your system. And getting 32GB of RAM means comfortably running any game currently in existence, with a good amount of room to grow.

But desperate times call for desperate measures. Slower DDR5 speeds like DDR5-5200 can come in a fair bit cheaper than DDR5-6000 or DDR5-6400, in exchange for a tiny speed hit that’s going to be hard to notice outside of benchmarks. You might even consider buying a single 16GB stick of DDR5, and buying it a partner at some point later when prices have calmed down a bit. You’ll leave a tiny bit of performance on the table, and a small handful of games want more than 16GB of system RAM. But you’ll have something that boots, and the GPU is still going to determine how well most games run.

Don’t forget that non-binary DDR5 exists. DDR5 sticks come in some in-betweener capacities that weren’t possible with DDR4, which means that companies sell it in 24GB and 48GB sticks, not just 16/32/64. And these kits can be a very slightly better deal than the binary memory kits right now; this 48GB Crucial DDR5-6000 kit is going for $470 right now, or $9.79 per gigabyte, compared to about $340 for a similar 32GB kit ($10.63 per GB) or $640 for a 64GB kit ($10 per GB). It’s not much, but if you truly do need a lot of RAM, it’s worth looking into.

Consider pre-built systems. A quick glance at Dell’s Alienware lineup and Lenovo’s Legion lineup makes it clear that these towers still aren’t particularly price-competitive with similarly specced self-built PCs. This was true before there was a RAM shortage, and it’s true now. But for certain kinds of PCs, particularly budget PCs, it can still make more sense to buy than to build.

For example, when I wrote about the self-built “Steam Machine” I’ve been using for a few months now, I mentioned some Ryzen-based mini desktops on Amazon. I later tested this one from Aoostar as part of a wider-ranging SteamOS-vs-Windows performance comparison. Whether you’re comfortable with these no-name mini PCs is something you’ll have to decide for yourself, but that’s a fully functional PC with 32GB of DDR5, a 1TB SSD, a workable integrated GPU, and a Windows license for $500. You’d spend nearly $500 just to buy the RAM kit and the SSD with today’s component prices; for basic 1080p gaming you could do a lot worse.

Photo of Andrew Cunningham

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

RAM and SSD prices are still climbing—here’s our best advice for PC builders Read More »

ukrainians-sue-us-chip-firms-for-powering-russian-drones,-missiles

Ukrainians sue US chip firms for powering Russian drones, missiles

AMD, Drones, intel, missiles, Policy, russia, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Texas Instruments, Ukraine / /

Dozens of Ukrainian civilians filed a series of lawsuits in Texas this week, accusing some of the biggest US chip firms of negligently failing to track chips that evaded export curbs. Those chips were ultimately used to power Russian and Iranian weapon systems, causing wrongful deaths last year.

Their complaints alleged that for years, Texas Instruments (TI), AMD, and Intel have ignored public reporting, government warnings, and shareholder pressure to do more to track final destinations of chips and shut down shady distribution channels diverting chips to sanctioned actors in Russia and Iran.

Putting profits over human lives, tech firms continued using “high-risk” channels, Ukrainian civilians’ legal team alleged in a press statement, without ever strengthening controls.

All that intermediaries who placed bulk online orders had to do to satisfy chip firms was check a box confirming that the shipment wouldn’t be sent to sanctioned countries, lead attorney Mikal Watts told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“There are export lists,” Watts said. “We know exactly what requires a license and what doesn’t. And companies know who they’re selling to. But instead, they rely on a checkbox that says, ‘I’m not shipping to Putin.’ That’s it. No enforcement. No accountability.”

As chip firms allegedly looked the other way, innocent civilians faced five attacks, detailed in the lawsuits, that used weapons containing their chips. That includes one of the deadliest attacks in Kyiv, where Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital was targeted in July 2024. Some civilians suing were survivors seriously injured in attacks, while others lost loved ones and experienced emotional trauma.

Russia would not be able to hit their targets without chips supplied by US firms, the lawsuits alleged. Considered the brain of weapon systems, including drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, the chips help enable Russia’s war against Ukrainian civilians, they alleged.

Ukrainians sue US chip firms for powering Russian drones, missiles Read More »

steamos-vs.-windows-on-dedicated-gpus:-it’s-complicated,-but-windows-has-an-edge

SteamOS vs. Windows on dedicated GPUs: It’s complicated, but Windows has an edge

AMD, AMD Ryzen, gaming, intel, NVIDIA, Radeon, steamos, Tech, Windows, Windows 11, windows 11 25h2 / /

Other results vary from game to game and from GPU to GPU. Borderlands 3, for example, performs quite a bit better on Windows than on SteamOS across all of our tested GPUs, sometimes by as much as 20 or 30 percent (with smaller gaps here and there). As a game from 2019 with no ray-tracing effects, it still runs serviceably on SteamOS across the board, but it was the game we tested that favored Windows the most consistently.

In both Forza Horizon 5 and Cyberpunk 2077, with ray-tracing effects enabled, you also see a consistent advantage for Windows across the 16GB dedicated GPUs, usually somewhere in the 15 to 20 percent range.

To Valve’s credit, there were also many games we tested where Windows and SteamOS performance was functionally tied. Cyberpunk without ray-tracing, Returnal when not hitting the 7600’s 8GB RAM limit, and Assassin’s Creed Valhalla were sometimes actually tied between Windows and SteamOS, or they differed by low-single-digit percentages that you could chalk up to the margin of error.

Now look at the results from the integrated GPUs, the Radeon 780M and RX 8060S. These are pretty different GPUs from one another—the 8060S has more than three times the compute units of the 780M, and it’s working with a higher-speed pool of soldered-down LPDDR5X-8000 rather than two poky DDR5-5600 SODIMMs.

But Borderlands aside, SteamOS actually did quite a bit better on these GPUs relative to Windows. In both Forza and Cyberpunk with ray-tracing enabled, SteamOS slightly beats Windows on the 780M, and mostly closes the performance gap on the 8060S. For the games where Windows and SteamOS essentially tied on the dedicated GPUs, SteamOS has a small but consistent lead over Windows in average frame rates.

SteamOS vs. Windows on dedicated GPUs: It’s complicated, but Windows has an edge Read More »

why-won’t-steam-machine-support-hdmi-21?-digging-in-on-the-display-standard-drama.

Why won’t Steam Machine support HDMI 2.1? Digging in on the display standard drama.

AMD, drivers, gaming, steam, steam machine, steamos, valve, Windows / /

When Valve announced its upcoming Steam Machine hardware last month, some eagle-eyed gamers may have been surprised to see that the official spec sheet lists support for HDMI 2.0 output, rather than the updated, higher-bandwidth HDMI 2.1 standard introduced in 2017. Now, Valve tells Ars that, while the hardware itself actually supports HDMI 2.1, the company is struggling to offer full support for that standard due to Linux drivers that are “still a work-in-progress on the software side.”

As we noted last year, the HDMI Forum (which manages the official specifications for HDMI standards) has officially blocked any open source implementation of HDMI 2.1. That means the open source AMD drivers used by SteamOS can’t fully implement certain features that are specific to the updated output standard.

“At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements,” AMD engineer Alex Deucher said at the time.

Doing what they can

This situation has caused significant headaches for Valve, which tells Ars it has had to validate the Steam Machine’s HDMI 2.1 hardware via Windows during testing. And when it comes to HDMI performance via SteamOS, a Valve representative tells Ars that “we’ve been working on trying to unblock things there.”

That includes unblocking HDMI 2.0’s resolution and frame-rate limits, which max out at 60 Hz for a 4K output, according to the official standard. Valve tells Ars it has been able to increase that limit to the “4K @ 120Hz” listed on the Steam Machine spec sheet, though, thanks to a technique called chroma sub-sampling.

Why won’t Steam Machine support HDMI 2.1? Digging in on the display standard drama. Read More »

after-nearly-30-years,-crucial-will-stop-selling-ram-to-consumers

After nearly 30 years, Crucial will stop selling RAM to consumers

AI, AI infrastructure, AMD, Crucial, datacenters, DDR5, DRAM, framework, HBM, Lenovo, machine learning, memory, memory shortage, Micron, NVIDIA, pc building, samsung, semiconductors, SK Hynix, SSD, Tech / /

DRAM contract prices have increased 171 percent year over year, according to industry data. Gerry Chen, general manager of memory manufacturer TeamGroup, warned that the situation will worsen in the first half of 2026 once distributors exhaust their remaining inventory. He expects supply constraints to persist through late 2027 or beyond.

The fault lies squarely at the feet of AI mania in the tech industry. The construction of new AI infrastructure has created unprecedented demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM), the specialized DRAM used in AI accelerators from Nvidia and AMD. Memory manufacturers have been reallocating production capacity away from consumer products toward these more profitable enterprise components, and Micron has presold its entire HBM output through 2026.

A photo of the

A photo of the “Stargate I” site in Abilene, Texas. AI data center sites like this are eating up the RAM supply. Credit: OpenAI

At the moment, the structural imbalance between AI demand and consumer supply shows no signs of easing. OpenAI’s Stargate project has reportedly signed agreements for up to 900,000 wafers of DRAM per month, which could account for nearly 40 percent of global production.

The shortage has already forced companies to adapt. As Ars’ Andrew Cunningham reported, laptop maker Framework stopped selling standalone RAM kits in late November to prevent scalping and said it will likely be forced to raise prices soon.

For Micron, the calculus is clear: Enterprise customers pay more and buy in bulk. But for the DIY PC community, the decision will leave PC builders with one fewer option when reaching for the RAM sticks. In his statement, Sadana reflected on the brand’s 29-year run.

“Thanks to a passionate community of consumers, the Crucial brand has become synonymous with technical leadership, quality and reliability of leading-edge memory and storage products,” Sadana said. “We would like to thank our millions of customers, hundreds of partners and all of the Micron team members who have supported the Crucial journey for the last 29 years.”

After nearly 30 years, Crucial will stop selling RAM to consumers Read More »

testing-shows-why-the-steam-machine’s-8gb-of-graphics-ram-could-be-a-problem

Testing shows why the Steam Machine’s 8GB of graphics RAM could be a problem

AMD, gaming, intel, NVIDIA, steam deck, steam machine, steamos, Tech / /

By Valve’s admission, its upcoming Steam Machine desktop isn’t swinging for the fences with its graphical performance. The specs promise decent 1080p-to-1440p performance in most games, with 4K occasionally reachable with assistance from FSR upscaling—about what you’d expect from a box with a modern midrange graphics card in it.

But there’s one spec that has caused some concern among Ars staffers and others with their eyes on the Steam Machine: The GPU comes with just 8GB of dedicated graphics RAM, an amount that is steadily becoming more of a bottleneck for midrange GPUs like AMD’s Radeon RX 7060 and 9060, or Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 4060 or 5060.

In our reviews of these GPUs, we’ve already run into some games where the RAM ceiling limits performance in Windows, especially at 1440p. But we’ve been doing more extensive testing of various GPUs with SteamOS, and we can confirm that in current betas, 8GB GPUs struggle even more on SteamOS than they do running the same games at the same settings in Windows 11.

The good news is that Valve is working on solutions, and having a stable platform like the Steam Machine to aim for should help improve things for other hardware with similar configurations. The bad news is there’s plenty of work left to do.

The numbers

We’ve tested an array of dedicated and integrated Radeon GPUs under SteamOS and Windows, and we’ll share more extensive results in another article soon (along with broader SteamOS-vs-Windows observations). But for our purposes here, the two GPUs that highlight the issues most effectively are the 8GB Radeon RX 7600 and the 16GB Radeon RX 7600 XT.

These dedicated GPUs have the benefit of being nearly identical to what Valve plans to ship in the Steam Machine—32 compute units (CUs) instead of Valve’s 28, but the same RDNA3 architecture. They’re also, most importantly for our purposes, pretty similar to each other—the same physical GPU die, just with slightly higher clock speeds and more RAM for the 7600 XT than for the regular 7600.

Testing shows why the Steam Machine’s 8GB of graphics RAM could be a problem Read More »

gpu-prices-are-coming-to-earth-just-as-ram-costs-shoot-into-the-stratosphere

GPU prices are coming to earth just as RAM costs shoot into the stratosphere

AMD, gaming, intel, NAND, NVIDIA, RAM, SSDs, Tech / /

It’s not just PC builders

PC and phone manufacturers—and makers of components that use memory chips, like GPUs—mostly haven’t hiked prices yet. These companies buy components in large quantities, and they typically do so ahead of time, dulling the impact of the increases in the short-term. The kinds of price increases we see, and what costs are passed on to consumers, will vary from company to company.

Bloomberg reports that Lenovo is “stockpiling memory and other critical components” to get it through 2026 without issues and that the company “will aim to avoid passing on rising costs to its customers in the current quarter.” Apple may also be in a good position to weather the shortage; analysts at Morgan Stanley and Bernstein Research believe that Apple has already laid claim to the RAM that it needs and that its healthy profit margins will allow it to absorb the increases better than most.

Framework on the other hand, a smaller company known best for its repairable and upgradeable laptop designs, says “it is likely we will need to increase memory pricing soon” to reflect price increases from its suppliers. The company has also stopped selling standalone RAM kits in its online store in an effort to fight scalpers who are trying to capitalize on the shortages.

Tom’s Hardware reports that AMD has told its partners that it expects to raise GPU prices by about 10 percent starting next year and that Nvidia may have canceled a planned RTX 50-series Super launch entirely because of shortages and price increases (the main draw of this Super refresh, according to the rumor mill, would have a bump from 2GB GDDR7 chips to 3GB chips, boosting memory capacities across the lineup by 50 percent).

GPU prices are coming to earth just as RAM costs shoot into the stratosphere Read More »

review:-new-framework-laptop-16-takes-a-fresh-stab-at-the-upgradeable-laptop-gpu

Review: New Framework Laptop 16 takes a fresh stab at the upgradeable laptop GPU

AMD, AMD Ryzen, Features, framework, framework laptop 13, framework laptop 16, gaming, NVIDIA, nvidia geforce, Reviews, right to repair, Tech / /

framework laptop 16, take two

New components make it more useful and powerful but no less odd.

Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The original Framework Laptop 16 was trying to crack a problem that laptop makers have wrestled with on and off for years: Can you deliver a reasonably powerful, portable workstation and gaming laptop that supports graphics card upgrades just like a desktop PC?

Specs at a glance: Framework Laptop 16 (2025)
OS Windows 11 25H2
CPU AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (4 Zen 5 cores, 4 Zen 5c cores)
RAM 32GB DDR5-5600 (upgradeable)
GPU AMD Radeon 860M (integrated)/Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (dedicated)
SSD 1TB Western Digital Black SN770
Battery 85 WHr
Display 16-inch 2560×1600 165 Hz matte non-touchscreen
Connectivity 6x recessed USB-C ports (2x USB 4, 4x USB 3.2) with customizable “Expansion Card” dongles
Weight 4.63 pounds (2.1 kg) without GPU, 5.29 pounds (2.4 kg) with GPU
Price as tested Roughly $2,649 for pre-built edition; $2,517 for DIY edition with no OS

Even in these days of mostly incremental, not-too-exciting GPU upgrades, the graphics card in a gaming PC or graphics-centric workstation will still feel its age faster than your CPU will. And the chance to upgrade that one component for hundreds of dollars instead of spending thousands replacing the entire machine is an appealing proposition.

Upgradeable, swappable GPUs would also make your laptop more flexible—you can pick and choose from various GPUs from multiple vendors based on what you want and need, whether that’s raw performance, power efficiency, Linux support, or CUDA capabilities.

Framework’s first upgrade to the Laptop 16—the company’s first upgrade to any of its products aside from the original Laptop 13—gets us pretty close to that reality. The laptop can now support two interchangeable motherboards: one with an older AMD Ryzen 7040-series CPU and one with a new Ryzen AI 300-series CPU. And both motherboards can be used either with just an integrated GPU or with dedicated GPUs from both AMD and Nvidia.

The Nvidia GeForce 5070 graphics module is the most exciting and significant part of this batch of updates, but there are plenty of other updates and revisions to the laptop’s external and internal components, too. These upgrades don’t address all of our problems with the initial version of the laptop, but they do help quite a bit. And a steady flow of updates like these would definitely make the Laptop 16 a platform worth investing in.

Re-meet the Framework Laptop 16

Framework’s Laptop 13 stacked on top of the 16. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Framework treats each of its laptops as a platform to be modified and built upon rather than something to be wholly redesigned and replaced every time it’s updated. So these reviews necessarily re-cover ground we have already covered—I’ve also reused some of the photos from last time, since this is quite literally the same laptop in most respects. I’ll point you to the earlier review for detailed notes on the build process and how the laptop is put together.

To summarize our high-level notes about the look, feel, and design of the Framework Laptop 16: While the Framework Laptop 13 can plausibly claim to be in the same size and weight class as portables like the 13-inch MacBook Air, the Framework Laptop 16 is generally larger and heavier than the likes of the 16-inch MacBook Pro or portable PC workstations like the Lenovo ThinkPad P1 or Dell 16 Premium. That’s doubly true once you actually add a dedicated graphics module to the Laptop 16—these protrude a couple of inches from the back of the laptop and add around two-thirds of a pound to its weight.

Frame-work 16 (no GPU) Frame-work 16 (GPU) Apple 16-inch MBP Dell 16 Premium Lenovo ThinkPad P1 Gen 8 HP ZBook X G1i Lenovo Legion Pro 5i Gen 10 Razer Blade 16
Size (H x W x D inches) 0.71 x 14.04 x 10.63 0.82 x 14.04 x 11.43 0.66 x 14.01 x 9.77 0.75 x 14.1 x 9.4 0.39-0.62 x 13.95 x 9.49 0.9 x 14.02 x 9.88 0.85-1.01 x 14.34 x 10.55 0.59-0.69 x 13.98 x 9.86
Weight 4.63 lbs 5.29 lbs 4.7-4.8 lbs 4.65 pounds 4.06 lbs 4.5 lbs 5.56 lbs 4.71 lbs

You certainly can find laptops from the major PC OEMs that come close to or even exceed the size and weight of the Laptop 16. But in most cases, you’ll find that comparably specced and priced laptops are an inch or two less deep and at least half a pound lighter than the Laptop 16 with a dedicated GPU installed.

But if you’re buying from Framework, you’re probably at least notionally interested in customizing, upgrading, and repairing your laptop over time, all things that Framework continues to do better than any other company.

The Laptop 16’s customizable keyboard deck is still probably its coolest feature—it’s a magnetically attached series of panels that allows you to remove and replace components without worrying about the delicate and finicky ribbon cables the Laptop 13 uses. Practically, the most important aspect of this customizable keyboard area is that it lets you decide whether you want to install a dedicated number pad or not; this also allows you to choose whether you want the trackpad to be aligned with the center of the laptop or with wherever the middle of the keyboard is.

It might look a little rough, but the customizable keyboard deck is still probably the coolest thing about the Laptop 16 in day-to-day use. Andrew Cunningham

But Framework also sells an assortment of other functional and cosmetic panels and spacers to let users customize the laptop to their liking. The coolest, oddest accessories are still probably the LED matrix spacers and the clear, legend-less keyboard and number pad modules. We still think this assortment of panels gives the system a vaguely unfinished look, but Framework is clearly going for function over form here.

The Laptop 16 also continues to use Framework’s customizable, swappable Expansion Card modules. In theory, these let you pick the number and type of ports your laptop has, as well as customize your port setup on the fly based on what you need. But as with all AMD Ryzen-based Framework Laptops, there are some limits to what each port can do.

According to Framework’s support page, there’s no single Expansion Card slot that is truly universal:

  • Ports 1 and 4 support full 40Gbps USB 4 transfer speeds, display outputs, and up to 240 W charging, but if you use a USB-A Expansion Card in those slots, you’ll increase power use and reduce battery life.
  • Ports 2 and 4 support display outputs, up to 240 W charging, and lower power usage for USB-A ports, but they top out at 10Gbps USB 3.2 transfer speeds. Additionally, port 5 (the middle port on the right side of the laptop, if you’re looking at it head-on) supports the DisplayPort 1.4 standard where the others support DisplayPort 2.1.
  • Ports 3 and 4 are limited to 10Gbps USB 3.2 transfer speeds and don’t support display outputs or charging.

The Laptop 16 also doesn’t include a dedicated headphone jack, so users will need to burn one of their Expansion Card slots to get one.

Practically speaking, most users will be able to come up with a port arrangement that fits their needs, and it’s still handy to be able to add and remove things like Ethernet ports, HDMI ports, or SD card readers on an as-needed basis. But choosing the right Expansion Card slot for the job will still require some forethought, and customizable ports aren’t as much of a selling point for a 16-inch laptop as they are for a 13-inch laptop (the Framework Laptop 13 was partly a response to laptops like the MacBook Air and Dell XPS 13 that only came with a small number of USB-C ports; larger laptops have mostly kept their larger number and variety of ports).

What’s new in 2025’s Framework Laptop 16?

An upgraded motherboard and a new graphics module form the heart of this year’s Laptop 16 upgrade. The motherboard steps up from AMD Ryzen 7040-series processors to AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 and Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 chips. These are the same processors Framework put into the Laptop 13 earlier this year, though they ought to be able to run a bit faster in the Laptop 16 due to its larger heatsink and dual-fan cooling system.

Along with an upgrade from Zen 4-based CPU cores to Zen 5 cores, the Ryzen AI series includes an upgraded neural processing unit (NPU) that is fast enough to earn Microsoft’s Copilot+ PC label. These PCs have access to a handful of unique Windows 11 AI and machine-learning features (yes, Recall, but not just Recall) that are processed locally rather than in the cloud. If you don’t care about these features, you can mostly just ignore them, but if you do care, this is the first version of the Laptop 16 to support them.

Most of the new motherboard’s other specs and features are pretty similar to the first-generation version; there are two SO-DIMM slots for up to 96GB of DDR5-5600, one M.2 2280 slot for the system’s main SSD, and one M.2 2230 slot for a secondary SSD. Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth connectivity are provided by an AMD RZ717 Wi-Fi card that can at least theoretically also be replaced with something faster down the line if you want.

The more exciting upgrade, however, may be the GeForce RTX 5070 GPU. This is the first time Framework has offered an Nvidia product—its other GPUs have all come from either Intel or AMD—and it gives the new Laptop 16 access to Nvidia technologies like DLSS and CUDA, as well as much-improved performance for games with ray-traced lighting effects.

Those hoping for truly high-end graphics options for the Laptop 16 will need to keep waiting, though. The laptop version of the RTX 5070 is actually the same chip as the desktop version of the RTX 5060, a $300 graphics card with 8GB of RAM. As much as it adds to the Laptop 16, it still won’t let you come anywhere near 4K in most modern games, and for some, it may even struggle to take full advantage of the internal 165 Hz 1600p screen. Professional workloads (including AI workloads) that require more graphics RAM will also find the mobile 5070 lacking.

Old 180 W charger on top, new 240 W charger on bottom. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Other components have gotten small updates as well. For those who upgrade an existing Laptop 16 with the new motherboard, Framework is selling 2nd-generation keyboard and number pad components. But their main update over the originals is new firmware that “includes a fix to prevent the system from waking while carried in a bag.” Owners of the original keyboard can install a firmware update to get the same functionality (and make their input modules compatible with the new board).

Upgraders should also note that the original system’s 180 W power adapter has been replaced with a 240 W model, the maximum amount of power that current USB-C and USB-PD standards are capable of delivering. You can charge the laptop with just about any USB-C power brick, but anything lower than 240 W risks reducing performance (or having the battery drain faster than it can charge).

Finally, the laptop uses a second-generation 16-inch, 2560×1600, 165 Hz LCD screen. It’s essentially identical in every way to the first-generation screen, but it formally supports G-Sync, Nvidia’s adaptive sync implementation. The original screen can still be used with the new motherboard, but it only supports AMD’s FreeSync, and Framework told us a few months ago that the panel supplier had no experience providing consumer-facing firmware updates that might add G-Sync to the old display. It’s probably not worth replacing the entire screen for, but it’s worth noting whether you’re upgrading the laptop or buying a new one.

Performance

Framework sent us the lower-end Ryzen AI 7 350 processor configuration for our new board, making it difficult to do straightforward apples-to-apples comparisons to the high-end Ryzen 9 7940HS in our first-generation Framework board. We did test the new chip, and you’ll see its results in our charts.

We’ve also provided numbers from the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 in the Asus Zenbook S16 UM5606W to show approximately where you can expect the high-end Framework Laptop 16 configuration to land (Framework’s integrated graphics performance will be marginally worse since it’s using slower socketed RAM rather than LPDDR5X; other numbers may differ based on how each manufacturer has configured the chip’s power usage and thermal behavior). We’ve also included numbers from the same chip in the Framework Laptop 13, though Framework’s spec sheets indicate that the chips have different power limits and thus will perform differently.

We were able to test the new GeForce GPU in multiple configurations—both paired with the new Ryzen AI 7 350 processor and with the old Ryzen 9 7940HS chip. This should give anyone who bought the original Laptop 16 an idea of what kind of performance increase they can expect from the new GPU alone. In all, we’ve tested or re-tested:

  • The Ryzen 7 7940HS CPU from the first-generation Laptop 16 and its integrated Radeon 780M GPU
  • The Ryzen 7 7940HS and the original Radeon RX 7700S GPU module
  • The Ryzen 7 7940HS and the new GeForce RTX 5070 GPU module, for upgraders who only want to grab the new GPU
  • The Ryzen AI 7 350 CPU and the GeForce RTX 5070 GPU

We also did some light testing on the Radeon 860M integrated GPU included with the Ryzen AI 7 350.

All the Laptop 16 performance tests were run with Windows’ Best Performance power preset enabled, which will slightly boost performance at the expense of power efficiency.

Given all of those hardware combinations, we simply ran out of time to test the new motherboard with the old Radeon RX 7700S GPU—Framework is continuing to sell it, so it is a realistic combination of components. But our RTX 5070 testing suggests that these GPUs will perform pretty much the same regardless of which CPU you pair them with.

If you’re buying the cheaper Laptop 16 with the Ryzen AI 7 350, the good news is that it generally performs at least as well as—and usually a bit better than—the high-end Ryzen 9 7940HS from the last-generation model. Performance is also pretty similar to the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 in smaller, thinner laptops—the extra power and cooling capacity in the Laptop 16 is paying off here. People choosing between a PC and a Mac should note that none of these Ryzen chips come anywhere near the M4 Pro used in comparably priced 16-inch MacBook Pros, but that’s just where the PC ecosystem is these days.

How big an upgrade the GeForce 5070 will be depends on the game you’re playing. In titles like Borderlands 3 that naturally run a bit better on AMD’s GPUs, there’s not much of a difference at all. In games like Cyberpunk 2077 with heavy ray-tracing effects enabled, the mobile RTX 5070 can be nearly twice as fast as the RX 7700S.

Most games will fall somewhere in between those two extremes; our tests show that the improvements hover between 20 and 30 percent most of the time, just a shade less than the 30 to 40 percent improvement that Framework claimed in its original announcement.

Beyond raw performance, the other thing you get with an Nvidia GPU is access to a bunch of important proprietary technologies like DLSS upscaling and CUDA—these technologies are often better and more widely supported than the equivalent technologies that AMD’s or Intel’s GPUs use, thanks in part to Nvidia’s overall dominance of the dedicated GPU market.

In the tests we’ve run on them, the Radeon 860M and 890M are both respectable integrated GPUs (the lower-end 860M typically falls just short of last generation’s top-end 780M, but it’s very close). They’re never able to provide more than a fraction of the Radeon RX 7700S’s performance, let alone the RTX 5070, but they’ll handle a lot of lighter games at 1080p. I would not buy a system this large or heavy just to use it with an integrated GPU.

Better to be unique than perfect

It’s expensive and quirky, but the Framework Laptop 16 is worth considering because it’s so different from what most other laptop makers are doing. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Our original Framework Laptop 16 review called it “fascinating but flawed,” and the parts that made it flawed haven’t really changed much over the last two years. It’s still relatively large and heavy; the Expansion Card system still makes less sense in a larger laptop than it does in a thin-and-light; the puzzle-like grid of input modules and spacers looks kind of rough and unfinished.

But the upgrades do help to shift things in the Laptop 16’s favor. Its modular and upgradeable design was always a theoretical selling point, but the laptop now actually offers options that other laptops don’t.

The presence of both AMD and Nvidia GPUs is a big step up in flexibility for both gaming and professional applications. The GeForce module is a better all-around choice, with slightly to significantly faster game performance and proprietary technologies like DLSS and CUDA, while the Radeon GPU is a cheaper option with better support for Linux.

Given their cost, I still wish that these GPUs were more powerful—they’re between $350 or $449 for the Radeon RX 7700S and between $650 and $699 for the RTX 5070 (prices vary a bit and are cheaper when you’re buying them together with a new laptop rather than buying them separately). You’ll basically always spend more for a gaming laptop than you will for a gaming desktop with similar or better performance, but that does feel like an awful lot to spend for GPUs that are still limited to 8GB of RAM.

Cost is a major issue for the Laptop 16 in general. You may save money in the long run by buying a laptop that you can replace piece-by-piece as you need to rather than all at once. But it’s not even remotely difficult to find similar specs from the major PC makers for hundreds of dollars less. We can’t vouch for the build quality or longevity of any of those PCs, but it does mean that you have to be willing to pay an awful lot just for Framework’s modularity and upgradeability. That’s true to some degree of the Laptop 13 as well, but the price gap between the 13 and competing systems isn’t as large as it is for the 16.

Whatever its lingering issues, the Framework Laptop 16 is still worth considering because there’s nothing else quite like it, at least if you’re in the market for something semi-portable and semi-powerful. The MacBook Pro exists if you want something more appliance-like, and there’s a whole spectrum of gaming and workstation PCs in between with all kinds of specs, sizes, and prices. To stand out from those devices, it’s probably better to be unique than to be perfect, and the reformulated Laptop 16 certainly clears that bar.

The good

  • Modular, repairable, upgradeable design that’s made to last
  • Cool, customizable keyboard deck
  • Nvidia GeForce GPU option gives the Laptop 16 access to some gaming and GPU computing features that weren’t usable with AMD GPUs
  • GPU upgrade can be added to first-generation Framework Laptop 16
  • New processors are a decent performance improvement and are worth considering for new buyers
  • Old Ryzen 7040-series motherboard is sticking around as an entry-level option, knocking $100 off the former base price ($1,299 and up for a barebones DIY edition, $1,599 and up for the cheapest pre-built)
  • Framework’s software support has gotten better in the last year

The bad

  • Big and bulky for the specs you get
  • Mix-and-match input modules and spacers give it a rough, unfinished sort of look
  • Ryzen AI motherboards are more expensive than the originals were when they launched

The ugly

  • It’ll cost you—the absolute bare minimum price for Ryzen AI 7 350 and RTX 5070 combo is $2,149, and that’s without RAM, an SSD, or an operating system

Photo of Andrew Cunningham

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

Review: New Framework Laptop 16 takes a fresh stab at the upgradeable laptop GPU Read More »

after-confusing-driver-release,-amd-says-old-gpus-are-still-actively-supported

After confusing driver release, AMD says old GPUs are still actively supported

AMD, gaming, Radeon, rdna, rdna 2, Tech / /

The release notes for the 25.10.2 Adrenalin release also dropped Windows 10 from the list of “compatible operating systems,” listing only Windows 11 21H2 and later. But AMD confirmed to Windows Latest that the driver packages would still support Windows 10 for the foreseeable future. The company said that the OS is not listed in the release notes because Microsoft has technically ended support for Windows 10, but home users running Windows 10 on their PCs can get an extra year of security patches relatively easily. Microsoft will continue to provide support for the OS in businesses, schools, and other large organizations until at least 2028.

Why all the fuss?

It would look bad if AMD dropped or reduced support for those Radeon 5000- and 6000-series GPUs, given that Nvidia continues to support GeForce RTX 20- and 30-series graphics cards launched in the same 2019 to 2022 time window. But the end of support could have been even worse for gaming handhelds and lower-end PCs with integrated graphics.

The RDNA 2 architecture, in particular, has enjoyed a long and ongoing life as an integrated GPU, including for systems that are explicitly marketed and sold as gaming PCs. And because so many of AMD and Intel’s lower-end chips are just rebranded versions of older silicon, AMD continues to launch “new” products with RDNA 2 GPUs. The RDNA 2 architecture is the one Valve has used in the Steam Deck since 2022, for example, but Microsoft and Asus’ just-launched ROG Xbox Ally series also includes an RDNA 2 GPU in the entry-level model.

The last time AMD formally scaled back its GPU driver support was in 2023, when it moved drivers for its Polaris and Vega GPU architectures into a separate package that would only get occasional “critical updates.” At the time, AMD had launched its last dedicated Vega-based GPU just four years before, and many lower-end desktop and laptop processors still shipped with Vega-based integrated GPUs.

For the Steam Deck and other SteamOS and Linux systems, at least, it seems that things aren’t really changing, no matter what happens with the Windows drivers. Phoronix points out that the Linux driver package for AMD’s GPUs has always been maintained separately from the Windows drivers and that GPU architectures considerably older than RDNA 1 continue to get official support and occasional improvements.

After confusing driver release, AMD says old GPUs are still actively supported Read More »

new-physical-attacks-are-quickly-diluting-secure-enclave-defenses-from-nvidia,-amd,-and-intel

New physical attacks are quickly diluting secure enclave defenses from Nvidia, AMD, and Intel

AMD, battering ram, Biz & IT, Features, intel, NVIDIA, secure enclaves, Security, tee.fail, trusted execution environments, wiretap / /

On-chip TEEs withstand rooted OSes but fall instantly to cheap physical attacks.

Trusted execution environments, or TEEs, are everywhere—in blockchain architectures, virtually every cloud service, and computing involving AI, finance, and defense contractors. It’s hard to overstate the reliance that entire industries have on three TEEs in particular: Confidential Compute from Nvidia, SEV-SNP from AMD, and SGX and TDX from Intel. All three come with assurances that confidential data and sensitive computing can’t be viewed or altered, even if a server has suffered a complete compromise of the operating kernel.

A trio of novel physical attacks raises new questions about the true security offered by these TEES and the exaggerated promises and misconceptions coming from the big and small players using them.

The most recent attack, released Tuesday, is known as TEE.fail. It defeats the latest TEE protections from all three chipmakers. The low-cost, low-complexity attack works by placing a small piece of hardware between a single physical memory chip and the motherboard slot it plugs into. It also requires the attacker to compromise the operating system kernel. Once this three-minute attack is completed, Confidential Compute, SEV-SNP, and TDX/SDX can no longer be trusted. Unlike the Battering RAM and Wiretap attacks from last month—which worked only against CPUs using DDR4 memory—TEE.fail works against DDR5, allowing them to work against the latest TEEs.

Some terms apply

All three chipmakers exclude physical attacks from threat models for their TEEs, also known as secure enclaves. Instead, assurances are limited to protecting data and execution from viewing or tampering, even when the kernel OS running the processor has been compromised. None of the chipmakers make these carveouts prominent, and they sometimes provide confusing statements about the TEE protections offered.

Many users of these TEEs make public assertions about the protections that are flat-out wrong, misleading, or unclear. All three chipmakers and many TEE users focus on the suitability of the enclaves for protecting servers on a network edge, which are often located in remote locations, where physical access is a top threat.

“These features keep getting broken, but that doesn’t stop vendors from selling them for these use cases—and people keep believing them and spending time using them,” said HD Moore, a security researcher and the founder and CEO of runZero.

He continued:

Overall, it’s hard for a customer to know what they are getting when they buy confidential computing in the cloud. For on-premise deployments, it may not be obvious that physical attacks (including side channels) are specifically out of scope. This research shows that server-side TEEs are not effective against physical attacks, and even more surprising, Intel and AMD consider these out of scope. If you were expecting TEEs to provide private computing in untrusted data centers, these attacks should change your mind.

Those making these statements run the gamut from cloud providers to AI engines, blockchain platforms, and even the chipmakers themselves. Here are some examples:

  • Cloudflare says it’s using Secure Memory Encryption—the encryption engine driving SEV—to safeguard confidential data from being extracted from a server if it’s stolen.
  • In a post outlining the possibility of using the TEEs to secure confidential information discussed in chat sessions, Anthropic says the enclave “includes protections against physical attacks.”
  • Microsoft marketing (here and here) devotes plenty of ink to discussing TEE protections without ever noting the exclusion.
  • Meta, paraphrasing the Confidential Computing Consortium, says TEE security provides protections against malicious “system administrators, the infrastructure owner, or anyone else with physical access to the hardware.” SEV-SNP is a key pillar supporting the security of Meta’s WhatsApp Messenger.
  • Even Nvidia claims that its TEE security protects against “infrastructure owners such as cloud providers, or anyone with physical access to the servers.”
  • The maker of the Signal private messenger assures users that its use of SGX means that “keys associated with this encryption never leave the underlying CPU, so they’re not accessible to the server owners or anyone else with access to server infrastructure.” Signal has long relied on SGX to protect contact-discovery data.

I counted more than a dozen other organizations providing assurances that were similarly confusing, misleading, or false. Even Moore—a security veteran with more than three decades of experience—told me: “The surprising part to me is that Intel/AMD would blanket-state that physical access is somehow out of scope when it’s the entire point.”

In fairness, some TEE users build additional protections on top of the TEEs provided out of the box. Meta, for example, said in an email that the WhatsApp implementation of SEV-SNP uses protections that would block TEE.fail attackers from impersonating its servers. The company didn’t dispute that TEE.fail could nonetheless pull secrets from the AMD TEE.

The Cloudflare theft protection, meanwhile, relies on SME—the engine driving SEV-SNP encryption. The researchers didn’t directly test SME against TEE.fail. They did note that SME uses deterministic encryption, the cryptographic property that causes all three TEEs to fail. (More about the role of deterministic encryption later.)

Others who misstate the TEEs’ protections provide more accurate descriptions elsewhere. Given all the conflicting information, it’s no wonder there’s confusion.

How do you know where the server is? You don’t.

Many TEE users run their infrastructure inside cloud providers such as AWS, Azure, or Google, where protections against supply-chain and physical attacks are extremely robust. That raises the bar for a TEE.fail-style attack significantly. (Whether the services could be compelled by governments with valid subpoenas to attack their own TEE is not clear.)

All these caveats notwithstanding, there’s often (1) little discussion of the growing viability of cheap, physical attacks, (2) no evidence (yet) that implementations not vulnerable to the three attacks won’t fall to follow-on research, or (3) no way for parties relying on TEEs to know where the servers are running and whether they’re free from physical compromise.

“We don’t know where the hardware is,” Daniel Genkin, one of the researchers behind both TEE.fail and Wiretap, said in an interview. “From a user perspective, I don’t even have a way to verify where the server is. Therefore, I have no way to verify if it’s in a reputable facility or an attacker’s basement.”

In other words, parties relying on attestations from servers in the cloud are once again reduced to simply trusting other people’s computers. As Moore observed, solving that problem is precisely the reason TEEs exist.

In at least two cases, involving the blockchain services Secret Network and Crust, the loss of TEE protections made it possible for any untrusted user to present cryptographic attestations. Both platforms used the attestations to verify that a blockchain node operated by one user couldn’t tamper with the execution or data passing to another user’s nodes. The Wiretap hack on SGX made it possible for users to run the sensitive data and executions outside of the TEE altogether while still providing attestations to the contrary. In the AMD attack, the attacker could decrypt the traffic passing through the TEE.

Both Secret Network and Crust added mitigations after learning of the possible physical attacks with Wiretap and Battering RAM. Given the lack of clear messaging, other TEE users are likely making similar mistakes.

A predetermined weakness

The root cause of all three physical attacks is the choice of deterministic encryption. This form of encryption produces the same ciphertext each time the same plaintext is encrypted with the same key. A TEE.fail attacker can copy ciphertext strings and use them in replay attacks. (Probabilistic encryption, by contrast, resists such attacks because the same plaintext can encrypt to a wide range of ciphertexts that are randomly chosen during the encryption process.)

TEE.fail works not only against SGX but also a more advanced Intel TEE known as TDX. The attack also defeats the protections provided by the latest Nvidia Confidential Compute and AMD SEV-SNP TEEs. Attacks against TDX and SGX can extract the Attestation Key, an ECDSA secret that certifies to a remote party that it’s running up-to-date software and can’t expose data or execution running inside the enclave. This Attestation Key is in turn signed by an Intel X.509 digital certificate providing cryptographic assurances that the ECDSA key can be trusted. TEE.fail works against all Intel CPUs currently supporting TDX and SDX.

With possession of the key, the attacker can use the compromised server to peer into data or tamper with the code flowing through the enclave and send the relying party an assurance that the device is secure. With this key, even CPUs built by other chipmakers can send an attestation that the hardware is protected by the Intel TEEs.

GPUs equipped with Nvidia Confidential Compute don’t bind attestation reports to the specific virtual machine protected by a specific GPU. TEE.fail exploits this weakness by “borrowing” a valid attestation report from a GPU run by the attacker and using it to impersonate the GPU running Confidential Compute. The protection is available on Nvidia’s H100/200 and B100/200 server GPUs.

“This means that we can convince users that their applications (think private chats with LLMs or Large Language Models) are being protected inside the GPU’s TEE while in fact it is running in the clear,” the researchers wrote on a website detailing the attack. “As the attestation report is ‘borrowed,’ we don’t even own a GPU to begin with.”

SEV-SNP (Secure Encrypted Virtualization-Secure Nested Paging) uses ciphertext hiding in AMD’s EPYC CPUs based on the Zen 5 architecture. AMD added it to prevent a previous attack known as Cipherleaks, which allowed malicious hypervisors to extract cryptographic keys stored in the enclaves of a virtual machine. Ciphertext, however, doesn’t stop physical attacks. With the ability to reopen the side channel that Cipherleaks relies on, TEE.fail can steal OpenSSL credentials and other key material based on constant-time encryption.

Cheap, quick, and the size of a briefcase

“Now that we have interpositioned DDR5 traffic, our work shows that even the most modern of TEEs across all vendors with available hardware is vulnerable to cheap physical attacks,” Genkin said.

The equipment required by TEE.fail runs off-the-shelf gear that costs less than $1,000. One of the devices the researchers built fits into a 17-inch briefcase, so it can be smuggled into a facility housing a TEE-protected server. Once the physical attack is performed, the device does not need to be connected again. Attackers breaking TEEs on servers they operate have no need for stealth, allowing them to use a larger device, which the researchers also built.

A logic analyzer attached to an interposer.

The researchers demonstrated attacks against an array of services that rely on the chipmakers’ TEE protections. (For ethical reasons, the attacks were carried out against infrastructure that was identical to but separate from the targets’ networks.) Some of the attacks included BuilderNet, dstack, and Secret Network.

BuilderNet is a network of Ethereum block builders that uses TDX to prevent parties from snooping on others’ data and to ensure fairness and that proof currency is redistributed honestly. The network builds blocks valued at millions of dollars each month.

“We demonstrated that a malicious operator with an attestation key could join BuilderNet and obtain configuration secrets, including the ability to decrypt confidential orderflow and access the Ethereum wallet for paying validators,” the TEE.fail website explained. “Additionally, a malicious operator could build arbitrary blocks or frontrun (i.e., construct a new transaction with higher fees to ensure theirs is executed first) the confidential transactions for profit while still providing deniability.”

To date, the researchers said, BuilderNet hasn’t provided mitigations. Attempts to reach BuilderNet officials were unsuccessful.

dstack is a tool for building confidential applications that run on top of virtual machines protected by Nvidia Confidential Compute. The researchers used TEE.fail to forge attestations certifying that a workload was performed by the TDX using the Nvidia protection. It also used the “borrowed” attestations to fake ownership of GPUs that a relying party trusts.

Secret Network is a platform billing itself as the “first mainnet blockchain with privacy-preserving smart contracts,” in part by encrypting on-chain data and execution with SGX. The researchers showed that TEE.fail could extract the “Concensus Seed,” the primary network-side private key encrypting confidential transactions on the Secret Network. As noted, after learning of Wiretap, the Secret Network eliminated this possibility by establishing a “curated” allowlist of known, trusted nodes allowed on the network and suspended the acceptance of new nodes. Academic or not, the ability to replicate the attack using TEE.fail shows that Wiretap wasn’t a one-off success.

A tough nut to crack

As explained earlier, the root cause of all the TEE.fail attacks is deterministic encryption, which forms the basis for protections in all three chipmakers’ TEEs. This weaker form of encryption wasn’t always used in TEEs. When Intel initially rolled out SGX, the feature was put in client CPUs, not server ones, to prevent users from building devices that could extract copyrighted content such as high-definition video.

Those early versions encrypted no more than 256MB of RAM, a small enough space to use the much stronger probabilistic form of encryption. The TEEs built into server chips, by contrast, must often encrypt terabytes of RAM. Probabilistic encryption doesn’t scale to that size without serious performance penalties. Finding a solution that accommodates this overhead won’t be easy.

One mitigation over the short term is to ensure that each 128-bit block of ciphertext has sufficient entropy. Adding random plaintext to the blocks prevents ciphertext repetition. The researchers say the entropy can be added by building a custom memory layout that inserts a 64-bit counter with a random initial value to each 64-bit block before encrypting it.

The last countermeasure the researchers proposed is adding location verification to the attestation mechanism. While insider and supply chain attacks remain a possibility inside even the most reputable cloud services, strict policies make them much less feasible. Even those mitigations, however, don’t foreclose the threat of a government agency with a valid subpoena ordering an organization to run such an attack inside their network.

In a statement, Nvidia said:

NVIDIA is aware of this research. Physical controls in addition to trust controls such as those provided by Intel TDX reduce the risk to GPUs for this style of attack, based on our discussions with the researchers. We will provide further details once the research is published.

Intel spokesman Jerry Bryant said:

Fully addressing physical attacks on memory by adding more comprehensive confidentiality, integrity and anti-replay protection results in significant trade-offs to Total Cost of Ownership. Intel continues to innovate in this area to find acceptable solutions that offer better balance between protections and TCO trade-offs.

The company has published responses here and here reiterating that physical attacks are out of scope for both TDX and SGX

AMD didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Stuck on Band-Aids

For now, TEE.fail, Wiretap, and Battering RAM remain a persistent threat that isn’t solved with the use of default implementations of the chipmakers’ secure enclaves. The most effective mitigation for the time being is for TEE users to understand the limitations and curb uses that the chipmakers say aren’t a part of the TEE threat model. Secret Network tightening requirements for operators joining the network is an example of such a mitigation.

Moore, the founder and CEO of RunZero, said that companies with big budgets can rely on custom solutions built by larger cloud services. AWS, for example, makes use of the Nitro Card, which is built using ASIC chips that accelerate processing using TEEs. Google’s proprietary answer is Titanium.

“It’s a really hard problem,” Moore said. “I’m not sure what the current state of the art is, but if you can’t afford custom hardware, the best you can do is rely on the CPU provider’s TEE, and this research shows how weak this is from the perspective of an attacker with physical access. The enclave is really a Band-Aid or hardening mechanism over a really difficult problem, and it’s both imperfect and dangerous if compromised, for all sorts of reasons.”

Photo of Dan Goodin

Dan Goodin is Senior Security Editor at Ars Technica, where he oversees coverage of malware, computer espionage, botnets, hardware hacking, encryption, and passwords. In his spare time, he enjoys gardening, cooking, and following the independent music scene. Dan is based in San Francisco. Follow him at here on Mastodon and here on Bluesky. Contact him on Signal at DanArs.82.

New physical attacks are quickly diluting secure enclave defenses from Nvidia, AMD, and Intel Read More »