Connect with us

Technologies

Is an iPhone 17 Upgrade Worth It? Here’s How It Compares to Apple’s Older Models

The latest iPhone boasts upgrades to the display, cameras and battery. Is it worth the switch?

Apple’s flashy orange iPhone 17 Pro might be getting a lot of attention, but the baseline iPhone 17 is quietly crushing it, with preorders blowing past last year’s phone. So if your current iPhone is starting to feel a little outdated, this could be the time to upgrade.

But is the iPhone 17 worth it? For starters, here’s one huge perk: Apple finally killed the laughably small 128GB base storage you’ll get on older models like the iPhone16. Instead, the entry-level iPhone 17 starts at 256GB, all while maintaining that $829 starting price — a long-overdue upgrade that makes this year’s phone a seriously compelling deal.


Don’t miss any of our unbiased tech content and lab-based reviews. Add CNET as a preferred Google source.


Several other noteworthy updates to the iPhone 17 make it feel like a tempting choice, even over the pricier iPhone 17 Pro models. At long last, Apple has extended a 1-120Hz display across its entire lineup, so you can have smoother scrolling and an always-on display without spending upward of $1,100 on a Pro model. An anti-reflective coating and higher 3,000-nit peak brightness make the screen slightly easier to see outdoors. And camera upgrades help to level up photos and selfies. 

Here’s how the iPhone 17 compares to older iPhones, ranging from last year’s iPhone 16 to 2020’s iPhone 12.

iPhone 17 vs. iPhone 16

Appearance-wise, the iPhone 17 has a lot in common with the iPhone 16. But beneath the surface, there are some key differences. 

The display goes from a meager 60Hz on the iPhone 16 to 120Hz on the iPhone 17 (at long last). That means the iPhone 17 finally supports an always-on display, so you can glance at the time and your notifications without waking the screen and enjoy smoother scrolling. A new anti-reflective coating helps reduce glare, especially in the bright outdoor conditions. 

The iPhone 17 has a larger 6.3-inch display, versus the iPhone 16’s 6.1-inch screen, thanks to slimmer bezels. That can make viewing content slightly more immersive, though it won’t be a hugely noticeable difference. And a new Ceramic Shield 2 cover on the iPhone 17 offers three-times better scratch resistance, according to Apple, so you can worry a little less about etching into your phone’s screen (but maybe still get a screen protector to be safe).

The iPhone 16 and 17 have a 48-megapixel wide-angle camera, but the iPhone 17 bumps the ultrawide camera from 12 megapixels to 48 megapixels. The front-facing camera also gets upgraded from 12 megapixels (on the iPhone 16) to 18 megapixels on the iPhone 17. Both phones have a Camera Control button for quickly launching the camera and snapping photos.

A new Center Stage feature can automatically adjust selfie photos from portrait orientation to landscape to ensure everyone is in the shot, so you don’t have to manually rotate your phone to its side anymore. Dual Capture lets you simultaneously record on your front and back cameras. These upgrades are specifically catered to the latest iPhone lineup, so that they won’t be coming to older models like the iPhone 16, even with an iOS 26 update.

Battery life is a little longer on the iPhone 17. Apple says the iPhone 17 supports up to 8 hours more of video playback than the iPhone 16. This change aligns with improvements CNET noticed in our battery tests. In a 3-hour streaming test, for example, the iPhone 17’s battery dropped from 100% to 89%, while the iPhone 16 hit 86%. It’s an incremental update, but even a little more battery life is a welcome change. The iPhone 17 also supports up to 40-watt charging, which is a boost over the 25 watts you get with the iPhone 16, helping you top off your battery a little faster.

The bottom line: While the updates to the iPhone 17 help it stand out as an all-around solid device, the changes over last year’s iPhone 16 are incremental enough that there’s not much reason to upgrade — unless you’re really excited about that smoother display and faster charging. But for most people, subtle differences mean you should probably just hold onto your iPhone 16. 

iPhone 17 vs. iPhone 15

The iPhone 15 has a lot in common with the iPhone 16, including a 48-megapixel wide-angle camera, a 12-megapixel ultrawide camera and a 6.1-inch display. The 6.3-inch display on the iPhone 17 has slimmer bezels to expand that real estate a bit, and the 48-megapixel ultrawide camera can lead to slightly sharper shots.

The baseline iPhone 15 doesn’t have an Action button that you can customize to launch various apps and functions, and instead has the more traditional ring/silent switch. The iPhone 17 has an Action button and a Camera Control button.

Both phones have a Dynamic Island cutout at the top of the display for showing alerts and Live Activities, such as the time your DoorDash order is arriving, flight updates and what song is currently playing.

With each generation, Apple touts longer battery life, so you can expect to get a couple more hours of video playback with the iPhone 17 than you would with the 15.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the iPhone 15 and 17 is that the iPhone 15 doesn’t have Apple Intelligence; those AI features only arrived on that year’s Pro models. If you upgrade to the iPhone 17, you’ll have access to writing and image editing tools, as well as newer features like Live Translation for calls and messages. 

The bottom line: Like the iPhone 16, there aren’t many drastic differences between the iPhone 15 and 17, though upgrading will notably grant you access to Apple Intelligence. But the other hardware and software-related updates are relatively minimal, so you’re probably good keeping your iPhone 15 for at least another year.

iPhone 17 vs. iPhone 14

The iPhone 14 was the last Apple phone with a Lightning port and that’s one of most significant differences between it and the iPhone 17, which has a USB-C port. Upgrading to the iPhone 17 means you won’t have to rely on an outdated and limited-use charging cable anymore, and can instead use one that works with most of your other devices. 

The baseline iPhone 14 also doesn’t have a Dynamic Island cutout in the display, as that feature launched with just the Pro models that year. Upgrading to the iPhone 17 will let you quickly tap into activities like your rideshare trip or flight information.

The iPhone 14 has a 12-megapixel wide and ultrawide-angle camera on the back, while the iPhone 17 bumps that to 48 megapixels across the board. The iPhone 17 also increases the front-facing camera’s resolution from 12 megapixels to 18 megapixels, while adding a new Center Stage selfie feature to automatically adjust between portrait and landscape images without you having to rotate your phone. 

But the two phones also some key similarities, like having eSIM and satellite connectivity on board.

The bottom line: The iPhone 14 has the most noticeable differences with the iPhone 17. Upgrading could offer some fresh features like an Action button and, at last, a USB-C port, as well as Dynamic Island and an upgraded camera. But if you want to save some money and keep your current phone, you won’t be missing out on anything too drastic.

iPhone 17 vs. iPhone 13

The iPhone 13 has a similar A15 Bionic chip as the iPhone 14, and shares the same dual 12-megapixel camera system. But unlike the iPhone 14, the iPhone 13 doesn’t have crash detection or satellite connectivity, or camera features like Action mode for more stable videos. 

At this point, your iPhone 13 may be showing its age. Upgrading to the iPhone 17 will give you access to newer features like Apple Intelligence, Dynamic Island, USB-C charging and the Camera Control and Action buttons. You might also notice faster speeds by switching to the iPhone 17, now that it’s been a few years since the iPhone 13 came out.

The bottom line: It may be time to upgrade to the iPhone 17 if you have an iPhone 13. It’s possible your phone is starting to show its age, and switching to Apple’s latest baseline will get you a longer-lasting battery, an upgraded camera, AI features and a handful of new hardware and software capabilities. 

iPhone 17 vs. iPhone 12

Like the next couple of iPhones after it, the iPhone 12 has a dual 12-megapixel camera system, as well as a 6.1-inch display. Upgrading to the iPhone 17 will get you a slightly more immersive 6.3-inch display with thinner bezels, along with a 48-megapixel dual camera system. 

The iPhone 12 lacks features like crash detection, satellite connectivity, Dynamic Island and USB-C charging. It also doesn’t support the Apple Intelligence suite of AI features for writing, photo editing, language translation and more. 

It’s possible your iPhone 12 has become sluggish and your battery isn’t holding up like it used to. Taking age out of the equation, at launch, the iPhone 12 boasted up to 17 hours of video playback, while Apple says the iPhone 17 supports up to 30 hours. So there’s likely to be a noticeable difference between how long each phone can hold up.

The bottom line: Swapping your iPhone 12 for the iPhone 17 could be a smart move. There have been noticeable changes over the last several years, from the addition of the Action and Camera Control buttons to the introduction of Apple Intelligence. The swap to USB-C and expanded battery capacity can also make the newest iPhone more tempting; you won’t have to cling to your now-outdated Lightning cable. And you’ll likely notice faster speeds and higher performance across the board when switching from a 5-year-old device to the latest generation. 

Apple iPhone 17 vs. Older iPhones

Apple iPhone 17 Apple iPhone 16 Apple iPhone 15 Apple iPhone 14 Apple iPhone 13 Apple iPhone 12
Display size, tech, resolution, refresh rate 6.3-inch OLED; 2,622 x 1,206 pixel resolution; 1-120Hz variable refresh rate 6.1-inch OLED; 2,556 x 1,179 pixel resolution; 60Hz refresh rate 6.1-inch OLED; 2,556×1,179 pixels 6.1-inch OLED; 2,532×1,170 pixels 6.1-inch OLED; 2,532×1,170 pixels 6.1-inch OLED; 2,532×1,170 pixels
Pixel density 460ppi 460 ppi 460 ppi 460 ppi 460 ppi 460ppi
Dimensions (inches) 5.89 x 2.81 x 0.31 in 5.81 x 2.82 x 0.31 inches 2.82 x 5.81 x 0.31 in 5.78 x 2.82 x 0.31 in 5.78 x 2.82 x 0.3 in 5.78 x 2.82 x 0.29 in
Dimensions (millimeters) 149.6 x 71.5 x 7.95 mm 147.6 x 71.6 x 7.8mm 71.6 x 147.6 x 7.8 mm 147 x 72 x 7.8 mm 147 x 72 x 7.65 mm 146.7 x 71.5 x 7.4 mm
Weight (grams, ounces) 177 g (6.24 oz) 170 g (6 oz.) 171g (6.02 oz) 172 g (6.07 oz) 6.14 oz; 174g 5.78oz; 164g
Mobile software iOS 26 iOS 18 iOS 17 iOS 16 iOS 15 iOS 14
Camera 48-megapixel (wide) 48-megapixel (ultrawide) 48-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide) 48-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide) 12-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide) 12-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide) 12-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultra-wide)
Front-facing camera 18-megapixel 12-megapixel 12-megapixel 12-megapixel 12-megapixel 12-megapixel
Video capture 4K 4K 4K 4K at 60 fps HDR video recording with Dolby Vision up to 4K at 60 fps 4K
Processor Apple A19 Apple A18 A16 Bionic Apple A15 Bionic Apple A15 Bionic Apple Bionic 14
RAM + storage RAM N/A + 256GB, 512GB RAM N/A + 128GB, 256GB, 512GB 128GB, 256GB, 512GB RAM NA; 128GB, 256GB, 512GB 128GB, 256GB, 512GB 64GB, 128GB, 256GB
Expandable storage None None (Face ID) None None Undisclosed Undisclosed
Battery Up to 30 hours video playback; up to 27 hours video playback (streamed) Up to 22 hours video playback; up to 18 hours video playback (streamed). 20W wired charging. MagSafe wireless charging up to 25W with 30W adapter or higher; Qi2 up to 15W Undisclosed; Apple claims up to 20 hours of video playback (16 hours streamed) Undisclosed; Apple claims 20 hours of video playback No No
Fingerprint sensor None (Face ID) None (Face ID) None (Face ID) None (Face ID) Undisclosed; Apple lists 19 hours of video playback Undisclosed; Apple lists 15 hours of video playback
Connector USB-C USB-C USB-C (USB 2.0) Lightning No (Face ID) No (FaceID)
Headphone jack None None None None Lightning Lightning
Special features Apple N1 wireless networking chip (Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) with 2×2 MIMO), Bluetooth 6, Thread. Action button. Camera Control button. Dynamic Island. Apple Intelligence. Visual Intelligence. Dual eSIM. 1 to 3,000 nits brightness display range. IP68 resistance. Colors: black, white, mist blue, sage, lavender. Fast charge up to 50% in 20 minutes using 40W adapter or higher via charging cable. Fast charge up to 50% in 30 minutes using 30W adapter or higher via MagSafe Charger. Apple Intelligence, Action button, Camera Control button, Dynamic Island, 1 to 2,000 nits display brightness range, IP68 resistance. Colors: black, white, pink, teal, ultramarine. Dynamic Island; 5G (mmw/Sub6); MagSafe; water resistant (IP68); wireless charging; eSIM; satellite connectivity 5G (mmw/Sub6); MagSafe; water resistant (IP68); wireless charging; eSIM; satellite connectivity No No
US price starts at $829 (256GB) $799 (128GB) $799 (128GB), $899 (256GB), $1,099 (512GB) $799 (128GB), $899 (256GB), $1,099 (512GB) 5G enabled; MagSafe; water resistant (IP68); wireless charging; dual-SIM capabilities (nano-SIM and e-SIM) 5G enabled; MagSafe; water resistant (IP68); wireless charging; dual-SIM capabilities (nano-SIM and e-SIM)

Technologies

AI Slop Is Destroying the Internet. These Are the People Fighting to Save It

Continue Reading

Technologies

The Sun’s Temper Tantrums: What You Should Know About Solar Storms

Solar storms are associated with the lovely aurora borealis, but they can have negative impacts, too.

Last month, Earth was treated to a massive aurora borealis that reached as far south as Texas. The event was attributed to a solar storm that lasted nearly a full day and will likely contend for the strongest of 2026. Such solar storms are usually fun for people on Earth, as we are protected from solar radiation by our planet’s atmosphere, so we can just enjoy the gorgeous greens and pretty purples in the night sky.

But solar storms are a lot more than just the aurora borealis we see, and sometimes they can cause real damage. There are several examples of this in recorded history, with the earliest being the Carrington Event, a solar storm that took place on Sept. 1, 1859. It remains the strongest solar storm ever recorded, where the world’s telegraph machines became overloaded with energy from it, causing them to shock their operators, send ghost messages and even catch on fire. 

Things have changed a lot since the mid-1800s, and while today’s technology is a lot more resistant to solar radiation than it once was, a solar storm of that magnitude could still cause a lot of damage. 

What is a solar storm?

A solar storm is a catchall term that describes any disturbance in the sun that involves the violent ejection of solar material into space. This can come in the form of coronal mass ejections, where clouds of plasma are ejected from the sun, or solar flares, which are concentrated bursts of electromagnetic radiation (aka light). 

A sizable percentage of solar storms don’t hit Earth, and the sun is always belching material into space, so minor solar storms are quite common. The only ones humans tend to talk about are the bigger ones that do hit the Earth. When this happens, it causes geomagnetic storms, where solar material interacts with the Earth’s magnetic fields, and the excitations can cause issues in everything from the power grid to satellite functionality. It’s not unusual to hear «solar storm» and «geomagnetic storm» used interchangeably, since solar storms cause geomagnetic storms. 

Solar storms ebb and flow on an 11-year cycle known as the solar cycle. NASA scientists announced that the sun was at the peak of its most recent 11-year cycle in 2024, and, as such, solar storms have been more frequent. The sun will metaphorically chill out over time, and fewer solar storms will happen until the cycle repeats. 

This cycle has been stable for hundreds of millions of years and was first observed in the 18th century by astronomer Christian Horrebow.

How strong can a solar storm get?

The Carrington Event is a standout example of just how strong a solar storm can be, and such events are exceedingly rare. A rating system didn’t exist back then, but it would have certainly maxed out on every chart that science has today. 

We currently gauge solar storm strength on four different scales. 

The first rating that a solar storm gets is for the material belched out of the sun. Solar flares are graded using the Solar Flare Classification System, a logarithmic intensity scale that starts with B-class at the lowest end, and then increases to C, M and finally X-class at the strongest. According to NASA, the scale goes up indefinitely and tends to get finicky at higher levels. The strongest solar flare measured was in 2003, and it overloaded the sensors at X17 and was eventually estimated to be an X45-class flare. 

CMEs don’t have a named measuring system, but are monitored by satellites and measured based on the impact they have on the Earth’s geomagnetic field. 

Once the material hits Earth, NOAA uses three other scales to determine how strong the storm was and which systems it may impact. They include: 

  • Geomagnetic storm (G1-G5): This scale measures how much of an impact the solar material is having on Earth’s geomagnetic field. Stronger storms can impact the power grid, electronics and voltage systems. 
  • Solar radiation storm (S1-S5): This measures the amount of solar radiation present, with stronger storms increasing exposure to astronauts in space and to people in high-flying aircraft. It also describes the storm’s impact on satellite functionality and radio communications. 
  • Radio blackouts (R1-R5): Less commonly used but still very important. A higher R-rating means a greater impact on GPS satellites and high-frequency radios, with the worst case being communication and navigation blackouts. 

Solar storms also cause auroras by exciting the molecules in Earth’s atmosphere, which then light up as they «calm down,» per NASA. The strength and reach of the aurora generally correlate with the strength of the storm. G1 storms rarely cause an aurora to reach further south than Canada, while a G5 storm may be visible as far south as Texas and Florida. The next time you see a forecast calling for a big aurora, you can assume a big solar storm is on the way. 

How dangerous is a solar storm?

The overwhelming majority of solar storms are harmless. Science has protections against the effects of solar storms that it did not have back when telegraphs were catching on fire, and most solar storms are small and don’t pose any threat to people on the surface since the Earth’s magnetic field protects us from the worst of it.

That isn’t to say that they pose no threats. Humans may be exposed to ionizing radiation (the bad kind of radiation) if flying at high altitudes, which includes astronauts in space. NOAA says that this can happen with an S2 or higher storm, although location is really important here. Flights that go over the polar caps during solar storms are far more susceptible than your standard trip from Chicago to Houston, and airliners have a whole host of rules to monitor space weather, reroute flights and monitor long-term radiation exposure for flight crews to minimize potential cancer risks.

Larger solar storms can knock quite a few systems out of whack. NASA says that powerful storms can impact satellites, cause radio blackouts, shut down communications, disrupt GPS and cause damaging power fluctuations in the power grid. That means everything from high-frequency radio to cellphone reception could be affected, depending on the severity.

A good example of this is the Halloween solar storms of 2003. A series of powerful solar flares hit Earth on Oct. 28-31, causing a solar storm so massive that loads of things went wrong. Most notably, airplane pilots had to change course and lower their altitudes due to the radiation wreaking havoc on their instruments, and roughly half of the world’s satellites were entirely lost for a few days.

A paper titled Flying Through Uncertainty was published about the Halloween storms and the troubles they caused. Researchers note that 59% of all satellites orbiting Earth at the time suffered some sort of malfunction, like random thrusters going offline and some shutting down entirely. Over half of the Earth’s satellites were lost for days, requiring around-the-clock work from NASA and other space agencies to get everything back online and located.

Earth hasn’t experienced a solar storm on the level of the Carrington Event since it occurred in 1859, so the maximum damage it could cause in modern times is unknown. The European Space Agency has run simulations, and spoiler alert, the results weren’t promising. A solar storm of that caliber has a high chance of causing damage to almost every satellite in orbit, which would cause a lot of problems here on Earth as well. There were also significant risks of electrical blackouts and damage. It would make one heck of an aurora, but you might have to wait to post it on social media until things came back online.

Do we have anything to worry about?

We’ve mentioned two massive solar storms with the Halloween storms and the Carrington Event. Such large storms tend to occur very infrequently. In fact, those two storms took place nearly 150 years apart. Those aren’t the strongest storms yet, though. The very worst that Earth has ever seen were what are known as Miyake events.

Miyake events are times throughout history when massive solar storms were thought to have occurred. These are measured by massive spikes in carbon-14 that were preserved in tree rings. Miyake events are few and far between, but science believes at least 15 such events have occurred over the past 15,000 years. That includes one in 12350 BCE, which may have been twice as large as any other known Miyake event. 

They currently hold the title of the largest solar storms that we know of, and are thought to be caused by superflares and extreme solar events. If one of these happened today, especially one as large as the one in 12350 BCE, it would likely cause widespread, catastrophic damage and potentially threaten human life

Those only appear to happen about once every several hundred to a couple thousand years, so it’s exceedingly unlikely that one is coming anytime soon. But solar storms on the level of the Halloween storms and the Carrington Event have happened in modern history, and humans have managed to survive them, so for the time being, there isn’t too much to worry about. 

Continue Reading

Technologies

TMR vs. Hall Effect Controllers: Battle of the Magnetic Sensing Tech

The magic of magnets tucked into your joysticks can put an end to drift. But which technology is superior?

Competitive gamers look for every advantage they can get, and that drive has spawned some of the zaniest gaming peripherals under the sun. There are plenty of hardware components that actually offer meaningful edges when implemented properly. Hall effect and TMR (tunnel magnetoresistance or tunneling magnetoresistance) sensors are two such technologies. Hall effect sensors have found their way into a wide variety of devices, including keyboards and gaming controllers, including some of our favorites like the GameSir Super Nova. 

More recently, TMR sensors have started to appear in these devices as well. Is it a better technology for gaming? With multiple options vying for your lunch money, it’s worth understanding the differences to decide which is more worthy of living inside your next game controller or keyboard. 

How Hall effect joysticks work

We’ve previously broken down the difference between Hall effect tech and traditional potentiometers in controller joysticks, but here’s a quick rundown on how Hall effect sensors work. A Hall effect joystick moves a magnet over a sensor circuit, and the magnetic field affects the circuit’s voltage. The sensor in the circuit measures these voltage shifts and maps them to controller inputs. Element14 has a lovely visual explanation of this effect here.

The advantage this tech has over potentiometer-based joysticks used in controllers for decades is that the magnet and sensor don’t need to make physical contact. There’s no rubbing action to slowly wear away and degrade the sensor. So, in theory, Hall effect joysticks should remain accurate for the long haul. 

How TMR joysticks work

While TMR works differently, it’s a similar concept to Hall effect devices. When you move a TMR joystick, it moves a magnet in the vicinity of the sensor. So far, it’s the same, right? Except with TMR, this shifting magnetic field changes the resistance in the sensor instead of the voltage

There’s a useful demonstration of a sensor in action here. Just like Hall effect joysticks, TMR joysticks don’t rely on physical contact to register inputs and therefore won’t suffer the wear and drift that affects potentiometer-based joysticks. 

Which is better, Hall effect or TMR?

There’s no hard and fast answer to which technology is better. After all, the actual implementation of the technology and the hardware it’s built into can be just as important, if not more so. Both technologies can provide accurate sensing, and neither requires physical contact with the sensing chip, so both can be used for precise controls that won’t encounter stick drift. That said, there are some potential advantages to TMR. 

According to Coto Technology, who, in fairness, make TMR sensors, they can be more sensitive, allowing for either greater precision or the use of smaller magnets. Since the Hall effect is subtler, it relies on amplification and ultimately requires extra power. While power requirements vary from sensor to sensor, GameSir claims its TMR joysticks use about one-tenth the power of mainstream Hall effect joysticks. Cherry is another brand highlighting the lower power consumption of TMR sensors, albeit in the brand’s keyboard switches.

The greater precision is an opportunity for TMR joysticks to come out ahead, but that will depend more on the controller itself than the technology. Strange response curves, a big dead zone (which shouldn’t be needed), or low polling rates could prevent a perfectly good TMR sensor from beating a comparable Hall effect sensor in a better optimized controller. 

The power savings will likely be the advantage most of us really feel. While it won’t matter for wired controllers, power savings can go a long way for wireless ones. Take the Razer Wolverine V3 Pro, for instance, a Hall effect controller offering 20 hours of battery life from a 4.5-watt-hour battery with support for a 1,000Hz polling rate on a wireless connection. Razer also offers the Wolverine V3 Pro 8K PC, a near-identical controller with the same battery offering TMR sensors. They claim the TMR version can go for 36 hours on a charge, though that’s presumably before cranking it up to an 8,000Hz polling rate — something Razer possibly left off the Hall effect model because of power usage. 

The disadvantage of the TMR sensor would be its cost, but it appears that it’s negligible when factored into the entire price of a controller. Both versions of the aforementioned Razer controller are $199. Both 8BitDo and GameSir have managed to stick them into reasonably priced controllers like the 8BitDo Ultimate 2, GameSir G7 Pro and GameSir Cyclone 2.

So which wins?

It seems TMR joysticks have all the advantages of Hall effect joysticks and then some, bringing better power efficiency that can help in wireless applications. The one big downside might be price, but from what we’ve seen right now, that doesn’t seem to be much of an issue. You can even find both technologies in controllers that cost less than some potentiometer models, like the Xbox Elite Series 2 controller. 

Caveats to consider

For all the hype, neither Hall effect nor TMR joysticks are perfect. One of their key selling points is that they won’t experience stick drift, but there are still elements of the joystick that can wear down. The ring around the joystick can lose its smoothness. The stick material can wear down (ever tried to use a controller with the rubber worn off its joystick? It’s not pleasant). The linkages that hold the joystick upright and the springs that keep it stiff can loosen, degrade and fill with dust. All of these can impact the continued use of the joystick, even if the Hall effect or TMR sensor itself is in perfect operating order. 

So you might not get stick drift from a bad sensor, but you could get stick drift from a stick that simply doesn’t return to its original resting position. That’s when having a controller that’s serviceable or has swappable parts, like the PDP Victrix Pro BFG, could matter just as much as having one with Hall effect or TMR joysticks.  

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media