Quote from: Piotr Kurten on January 17, 2024, 15:41:03

Quote from: Bernard on January 17, 2024, 04:18:1916GB basically renders the laptop unusable anything beyond browsing the internet

Yeah right...
I've got Edge opened with 84 tabs altogether (yes, that's eighty four), a notepad, a windows player, a VLC, a Messenger and youtube downloader.
All at the same time.
Everything just flies on a 4-core Intel N5000 with 8 GB of RAM and SSD on Windows 11.

You are technically illiterate, because opening them and working normally with them are two big differences.

Lack of RAM immediately slows down operations by 100 times due to SSD swap.

On machines with 8GB under W11, no more than 5.5GB is free, usually even less. One chrome with 10 tabs on YouTube simply leads to a shortage of 4.5-5GB.

You can, of course, tell fairy tales to grandmothers on the benches, but not to experts.

Quote from: Bernard on January 17, 2024, 04:18:1916GB basically renders the laptop unusable anything beyond browsing the internet

Yeah right...
I've got Edge opened with 84 tabs altogether (yes, that's eighty four), a notepad, a windows player, a VLC, a Messenger and youtube downloader.
All at the same time.
Everything just flies on a 4-core Intel N5000 with 8 GB of RAM and SSD on Windows 11.

Quote from: Bernard on January 17, 2024, 04:18:19I don't get how any laptop with 16GB soldered RAM is scored at 80+%. You need to revise the scoring formula because this basically renders the laptop unusable anything beyond browsing the internet. 16GB even with zram and swap is still an extremely sad proposition and what about a year or fee later?

This site provides less and less relevant and valuable reviews compared to its competitors and looks more and more like an advertising appendage of manufacturers, because the ratings and scores given are increasingly absurd (just as the "measurement" numbers in reviews clearly and directly contradict the typical indicators in datasheets for components) against the backdrop of many obvious shortcomings.

Everything is designed for the average person who does not see the system and who simply does not have the experience or time to conduct multiple cross-comparisons and identify obvious inconsistencies and absurd statements in the conclusions, which sometimes directly contradict the figures in the same review.

A critically thinking person will not confine himself to one site, but will evaluate the model from multiple sources, collecting information bit by bit here and there.

But of course there are no sites on the planet that do full reviews on the Internet. Because all sites are commercial projects, not altruistic ones. Hardware (and software too) must be obtained somehow - either with your own money (which only a multimillionaire or billionaire who has nothing better to do will do) or received from manufacturers, with all the ensuing consequences. If you are straightforward and fair in your assessments on an absolute scale, you will quickly lose sources of iron for tests and will have to do everything with your own money. And you need a lot of them to do tests on time, and the authors also don't work for free...

If this were really a project of altruists interested in dotting the i's in laptops, then any valuable comments would be immediately included in the evaluation criteria. But nothing has changed for years, although the shortcomings of their reviews are obvious to anyone who understands this topic.

I don't get how any laptop with 16GB soldered RAM is scored at 80+%. You need to revise the scoring formula because this basically renders the laptop unusable anything beyond browsing the internet. 16GB even with zram and swap is still an extremely sad proposition and what about a year or fee later?

As I wrote before, no one needs it, given the increased price and the absence of any visible progress.

Naturally, I don't believe in the measured screen contrast figure, because...according to the datasheet, this panel has a typical 1200:1 (naturally, in the old model it was overestimated in the review), so don't count on more than 1200:1, of course there won't be any 1400:1+.

Again the shameful 16GB in (2024!!!), instead of the minimum possible for any laptop from $1000, 32GB, and even in the same shameful version of the extremely slow lpddr4 3733 (as in the 2022 model), instead of 6400-7500 lpddr5 (on which only Chinese Huawei mines this garbage in garbage dumps? Sanctions are in effect and that's good!). Notice how much the 2023 model has slid down in the table of ranks in terms of RAM speed, compared to the 2022 model.

Performance has practically not increased compared to the 12700H, the difference can be ignored.

Still the same (for the obvious reason described above - monstrously slow RAM) shameful 24-25fps in GTA V.

Still the shameful USB 2.0 on the right and still the lack of a TB4 port built into the SoC for H series (Huawei's greed is simply amazing!)

What's even more stunning is that the 2022 model had an HDMI 2.0b port, this moss-covered one has 1.4b!!! And it's 2024 and even HDMI 2.1 (full version with FRL6) is already obsolete...

The only plus (if you believe the figures of the review author) is the noise at average load - it dropped by more than 1.5 times (28dBA vs 39dBA).

Well, if you believe the survey figures, consumption at rest fell by about 20%. And by about the same amount at an average load, which, coupled with an increase in battery capacity by 10 Wh, gave the effect of approximately +40-45% of battery life in the usual NB test (the time in which, in practice, to get real load time you need to divide approximately by 1.5)

Those. the 2023 model (which is morally outdated even at the design stage) is not a solution for working for at least 7-8 hours on battery power, a full working day, with a reserve.

What's even more shameful is that even the webcam is still the same antique 720p, not even the lowly 1080p!

Who is this $1500+ laptop for? I don't know. I wrote about this in 2023...for which I congratulate Huawei marketers. You ruined everything again and still had the audacity to raise the price of this garbage.

The saddest thing is that Huawei is no longer particularly striving for anything - they will soon lose any opportunity to create current models compared to their competitors, and even with the 2023 model, it is already clearly visible how they have lagged behind the typical requirements of mass demand.

And the situation is even worse with smartphones, where they are already behind competitors outside of sanctions by as many as 2 generations of hardware (we can already talk about 3).

In China, under pressure from circumstances, maybe someone will buy these models, but in Europe and especially in the USA, at such a price, there will naturally be no demand, unless the price is immediately reduced by $600.