Dell G16 (2024) laptop review: An affordable Alienware alternative from the same manufacturer?

[Redaktion]

In contrast to Dell's Alienware series, the Dell G16 covers the mid-range segment of gaming laptops. The 2024 model relies neither on Intel's new Gen 14 chips nor on its Ultra CPUs—but in turn, its price is kept relatively low and on paper, it features a decent display. Our detailed review will uncover the laptop's strengths and weaknesses.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-G16-2024-laptop-review-An-affordable-Alienware-alternative-from-the-same-manufacturer.803280.0.html

[NikoB]

First, this is not a 2024 model, it's a hoax. This is a legacy 2023 model.

Let's move on to hardware and numbers...

If you believe the numbers on the screen, the main complaint is only poor color accuracy even after hardware calibration (which is nonsense for such color reproduction in the IPS class). Again, the question is about the reality of this figure. As well as native contrast, which, as usual, does not correspond to the datasheet for such panels. The frame rate is again fake, the panel is a little faster than 100Hz in reality, but that's understandable. which is better and will not be on the fake "240Hz".

I immediately see that the author clearly has something wrong with the numbers in CBR15 in the multi-threaded long test - clearly visible in comparison with two reviews of the 13650HX:

www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Asus-ROG-Strix-G18-G814JI-Laptop-Licht-und-Schatten-beim-18-Zoll-Gamer.698010.0.html
PL1=110W
www.notebookcheck.com/Dell-G15-5530-im-Test-Brauchbare-Alienware-Alternative-mit-Raptor-Lake-HX.728285.0.html
PL1=191W(!)
that such numbers simply cannot be at PL1=55W, because in these two PL1 exceeds 100W and even 190W (sick! or the author of that review is also lying) and the difference in performance is penniless, although we have previously seen more than once that Intel scales performance quite well in the range 55W->110 -120W. We do NOT see that here, so I pretend that the author of this review is misleading readers - the real PL1 is much larger. But then questions immediately arise regarding the noise level (although this is a Dell G with a lot of weight, it is clearly insufficient, since it is even less than that of my old 15.6 G5 5587). Well, either PL1 is correct, but the author's results in CBR15 are false. The 13650HX simply can't deliver that much at 55W.

Next, we look at 3D performance in games - the author indicates almost the same figure in GTA V at 117 frames as in the above reviews with 4070. Don't you think this is strange?
Well, the author carefully avoided ;) all tests with modern games of 2023 and 2024(!). After all, the author claims that this is a laptop of 2024, right? =)
What is visible in reality in laptops with 4060? These are 100% NOT "gaming" laptops! None of them in the reviews were able to produce 60fps in modern games at 2.5K! And some games are even in fhd!

But if this is not a gaming laptop, then it should probably have a full-fledged working keyboard with a classic numpad, right? NO. There is no numpad, this is a keyboard from a 14" model (sick!). And how to play with such a castrated keyboard on a 16" (sick!) model. It is also impossible to work with it.

Heating - everything is terrible again. The laptop at the keyboard level easily warms up to 50C. When the screen cover is closed, the screen panel may fail, because the critical temperature is just 50C according to the datasheet...

The quality of the speakers is traditionally poor for the G series and there is no contradiction here. You will have to buy high quality headphones, preferably with active noise cancellation. But this will have to be done with any "gaming" laptop when trying to play on it rather than work. True, your loved ones in the family are unlikely to like this level of noise...

There is no point in writing about the other shameful shortcomings; the author himself pointed out the antique 720p camera and Dell's redneck with TB4 ports, and although Intel now assures. that there are no built-in ports, Dell in 2018 soldered external TB3 controllers into $800 laptops of the same G series without any problems. The supposedly 2024 Intel HX series "gaming" laptop without TB4 ports looks like a complete disgrace. Especially against the backdrop of the shameful performance of the 4060 in current games and the shameful keyboard. Here it seems to go without saying that the owner will buy at least a desktop 4070, or better yet a 4080 later, and connect it via TB4, but Dell has deprived the owners of this opportunity.

Who needs a coffin weighing 2.7 kg (and this is without a power supply) at home with a shameful 16", instead of 4k@144Hz 18" and without the ability to improve the video system?

Question of the day - for whom and why was this overpriced garbage series made?

[A]

Question of the day - for whom and why was this overpriced garbage series made?

For people who lack critical thinking skills, duh.

[lmao]

CBR15

lmao why you even looking at results of 2013 benchmark
its' workloads are so small and so outdated that it is showing moon phase

Who needs a coffin weighing 2.7 kg (and this is without a power supply) at home with a shameful 16", instead of 4k@144Hz 18" and without the ability to improve the video system?

who is using built in display at home at all lmao
you pick display size to be convenient to carry outside/on a trip
if you bought laptop and you don't carry it around and just using as a desktop i have bad news for you

[Hotz]

Who needs a coffin weighing 2.7 kg (and this is without a power supply) at home with a shameful 16", instead of 4k@144Hz 18" and without the ability to improve the video system?

Question of the day - for whom and why was this overpriced garbage series made?

In my opinion 4k is overkill for a laptop. 1080p is ok for 17-18" but double the pixels and everything becomes very small and you need a magnifiying glass etc.

And yes, I know you can scale down the resolution but that is bad practise. And when you don't scale it down you also have significantly worse battery life. It's ridiculous.

If someone wnats 4K video editing or gaming they better get a big external display. Everything else is torture.

[Neenyah]

And yes, I know you can scale down the resolution but that is bad practise.

Why is it bad? Scaling is awesome since about mid 2021 when they (Microsoft) fixed all weird bugs and issues related to it. I would never again go under 1440p on a laptop (and I use only 14" because that size is fully-perfect for my needs). 160% scaling at 2560x1440 is effective 1600x900 but much sharper. If you need more real estate you scale it down to 125% (effective 2048x1152) or any other value (100% is indeed very tiny and unusable). 4K is a bit overkill in terms of battery impact but with 200% scaling (effective 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, depends about screen's aspect ratio) it looks excellent on a 14" too, also on 16-18" obviously.

[Logoffon]

And yes, I know you can scale down the resolution but that is bad practise.

Why is it bad? Scaling is awesome since about mid 2021 when they (Microsoft) fixed all weird bugs and issues related to it.

Because scaling simply defeats the main purpose of having a high resolution display on a desktop OS: more screen real estate to fit more contents in a single screen. Not to mention the added strain to the GPU to render 3D graphics (mainly games since this laptop is classified for gaming) in higher res.
And if MS had actually "fixed" problems with scaling, then how come many of the programs on 11 still look like they're being lazily resized from 100% with all the blur (unless I do a compatibility fixing thing)?

[Neenyah]

Because scaling simply defeats the main purpose of having a high resolution display on a desktop OS: more screen real estate to fit more contents in a single screen.

Not really. No one makes 4K laptops with intention to use them at 100% scaling. No one sane is even using a 14" MacBook Pro at 100% scaling, simply because everything is too tiny and small in general. Heck even 4K at 24" monitor is unusable at 100% scaling. Those panels were designed purely with intention of using scaling to get much nicer and sharper image with better overall viewing experience. I mean, even phones are using scaling...

Not to mention the added strain to the GPU to render 3D graphics (mainly games since this laptop is classified for gaming) in higher res.

3D graphics as in apps you use, to work and such like Blender or After Effects for example? No. In games if you play them at native res then yes but if the GPU can't hold smooth 60+ fps you can play at FHD and use DLSS to get 95% of native-res image quality with 180-300% fps more (than in native without DLSS). Or you can play native with DLSS, about 98% of native-no-DLSS image quality with 50-120% fps more.

And if MS had actually "fixed" problems with scaling, then how come many of the programs on 11 still look like they're being lazily resized from 100% with all the blur (unless I do a compatibility fixing thing)?

That's the issue with those apps and them not being updated, not with MS/Windows. I have one of those and that's it, one. Everything else works flawlessly.

[lmao]

No one sane is even using a 14" MacBook Pro at 100% scaling, simply because everything is too tiny and small in general.

lmao what? XD
macs do not render everything 1:1 oob like windows does, and have different "100%" for different screen resolutions. almost everyone is using macbook 14, even 13, at 100% scaling -and ui stays of the same visual size on every external monitor too
why did you have to even bring macbook into conversation if you dont know and simply decided to lose the remains of your credibility again with a single sentence lmao

[Neenyah]

lmao what? XD
macs do not render everything 1:1 oob like windows does, and have different "100%" for different screen resolutions. almost everyone is using macbook 14, even 13, at 100% scaling -and ui stays of the same visual size on every external monitor too

Default scaling ("Larger Text", "Default", "More Space"...) on macOS (Sonoma included) for 14" is equal to 1512x982. No one sane uses 100% scaling, which would be 3024x1964, at that screen size. Custom scaling exists, yes, just like in every other OS. And it is also available for external screens, naturally.

why did you have to even bring macbook into conversation if you dont know and simply decided to lose the remains of your credibility again with a single sentence lmao

I like it how you are patrolling this whole forum 24/7 just to immediately jump in when you see anything Apple-related being mentioned, lol. Sad life.

[lmao]

Default scaling ("Larger Text", "Default", "More Space"...) on macOS (Sonoma included) for 14" is equal to 1512x982. No one sane uses 100% scaling, which would be 3024x1964, at that screen size

lmao you just googled it?
again lol from someone looking at 14 inch macbook screen right now, default base 100% is different for every screen on mac, and almost everyone is using factory 100% and its not looking small and is still saying 100%.
you keep messing up "100%" and "1:1", but thats your normal low-effort commenting lmao

I like it how you are patrolling this whole forum 24/7 just to immediately jump in when you see anything Apple-related being mentioned, lol. Sad life.

lmao boring, dont jump on insults after you failed again and got caught

[Neenyah]

again lol from someone looking at 14 inch macbook screen right now, default base 100% is different for every screen on mac, and almost everyone is using factory 100% and its not looking small and is still saying 100%.

It literally isn't. Show me 100% - 3024x1964 - which you claim to be Default and even Apple doesn't claim that on their own webpage, just take a photo of your MBP with this site open.

(Of course, you won't do that.)

you keep messing up "100%" and "1:1", but thats your normal low-effort commenting lmao

No I don't, you are just illiterate but that's to be expected from a loyal iSheep.

lmao boring, dont jump on insults after you failed again and got caught

No insults, you are genuinely amusing and I like to read your messages.

[Neenyah]

Actually you know what, senor lmao, open Settings on your MBP, go to Displays, and under display scalings ("Use as") click on anything you want such as "Default", CMD/Ctrl + click on it and hit "Show List". Please show me that 3024x1964 (100% scaling AKA native) on top has "(Default)" next to it on the right side. No photoshopping.

(Of course, you won't do that either.)

[lmao]

Show me 100% - 3024x1964

lmao and again you mess up 1:1 and 100%, you clearly have no understanding its not the same thing

Actually you know what, senor lmao, open Settings on your MBP, go to Displays, and under display scalings ("Use as") click on anything you want such as "Default", CMD/Ctrl + click on it and hit "Show List". Please show me that 3024x1964 (100% scaling AKA native) on top has ("Default") next to it on the right side. No photoshopping.

HAHAHA now i get it, you dont even understand what those numbers mean, its not screen resolution,you are always using macbook at max resolution
what part of "macos automatically picks a proper 100% for your screen and it's never too small despite actual rendering resolution is full" is exactly evading your comprehension?
probably one needs a bigger brain to understand the difference between 100% and 1:1 abd how 1:1 rendering is considered 75% lmao

3024x1964 (100% scaling AKA native)

lmao scaling can't be "native", "native resolution means display is rendering 1:1
"native" scaling is what factory set as default
get your terminology right and then come back and we will try again lmao

[Neenyah]

1:1 is quite literally 100%. 1:2 is 200%. 1:1.5 is 150%. Like I said I use 160% (1:1.6) in Windows.

lmao scaling can't be "native", "native resolution means display is rendering 1:1
"native" scaling is what factory set as default
get your terminology right and then come back and we will try again lmao

Wait until you learn that you can scale below 100% 😊

Stop being a clown and show me the pic I asked for (or GTFO with your cheap trolling). But judging by the fact that you are not willing to do that it is pretty self-explanatory why is that so.