Leading French eSports club Team Vitality has confirmed that its Paris HQ has been smashed up, with trophies, computer equipment, and more looted over the weekend. Thankfully, no team members or staff have been hurt. The team’s V.Hive premises were attacked by criminal opportunistic looters under cover of the widespread protests in France over issues related to school funding, living costs, and government spending cuts. Other shops, public buildings, and property have been smashed, looted, and sometimes burned.

Above, you can see the confirmation of the serious, unfortunate events seen over the weekend. “Our display windows were destroyed, and our trophies and computer equipment were stolen,” lamented the post [machine translation], while being thankful that no members, staff, or fans of Team Vitality were hurt. The bulletin ends with the news that the V.Hive will remain closed for now, until after damage has been assessed. More information is promised in due course.

There are a multitude of social media posts sharing images, videos, and pointing fingers at what they see as the cause of the protests, riots, and looting. Of course, fingers point in all directions, and unfortunately there are also reports of AI-generated rage-farming media, so keep a critical eye open should you dare to doom scroll.

Of course we’ve focused on the damage and looting of Team Vitality’s HQ due to the tech angle. The compendium of video clips shared by the news organization NEXTA provides evidence of the extent of the V.Hive attack. This 30-second clip appears to show rioters hammering at and kicking in the eSports HQ’s windows, taking items from the premises, and throwing gaming chairs onto bonfires in the street.

We also see accounts like ElBuni share clips of looters brandishing what appear to be eSports trophies from Team Vitality’s HQ (embedded above). The second clip shows looters with their hands inside gaming PCs opened up on the sidewalk. It looks like the hooded and gloved looter in the video is removing RAM sticks, an easily pocketable yet highly valuable PC component, as you will all know.

This morning, the French Prime Minister has called for local and partial curfews to contain the post-demonstration rioting. Meanwhile, there are concerns that there could be copycat behavior across Europe.

A Norwegian company building fiber networks and data centers across Europe is looking for a majority partner to help fund and build a transatlantic undersea cable that would connect Canada with Europe directly, bypassing the United States. The project follows worsening relations between Washington and Ottawa, with the Canadian government looking to reduce direct reliance on its immediate neighbor, Bloomberg reports.

Project Leif Erikson, if it goes ahead, would stretch more than 2,800 miles, starting at the southern tip of Norway and ending up at Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Canada's eastern province of Newfoundland and Labrador. From there, it would continue underground over Canadian territory, passing through Quebec before reaching Montreal.

According to Bulk's co-founder, Peder Nærbø, the link would be part of a "sovereign cable system" for Canada. The project was touted to investors at a global investors summit, arranged by the Canadian government, in September, where the project claimed to provide "direct, secure, high-capacity data transmission for AI, telecom and hyperscale markets."

Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joy, meanwhile, met with Nærbø earlier this year, and although the department declined to comment on Leif Erikson itself, it told Bloomberg that security and resilience for Canada's infrastructure are "key priorities" for PM Mark Carney's government. Only a few undersea cables currently connect Canada without passing through the United States first, and none by a company owned by Canada. The biggest, called Topez, is owned by Google owner Alphabet and connects Canada with Japan.

As for Bulk, it has, up until now, laid more than 6,200 miles of cabling locally and at sea. Bulk's goal is to "unlock the Nordics' potential for... renewable energy to be utilized for digital infrastructure." Nærbø believes that "Canada lacks resilience" but "the game-changer was when the current situation with the U.S. escalated."

Leif Erikson has backers, according to the report, but the EU and Canada still need to plan and sign off on the project and its route. Additional financing will be needed to get started, too, with it expected to cost more than $620 million to build. Bulk itself has significant Canadian investment, with 65% of the company owned by a real estate subsidiary of Canada's Sun Life Financial Inc., with several Canadian pension funds also invested.

Leif Erikson is a project that Nærbø has sought to kickstart for the last five years without success. With geopolitical pressures and old alliances fraying, however, new opportunities for its development have given it steam. To that end, Canada and Europe intend to endorse a statement in Montreal on October 29 that the two will look for "the best way to enhance digital links between Europe, Canada and Asia through new subsea cable infrastructure."

It won't be without challenges, however, including a 1,180-mile underground route through Canada that'll require the backing of Indigenous communities. Meanwhile, other European efforts include an undersea cable project at the North Pole to link Europe with Asia to bypass Russia and the Middle East.

A 3D scanner is an amazing tool to add to your 3D printing workflow, allowing you to scan real-life objects to import into sculpting or CAD software, then print out your own modified copies on a 3D printer. In the past, a good scanner cost thousands of dollars, but Creality has finally given us a device within reach of hobby-level consumers. The Creality Pika is easy to use, with the look, feel, and size of a point-and-shoot digital camera. It can wirelessly tether to a mobile phone running a Creality scanning app, which makes scanning on the go easier than ever before.

It can also be tethered to a laptop wirelessly or with a cable for more stable scanning, but marker-free laser scanning can only be performed while physically tethered to a computer. The scanner runs on AA-sized rechargeable batteries, which are provided.

It weighs just 260 grams (just slightly over a half-pound) with the batteries installed, reducing arm fatigue when operating without a tripod. A tabletop tripod and manual turntable are included for scanning small items. While not as precise as Creality’s Sermoon series, the Creality Pika, currently on pre-order for $699, is a fraction of the price. The best part is that both use the same software, Creality Scan, which is excellent.

The Creality Pika’s portability and price make this one of the best scanners we’ve reviewed in 2026.

Specifications: Creality Pika

Included in the Box: Creality Pika

The Creality Pika comes with a very nice tripod. Also included are the glass calibration board, a manual turntable, marking blocks, batteries (including a spare), a generous pack of marking dots, and a mostly useless quick start guide. The Quick Start guide is just a packing list in eleven different languages and QR codes to Creality’s website and Facebook community.

Design of the Creality Pika

The Creality Pika is a small handheld scanner that weighs only 260 g with its battery. It has a 3-inch touch screen on the back that shows the scan in progress while paired to a phone or PC on Wi-Fi, or allows exposure and zoom adjustments when scanning via cord. There are two buttons on the top of the scanner for power and start/stop, and a selector switch for USB or Wi-Fi.

The scanner has a play button to start and stop scans, as well as a button to adjust the lights and a toggle for zoom. The front of the scanner has an RGB camera, two 3D scanning cameras, a DOE projector, a parallel-line laser, four blue and white fill lights, and four infrared fill lights. There is an always-on cooling fan with grills on the top and bottom of the scanner. Two batteries are included, which can be charged in the camera or via a USB-C port located near the top of the battery.

The batteries, curiously, have both positive and negative terminals on top of the battery. Care should be taken when carrying these to avoid shorting them together with anything metal in a purse or pocket.

Getting Started and Calibrating the Creality Pika

The Creality Pika uses a glass calibration board to do an initial calibration of the scanner. The calibration process involves holding the scanner above the board at various heights and at various angles. The process takes about ten minutes.

Installing the Software for Creality Pika

Creality Scan app can be downloaded from Creality's website, with versions for PC, Mac, Android, and iPhone. A really good user guide with links to tutorials and troubleshooting help is located on the Creality Scan homepage. The discovery tab has links to items scanned by other Creality users.

The Pika must be tethered by cable or Wi-Fi. Though the Pika does have an onboard 8-core 2.0 GHz CPU, it passes along a big chunk of computer processing to whatever it’s connected to. My iPhone 15 has just enough oomph to power the scanner, so you may have an even better experience with a newer device. Either way, using a wireless connection is slower, and using it with hardware near the minimum requirements can be frustrating.

My old laptop, with only 8GB of RAM, did not work, despite being enough to run previous scanners. Thankfully, my admittedly low-end gaming laptop, with 16GB of RAM, was good enough to run the scanner quite well. The software installed on the computer is used for both scanning and processing.

Creality Scan can export scans as STL, PLY, OBJ, or ASC files. These files can be tidied up in other modeling software or uploaded directly to your 3D printer’s slicer.

Blue Laser Line 3D Scanning with the Creality Pika

The Creality Pika uses blue laser line scanning for detailed geometry capture, with seven parallel laser lines. The provided manual turntable works well when plastered with a bunch of the included marker dots. Unfortunately, it has a few millimeters of play in the center bearing, which can lead to a rough surface texture if not careful.

The photo above shows the raw scan of a copy of Michelangelo’s David. I did get much better scans later, but even this one is easily made usable in the software. The first step is fusing the model, which allows you to remove the marker dots and noise from the scan.

After fusing, the model is much smoother. There are still some unattached pieces and holes, and the bottom of the model is not flat. The lasso tool can select and remove the unattached pieces, and a clipping plane can be generated by choosing markers surrounding the scan. The plane can then be raised or lowered to give you the best base of the model.

The next step is mesh processing of the model. In this step, you can further smooth the model, simplify it, and fill small holes shown in yellow. Don’t select “make watertight” if you have a large hole (like the bottom of a model), as it will cover the holes by ballooning out a good bit. After running the mesh processing, you will have another opportunity to simplify, smooth, and fill holes.

Use Plane type hole filling for large flat surfaces.

The final model: filled, smoothed, simplified, and ready to export for printing.

This bust of David came with an early Creality scanner, so I’ve been using it as a test model for some time now. This may be the best scan I’ve gotten of it. The main reason is that the Creality Pika is small and lightweight, and tracks well enough to scan the underside of David’s hair and chin for the most part. The software’s hole filling and smoothing did the rest, with phenomenal results.

The above image on the right was printed on the Prusa Core One L with Inland Bone White PLA. The model looks nearly perfect.

Since the Pika did so well with David, I decided to try a smaller model. This little guy (below) came with my kid’s Fisher-Price castle. He’s only 62 mm tall and was just too small to paint for 3D printing. He was also printed in Inland bone white on the Prusa Core One L.

Both the print and scan are nicely detailed.

I swiped my husband’s vintage Saint Louis University Billiken bobblehead for more tests. I had to put some sticky tack on his head to keep it steady on the turntable. Creality Scan did a terrific job smoothing out the wrinkles, and the model is perfect. I used the clipping plane to remove the logo of an old wireless company that provided the game day freebie. I gave it a quick coloring job in PrusaSlicer, but skipped doing the face.

The model was printed on the Prusa XL using Anycubic turquoise and orange PLA, with Creality white and black PLA.

NIR 3D Scanning with the Creality Pika

I spent a ton of time putting random dots on the included turntable, which made Blue light scanning a breeze. NIR 3D scanning doesn’t use them. Scanning a person seems to work well until you get hair involved. Then it gets dodgy.

I ran two good scans using NIR. This time I borrowed my husband to operate the scanner, since scanning yourself is a bit more difficult than taking a selfie. I stitched together two scans of my foot, which I’ll use later to size some TPU shoes. I was able to further clean up the scan in Nomad Sculpt, since the scan wasn’t very flattering. It works quite well for sizing, however. The shoes will turn up in a future printer review.

After the less-than-stellar scan he took of my head for the Creality Sermoon S1, my husband graciously volunteered to have me scan his head for this review. Using any of the modes available, hair just seems to flummox the scanner. Fortunately, my husband has less hair than I do, so the scan did complete, and no, I’m not going to 3D print it. 3D scans are quite brutal, but if he ever wants a custom driver for his Death Racer, we’re covered.

Bottom Line

The Creality Pika is a small and light, yet totally capable scanner. It needs a good mobile phone or fairly decent laptop to drive it. The software backing up the hardware is easy to use and really does an excellent job cleaning up the rough areas of your scans. Currently, it is available at a comparatively bargain-basement pre-order price of $699.

If you want a scanner with a little more horsepower, check out the Creality Sermoon S1, which retails for $2,069. Creality also makes the Sermoon P1, which can run completely untethered and retails for $3,299.

A developer using Claude Code to help build a temperature monitor app got a friendly warning from the coding agent. “Your Mac is running a crypto miner that I didn’t put there,” flagged the helpful agent. “I saw xmrig using about 1175% CPU, roughly 12 cores,” it informed its human master. Perhaps developer and Redditor UntilHEX should have sensed the crypto miner’s presence without AI help, as they admitted the malware’s presence “explains why my Mac has been running like s**t.”

Ironically, the cryptomining malware’s nefarious CPU cycle hogging activity is what may have led to its discovery and demise. Pondering over a screenshot of the Claude Code window, we see that this malware was probably added to the Mac’s startup roster on August 29. It looks like UntilHEX was inspired to develop a Mac temperature monitor app after this infection to track and diagnose why the computer was running so hot.

Claude stepped in after the Redditor was concerned about a dump of the Mac’s raw temperature sensor readings. “They seemed far too high,” commented UntilHEX in the social media post. Indeed, the well-known coding agent pointed out that the CPU was peaking at a very toasty 112 degrees Celsius. It explained this was due to a sustained heavy load, specifically “xmrig using about 1175% CPU, roughly 12 cores.” We don’t know how many cores the Mac being used had, but maybe 12 were all of them.

Claude Code went on to describe how the crypto miner software had hidden itself on the Apple computer and ran at startup. It cautiously decided not to kill or remove anything from the Mac, but offered to clean up the CPU-hogging crypto miner, which was sucking all the power from the Apple Silicon computer. “Can I clean it up now?” Claude inquired. “I’d stop the startup item and the miner, and move the files into a quarantine folder.”

Later in the comments, UntilHEX informed the social media throng that Claude was indeed tasked with cleaning up the unwanted crypto miner software. “I only had to delete 1 file manually because Claude had an access issue, but it was very effective,” the Redditor said. After that, a Malwarebytes scan was run to check to see if the AI coding agent-driven clean had really been successful.

Arm announced last week that its AGI CPU, the company's data center CPU for agentic AI workloads, delivers twice the performance per rack as AMD EPYC 9755, calculated from chip performance and server-power assumptions measured across seven workloads. The claim stems from modeled rack results from tests aligned with Arm’s new CPU evaluation methodology, developed with support from Fujitsu, Meta, and OpenAI.

The results — verified in an Arm-commissioned independent analysis by Signal65 — do not establish the AGI CPU as the overall leader for agentic AI, as they apply to the selected processors, workloads, and configuration. They also use the specific Arm-developed evaluation methodology that Arm says should be the new standard for assessing performance. However, other chipmakers like AMD and Intel make performance claims based on different benchmarks. So, how is Agentic AI evolving CPU performance benchmarks, what does Arm propose to measure, and how do the different approaches compare?

Arm’s new CPU evaluation methodology

Agentic AI is changing the role of CPUs in modern AI data centers, requiring them to handle complex, multi-step workflows. Beyond inference, which the accelerator handles, AI agents execute tools, retrieve data, and maintain state within isolated environments, acting like virtual users. The CPU handles these critical surrounding workloads, from running those tools and serving database or API requests to preparing data and coordinating work for accelerators.

As these workloads scale rapidly with agentic capabilities, it becomes increasingly important to gauge CPU performance not just by how many agents can run concurrently, but also by how much useful work gets done. Arm argues that CPU performance is increasingly defined by how much useful work a system can sustain while staying responsive. Supporting more agents simultaneously offers limited benefit if their executions throttle or accelerators have to sit idle waiting for the CPU. Power, cooling, and physical space also limit how much hardware operators can deploy, extending the performance question to the rack.

Arm’s proposed methodology for evaluating CPU performance, developed with support from Fujitsu, Meta, and OpenAI, centers on representative agent workloads, repeatable CPU measurements, and validation against end-to-end task outcomes. In practical terms, the methodology identifies the tools and services an agent uses, measures their CPU performance under controlled conditions, and checks whether improvements help the agent complete its task. For example, a database test can establish how quickly a system handles transactions. An end-to-end evaluation would then examine whether faster database access actually improves the workflow that depends on it.

Executing the second aspect of the methodology, making these comparisons repeatable, presents another challenge, as an agent might choose different commands or take a different route through a task each time it runs. Model inference and remote services also introduce delays. Arm proposes replaying recorded agent actions to separate CPU performance from this variability, allowing different systems to execute a consistent sequence of work. Its whitepaper sets out a framework for selecting and interpreting these measurements, leaving the industry to develop an agreed benchmark suite and scoring approach.

To evaluate the CPU work described in its framework, Arm ran seven workloads — spanning tooling, agentic workflows, and reasoning/planning, plus Sandbench, which measures sandbox-creation overhead for agent execution — on its AGI CPU and AMD’s EPYC 9755. The tests combine established server applications with benchmarks focused on agent workflows.

The vLLM result measures the CPU work around model execution, not GPU inference throughput. Similarly, the report’s “reasoning/planning” category groups supporting CPU workloads and does not assess how intelligently a model reasons.

ARM AGI CPU vs AMD EPYC 9755

For the tests, Arm used two AGI CPU configurations because of hardware availability: a 128-core chip at 2.8 GHz with DDR5-7200 for Terminal-Bench 2 and SWE-bench replay, and a 136-core chip at 3.2 GHz with DDR5-8000 for the other five workloads. The AMD comparison used one socket of the 128-core EPYC 9755 with DDR5-6400. Both platforms ran the same benchmark scripts but used different software environments. Arm used custom Linux 7.1.3 builds, with Ubuntu 24.04 for most tests and Ubuntu 26.04 for SWE-bench, while AMD’s main recorded configuration used Ubuntu 24.04 and Linux 6.8, with settings varying by test.

At the chip level, Arm’s AGI CPU won the majority of comparisons when compared to its AMD counterpart in five of the seven tests. With the EPYC 9755 as the baseline, Arm led by 9% on Terminal-Bench, 13% on SWE-bench, and 97% on fastText, but lagged by 12% and 5% in MySQL and Milvus throughput, respectively. On average, the AGI CPU led by 20% (1.20x) per-chip advantage, calculated across the seven normalized performance ratios.

At the rack level, Arm’s modeled performance averages 1.99x AMD’s, with a lead in all seven workloads. The model uses rated server-power estimates of 950 W for the 128-core Arm configuration, 1,050 W for the 136-core version, and 1,700 W for AMD, including memory and other system components. After reserving about 8% of a 24 kW rack budget for networking and power distribution, this leaves room for 23 or 21 Arm servers versus 13 AMD servers.

For SWE-bench, the 2.00x per rack result was obtained by multiplying the roughly 1.13x chip result by 23/13. The larger gain comes from fitting more servers into the same power budget. Furthermore, these projections use modeled whole-server power, not throughput measurements from two fully populated racks.

Arm’s model also gives the AMD servers about twice as much RAM: roughly 2 TB against 1 TB for Arm. It allocates 4 GB per hardware thread, with each AMD core supporting two threads while each Arm core supports one. This puts the memory-power allowance at 336 W for AMD and 192 W for Arm. Signal65 also calculated what happens when memory is allocated per physical core. In this setup, AMD’s memory and power allowance falls, and Arm’s average modeled rack advantage drops from 1.99x to approximately 1.81x. The usefulness of the 2 TB AMD configuration depends on how much memory the workloads actually need, as SMT does not inherently require twice the memory.

To verify the findings, Signal65 remotely observed Arm’s test runs and examined the original logs, result files, scripts, and configuration records. A separate review team rebuilt the calculations with its own code and reproduced all seven results within 0.5%. However, Signal65 did not run a separate hardware rerun in its own lab. In addition, Signal65 could independently confirm BIOS and memory settings for only the EPYC 9965 system. These settings were unavailable for independent verification on the Arm and EPYC 9755 systems. Along with the software differences, these gaps slightly affect the certainty with which the results can be attributed to the processors themselves.

Arm’s approach vs AMD and Nvidia

While Arm believes its methodology should be the standard, it does not hold a monopoly on how the industry evaluates agentic CPU performance. For example, AMD promotes agents per watt, dollar, and rack. Footnotes on its EPYC 9006 page identify available CPU threads as a proxy for agent capacity, with actual throughput depending on the workload and system. Its separate workload analysis models a 100 kW rack and claims 2.37× performance for EPYC 9965 over Nvidia's Vera, using a geometric mean across six infrastructure workloads.

Nvidia, on the other hand, emphasizes Vera’s single-thread performance and memory bandwidth, and says a 256-CPU rack supports more than 22,500 concurrent CPU environments. These numbers describe different things and do not directly imply any specific advantage. Methodologies vary across manufacturers by workload, power assumptions, and aggregation methods, making direct CPU comparisons complex. The current comparison is against AMD's fifth-generation “Turin” processor with 128 cores. The company launched its latest sixth-generation EPYC 9006 “Venice” family this year, dedicated to agentic AI.

If you're looking for an extra monitor screen for your setup, today's deal offers an amazingly cheap solution. Whether you want to have another screen to read your Discord chat while gaming, or view your Slack messages whilst working, this 25-inch LG UltraGear G5 is the answer at just $79. It's a hard price to beat, especially when Walmart has knocked a staggering 47% off the $149 list price. Any screen at $79 is a pretty good price, but when it comes with these specifications, you can't ignore how good a deal this is. If you don't need a second or third screen, this has the refresh rate to make an ideal main monitor for esports-centric gaming.

● Check out this deal at Walmart

The LG UltraGear G5 is a flat-panel gaming monitor with an IPS panel measuring 25 inches diagonally. It sports a 1920 x 1080 pixel (FHD) resolution and has a fast refresh rate of 200Hz, with a gray-to-gray response time of 1ms. The monitor also supports Nvidia G-Sync and AMD FreeSync for enhanced tear-free gaming by matching the refresh rate of the monitor to the frame rate of the game you're playing. There's also HDR10 certification and up to 99% sRGB color gamut on the IPS panel.

LG's superb UltraGear monitor also comes with plenty of connectivity ports to easily combine it with your existing desktop setup. You can also choose to connect the screen to multiple devices, including your favorite game consoles. Laptop, docks, and anything else with a compatible video port. There are 2 x HDMI ports, 1 x DisplayPort, and a 3-pole headphone input for connecting some headphones or speakers.

A software engineer who’s also into drones and 3D printing has shared a single-motor drone that they built inside their home and tested on their bed. Joshua Bird shared a video of how they created it on YouTube, highlighting the unique technique they used to maintain controllability and stability. The design used a combination of a hinged propeller, rapid changes to the motor’s rotation speed, and a custom flight controller and motor controller firmware that allowed the motor to react to necessary changes in under 0.2 milliseconds.

Most rotary wing aircraft require a mechanism to counteract the torque generated by the motor or engine and to change its flight direction, typically with the use of a swash plate to change rotor disk attitude and a secondary propeller. While this method has been effective for decades, it has made rotary-wing aircraft heavier and more complex. This single-motor drone cut the need for a secondary mechanism by constantly adjusting the speed of the motor — speeding it up produces more reaction torque while slowing it down applies opposite reaction torque. This essentially turns into a balancing act between these two forces to reduce the torque on the drone body to a more manageable level.

The hinged rotor also relies on the same mechanism for directional control instead of relying on a swashplate. Each rotor blade sits on a 45-degree hinge that makes it pivot when the motor accelerates. As this happens, one blade pitches up to produce more lift, while the other blade pitches down, reducing lift. By accelerating and decelerating the motor as needed, Bird would be able to change the drone’s roll and pitch movement. It also combines this with the main rotor torque, motor adjustments, and the 3D-printed stabilizing fins to produce effective yaw control as well.

This was the theoretical part — the majority of the build video focused on fixing issues, including the part where Bird built a high-speed camera using a Sony camera and a flash unit controlled by a microcontroller that gets its signals from the prototype drone’s motor controller and camera shutter. This home-made high-speed camera revealed that the drone’s propellers were too soft and had to be replaced with a 3D-printed version that used sturdier filament.

The creator had to launch several test flights from their bed, many of which resulted in a crashed drone and some wall damage as they fine-tuned the drone’s programming. Bird was eventually able to make the 3D-printed drone fly, although it was limited to the bedroom because of its fixed-base IR beacon navigation method. They said that they eventually want to add a linear camera to the build so that it could take off in other environments in the future.

While other researchers and engineers have built smaller, quieter drones, with China even revealing a mosquito-sized unit, Joshua Bird’s single-motor project is still a unique take on drones. But what made the YouTube video much more interesting is the problem-solving process and the solutions that came afterward. You can check out the complete video below and even start your own similar project by looking at the Single Propeller Drone GitHub repository.

At the moment, the best value for money when you're thinking about a new gaming PC is to pick a pre-built, especially a discounted one. With that in mind, Newegg has slashed the price of this ABS Flux II Aqua gaming PC with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 by $500, bringing it down to just $1,799.99.

● Check out this deal at Newegg

The core components in this build include the Intel Core I7-14700F, still a popular choice in pre-builts, along with that powerful Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070. The RTX 5070 is a solid, mid- to high-tier option for gaming that'll ensure you'll be able to hit high frame rates at 1440p, with the potential for 4K, too. You're also getting 32GB of DDR5 RAM here, along with a 1TB SSD for storage.

Our RTX 5070 review makes clear what a good performer this mid-tier GPU is for gamers in this current generation. It's on our best GPU list as the best all-rounder option for gamers right now, too. This is a solid 1440p card, but with Nvidia DLSS features at your disposal, including multi-frame generation to boost your frame rates, you'll be helped to push it even further.

With the RTX 5070, you're getting 6,144 CUDA cores and 12GB of GDDR6 VRAM, operating on a 192-bit memory bus. Performance-wise, you can expect the highest frame rates at 1080p, along with 1440p, even at Ultra. 4K will push it harder, and you might need to drop down a preset or two for stability, or make use of multi-frame gen to cover the gaps.

Coupled with the RTX 5070 is the Intel Core i7-14700F. This Raptor Lake Refresh CPU is getting older, but it's still popular and powerful, too. It has 20 cores, 12 of which are efficient cores for multi-threaded work, with the final eight performance cores giving you the power you'll need for gaming. With the RTX 5070 alongside it, there isn't much of a bottleneck here for gaming with the 14700F, and it'll handle 1440p with little trouble.

Elsewhere, you're getting 32GB of G.Skill Flare X5 RAM, split dual-channel across two 16GB modules, with speeds of 6,000 MT/s, leaving slower DDR4 memory far behind. You're also getting a 1TB Kingston SNV3S SSD here, offering Gen 4 speeds, with enough space for a couple of big AAA games alongside Windows.

The $1,799.99 sale price for this ABS Flux II Aqua gaming PC is a good one in the current market. ABS is Newegg's own brand, and the specs you're getting here are formidable for the price, especially for under $1,800.

A Russian military satellite, Cosmos 2612, has closed to roughly 3 miles, from a previous distance of more than 200 miles, of the U.S.-owned radar satellite that operates in a fleet that supports Ukraine, Axios reports. The unapproved rendezvous in low Earth orbit, which astronomer Jonathan McDowell says may be the first of its kind, raises alarm in the West. The position change, which was likely not an accident as fuel is scarce, is probably a provocation and an attempt to spy on the satellite.

LeoLabs said in a statement Friday that the movement “appears to be a deliberate approach” toward ICEYE-X36, with uncertain intent and behavior that “warrants continued monitoring.” Roughly 3 miles is too close for comfort in satellite terms: there is no strict legal limit on how close satellites can get, but countries generally keep at least 6 miles (9.7 km) apart, University of Mississippi space law professor Aaron Brynildson told Axios. The approach was made without the owner’s consent, and Russia hasn’t said what the military satellite carries.

Some clues may come from the target’s operational purpose. ICEYE-X36 is a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite which can image through cloud cover and at night. It was launched in March 2024 on a SpaceX Falcon 9. It’s registered to ICEYE US, the U.S. arm of the Finland-founded company. The satellite, which is in a roughly 545 km (339 mi) sun-synchronous orbit, is part of a fleet that has supplied Ukraine with information since 2022. This includes a deal earlier this year with a customer in Ukraine’s defense ministry, but a Ukrainian official told Axios it’s unclear whether ICEYE-X36 itself supports the country; ICEYE and the Defense Department declined to comment.

In May, the majority of the six military satellites Russia launched in April via a Soyuz-2.1b, Cosmos 2609–2614, shifted their orbits about 0.8 degrees to match X36’s orbital plane. Cosmos 2609 passed within 2.5 km (1.6 mi) on May 26. Cosmos 2612, on the other hand, drifted off X36’s plane by about 0.24 degrees by Sept. 30, up to about 28 km side to side, according to Greg Gillinger, a space analyst with Integrity ISR.

Then, Cosmos 2612 made separate burns from Sept. 30 through Oct. 16 to match altitude, eccentricity, and orbital period, Dutch satellite tracker Marco Langbroek wrote. By Saturday night, he estimated from public orbital data, it was within “a few hundred meters or possibly (much) closer.”

These movements appear deliberate and cost a lot of fuel, which the Center for Strategic and International Studies calls “a limited resource on a satellite.” Close-proximity work can be benign, it says, but policymakers should assume the Russian satellite “could take an action that threatens the commercial satellite,” and the U.S. and Europe should decide how to respond to any hostile act in space and make a statement on the decision. Back in July 2020, Russia’s Cosmos 2543 released an object at up to 186 m/s (416 mph) relative to itself, an action which was condemned by the U.S. and U.K.

Intent was less clear earlier this year, when McDowell told Meduza the orbital data showed no sign of the stable, close distance that tracking ICEYE-X36 would require. Now, he says it is an unapproved meeting and is not alone. Gillinger says the setup “removes any remaining doubt for me that Cosmos 2612 is interested in ICEYE X36.” Langbroek adds that “I was skeptical” at first but now calls it “completely non-consensual,” though he cautions it would be difficult to pin any X36 failures on 2612’s actions.

In a Reuters report less than two weeks ago, ICEYE CEO Rafal Modrzewski said the company moved its satellite after May, only to draw more Russian maneuvers, which Germany’s Space Command head, Maj. Gen. Michael Traut, described as “chasing.” Belinda Marchand, chief scientist at U.S. space intelligence firm Slingshot Aerospace, added that the moves may have been meant for surveillance, to prepare for future interference, or to signal capability. Western officials reportedly describe such trailing as a way to gather intelligence and test the West’s tolerance.

No statement from Russia is on record. Gillinger also told readers to “watch Cosmos 2611 and 2613, whose planes are converging on ICEYE X37’s,” with crossings expected around Nov. 6 and Nov. 15.