"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! :)))
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?
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.
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?).
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
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
"I don't know where you are getting the results from"
Notebookcheck, tests from xps16 and xps14 from this year (done with the same way)
Quote from: X on March 24, 2026, 19:19:48"I don't know where you are getting the results from"
Notebookcheck, tests from xps16 and xps14 from this year (done with the same way)
Go check the XPS 14 results. It has a 2880x1800 OLED display. That's why it gets 16.8 hours.
www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-14-2026-review-Fully-reborn-with-Intel-Panther-Lake-X7.1218670.0.html
"Go check the XPS 14 results. It has a 2880x1800 OLED display. That's why it gets 16.8 hours.
www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-14-2026-review-Fully-reborn-with-Intel-Panther-Lake-X7.1218670.0.html"
There were two xps14 reviews in Notebookcheck, second one was with Intel 355 and IPS and results are weak too (14,5h which is worse to OLED and lunar Lake machines) -> testing was wrong OR these machines were put into market too fast (I opt for second option looking in general in latest Dell solutions)
No point arguing over numbers. The pricing in the UK is absurd for these dell xps's. £1599 for ultra 325, 512GB storage, 16GB ram.
Before anyone says this is normal for memory pricing these days. No it isn't not. You can get lunar lake systems with 16GB for £599.
Also, only xps and an Acer available with panther lake at the moment here. :/
@bad 1% FPS lows?,
It seems you're correct. There is now further evidence proving this by Hubwood's YouTube channel here:
youtube.com/watch?v=ye1k52VTJ9A#
A couple of points:
a) arc b390 seems to be taking double the system ram in almost every game test compared to 890m.
b) most of the time at 17 watt, the arc b390 is not any faster, some cases even slower than 890m. At 35 watt, the intel chip does take the lead, but that's halo wattage. It'll be interesting to see how halo compares as that's what his upcoming video will be on (arc b390 vs 8060s - low tdp testing).
c) bad frametimes and 1% lows in baldurs gate 3, diablo 4 and far cry 6.
And in many games even when the difference isn't so big (assassin's creed, cyberpunk, last of us part 2, Witcher 3), AMD still shows a superior advantage. This is not a good showing considering it is Intel's latest vs 1 year old 890m.
TL;DR - it seems overall from this test that z2 extreme is superior still (in pricing) or equal at 17w (in performance) at the very least to 12 Xe3 PTL. For some odd reason, Intel's drivers are causing games to use a lot more system ram. Wait for next video to see interesting low tdp comparison with halo 8060s.
I'm thrilled to report that the OLED image is stable, eye strain free, and rainbow free at all brightness levels.
I've had to return past laptops with OLED screens.
I tested with 240hz slow-mo on my phone, and the image stayed stable.
The image quality is also spectacular.