News

If you're a seasoned anime fan, you'll understand the unique sense of excitement that comes with binging a brand-new show — and it's exactly how I feel about Crunchyroll's breakout series, BLACK TORCH.

As of writing, we're now six episodes into the epic adventure, following high-schooler Jiro, who just also happens to be a ninja descendant who can talk to animals. He's rescued an injured black cat named Rago, who is actually a powerful mononoke, or demon spirit.

I'll let Crunchyroll explain the next part: "After Jiro is mortally wounded protecting Rago from hostile spirits, Rago fuses with him, creating a human-spirit hybrid. Jiro is then recruited by Japan's covert Bureau of Espionage into a special unit called 'Black Torch' to fight rogue mononoke."

It's a classic anime storytelling format with a new twist, and so far, its six episodes have successfully blended high-intensity action with a strong emotional core. Even the intro song feels a cut above the rest, and I'm not surprised that anime fans are lapping it up.

With six episodes left to go, what can we expect from the second half of BLACK TORCH? According to English dub cast AJ Beckles (Jiro) and Ryan Colt Levy (Ryosuke Shiba), you're best off expecting the unexpected.

"Expect the unexpected," Beckles tells me. "It's more of what you've got, but bigger. As we reach the end of the season and these episodes start to come out, there more high-octane, serious moments. There's a lot to look forward to, for sure."

It's a vague response, but this doesn't surprise me. Even the above trailer showed almost no signs of what was to come in the actual series, which was a refreshing decision. Of course, we can expect the drama to follow the original manga, but this can't be assured as a given.

But has there been any pressure for either actor knowing that these episodes are airing to a pre-existing fanbase?

"I don't know if it's necessarily like a pressure... I like to think of it as a responsibility," Levy says. "No matter what, there are people out there that you are making this for, and where we may never get to have that face-to-face feedback, we have access. People will put so much passion into that.

"We approach this no matter what with the intention to make sure that people who love it feel seen, and feel like they are spending time with the characters that they want."

"We've been cast and It's a ginormous responsibility, because it could have gone to anybody," Beckles agrees. "So the fact that it went to us means that we have a duty to do a good job. We're not necessarily thinking about the end result. The focus should be on, 'Am I thinking as Jiro is thinking? Am I serving this character?' Because if I do so to the best of my ability, someone will resonate with that."

I've got no idea how I'm going to feel about the upcoming second half of BLACK TORCH, but hearing the sheer passion that the voice cast has for its craft fills me with hope — and the joy that my initial burst of anime excitement seems set to continue.

A new Quordle puzzle appears at midnight each day for your time zone – which means that some people are always playing 'today's game' while others are playing 'yesterday's'. If you're looking for Friday's puzzle instead then click here: Quordle hints and answers for Friday, August 14 (game #1663).

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

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

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

• The number of different vowels in Quordle today is 4*.

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

• The number of Quordle answers containing a repeated letter today is 1.

• No. None of Q, Z, X or J appear among today's Quordle answers.

• The number of today's Quordle answers starting with the same letter is 2.

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

• R

• M

• M

• L

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

The answers to today's Quordle, game #1664, are…

• RIDER
• MOLDY
• MEALY
• LYMPH

Another day featuring a word without vowels.

I already had the Y here, so it was simply a case of finding the P to make up LYMPH.

Y was the hero letter of the day featuring in the trickiest word but also helping out at the end of two others — MOLDY and MEALY — making for an easier game than usual.

The answers to today's Quordle Daily Sequence, game #1664, are…

• FIBRE
• JUMPY
• LATHE
• LIVER

• Quordle #1663, Friday, 14 August: SEIZE, MYRRH, SANER, GLOAT
• Quordle #1662, Thursday, 13 August: TOPAZ, PURGE, WHINE, SIGHT
• Quordle #1661, Wednesday, 12 August: HOTLY, CROWD, HEART, SWASH
• Quordle #1660, Tuesday, 11 August: ONSET, BRAWL, TEPID, SLANG
• Quordle #1659, Monday, 10 August: GAVEL, CRUSH, SPEED, ETHOS
• Quordle #1658, Sunday, 9 August: KAPPA, WIDEN, FOLIO, STEEP
• Quordle #1657, Saturday, 8 August: FUROR, BUGLE, REUSE, SCOOP
• Quordle #1656, Friday, 7 August: AMISS, SHIRK, SALSA, RABBI
• Quordle #1655, Thursday, 6 August: AMUSE, BRAND, CEDAR, BLURB
• Quordle #1654, Wednesday, 5 August: MOUND, WRONG, STOOD, WEIRD
• Quordle #1653, Tuesday, 4 August: GOOEY, TARDY, HUMAN, CHALK
• Quordle #1652, Monday, 3 August: FUNGI, MUDDY, DEBUT, MANIA
• Quordle #1651, Sunday, 2 August: BOOTH, EASEL, REACH, MAKER
• Quordle #1650, Saturday, 1 August: OMEGA, BIRCH, SMOCK, EERIE
• Quordle #1649, Friday, 31 July: MANIA, SINGE, STOOL, LOFTY
• Quordle #1648, Thursday, 30 July: MODAL, IDLER, CHUMP, LUMPY
• Quordle #1647, Wednesday, 29 July: GAWKY, ALLOY, AUDIT, LATCH
• Quordle #1646, Tuesday, 28 July: SMITE, ROACH, RUDDY, GLOBE
• Quordle #1645, Monday, 27 July: TAFFY, FIGHT, GUILD, WAGER
• Quordle #1644, Sunday, 26 July: STOMP, LIMIT, FUNKY, STEAD

• Dolby says that Dolby Vision HDR movies can be upgraded to Dolby Vision 2 using an automated process based on the existing mastering information
• This means support may be more widespread than expected, since apparently it will be relatively low-effort for streamers to achieve
• The Authentic Motion and Precision Black features will be excluded from this, because Dolby says they they require human judgment to get right

If you're wondering where all the Dolby Vision 2 media is going to come from, we've got good news: it's already here, at least partly. Dolby Laboratories told me that it's created a process that can upgrade existing Dolby Vision media to add most features of the new HDR standard using an automated process based on the existing mastering data — and there are only two key features that are excluded, because they're areas that depend on new input from creators.

With Dolby Vision 2 arriving on TVs from this month, I caught up with Dolby Laboratories' director of business strategy, Jonas Klittmark, to find out the details: what it could do for 4K Blu-rays, what benefits it'll bring to streaming and most importantly of all, what to watch.

One of the biggest concerns with Dolby Vision 2 is that creators just won't be inclined to master video for it when it doesn't have widespread support — but it's unlikely to get widespread support if there's no content. But it turns out that existing Dolby Vision masters can be adapted to use many of its features without being reworked.

"There is a bunch of new features in Dolby Vision 2 that don't rely on new content at all," Turkstra told me. "Because you already have all the Dolby Vision content in the world... the streaming providers will have more to say about this later, but the existing Dolby Vision library will start to get converted and the new metadata for Dolby Vision 2 will be added."

Klittmark estimates that there are around 33,000 movies and TV show episodes available in Dolby Vision. "There's no realistic chance that all that content is going to get remastered from scratch," he says.

"The cost of doing that is just astronomical. So what we're offering instead is a semi-automated way of doing it where we're using modern techniques such as machine learning to assist in the creation of the additional metadata that's needed to make the most of Dolby Vision 2."

He elaborated that "many of the features, including the image engine, including the new version of LightSense, the intensity control, the pro settings, and sports optimization, all of those features can work through a combination of existing metadata."

That metadata is based on existing mastering data, and as will all of Dolby Vision 2, the next-gen data is in addition to the existing data; it doesn't replace it, so the automation won't affect the visuals of, or compatibility with, TVs that have the first generation of Dolby Vision but not the second.

The two exceptions to the automated upgrade are Authentic Motion, which enables creators to control how strong your TV's motion processing is applied on a moment-to-moment basis, and Precision Black, which is designed to address dark scenes that looked great in the creators' mastering suite but appear too dark on TVs.

Klittmark said: "Authentic Motion is an example of a feature where it's just too sensitive. I don't know if you've been following the fairly polarized debate about motion that has been playing out over the years, with Tom Cruise making public service announcements, and things like that. That feature is so sensitive that we don't generate that metadata, it has to be manually authored."

I've seen Dolby Vision 2's Authentic Motion in action, and I think it's a great addition — it means that judder can be removed in scenes that need it, but motion smoothing can be deactivated in scenes that don't. I suspect that actually it probably could be automated to good effect, but as Klittmark says, I don't thing anyone would really trust that, so it's best that Dolby is leaving that to humans.

When it comes to Precision Black, Klittmark says this can't be automated because in order to get it right you need to know all about the creator's environment: "how dark was their ambient light, what kind of reference monitor were they using, et cetera... that cannot be speculated about or generated, so that needs to come manually from the creative."

I asked if this meant that movies might be labelled as supporting different Dolby Vision 2 features, but Klittmark says the firm doesn't want to make things complicated in that way.

"We've taken the simplest possible approach for consumers' benefit, which is that all the content is going to be Dolby Vision. There is no asterisk. There's no 'Dolby Vision 2' content, for example. There's no 'Dolby Vision 2 Max' content or anything like that. It's just all Dolby Vision content," he says. "And that way, it's very simple for a consumer to know what to look for. If you see that the content is in Dolby Vision, then you are getting the best experience you can get with that particular movie or whatever it is you're looking for."

I think this makes sense — your TV will be labelled as Dolby Vision 2 or Dolby Vision 2 Max, and potentially could tell you which features of the format are active, but when it comes to browsing the library, it makes sense to simply use the Dolby Vision logo to indicate that you're getting as many advanced features as the service has added, regardless of what they are.

Klittmark pointed out that this would be new to Dolby Vision 2, either. "The original version of Dolby Vision had tons of features in it, and not all creatives chose to use all of them all of the time. And there was no way to know that. And that's essentially a choice up to the creative. Which of the Dolby tools do they need do they feel like they need to use for which content? We leave that decision to the creative," he said.

Try our TV size and model finder! You tell it how far you sit from your TV, we'll tell you what size to buy based on viewing angle advice from image quality experts, and we'll recommend our three top TVs at that size for different prices.

Networking never fails to surprise me when it comes to dependencies and its live nature – it’s a world that’s continually changing, and yes upgrades designed to improve performance or security are often the ones that cause outages.

Even carefully planned updates can have consequences that might initially be difficult to see during early pilots and test, due to a highly dependent mix of switches, firewalls, clouds and more – not to mention the challenges that come with interoperability in a world of mixed vendors.

Until now, it’s mostly been a firefighting exercise of responding to incidents and outages as they happen, admitting that they’re just an inevitable outcome of virtually any change.

Forward (formerly Forward Networking) wants to challenge this in its entirety, though, and the work it and companies like it are doing could fundamentally revolutionize network stability and uptime, significantly reducing costs.

Its solution is a mathematically accurate digital twin of the production environment, giving companies space to make changes and observe unintended impacts without actually affecting the real deal.

The principle isn’t anything new at all, and it’s been used in software development and other areas for decades, but where it could really shine is in an upcoming age of automated networking. Forward argues that providing a place for systems to autonomously test changes pre-deployment is a necessary stage to true automation.

I wanted to know whether technology like this could have prevented some major high-profile incidents lately, including those we’ve seen relating to Amazon, Cloudflare and more, and spoke to Forward’s co-founder and Chief AI Officer, Nikhil Handigol, on some of the technology’s biggest challenges, including how the digital twin could stay current and why pre-deployment proof could become essential in the world of autonomy.

• Forward proposes to prevent 100% of network outages caused by configuration errors. Are there any strings attached? And what does a “mathematically accurate digital twin of the entire production network” actually mean?

There are no strings, but let’s be precise on what that rests on. Forward Predict eliminates network risks through routing validation, end-to-end path analysis, firewall and ACL verification, segmentation and compliance verification, and automated regression testing.

The closest parallel is what software development did with continuous integration. No code goes to production without being tested first. Forward Predict brings that same discipline to networking.

Every proposed change is tested against the full production-equivalent model before it touches a live environment – routing validation, end-to-end path analysis, firewall and ACL verification, segmentation and compliance verification, and automated regression testing.

That model isn’t a sample or a simplification. It's built from the configuration and operational state of every device in the network — every vendor, every OS, every layer from L2 to L7, on-premises and in the cloud — using header space analysis to trace every possible path any packet can take.

The platform regularly collects state from the live network, and you can trigger a fresh snapshot on demand immediately before a push, so the "digital twin" you're testing against is always current. That continuous synchronization is what makes the math trustworthy: a proof is only as good as its inputs, and this is how we keep the inputs honest.

Run a change through that model and you get a deterministic outcome with evidence, not a guess. If it breaks something, if it opens a security hole, if it creates an unintended path, you see exactly why.

And because the answer comes from mathematical path analysis rather than a probabilistic risk score, it doesn't degrade as the network grows more complex.

Pair that with Forward AI and the platform does not just flag the problem, it iterates on its own until it lands on a change that is verified to deliver the intended behavior. Change windows that once took weeks now take minutes. There is no anxiety pushing a change live, because you already know how it ends. Weekends are for time off, not change windows and war-rooms.

• One point I wanted to raise is that you're essentially pegging it against a snapshot. Sysadmins will tell you that networks change. Firmware get updated, access points get refreshed, switches swapped and servers decommissioned. How do you make sure that Forward remains relevant throughout the lifecycle of the production network?

Forward Enterprise regularly collects configuration and state from every device in the estate, and you can trigger an on-demand snapshot immediately before pushing a change for absolute certainty.

When firmware gets patched, when an access point gets refreshed, when a switch is swapped, when a server is decommissioned, any change to the network is updated in the digital twin, it is a mathematically accurate model of the entire production network.

This is exactly why the underlying model holds up under scrutiny. Our engineering team validates the software against real behavior on live test hardware from every supported vendor, so the model's fidelity is proven before it ever reaches a customer network.

Then in production, that same discipline continues against the customer's own, constantly changing estate. Sysadmins are right that networks never sit still. Neither does the network digital twin. That is the only way proof stays proof instead of becoming a guess based on past behavior.

• Are there other companies that compete with Forward? How does your proposition differ from theirs?

The competitive threat isn't another vendor. It's a set of processes built over decades, in an era before a network could be modeled at all, that include change windows, war rooms, and the belief that the only place to truly test a network change is the production network itself.

Every other industry running mission critical infrastructure solved this problem years ago. Airlines train pilots on flight simulators instead of real aircraft. Pharmaceutical companies model outcomes before anything reaches a patient.

Manufacturing validates changes on a digital twin before touching the factory floor. Software development has run on continuous integration for two decades, where no code ships without being tested first.

Networking is the industry that never got its equivalent, not because nobody wanted one, but because building a mathematically accurate network digital twin is genuinely hard.

Against observability and monitoring vendors, the difference is which question gets answered. Those tools are essential for understanding what already happened on the network. Forward Predict answers a different question entirely, what will happen if this change is made, and it answers it with a deterministic proof rather than an educated guess.

Against other platforms using the words “digital twin,” the difference is a decade of foundational work building a model with header space analysis across all major vendors, every device, and every layer, rather than a partial view stitched together after the fact. That foundation cannot be a shortcut, and it is the part everyone else in the category is still missing.

• How do you see Forward evolving in terms of features and roadmap? Could this pre-emptive, predictive approach find a receptive audience in other sectors?

The roadmap moves in one direction, widening the aperture of what gets proven before it goes live. Today Forward Predict proves the outcome of changes to connectivity and security. Next is broader impact analysis.

We are not predicting what may happen, we are proving what a network will do, because a network's behavior can actually be modeled with mathematical certainty in a way human intent cannot.

That distinction is exactly why this belongs anywhere teams run complex, interconnected infrastructure with the same stakes, critical infrastructure operators running their own networks underneath everything else.

Wherever teams are changing complex systems without a way to prove the outcome first, the same problem exists, and the same fix applies.

Where this is headed fastest, though, is autonomous networking. As agents start proposing and executing changes at machine speed, a mistake stops being a single event and starts propagating at scale.

Proof is not an added feature there. It becomes the precondition for letting an agent operate at all.

Scream or Skip, that is the question. With so much horror out there to watch and play, our senior entertainment writer, Lucy Buglass, is here to help you decide what's worth your time (or worth a Scream) and what's not (and so worth a Skip). Her goal is to help you beat the endless scrolling and spend more time enjoying some great TV shows, movies, and games. Read the full series here.

August was lacking in new horror releases, but I still found three interesting titles to dive into — two of which will no doubt be familiar to you, as we have some returning franchises in the lineup.

The other is an indie game that popped up on my Steam Discovery Queue, and was indeed perfectly suited to what I enjoy best. This one was a free demo ahead of its release, but I played enough of it to come to a conclusion.

Without further delay, here's what horror media I tried out throughout August and what I thought of them. As always, I'm keen to hear your thoughts!

Where to watch: Hulu (US); Disney+ (internationally)
Lucy's verdict: Scream

OK, yes, The X-Files is not strictly horror and is billed as a sci-fi series. But hear me out, the director's cut of The X-Files: I Want to Believe features all the body horror scenes that were removed to give it a PG-13 rating, meaning it's a worthwhile watch for horror fans this month.

Now, considering The X-Files: I Want to Believe performed poorly when it was released, don't expect Vrach Frankenshteyn to miraculously make you love it. If you weren't a fan of the original 2008 cut, you probably won't like this either. I, however, really enjoyed the movie and got a lot out of this version of it too.

Vrach Frankenshteyn tells the story how Chris Carter wanted, blood and gore included. It certainly packs a punch, adding a lot to the movie if you already happen to like the story. This one will likely be the most divisive of my three picks this month.

Where to watch: AMC+ (US); Sky / NOW TV (UK); Stan (AU)
Lucy's verdict: Skip

I think I'm suffering from The Walking Dead fatigue, because I just can't get on with this show. I was hopeful it might get me back on board with the franchise because Negan is one of my favorite characters, but I was left feeling underwhelmed.

At the time of writing we're three episodes into season 3, with the season set to conclude on September 13. Seth Hoffman is the new showrunner after Eli Jorné, and we've started relying on recycled plotlines and the same tired dynamic between Negan and Maggie. It's started feeling a bit stale, and for me, this is one of the weaker Walking Dead spin-offs.

I recommend trying out The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live instead, as it has better pacing and stories.

Where to play: PC
Lucy's verdict: Scream

Thank you to my Steam Discovery Queue for suggesting the demo of Something Strange Tonight — The Lurker, because I am now very excited to play the full game when it releases. We don't have a confirmed date for that yet, but I've got it wishlisted for when it does.

I love creepy, low-poly games (as evidenced by my Mouthwashing review), so the trailer for Something Strange Tonight — The Lurker immediately freaked me out. The game follows that stereotypical slasher movie trope of a babysitter who is terrorized at night, but it's full of creepy twists.

Your goal is to survive the night and keep both yourself and the kid you're looking after alive. You'll be approached by numerous visitors, but can any of them be trusted? It's up to you to figure that one out.

• You can now hide the AI Coach in Google Health
• The change is coming in version 5.06 for Android and iOS
• Only premium subscribers get AI Coach access

Since Google Health replaced the Fitbit app back in May, the transition hasn't exactly been a smooth one, but Google is gradually dealing with the biggest user complaints — including, in the latest Google Health update, adding the option to hide AI Coach insights from the Today view.

As reported by 9to5Google, version 5.06 of Google Health for Android and iOS is rolling out with the extra option. You can find it in the app by tapping on your profile picture (top right), then choosing Google Health settings and Coach.

Or at least, that's how it should work: Numerous Redditors are reporting that the change isn't showing up for them, even though they've got the updated app. It's possible that Google also needs to flip a switch at its end, so it may take a while for everyone to get this.

The only other change mentioned by Google for this update are some bug fixes for the map views, so data such as heart rate and pace should now always be accurately displayed. If you were waiting for any other upgrades, you'll have to keep waiting.

Google's AI advisor is available to everyone with a Google Health Coach subscription (previously known as Fitbit Premium). In its initial incarnation, it was front and center in the app and was keen to chat as much as possible.

It's something I've seen in my Google Health app, and it can be tiresome to have to scroll through reams of text about how well I slept and what time I should go on a run just to get to the key stats I'm interested in — so I'm glad of the change.

The new setting doesn't fully turn off the Google AI Coach (which was already possible), but it does hide it from the Today view which appears by default when you open the app. The AI is still available on the Fitness tab if you need to ask it any questions.

Based on past feedback we've seen, the change is going to be a welcome one for users — when they actually get it. When the option to hide the AI Coach was rumored a few weeks ago, commenters on Reddit expressed frustration at it "playing '20 questions' every morning" and the way it "inanely comments on things you've already done".

If you've been eyeing up any of the latest best gaming keyboards or the best PC controllers hitting the market over the last few years, then you've no doubt come across the terms 'Hall Effect' and 'TMR'. Magnets are at the heart of the user experience for both peripherals, and are becoming widely adopted by all major manufacturers as standard.

But what exactly is Hall Effect or TMR? More importantly, how do the two technologies compare and contrast? While it may seem like a marketing gimmick or the latest new buzzword, there's actually plenty to be excited about. In this article, I'll be going through how both technologies work in detail and analyzing their strengths and weaknesses.

Put simply, the Hall Effect is the difference in voltage across an electrical conductor from an electronic conductor, which was named after the scientist who discovered it, Edwin Hall, in 1879. It's the effect that pushes charges to one side, directing electrons in a current flow through a straight line. Specifically, this charge separation is what's known as Hall Voltage.

In the most straightforward sense of the concept, the Hall effect is simply a semiconductor and a magnet, with the magnetic field generating a voltage as the semiconductor moves. In the gaming or modern tech scene, it's defined by how magnetic sensors detect movement rather than the previous method of mechanical components. It means greater precision, enhanced durability, and fewer points of failure.

When it comes to points of failure, stick drift has been affecting even top gaming controllers, and remains a constant fear, as a DualSense or Xbox Wireless Controller could (eventually) see its analog sticks drifting (so the game thinks you're moving the analogue stick on a gamepad, when you're not), or the dead zones no longer trigger as intended. This happens due to wear and tear on the potentiometers, which feature small metal contacts over a resistive track that can wear away with many years of use.

Things are similar with the Hall Effect keyboards when compared to regular mechanical or optical decks. With a standard mechanical gaming keyboard, two metal pieces come together to close an electrical circuit. With Hall Effect, however, it's simply a magnet in the switch itself that moves closer to the board, without metal ever actually touching.

In real-world terms, this is what allows Hall Effect gaming keyboards to have fully adjustable actuation points (usually 0.1mm to 4.0mm) instead of the fixed depth of older, mechanical models. Because Hall Effect lacks any physical connections, switches using that technology will (theoretically) last far longer, too.

TMR (or Tunnel Magnetoresistance) is the far newer technology of the two, being discovered in 1975 by Michel Jullière. In its simplest explanation, tunnelling magnetoresistance is a quantum mechanical effect that occurs in a magnetic tunnel junction, based upon changes in an external magnetic field. It's the changes in resistance between two ferromagnetic layers, with one being fixed and the other free to react, with an insulating barrier between them.

Tunnelling magnetoresistance is used in gaming for contactless magnetic sensor technology, promising precise inputs, no stick drift, and low overall power consumption. Because it works by detecting even the slightest and smallest difference in magnetic fields, it allows for incredibly exact actuation when used in gaming keyboards and PC gaming controllers. It's signal actuation down to a granular scale. Because TMR measures resistance and not voltage, it needs less signal amplification, resulting in a low overall power draw.

Feature

Hall Effect

TMR

Operating method

Detects changes in voltages across a conductor

Measures resistance changes caused by quantum mechanical tunnelling through an insulating barrier

Power consumption

Higher (usually around 1-10 mA)

Incredibly low (Microamps to the sub-milliamp range)

Sensitivity

Moderate sensitivity as it requires a stronger magnetic field

Incredibly high sensitivity

Polling rates

1,000Hz to 8,000Hz

1,000Hz to 8,000Hz

Physical wear

Massively improved over potentiometers with a non-contact design

Non-contact with a high resolution design for less of a deadzone reliance

Primary uses

Magnetic switches, magnetic joysticks

Ultra-precision keyboards, high-end wireless gamepads, automotive sensors

Manufacturing maturity

High (low component costs)

Maturing as prices are beginning to drop

Now that I've outlined the key differences and similarities, it's time to talk about exactly why TMR is the superior magnetic sensor technology for today's tech. We can start by reiterating TMR's key advantages over Hall Effect: a massive resistance delta, extremely low noise floor, low power consumption, smaller micro magnets with low-strength flux fields, and ultra-high positional precision when weighed up against the older Hall Effect tech.

With that being said, why isn't TMR the more recognizable and more popular standard across the industry? Well, there are a few key reasons why Hall Effect remains the more familiar of the two magnetic methods.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the high costs of TMR components, combined with the fact that peripheral makers often need to make major changes to their production lines if they switch to using TMR.

Hall Effect components have been in use considerably longer than TMR in game controllers and gaming keyboards, with manufacturers already having SMT assembly pipelines, key suppliers, and proven benchmarks for what Hall Effect quality control looks like.

We also need to consider the key use cases for TMR for gamers. Its incredibly high sensitivity potential requires adept calibration. Because a magnetic sensor is only as good as the firmware that interprets the signal, we just haven't seen the level of maturity of firmware and engineering understanding with TMR, compared to the older and more reliable Hall Effect standard.

I also need to talk about diminishing returns with the (seemingly) boundless potential of how TMR could be implemented in our tech. It comes down to the limitations of the human body, particularly when considering just how granular a movement we really need to make when using our thumbs on an analog stick.

TMR is technically capable of far smaller deviations than Hall Effect; however, a human thumb, even from the best gamers in the world, just isn't really going to be able to take advantage of the sub-millimeter differences in micro-adjustments here.

Specifically sticking with the example of using a game controller, we also need to consider dead zones, which are baked into most modern games at 3-5%, allowing for player error. A controller's dead zone is designed to ignore small movements to stop your in-game character model (or the camera) from moving, while keeping your aim fast, and (theoretically) removing any shakiness. This feature is found in even top esports games such as Fortnite, Rocket League, and Apex Legends.

In gaming keyboard terms, both Hall Effect and TMR greatly innovate over standard mechanical decks through rapid trigger, which dynamically resets a key at the exact moment it's pressed and turns off the instant it is released with no fixed rebound. Because there's no need for metal-on-metal contact, there's no spring-back time, and it's instantaneous; it allows for superior counter-strafing in Counter-Strike and gives you a far better chance to land that Vandal five-stack in VALORANT, provided you actually let go of the key before micro-adjusting with your mouse.

The direct comparison of whether rapid trigger is actually any better with TMR than with Hall Effect again comes down to an infinitesimal difference for a human finger. If you're able to measure both magnetic technologies with 0.1mm precision and an 8,000Hz polling rate, effectively eliminating latency, then the higher raw signal resolution of TMR just isn't going to make any tangible impact here, because (unless you're in the top 0.01% of gamers) you will be the bottleneck.

There's no shortage of high-quality Hall Effect controllers and keyboards dominating the gaming market, particularly from the major players in the peripherals scene. The Boomslang brand aside, you only need to look as far as the Corsair Vanguard Pro 96, the Asus ROG Falchion Ace 75 HE, the SteelSeries Apex Pro TKL Wireless Gen 3, Wooting 80HE, or the Pulsar Gaming Gears eS HE 70 to see how gamers have welcomed magnetic sensor tech.

By comparison, there are relatively few gaming keyboard manufacturers turning their attention to TMR in 2026, with the most prominent examples of these boards being the Cherry K5 Pro TMR Compact or the Cherry MX 8.2 Pro TMR Wireless, as well as the latest decks made by Keychron. Again, TMR keyboards face the hurdle of being far more expensive to produce, with supply chain issues and dubious consumer knowledge and understanding, despite being the superior way to play (at least on paper).

TMR controllers are far more commonplace than gaming keyboards that have adopted the tech, thankfully. You only need to look as far as the Steam Controller (2026), the Razer Wolverine V3 Pro 8K, and the Asus ROG Raikiri 2 for proof of this. It's not just the pricier name-brands getting in on this action, either. That's because there is a wealth of budget TMR gamepads worth considering, such as the GameSir G7 Pro 8K and the Gulikit ES Pro, too.

Neither Hall Effect nor TMR will disappear anytime soon. In fact, considering that TMR technology is becoming cheaper to produce and is starting to become more widespread in keyboards and controllers, it's highly likely that more manufacturers will see the advantages of magnetic resistance when weighed against magnetic voltage.

Prices will come down, particularly when the larger manufacturers start to mass produce items which will (inevitably) be revised and innovated upon in the next handful of years.

HE and TMR may sound like buzzwords added to the names of peripherals at the moment, but eventually, they will be the standard, and a lack of magnetic tech could be seen as a dealbreaker.

True, breaking into the mainstream will depend on how the 10th console generation goes; if Sony and Microsoft adopt TMR tech for their new controllers, then that will signal the changing tide. Considering the eye-watering price next-gen consoles could command, it's certainly possible.