Tech
Power Up Everything With the Best Portable Chargers
What Features Should I Look for in Power Banks?
There are a few things worth thinking about when you’re shopping for a portable charger.
The capacity of a power bank is measured in milliampere-hours (mAh), but this can be a little misleading because the amount of power you get out depends on the cable you use, the device you’re charging, and the charging method (Qi wireless charging is less efficient). You will never get the maximum capacity. We try to provide a minimum estimate of what you’ll get in terms of charges for devices.
The charging rate for devices like smartphones is measured in watts (W), but most power banks list the voltage (V) and the amperage (A). Thankfully, you can calculate the wattage yourself simply by multiplying the voltage and amperage. Unfortunately, getting that maximum rate also depends on your device, the standards it supports, and the charging cable you use. Many smartphones, including Apple’s iPhones, support the power delivery standard, meaning you can use higher-power power banks to recharge the device with no issues. A few phones, such as Samsung’s Galaxy S range, support a supplementary PD protocol called PPS (Programmable Power Supply) that goes up to 45 watts. Many phones also support Qualcomm’s proprietary Quick Charge (QC) standard. There are also other proprietary fast-charging standards, but you won’t generally find power banks that support them unless they come from the smartphone manufacturer.
Your device will need pass-through support if you want to charge your power bank and use it to charge another device simultaneously. The Nimble, GoalZero, Biolite, Mophie, Zendure, and Sharge portable chargers listed support pass-through charging. Anker discontinued support for pass-through in some of its products because it found that differences between the output of the wall charger and the input of the device being charged can cause the power bank to cycle on and off rapidly and shorten its lifespan. Monoprice does not support pass-through charging either. We would advise caution when using pass-through, as it can also cause portable chargers to heat up.
Can I Take a Power Bank on a Plane?
It’s safe to travel with a power bank, but there are two main restrictions to keep in mind when you board a flight: You must have the portable charger in your carry-on luggage (it cannot be checked), and it must not exceed 100 watt-hours (WH). If your power bank has a larger capacity than 27,000 mAh, you should check with the airline. Below that should not be a problem.
Some airlines introduced stricter rules in 2025, so always check with your chosen airline before you travel. For example, some airlines prefer you not to use or charge power banks during a flight, some require power banks to be in your hand luggage under the seat in front of you and not in the overheads, and some limit the number of power banks you can have onboard.
Why You Should Avoid Cheap Power Banks
Many years ago, the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 gained notoriety when its batteries caught fire in a series of incidents. There’s been a steady stream of similar, though isolated, incidents ever since. However, despite the high-profile coverage of batteries gone wrong, the vast majority of lithium-ion batteries are safe.
The chemical reaction that occurs inside a lithium-ion cell is complex, but as in any battery, there’s a negative and a positive electrode. In lithium batteries, the negative is a lithium-carbon compound, and the positive is cobalt oxide (though many battery makers are moving away from cobalt). These two compounds cause a reaction that is safe when controlled and delivers energy to your devices. When the reaction gets out of control, though, you end up with earbuds melting in your ears. What changes a safe reaction to an uncontrolled reaction can be any number of things: excess heat, physical damage during use, physical damage during manufacture, or using the wrong charger.
The three basic rules that have kept me safe (thus far) through testing dozens and dozens of batteries are:
- Avoid cheap cords, chargers, and outlet adapters.
- Make sure batteries aren’t exposed to excessive heat (over 110 degrees Fahrenheit).
- Regularly inspect batteries for signs of damage.
Avoiding cheap wall-outlet adapters, cords, and chargers is the most important. These are your most likely source of problems. Those chargers you see on Amazon for $20 cheaper than the competition? Not worth it. They probably got the price down by skimping on insulation, leaving out power-management tools, and ignoring the basics of electrical safety. Price alone is no guarantee of safety, either. Buy from reputable companies and brands.
Then there’s heat. Too much of it can cause all manner of problems, both in terms of discharge and in terms of safety. Avoid heat, and pay attention to your batteries when they’re charging. If your device gets overly hot when charging, this can be a sign of problems. Similarly, beware of any swollen, bulging, or otherwise misshapen batteries.
I’ve been testing power banks for close to two decades now, and my home office has stacks of ’em at any given moment. I test every portable charger that comes in for at least two weeks. I always check how many times it can fully charge my test phone (currently an iPhone 16). I’ll also try charging my Pixel 9 and Samsung Galaxy S24+ to test charging speeds, and whatever else I have in. For larger capacity power banks, I test charge an iPad Mini and a MacBook Air. I test how long it takes to recharge each empty power bank.
Aside from standard tests, I try to use the power banks in my everyday life, just to see how they feel, and my wife and kids often help out and share their opinions. For some of our top picks, I continue to test over months to try and get a sense of their reliability and durability, though it’s not possible to do this for every device that lands on my desk. Beyond function, I take form and usability into account. I keep an eye on user reviews and consider the warranties and customer service of each manufacturer.
How Does WIRED Select Power Banks to be Reviewed?
I often scan the latest releases to seek out worthy prospects, whether from an unknown new brand or an established favorite like Anker. I also get pitched many power banks every week. I sometimes reach out to these companies to ask for the product, but never promise any kind of editorial coverage—that goes against WIRED’s editorial policies. While WIRED usually earns affiliate revenue if you purchase a power bank using our link, this is not factored into the decision process when ranking.
There are too many power banks on the market for me to test everything, so I tend to stick to reputable brands, but there’s always room for something new if it has a compelling new feature or price, and I cover as many as I can. (Leave a comment or send me an email if you want me to test a power bank from a certain brand!) Once testing is complete, I typically donate power banks to a local charity. I try to hang on to some of our top picks for comparison purposes and to test their longevity.
Other Portable Chargers We’ve Tested
There are so many portable chargers out there. Here are a few more we like that just missed out on a place above for one reason or another.
Iniu Portable Charger for $21: This power bank is very small for a 10,000-mAh capacity. You can charge at up to 45 watts from either of the USB-C ports or 18 watts from the USB-A, but recharging is limited to 20 watts. The smart design includes a detachable USB-C cable that serves as a carry loop and a small display to show remaining power. Sadly, it fell short of the stated capacity in my tests, and the display sometimes failed to update the remaining percentage correctly.
Voltme HyperCore 20 for $30: Slim, high-capacity (20,000 mAh), and cheap, this Voltme power bank is a decent value. It worked fine in testing but fell well short of the stated capacity, and charging rates proved slow. This portable charger also takes several hours to recharge (six hours with the right charger, over 20 hours with a normal charger). I also tested the HyperCore 10 ($20) and the 10K Pro ($23). The 10K Pro can charge devices at up to 30 watts, making it the pick of the bunch.
Photograph: Simon Hill
OnePlus Slim Magnetic Power Bank for $70: Sleek in silver grey aluminum with a chamfered edge, this power bank looks lovely and is very slim, not to mention lightweight at just 120 grams. But the 5,000-mAh capacity is just over half that after inefficiency takes a bite. Wireless charging tops out at 10 watts for Android and 7.5 watts for iPhone (even wired charging is limited to 10 watts). You can snag better performers for less.
Denvix PowerX Power Bank for $180: This beefy 25,000 mAh power bank can put out up to 200 watts via two USB-C ports, one USB-A, and a Qi wireless charging pad, to charge four devices simultaneously, maybe a laptop, a couple of phones, and some earbuds. The display shows power remaining, watts in or out, temperature, and a few other stats. It’s a solid option if you want something that can charge laptops, but the finish is a little too smooth, and it gets very warm when charging multiple devices.
-Reviewer-Photo-SOURCE-Simon-Hill.jpg)
Photograph: Simon Hill
Sharge Flow Mini for $13: With a similar design to Anker’s Nano Power Bank above and the same 5,000-mAh capacity, you might be tempted to go for this instead. It comes with interchangeable USB-C to USB-C or Lightning connectors (which I worry will be easy to lose) and has a built-in USB-C cable that doubles as a strap, though it’s tricky to pull out. There’s a power button with four LEDs to show the remaining power, and it only takes an hour and a half to refill, but the charging rate maxes out at 12 watts either way.
Cuktech 10 Power Bank for $32: With impressive build quality, including a nice grippy material on the underside and a handy display showing power output and input, this Cuktech (pronounced chook-tek) power bank almost earned a place above. Despite the modest capacity, it is built for speed and capable of outputting 100 watts, with support for PD 3.0 and PPS. It can also recharge in less than an hour (up to 90 W). The trade-off for the high speed is low efficiency. You won’t get anywhere near the 10,000-mAh capacity advertised, but this is true of most power banks. I also tested the higher-capacity Cuktech 15 Ultra ($110), which boasts double the power, can charge two or three devices simultaneously at up to 165 watts, and supports many fast-charging protocols including PPS, QC, PD3.1, FCP, SCP, and MiPPS.
Baseus Blade 2 for $80: With an extremely thin design, this 12,000-mAh-capacity power bank is easy to slip into a backpack and can charge most phones a couple of times or top up a laptop at up to 65 watts. It has a display showing battery life as a percentage of time remaining and the input or output for both USB-C ports. We’ve tried many products from up and down the Baseus product line. While they are generally reliable, we do think there are better options.
FansDreams MChaos for $46: I love the idea of a wearable power bank, and this one comes in lime green with a carabiner that makes it easy to attach to a bag. It also has a built-in, retractable, 28-inch USB-C cable to charge your phone at up to 20 watts. Recharging the power bank is a little slower at 18 watts. The colored LED gives you a sense of remaining juice as it goes from green to orange to red, but the 5,000-mAh capacity means you’ll be lucky to get one full charge for your phone, and even the discounted price feels a little high. I also tested the 10,000-mAh model ($50), which has a nicer design. Pull the 2.3-foot retractable USB-C cable out and the percentage remaining pops up visible through the shiny plastic of the case. There’s a USB-C port on the bottom for charging, and it goes up to 22.5 watts either way.
Iniu Power Bank BaI-B64 for $80: Offering relatively low prices, Iniu is a power bank brand on the rise. This portable charger packs a 27,000-mAh capacity, can put out up to 140 watts, and charges three devices at once via two USB-C ports and a single USB-A port. We also tested the very similar BI-B63 ($60), which has a slightly lower capacity at 25,000 mAh but seems like a better value. Unfortunately, both fell slightly short of the stated capacity when tested. We also like the color options available in the company’s slimmest version.
Photograph: Anker
Anker Prime Power Bank for $130: With a total combined output of 200 watts and a hefty 20,000-mAh capacity, this is a solid choice for charging any device; you could even use it to charge two laptops at once via the two USB-C ports. There is a USB-A port, too, and a digital screen. You can also buy a Power Base ($185) for this, which enables you to stick the power bank on top and charge it via Pogo Pins. The base makes it easy to keep the power bank topped up and is handy for desktop charging with two USB-C ports and one USB-A port (combined max output 100 W). I tried the UK version (£88), which worked great, but WIRED reviews editor Julian Chokkattu had issues with the US base failing to charge the power bank.
Anker Nano Power Bank 10,000 for $30: Another solid option from Anker (also available for £40 from Amazon UK), this power bank has a built-in USB-C cable that doubles as a loop for easy carrying and a further one USB-C and one USB-A port. It has a 10,000-mAh capacity, good for just shy of two full charges for most phones. It maxes out at 30 watts each way and can be fully charged in around two hours.
Mophie Powerstation, Powerstation XL, and Powerstation Pro AC for $36+: Mophie’s 2023 update to its Powerstation line has three devices in 10,000-, 20,000-, and 27,000-mAh capacities. They’re bulky, nondescript devices with USB-C and USB-A ports, but the latter has an AC port and is great for travel. WIRED reviews editor Julian Chokkattu used the XL during his trip to Japan and had no trouble keeping his Switch Lite and Pixel 7 Pro topped up. There are LEDs to indicate remaining battery life, but there’s otherwise nothing special about ’em.
iWalk Portable Charger for $27: WIRED reviews editor Julian Chokkattu used the Lightning version of this power bank while covering the Apple event, and it reliably topped up his iPhone. The 4,800-mAh capacity won’t fully refill your device, but it’s tiny enough to keep in a bag at all times. There’s an LED that shows the remaining percentage of power left.
Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.
Initially, Gorham used his brain-computer interface for single clicks, Oxley says. Then he moved on to multi-clicks and eventually sliding control, which is akin to turning up a volume knob. Now he can move a computer cursor, an example of 2D control—horizontal and vertical movements within a two-dimensional plane.
Over the years, Gorham has gotten to try out different devices using his implant. Zafar Faraz, a field clinical engineer for Synchron, says Gorham directly contributed to the development of Switch Control, a new accessibility feature Apple announced last year that allows brain-computer interface users the ability to control iPhones, iPads, and the Vision Pro with their thoughts.
In a video demonstration shown at an Nvidia conference last year in San Jose, California, Gorham demonstrates using his implant to play music from a smart speaker, turn on a fan, adjust his lights, activate an automatic pet feeder, and run a robotic vacuum in his home in Melbourne, Australia.
“Rodney has been pushing the boundaries of what is possible,” Faraz says.
As a field clinical engineer, Faraz visits Gorham in his home twice a week to lead sessions on his brain-computer interface. It’s Faraz’s job to monitor the performance of the device, troubleshoot problems, and also learn the range of things that Gorham can and can’t do with it. Synchron relies on this data to improve the reliability and user-friendliness of its system.
In the years he’s been working with Gorham, the two have done a lot of experimenting to see what’s possible with the implant. Once, Faraz says, he had Gorham using two iPads side by side, switching between playing a game on one and listening to music on the other. Another time, Gorham played a computer game in which he had to grab blocks on a shelf. The game was tied to an actual robotic arm at the University of Melbourne, about six miles from Gorham’s home, that remotely moved real blocks in a lab.
Gorham, who was an IBM software salesman before he was diagnosed with ALS in 2016, has relished being such a key part of the development of the technology, his wife Caroline says.
“It fits Rodney’s set of life skills,” she says. “He spent 30 years in IT, talking to customers, finding out what they needed from their software, and then going back to the techos to actually develop what the customer needed. Now it’s sort of flipped around the other way.” After a session with Faraz, Gorham will often be smiling ear to ear.
Through field visits, the Synchron team realized it needed to change the setup of its system. Currently, a wire cable with a paddle on one end needs to sit on top of the user’s chest. The paddle collects the brain signals that are beamed through the chest and transmits them via the wire to an external unit that translates those signals into commands. In its second generation system, Synchron is removing that wire.
“If you have a wearable component where there’s a delicate communication layer, we learned that that’s a problem,” Oxley says. “With a paralyzed population, you have to depend on someone to come and modify the wearable components and make sure the link is working. That was a huge learning piece for us.”
A judicial review against the Home Office’s electronic visa (eVisa) system will argue that the department’s refusal to issue alternative proof of immigration status in the face of persistent data quality and integrity issues is unlawful.
On 31 December 2024, the immigration documents of millions of people living in the UK expired after being replaced by the Home Office with a real-time, online-only immigration status.
While the department has been issuing eVisas for several years – including to European Union (EU) citizens who applied to the European Union Settlement Scheme (EUSS) after Brexit, those applying for Skilled Worker visas, and people from Hong Kong applying for the British National (Overseas) visa – paper documents have now been completely phased out.
Instead, people are now expected to use a UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) digital account to generate “share codes”, which they must use to prove their immigration status when dealing with a range of third parties, including employers, letting agencies and landlords.
Despite persistent data quality and integrity issues plaguing the system since its inception, current Home Office policy means the eVisa system is the only way people can prove their lawful residence in the UK and evidence their associated rights and entitlements.
Two unnamed individuals affected by the system – a recognised refugee and survivor of trafficking, and a vulnerable adult – were previously granted permission to proceed with a judicial review against the Home Office in October 2025, with the Cardiff Administrative Court noting it is in the public interest for the legality of the Home Office’s policy to be determined.
Legal arguments
Beginning on 3 March 2026, lawyers from Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG) argued across a two-day hearing in the High Court that the Home Office’s digital, online-only approach to visas is an “unlawful fettering of discretion” and the overall policy of not providing alternative proof of status is “irrational”.
Highlighting how the claimants were either unable to access an eVisa at all or their account displayed inaccurate information that meant it could not be relied on, the lawyers detailed that their situations lasted for nine and six months, respectively, “during which time, the [Home Office] … refused to provide them with any alternative means of proving their legal status”.
They detailed how one claimant was unable to claim the benefits they and their child were entitled to, as when they gave the share code to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), an error meant they were wrongly denied benefits.
This led the individual to mistakenly believe that their eVisa was correct and that they were not entitled to the benefits.
During this time, they were also living in “inadequate asylum support accommodation”, and at one point were notified by the Home Office that they would no longer be able to stay in the accommodation.
While this was eventually resolved, the Home Office did not explain the reason for the error or how long it would take to resolve, and did not provide any response to the request for urgent alternative proof.
The second individual – a recognised refugee and survivor of trafficking – experienced distress after their UKVI account showed the name used by their traffickers on their false passport.
While they approached the Home Office to correct this, it took nine months to resolve the issue, during which time the individual was also unable to prove their status to the DWP.
Lawyers claimed the distress caused to these and other individuals is the result of the Home Office’s “blanket” policy of only issuing visas digitally, noting that while the home secretary “undoubtedly” has the discretion to issue alternative forms of proof, officials have been “fettered” by their own policy decisions.
The lawyers further argued that if the court does not agree that there has been an unlawful fettering of discretion, then it must still see the blanket policy as irrational.
“Having adopted a policy that eVisas are the only operative proof of immigration status, the defendant’s failure to provide alternative proof of immigration status in circumstances where an individual’s UKVI account and/or eVisa is not functioning accurately or at all, is irrational,” they said.
“The claimants’ case is that where issues do arise and persist, as sometimes they do, then a rational policy would permit officials to consider providing an alternative means of proof where not doing so would cause real injustice and possible harm.
“It is not rational to have a policy which provides that however grave the harm and however long it may persist, caused by inability to prove status through the eVisa system, no consideration will be given to providing an alternative proof of status.”
Home Office stance
The Home Office, on the other hand, argued that it has put in place measures and support mechanisms to reduce the risk of issues associated with its eVisa system, and has implemented a 12-month stabilisation plan to improve the functioning of the system (although lawyers did not offer any details on this programme).
Home Office lawyers also argued that the home secretary’s policy has been “considered”, and that in the two particular cases in question, the home secretary has acted lawfully and rationally.
They added that while the Home Office accepts there have been glitches and delays for the claimants – which have negatively affected them and could therefore allow a judge to grant relief or order the home secretary to rectify the issues within a certain time frame – there is no basis for the entire eVisa policy to be found unlawful.
The lawyers said there were also a number of alternatives through which immigration status could be proved outside of the eVisa system, which include checking services for employers and landlords, as well as status verification services for visa holders.
They added the home secretary is also obliged to issue a formal notice in writing when status is granted, meaning that while the system is fully digital, applicants always receive a letter setting out their status.
Based on the existence of such alternatives, the lawyers said the home secretary has chosen not to exercise her discretion to issue physical proof, and outlined four further reasons for this.
These include claiming that the reintroduction of physical proof would lead to greater abuse of the immigration system due to outdated information on documents, there would be a substantial cost to taxpayers “at a time when public finances are constrained”, there might be practical difficulties associated with people appealing their status, and the reintroduction of physical proof would also require legislative changes via Parliament.
They also contended that if incorrect information is appearing on eVisas, then the same issues would persist with physical proof because the underlying data is the same. However, when the judge pointed out that eVisas have pulled out incorrect information from the underlying data, Home Office lawyers said they “accept” that, and this is one of many submissions.
Home Office lawyers concluded there was no way of implementing physical proof “without compromising the entire policy framework”, and that under the current circumstances, the secretary of state “would not be issuing physical proof to anyone”
It is the Home Office’s long-standing policy not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
Serious, long-standing issues
People experiencing technical errors with the system have long reported being unable to travel, losing jobs and being denied housing due to faulty eVisa data.
It should be noted that even if people’s eVisa issues are resolved once, Computer Weekly has heard concerns that, because of how the system is set up to trawl dozens of disparate government databases in real time, every time a status is needed, the same people could once again find themselves without access to a working eVisa.
Not being able to reliably prove their immigration status in the face of a hostile and unresponsive bureaucracy has also taken a psychological toll on many of those affected, causing great anxiety.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, those affected variously told Computer Weekly that the entire experience had been “anxiety-inducing” and described how their lives had been thrust into “uncertainty” by the transition.
Each also described how the “inordinate amount of stress” associated with not being able to reliably prove their immigration status had been made worse by a lack of responsiveness and help from the Home Office, which they accused of essentially leaving them in the lurch.
In one case that was reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the technical errors with data held by the Home Office were so severe that the regulator found there had been a breach of UK data protection law.
In January 2025, Computer Weekly also reported that despite repeated warnings from civil society and migrant support groups, which started as early as October 2021, people were already having trouble proving their immigration status while travelling back to the country, just two weeks after the UK’s formal transition to the eVisa system.
While groups such as ORG and the3million have directly proposed alternatives to the Home Office, such as the use of QR codes or “stable token” systems, the department’s eVisa policy team insisted as far back as December 2023 that it would not “compromise on the real-time aspect” of the eVisa checks, as “any check of an individual’s immigration status must be done in real time to reflect the current immigration status held” on its systems.
“As we warned, people are having problems using eVisas to travel back to the UK,” said the ORG at the time. “We asked the Home Office to make the simple change of allowing people to have a QR code. This could be saved or printed without having to rely on a flawed online-only system.
“Many refugees are still waiting for their eVisas,” it said. “Without them, they cannot work, set up a bank account, rent somewhere to live or claim benefits. The Home Office needs to sort out this mess urgently.”
The Home Office states in the eVisa terms and conditions that it will take no liability for any problems or disruptions, and direct or indirect losses, when using a UKVI account – including for “any information that is lost or corrupted while data is being transmitted, processed or downloaded from the UKVI account” – which ORG said implies the department “is already aware of the many technical issues with the eVisa scheme and is pre-emptively protecting itself against legitimate legal claims”.
ORG and others have said the use of eVisas should be seen in the context of the UK’s “hostile environment” approach, which is intended to make life in the UK as difficult as possible for people choosing to live there.
Expect datacentre spending to increase tenfold. That was among the claims Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang made during the company’s latest quarterly earnings call. He forecast that capital expenditure (CapEx) on datacentres would increase from the $300-400bn mark today to $3-4tn by 2030.
Huang’s remarks at the end of February came a few days after Microsoft’s AI Tour London event, when CEO Satya Nadella effectively called for enterprise software developers to use the capabilities now built into Microsoft 365 to create agentic AI workflows for streamlining business processes.
Nadella discussed the need to have an efficient token factory, where phrases or tokens can be streamed into AI engines that interpret natural language for querying large language models (LLMs). The Microsoft vision of enterprise AI is built on the M365 foundation, which acts as a knowledge store on which a new category of knowledge-based software can be built.
During his keynote presentation, Nadella spoke about the intelligence that exists in the various IT systems used across the business. He said that businesses should be able to harness the intelligence that already exists enterprise-wide, starting with what he described as the “data underneath Microsoft 365”, which, according to Nadella, represents the people in the business, their relationship to coworkers, and work artefacts such as projects, calendars and communications data. “This is massive information,” he said, which can be used to bootstrap agentic AI projects.
“Our goal is to have all of the innovation and the systems available in the token factory,” said Nadella. “That way you can build software which has the ability to use all of the capability [we provide] to train models and deliver models for inference.”
In effect, he sees the Windows software developer ecosystem evolving to where it is now a Microsoft 365 ecosystem, where enterprise data is stored in AI-enabled office productivity tools such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams and Outlook, and these can be used as the foundation for a new generation of applications that can draw on these AI knowledge sources.
It is this idea that all software will need to be knowledge-aware, which Huang spoke about during the company’s earnings call. “Token generation is at the centre of almost everything that relates to software in the future and relates to computing,” he said. “If you look at the way we use computing in the past, however, the amount of computation demand for software in the past is a tiny fraction of what is necessary in the future.”
According to Huang, the amount of computation necessary to run AI is 1,000 times higher than the computing power needed to run non-AI software. “The computing demand is just a lot higher,” he said. “And so, if we continue to believe there’s value in it, then the world will invest to produce that token.”
When asked whether Nvidia is confident that its customers will continue to have the ability to spend more on AI infrastructure, which could impact Nvidia’s ability to grow, Huang spoke about the opportunity in enterprises to make use of agentic AI and its widespread usefulness across organisations.
“We have now seen the inflection of agentic AI, and the usefulness of agents across the world and enterprises everywhere,” he said. “You’re seeing incredible compute demand because of it. In this new world of AI, compute is revenues. Without compute, there’s no way to generate tokens. Without tokens, there’s no way to grow revenues.”
At least, that is how he positioned AI for the investment bank analysts on the earnings call. The company posted fourth quarter revenue of $68bn, up 73% year-over-year. Datacentre revenue increased by 75% to $62bn, which Nvidia said was being driven by demand for its Blackwell architecture and AI inference deployments. It also reported networking revenue of $1bn, up 3.5x year-over-year, fuelled by adoption of NVLink, Spectrum X and other Nvidia ethernet technologies.
Last year, during his keynote presentation at the GTC conference in the US, Huang claimed that the lowest cost per token was being achieved using the most expensive GPU – which at the time was the Grace Blackwell NVLink 72.
Nvidia describes the GB200 Grace Blackwell as a “superchip”, which connects two high-performance Nvidia Blackwell Tensor Core GPUs and the Nvidia Grace CPU with the NVLink-Chip-to-Chip (C2C) interface, capable of delivering 900 GBytes/s of bidirectional bandwidth.
Significantly, the architecture means that applications have coherent access to a unified memory space. According to Nvidia, this simplifies programming and supports the larger memory needs of trillion-parameter LLMs, transformer models for multimodal tasks, models for large-scale simulations, and generative models for 3D data.
‘Huang’s Law’
Some industry observers have coined the term “Huang’s Law” to describe his perspective of how each new generation of GPU delivers a 10x increase in performance, compared with Moore’s Law’s doubling of performance every 18 months.
Nadella and Huang both spoke about how newer hardware is more energy-efficient at running AI workloads. During the Microsoft AI tour, Nadella noted that today’s system supports an entirely different memory hierarchy, which he said means “there’s now no latency with AI inference”.
The messaging from both the Microsoft and Nvidia chiefs is that the best efficiency is achieved by taking advantage of the capabilities available in these new systems. “There’s an unbelievable renaissance happening with these systems and workloads, whether they’re training workloads or inference workloads, they are unlike anything we’ve seen in the past,” said Nadella.
The tech sector is dead set on getting enterprises to adopt more and more AI. It is being built into knowledge-aware enterprise software likely to draw on the capabilities available in the newest generation of AI acceleration hardware.
Clearly, the business models of Microsoft and Nvidia are tied to increased demand for AI. But it is also apparent that the cost of deploying advanced AI systems is not going to get any cheaper. If anything, capital expenditure on datacentres will continue to increase at a phenomenal rate, fuelled by demand for these new AI systems and the AI acceleration hardware they need.
Reeves to stress commitment to end windfall tax in talks with North Sea bosses
Miami (Ohio) improves to 30-0 as Cinderella run gets more magical
From ‘Freaky Friday’ to ‘Cruella’: Andrew Gunn’s blockbuster legacy
India Us Trade Deal: Fresh look at India-US trade deal? May be ‘rebalanced’ if circumstances change, says Piyush Goyal – The Times of India
Households set for lower energy bills amid price cap shake-up
US arrests ex-Air Force pilot for ‘training’ Chinese military
-
Business5 days ago
India Us Trade Deal: Fresh look at India-US trade deal? May be ‘rebalanced’ if circumstances change, says Piyush Goyal – The Times of India
-
Business1 week ago
Households set for lower energy bills amid price cap shake-up
-
Politics6 days agoUS arrests ex-Air Force pilot for ‘training’ Chinese military
-
Politics6 days agoWhat are Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities?
-
Business6 days agoAttock Cement’s acquisition approved | The Express Tribune
-
Fashion6 days agoPolicy easing drives Argentina’s garment import surge in 2025
-
Sports1 week agoTop 50 USMNT players of 2026, ranked by club form: USMNT Player Performance Index returns
-
Sports6 days agoSri Lanka’s Shanaka says constant criticism has affected players’ mental health