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 DavidC1
 - Today at 00:44:17
Quote from: X on March 22, 2026, 13:02:48"That's because OLED sucks, and this is a lower res FHD display versus 2880x1800 for the other. That's how bad the high res + OLED is."

Normally OLED and high res need more energy,but... In this example both 1920 x 1200 IPS. Again - why xps14 had so dramatically low wifi time?

I don't know where you are getting the results from. If you are getting it from other sites, then they aren't exactly comparable. Also yes the CPU matters. The 300 series "Pantherlake" is much better than predecessors, because it inherits the power saving features of "Lunarlake" 200V series.

-Same testing
-Same screen resolution
-Same CPU

Otherwise the comparisons are not valid.
Posted by DavidC1
 - Today at 00:39:57
Quote from: X on March 22, 2026, 13:02:48"That's because OLED sucks, and this is a lower res FHD display versus 2880x1800 for the other. That's how bad the high res + OLED is."

Normally OLED and high res need more energy,but... In this example both 1920 x 1200 IPS. Again - why xps14 had so dramatically low wifi time?

What are you talking about? The only Pantherlake XPS 14 review uses this display:

This is the display: 14.00 inch 16:10, 2880 x 1800 pixel 243 PPI,

It's entirely due to the high res OLED the battery life there is "only" 17 hours versus 26.6 hours for XPS 16.
Posted by X
 - March 22, 2026, 13:02:48
"That's because OLED sucks, and this is a lower res FHD display versus 2880x1800 for the other. That's how bad the high res + OLED is."

Normally OLED and high res need more energy,but... In this example both 1920 x 1200 IPS. Again - why xps14 had so dramatically low wifi time?
Posted by DavidC1
 - March 22, 2026, 11:10:22
Quote from: X on March 20, 2026, 21:03:352. xps14 in idle 1.6w/3.7w and 14,5h on wifi. Xps16 from the same company 1.3w/4.5w in idle and 26,5h on wifi. Battery quite the same & CPU probably cannot explain difference. And now - why?

That's because OLED sucks, and this is a lower res FHD display versus 2880x1800 for the other. That's how bad the high res + OLED is.
Posted by bad 1% FPS lows?
 - March 21, 2026, 22:03:13
I know this is the 4-core Intel Xe Graphics, but:

YouTube/Just Josh tested several different Panther Lake Arc B390 laptops and all have bad 1% FPS lows. He even points it out: youtu.be/jduWl1J_4lQ?t=637, youtu.be/q-jKP-yZ5TQ?t=831 (FG frame generation ON vs OFF doesn't make a difference):

Cyberpunk 2077 (1920x1200, High settings):
ProArt PX13 (RTX 4060 | 95W): 91 FPS 1% lows
LOQ (RTX 5050 | 100W): 53 FPS 1% lows
ExpertBook Ultra (Intel Arc B390): 44 FPS 1% lows
Zenbook Duo (Intel Arc B390): 45 FPS 1% lows
XPS 16 (Intel Arc B390): 48 FPS 1% lows
XPS 14 (Intel Arc B390): 36 FPS 1% lows

The LOQ doesn't look too good either.
Now I wonder about Panther Lake's 10% lows, too.
Posted by zurt
 - March 21, 2026, 20:38:14
still too heavy without a dgpu, for setting the priority for mobility,
would be a nice one with the weight reduced by 500gr.
waiting for the lg gram with panther lake.
Posted by Mate
 - March 21, 2026, 19:11:56
This laptop is pointless.
Same price as MBP 14 but smaller disk or MBA 15 with 2 upgrades(either 32+512 or 24+1TB)

And both of those Apple laptops are better in every aspect(even screen, supposedly strong side of XPS). Both performance-wise and build quality.

If this was sold for 1000 it maybe would be good stuff... maybe
Posted by halarious..1600 for this
 - March 21, 2026, 10:37:06
Well spotted: 1600 for only 16 GB (soldered) RAM. Soldered would be fine, if it was 9600 MT/s and 32 GB RAM (tho, in times of LLMs and data privacy, it's time for 48 and 64 GB RAM configs). Not saying it's an alternative for everyone, but a MacBook Air 15 (15.3") with this config is available new at just a bit more or at even lower price directly from apple.com/Apple Refurbished (Air M4 32 GB RAM).

Also, it's 1600 for no GPU and only a slow 4-core Intel Arc iGPU.

Not sure what's worse, the soldered 16 GB RAM or this iGPU.

NBC, switch to Steel Nomad, it's the official successor to Time Spy and makes the performance comparison to the Air directly possible:
3dmark.com/search:
2026 Air M5: score: 1070
Intel Arc Graphics (same 4-core, only the 12-core is allowed to have Arc in name): score 660
The Macbook Air is 60% faster while having no fan (and is lighter, slimmer, arguably a better display, ..? The XPS wins in battery life by the looks of it?).
Posted by Sven20260320
 - March 21, 2026, 00:10:35
From the article:

"The base Core Ultra 5 325 is somewhat slow for an H-series CPU as it's only 10 percent faster than the ULV Core Ultra 7 258V when it comes to multi-thread performance."

Both the Core Ultra 5 325 and Core Ultra 7 355 are absolutely no H processors. Those are the cpus ending on either 6 or 8. Please correct this in your review otherwise it will mislead people.
Posted by X
 - March 20, 2026, 21:03:35
1. Core thermal throttling in 16 inch? Really?

2. xps14 in idle 1.6w/3.7w and 14,5h on wifi. Xps16 from the same company 1.3w/4.5w in idle and 26,5h on wifi. Battery quite the same & CPU probably cannot explain difference. And now - why?
Posted by M2026
 - March 20, 2026, 20:26:22
"very warm under load" (25W CPU!!!!) and 16GB SOLDERED RAM in 2026 and that all only for 1600 = There's nothing in this world that Dell can't "f"up! :)))
Posted by Redaktion
 - March 20, 2026, 19:22:40
The 2026 XPS 16 makes massive gains in terms of efficiency and design. Nonetheless, some key sacrifices have been made on the way that buyers should be aware of.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-16-review-Two-steps-forward-one-step-back.1251724.0.html