Odd conclusions on this one... it trumpets the power efficiency and performance combination of this 40W+ "ULV" CPU, but the the perf/watt of solutions using the GTX 1650 is higher under realistic gaming loads (as opposed to a power virus) - The Zenbook, for example, offers slightly more than 50% more performance for just over 40% more power even though it's stuck with a 14nm CPU. It would do better with a modern CPU, and yet it still gets longer battery life in practice... so much for the power advantages of Xe.

I'm also amazed that this CPU can be considered ULV just because of marketing, even as it pulls down ~50W under load.

I am adoring these newer laptops with 1 type-C and 1 type A on each side. This allows for so much more flexibility, and for a while only the razer blade stealth with its stubby shift key had it.

You lost me as a potential customer at 'touchscreen'.

Get a load of that subtitle: "Can Intel actually make a good laptop?"
I guess?.. What even prompted you, dear copywriter, to land that insult in the first place, - esp. given the fact that Intel's mini PCs & mobos are UNIVERSALLY beloved?
They've a track record of design innovation excellence; surely, they'll manage a standard clamshell all right?