Dell XPS 15 2018 9570 (8300H, GTX 1050, 97Wh) Laptop Review

[Redaktion]

On the fast lane. Dell's XPS 15 has entered a new year and we have begun by testing the entry-level model. Will the 15-inch device continue to throttle? What battery runtimes can the 97-Wh battery offer? Does the Core i5 offer sufficient performance?

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-15-2018-9570-8300H-GTX-1050-97Wh-Laptop-Review.308420.0.html

[Lucas]

According to the USA website the configuration with the i5 only has the intel HD GPU.

[mark235]

Shouldn't the screen bleeding be added to the list of cons? It's listed as a con for many (most?) other laptop reviews on this site. 

Also, while the display reponse times have been improved compared to the previous model, they still aren't good for gaming. Given that this is a multimedia / gaming laptop, Shouldn't that be listed as a con? The (minor) improvement is nice, but the end result is stil lacking.

The XPS 15 keeps getting better and better with every new release, which is great. But this 92% score seems a little biased or inflated. 

[Abel Goldblum]

Dell's latest aptops seem pretty nice and attractive. However coil whine plagues the XPS series. For this reason alone I wouldn't buy a Dell these days. They really need to get their act together and fix the coil whines.

[skype user]

Thanks for the review. Shouldn't the 'nosecam' be listed as a con?

[tomhw]

Courtesy of Generic Log Viewer images are very intuitive and visual friendly for understanding. Hope to see more of them in future reviews.

[Kevin Shroff]

I strongly trust notebookcheck reviews however this review of the XPS 15 9570 FHD with i5 seems a little too good to be true when concerned with its battery life.

Quote: "The runtime on battery is one of the best that an XPS 15 has ever offered in our tests: The lights only go out after 15:42 hours in our Wi-Fi test at 150 cd/m² (dimmed by 6 levels, Dell energy profile set to "quiet"). We ran the test a second time, which confirmed this result."

Almost 16 hours of light Wi-Fi usage battery life on the FHD i5 model seems incredible to me, however what specifically has changed from the 9560 that made the 9570 so much more frugal? The exact FHD panel (Sharp SHP1453 LQ156M1, as notebookcheck said was in their reviewed model) has been in use in the 9550 and 9560 FHD models already, so this isn't some new more power efficient display. Then the next part, the CPU, should by all means be on par with, if not consume slightly more power on average than the i7 7th gen CPUs, as the 8th gen CPUs have 2 extra cores, and this has been proven with other 7th gen laptops that have been refreshed with 8th gen parts - they all show similarly slightly increased power consumption on average.

Additionally, I haven't yet found another source to backup notebookcheck's 15 hour (Wi-Fi browsing) light usage battery life, with all other reviews showing battery life of the FHD i5 9570 as being in the same ballpark as last year's FHD i5 9560.

So yet again, this comes back to my main question - is the 9570 actually more frugal, and if so, how and what exactly has caused this significant improvement in battery life? Or otherwise, is this a mess up on notebookcheck's end?

Thanks

[NikoB]

Two bad main news for potential buyers:
1. Not flicker free IPS. The eyes will burn, and the head will ache after a few hours of work after this. "Sand" in the eyes is guaranteed, despite the outstanding brightness and color rendition. How they managed to so badly program the PWM on the matrix, it is unclear. The HP G5 850 is much better for people who value their health, eyes and performance when printing large amounts of complex text.

2. A truncated version of the keyboard, which does not allow to work normally and faster. Especially for developers in IT. What prevented to put a full-size with a digital block is unclear...

The third bad news is that it's even surfing under several tabs with multimedia apparently noisy. For some reason, there was no typical graph of the performance drop and the established, time-dependent load.

In this machine it would be much better to include a new i5 8269U, which roughly corresponds to the i7 7700HQ by perfomance, while consuming together with the more advanced Iris graphics only 28W, instead of 45W for 8300H, which would allow the noise to be abruptly dropped under load, almost without losing performance. And while the 8269U is only +$73 more expensive than the cheap i5 8300H, which in this class of laptops is not essential. But then again, it looks like the most delicious U series processors will only get Apple...

[antarctica0]

It looks like the i5-8300H model is not available in the US store with a 97 WH battery, which is unfortunate because it seems like a great compromise between performance and heat. I guess I will have to wait to see how well the i7 6 core model does with heat.

[devx]

Great multi purpose laptop.

Two bad main news for potential buyers:
1. Not flicker free IPS. The eyes will burn, and the head will ache after a few hours of work after this. "Sand" in the eyes is guaranteed, despite the outstanding brightness and color rendition. How they managed to so badly program the PWM on the matrix, it is unclear. The HP G5 850 is much better for people who value their health, eyes and performance when printing large amounts of complex text.

PWM below 10% is same as no PWM at all.
And i suggest you look for some fresh Lenovo reviews for real example of "badly program the PWM".

2. A truncated version of the keyboard, which does not allow to work normally and faster. Especially for developers in IT. What prevented to put a full-size with a digital block is unclear...

What planet are you from?

In this machine it would be much better to include a new i5 8269U, which roughly corresponds to the i7 7700HQ by perfomance, while consuming together with the more advanced Iris graphics only 28W, instead of 45W for 8300H, which would allow the noise to be abruptly dropped under load, almost without losing performance. And while the 8269U is only +$73 more expensive than the cheap i5 8300H, which in this class of laptops is not essential. But then again, it looks like the most delicious U series processors will only get Apple...

Nothing U-like is like HQ series. Not even close. Even with cooling pad and Intel XTU, ThrottleStop etc workarounds.

[Bob]

Hello,

Can we change the RAM Memory please? It's 8 Go Ram on standard, is it possible to increase to 16Go Ram please ?

Thanks you :)

[AdrianzkaMDR]

I strongly trust notebookcheck reviews however this review of the XPS 15 9570 FHD with i5 seems a little too good to be true when concerned with its battery life.

Quote: "The runtime on battery is one of the best that an XPS 15 has ever offered in our tests: The lights only go out after 15:42 hours in our Wi-Fi test at 150 cd/m² (dimmed by 6 levels, Dell energy profile set to "quiet"). We ran the test a second time, which confirmed this result."

Almost 16 hours of light Wi-Fi usage battery life on the FHD i5 model seems incredible to me, however what specifically has changed from the 9560 that made the 9570 so much more frugal? The exact FHD panel (Sharp SHP1453 LQ156M1, as notebookcheck said was in their reviewed model) has been in use in the 9550 and 9560 FHD models already, so this isn't some new more power efficient display. Then the next part, the CPU, should by all means be on par with, if not consume slightly more power on average than the i7 7th gen CPUs, as the 8th gen CPUs have 2 extra cores, and this has been proven with other 7th gen laptops that have been refreshed with 8th gen parts - they all show similarly slightly increased power consumption on average.

Additionally, I haven't yet found another source to backup notebookcheck's 15 hour (Wi-Fi browsing) light usage battery life, with all other reviews showing battery life of the FHD i5 9570 as being in the same ballpark as last year's FHD i5 9560.

So yet again, this comes back to my main question - is the 9570 actually more frugal, and if so, how and what exactly has caused this significant improvement in battery life? Or otherwise, is this a mess up on notebookcheck's end?

Thanks

The unit reviewed by notebookcheck comes with a 97 Whr battery, as opposed to the 56 Whr one on last year's i5 FHD model. However, it seems that the i5 FHD version only comes to the US with the 56 Whr battery, which might explain why other reviews find the battery life performance to be the same. (It can be seen that load battery runtime in this review is similar to the old one since the latter does not have dedicated graphics)

[Saran]

I want to buy XPS 15 9570 i5,GTX 1050
From USA 
But I want the link to buy i request anyone to send me that link

[Ice]

in the last 3 years to this time i have use XPS 9550 4K, Precision 5510 4K and Precision 5520 FHD,I do not understand one thing why here in these review Notebookcheck not tell people that its not possible to use this Notebook in the night because dispaly on zero brightnes too much dimming, brightness is so hight and unpleasant to watch is this display and eyes is so tired after 30 min. with this laptop,,, i have no sensitiv eyes and without problem,,  Notebookcheck you must testing and real use on a laptop,, is not only contrsat, sRGB, maximum brightnes and other things...

[JohnLG]

Hello,
When will you review XPS 15 with the Core i7/i9 & GTX 1050 Ti ?  :D