Dear editor,
your numbers are quite different compared to mine and the battery time is twice as high while doing office tasks, browsing and more. I measured it to be cooler as well, especially compared to last years model (see Just Josh as well). Core Ultra seems to perform differently too, it's quite erratic on many units.

It hurts to see how Dell (intentionally) misses the opportunity to create a greatly cooled (= powerful AND quiet) gaming notebook! The quad fan design is brilliant, but the chassis is much too thin! It should be at least 6 mm thicker. This way it would be still reasonably thin but not stupidly ultra thin which Dell only does to trick customers in this childish shameful game of "the world's thinnest gaming laptop".

I would instantly buy it, if it was thicker. Imagine how 6mm more height on all 4 fans would make the X16 the best gaming laptop. Period! It would get rid of the eternal drawback fan noise and could deliver full performance without getting loud like a jet engine. But who wants quality? Dell does not for sure.

QuoteRaptor Lake-HX options such as the Core i9-14900HX are not available on the Alienware x16 series likely due to thermal limitations since these processors require more power than the Meteor Lake-H series.

It's lie.
Check this review:
www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Omen-Transcend-16-2024-laptop-review-An-RTX-4070-gaming-machine-with-an-OLED-display.802778.0.html
It's just a complete shame for the Meteor Lake cores to again lose a colossal 1.5 times in PL1 mode in favor of outdated cores at "10nm++++". This is a shock!
PL1=55W/PL2=130W...start with 3900+ points in CBR15 and 2700+ sustained with 55W vs same sustained result for 185H on 105W! Shame for Meteor Lake and Dell developers! Meteor Lake with "7nm" from Intel is literally 2 times inferior in energy efficiency to outdated Raptor cores at "10nm+++++"! It's kind of surreal!

www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-Legion-Pro-5-16IRX9-laptop-review-Great-performance-but-a-little-heavy.817404.0.html
14900HX on 104W vs Ultra 9 185H on 105W - It's just a complete shame for the Meteor Lake cores to again lose a colossal 1.5 times in PL1 mode in favor of outdated cores at "10nm++++". This is a shock!

www.notebookcheck.net/Eurocom-Raptor-X17-Core-i9-14900HX-laptop-review-175-W-GPU-for-maximum-performance.809181.0.html
But here the same author clearly lied even more - according to his "review" it turns out that the 14900HX, at supposedly PL1=63W, produces as many as 4000+ points in CBR15. Do you believe these false numbers in this review?

www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Predator-Helios-18-2024-laptop-review-New-hardware-for-the-18-inch-gamer.808564.0.html
And here another author claims that the 14900HX produces more than 3800+ points in CBR15 at PL1=93W!
Do you still believe NB reviews and its authors?

www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-Legion-7-16-G9-laptop-review-A-gaming-machine-with-a-3-2K-display-HX-CPU-and-an-overclocked-RTX-4070-laptop.826933.0.html
Already the 3rd author assures that the 14900HX produces stable 3900+ points in CBR15 at PL1=90W versus the shameful 2700 points of the newest top-end Meteor Lake with PL1=105W!
Do you believe this author too?


After all this, is it worth reading NB reviews with such data, where they are convinced that the old Raptor cores are up to 1.5 times faster than the latest Intel cores with the same consumption?

$3,200 = 94.57 oz / 5.91 pounds NO ABSOLUTELY NO. 90% of the population seeks freedom and mobility with enough graphical power from both CPU + iGPU + NPU and I love the new Surface 10 Pro but I have found something $600 cheaper and with better performance MINISFORUM V3 the comments on YouTube are very good .
I hope this website can make a comparison between both products