News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können Sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über notebookrelevante Dinge diskutieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by JBOY
 - Today at 16:47:13
Quote from: banmacOS on Today at 05:16:39
Quote from: bert5656 on Today at 02:24:06
Quote from: TheWerewolf on Yesterday at 22:30:0124 hours of real world battery life on a standard Intel PC. And all we get is mild applause.
If this had been a MacBook, we're be reading about how it CRUSHES the competition and is a game changer.
Usual double standard.
Its because this Dell XPS 16 has a 1080p display which lowers idle watts, not only that its a LTPO display meanning it goes down to 1Hz. Apple's laptop displays are much higher res than 1080p.
that is a blatant lie. their displays are absolutely not "much higher res". it's only a <15% difference and with the Neo is actually WORSE.

You don't math very well.  The MacBook Pro 16" resolution is 3546x2234, or 7.7M+ pixels.  The Dell XPS 16 (supposedly competitive with the MacBook Pro by price and positioning) has a result of 2560x1600.  This is just over 4M pixels.  It's also a much poorer quality and dimmer display.  Now you switch over to comparing Dell's "pro" class machine to a $599 MacBook Neo -- really?  I think the lie accusation is missplaced.
Posted by banmacOS
 - Today at 05:16:39
Quote from: bert5656 on Today at 02:24:06
Quote from: TheWerewolf on Yesterday at 22:30:0124 hours of real world battery life on a standard Intel PC. And all we get is mild applause.
If this had been a MacBook, we're be reading about how it CRUSHES the competition and is a game changer.
Usual double standard.
Its because this Dell XPS 16 has a 1080p display which lowers idle watts, not only that its a LTPO display meanning it goes down to 1Hz. Apple's laptop displays are much higher res than 1080p.
that is a blatant lie. their displays are absolutely not "much higher res". it's only a <15% difference and with the Neo is actually WORSE.
Posted by bert5656
 - Today at 02:24:06
Quote from: TheWerewolf on Yesterday at 22:30:0124 hours of real world battery life on a standard Intel PC. And all we get is mild applause.
If this had been a MacBook, we're be reading about how it CRUSHES the competition and is a game changer.
Usual double standard.
Its because this Dell XPS 16 has a 1080p display which lowers idle watts, not only that its a LTPO display meanning it goes down to 1Hz. Apple's laptop displays are much higher res than 1080p.
Posted by Gallo123
 - Yesterday at 23:29:25
Quote from: TheWerewolf on Yesterday at 22:30:0124 hours of real world battery life on a standard Intel PC. And all we get is mild applause.
If this had been a MacBook, we're be reading about how it CRUSHES the competition and is a game changer.
Usual double standard.

Very true but unfortunately positive Apple articles get so much more clicks and attention farming. Partly the reason why simple things get praised so much, because Google SEO just prefers it.
Posted by TheWerewolf
 - Yesterday at 22:30:01
24 hours of real world battery life on a standard Intel PC. And all we get is mild applause.
If this had been a MacBook, we're be reading about how it CRUSHES the competition and is a game changer.
Usual double standard.
Posted by Redaktion
 - Yesterday at 21:44:05
The 16-inch laptop just barely cracks 1 W when idling to be much more efficient than most competitors. Real-world battery life tests show the system lasting for more than 24 hours of constant web browsing.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Panther-Lake-XPS-16-is-so-efficient-it-draws-just-1-5-W-when-idling-for-insanely-long-battery-life.1255734.0.html