MacBook Air M3 13-inch and 15-inch review (2024): Excellent yet unsurprising

It's hard to expect much from Apple's new M3-equipped MacBook Airs. The 13-inch M2 model, released in 2022, was the first major redesign for Apple's most popular notebook in over a decade. Last year, Apple finally gave its fanatics a big-screen ultraportable notebook with the 15-inch MacBook Air. This week, we've got the same two computers with slightly faster chips. They didn't even get a real launch event from Apple, just a sleepy Monday morning press release. They look the same and are a bit faster than before — what else is there to say?

Now, I'm not saying these aren't great computers. It's just that we've been a bit spoiled by Apple's laptops over the last few years. The M3 MacBook Air marks the inevitable innovation plateau for the company, following the monumental rise of its mobile chips and a complete refresh of its laptops and desktops. It's like hitting cruising altitude after the excitement of takeoff — things are stable and comfortable for Apple and consumers alike.

M3 MacBook Air vs the M2 MacBook Air

Even though they look exactly the same as before, the M3 MacBook Air models have a few new features under the hood. For one, they support dual external displays, but only when their lids are closed. That was something even the M3-equipped 14-inch MacBook Pro lacked at launch, but Apple says the feature is coming to that device via a future software update. Having dual screen support is particularly useful for office workers who may need to drop their computers onto temporary desks, but it could also be helpful for creatives with multiple monitors at home. (If you absolutely need to have your laptop display on alongside two or more external monitors, you'll have to opt for a MacBook Pro with an M3 Pro or Max chip instead.)

Both new MacBook Air models also support Wi-Fi 6E, an upgrade over the previous Wi-Fi 6 standard with faster speeds and dramatically lower latency. You'll need a Wi-Fi 6E router to actually see those benefits, though. According to Intel, Wi-Fi 6E's ability to tap into seven 160MHz channels helps it avoid congested Wi-Fi 6 spectrum. Basically, you may actually be able to see gigabit speeds more often. (With my AT&T gigabit fiber connection and Wi-Fi 6 gateway, I saw download speeds of around 350 Mbps and uploads ran between 220 Mbps and 320 Mbps on both systems from my basement office. Both upload and download speeds leapt to 700 Mbps when I was on the same floor as the gateway.)

MacBook Air M3 13-inch and 15-inch side angle
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Design and weight

Two years after the 13-inch M2 MacBook Air debuted, the M3 follow-up is just as sleek and attractive. It seems impossibly thin for a notebook, measuring 0.44 inches thick, and is fairly light at 2.7 pounds. We've seen ultraportables like LG's Gram and the ZenBook S13 OLED that are both lighter and thinner than Apple's hardware, but the MacBook Air still manages to feel like a more premium package. Its unibody aluminum case feels as smooth a river stone yet as sturdy as a boulder. It's a computer I simply love to touch.

Holding the MacBook Air M3 13-inch
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

The 15-inch M3 MacBook Air is similarly thin, but clocks in half a pound heavier at 3.2 pounds. It's still relatively light for its size, but the additional bulk makes it feel more unwieldy than the 13-inch model. I can easily slip either MacBook Air model into a tote bag when running out to grab my kids from school, but the larger model’s length makes it more annoying to carry.

For some users, though, that extra heft will be worth it. The bigger MacBook Air sports a 15.3-inch Liquid Retina screen with a sharp 2,880 by 1,864 (224 pixels per inch) resolution, making it better suited for multitasking with multiple windows or working in media editing apps. It's also a better fit for older or visually impaired users, who may have to scale up their displays to make them more readable. (This is something I've noticed while shopping for computers for my parents and other older relatives. 13-inch laptops inevitably become hard to work on, unless you're always wearing bifocals.)

While I'm impressed that Apple finally has a large, consumer-focused laptop in its lineup, I still prefer the 13-inch MacBook Air. I spend most of my day writing, Slacking with colleagues, editing photos and talking with companies over video conferencing apps, all of which are easy to do on a smaller screen. If I was directly editing more episodes of the Engadget Podcast, or chopping up video on my own, though, I'd bump up to the 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M3 Pro chip. Even then, I wouldn't have much need for a significantly larger screen.

MacBook Air M3 13-inch and 15-inch headphone jack
A lonely headphone jack that could use a USB-C companion.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

It's understandable why Apple wouldn't want to tweak the Air's design too much, given that it was just redone a few years ago. Still, I'd love to see a USB-C port on the right side of the machine, just to make charging easier in every location. But I suppose I should just be happy Apple hasn't removed the headphone jack, something that's happening all too frequently in new 13-inch notebooks, like the XPS 13.

Hardware

For our testing, Apple sent the "midnight" 13-inch MacBook Air (which is almost jet black and features a fingerprint-resistant coating that actually works), as well as the silver 15-inch model. Both computers were powered by an M3 chip with a 10-core GPU, 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD. While these MacBooks start at $1,099 and $1,299, respectively, the configurations we tested cost $400 more. Keep that in mind if you're paying attention to our benchmarks, as you'll definitely see lower figures on the base models. (The cheapest 13-inch offering only has 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD and an 8-core GPU, while the entry-level 15-inch unit has the same RAM and storage, along with a 10-core GPU.)


Geekbench 6 CPU

Geekbench 6 GPU

Cinebench R23

3DMark Wildlife Extreme

Apple MacBook Air 13-inch (M3, 2024)

3,190/12,102

30,561

1,894/9,037

8,310

Apple MacBook Air 15-inch (M3, 2024)

3,187/12,033

30,556

1,901/9,733

8,253

Apple MacBook Air 13-inch (M2, 2022)

2,570/9,650

25,295

1,576/7,372

6,761

Apple MacBook Pro 14-inch (M3, 2023)

3,142/11,902

30,462

1,932/10,159

8,139

M3 chip performance

I didn't expect to see a huge performance boost on either MacBook Air, but our benchmarks ended up surprising me. Both laptops scored around 300 points higher in the Cinebench R23 single-core test, compared to the M2 MacBook Air. And when it came to the more strenuous multi-core CPU test, the 13-inch M3 Air was around 1,700 points faster, while the 15-inch model was around 2,400 points faster. (Since both machines are fan-less, there's a good chance the larger case of the 15-inch Air allows for slightly better performance under load.)

There was a more noticeable difference in Geekbench 6, where the M3 models were around 40 percent faster than before. Apple is touting more middling improvements over the M2 chips — 17 percent faster single-core performance, 21 percent speedier multi-core workloads and 15 percent better GPU workloads — but it's nice to see areas where performance is even better. Really, though, these aren't machines meant to replace M2 systems — the better comparisons are how they measure up to nearly four-year-old M1 Macs or even creakier Intel models. Apple claims the M3 chip is up to 60 percent faster than the M1, but in my testing I saw just a 35 percent speed bump in Cinebench's R23 multi-core test.

MacBook Air M3 15-inch front view

When it comes to real-world performance, I didn't notice a huge difference between either M3-equipped MacBook Air, compared to the M2 model I've been using for the past few years. Apps load just as quickly, multitasking isn't noticeably faster (thank goodness they have 16GB of RAM), and even photo editing isn't significantly speedier. This is a good time to point out that the M2 MacBook Air is still a fine machine, and it's an even better deal now thanks to a lower $999 starting price. As we've said, the best thing about the existence of the M3 Airs is that they've made the M2 models cheaper. You'll surely find some good deals from stores clearing out older stock and refurbished units, as well as existing owners selling off their M2 machines.

Gaming and productivity work

I'll give the M3 MacBook Airs this: they're noticeably faster for gaming. I was able to run Lies of P in 1080p+ (1,920 by 1,200) with high graphics settings and see a smooth 60fps most of the time. It occasionally dipped into the low-50fps range, but that didn't affect the game's playability much. The director's cut of Death Stranding was also smooth and easy to play at that resolution, so long as I didn't crank up the graphics settings too much. It's nice to have the option for some serious games on Macs for once. And if you want more variety, you can also stream high-end games over Xbox's cloud streaming or NVIDIA's GeForce Now.

In addition to being a bit faster than before, the 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Airs are simply nice computers to use. Their 500-nit screens support HDR and are bright to use outdoors in sunlight. While they're not as impressive as the ProMotion MiniLED displays on the MacBook Pros, they'll get the job done for most users. Apple's quad and six-speaker arrays are also best-in-class, and the 1080p webcams on both computers are perfect for video conferencing (especially when paired with Apple's camera tweaks for brightness and background blurring). And I can’t say enough good things about the MacBook Air’s responsive keyboard and smooth trackpad – I wish every laptop used them.

MacBook Air M3 13-inch from the top
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Battery

Unfortunately, the short turn-around time for this review prevented me from running a complete battery test for these computers. At the moment, though, I can say that both machines only used up 40 percent of battery life while playing a 4K fullscreen video at full brightness for over 10 hours. Apple claims they'll play an Apple TV video for up to 18 hours, as well as browse the web wirelessly for up to 15 hours. My testing shows they'll definitely last far more than a typical workday. (I would often go three days without needing to charge the 13-inch M2 MacBook Air. Based on what I've seen so far, I expect similar performance from the M3 models.)

MacBook Air M3 13-inch top down
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Wrap-up

There aren’t any major surprises with the 13-inch and 15-inch M3 MacBook Air, but after years of continual upgrades, that’s to be expected. They’re great computers with excellent performance, gorgeous screens and incredible battery life. And best of all, their introduction also pushes down the prices of the still-great M2 models, making them an even better deal.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/macbook-air-m3-review-2024-13-15-inch-140053162.html?src=rss

MacBook Air M3 13-inch and 15-inch review (2024): Excellent yet unsurprising

It's hard to expect much from Apple's new M3-equipped MacBook Airs. The 13-inch M2 model, released in 2022, was the first major redesign for Apple's most popular notebook in over a decade. Last year, Apple finally gave its fanatics a big-screen ultraportable notebook with the 15-inch MacBook Air. This week, we've got the same two computers with slightly faster chips. They didn't even get a real launch event from Apple, just a sleepy Monday morning press release. They look the same and are a bit faster than before — what else is there to say?

Now, I'm not saying these aren't great computers. It's just that we've been a bit spoiled by Apple's laptops over the last few years. The M3 MacBook Air marks the inevitable innovation plateau for the company, following the monumental rise of its mobile chips and a complete refresh of its laptops and desktops. It's like hitting cruising altitude after the excitement of takeoff — things are stable and comfortable for Apple and consumers alike.

M3 MacBook Air vs the M2 MacBook Air

Even though they look exactly the same as before, the M3 MacBook Air models have a few new features under the hood. For one, they support dual external displays, but only when their lids are closed. That was something even the M3-equipped 14-inch MacBook Pro lacked at launch, but Apple says the feature is coming to that device via a future software update. Having dual screen support is particularly useful for office workers who may need to drop their computers onto temporary desks, but it could also be helpful for creatives with multiple monitors at home. (If you absolutely need to have your laptop display on alongside two or more external monitors, you'll have to opt for a MacBook Pro with an M3 Pro or Max chip instead.)

Both new MacBook Air models also support Wi-Fi 6E, an upgrade over the previous Wi-Fi 6 standard with faster speeds and dramatically lower latency. You'll need a Wi-Fi 6E router to actually see those benefits, though. According to Intel, Wi-Fi 6E's ability to tap into seven 160MHz channels helps it avoid congested Wi-Fi 6 spectrum. Basically, you may actually be able to see gigabit speeds more often. (With my AT&T gigabit fiber connection and Wi-Fi 6 gateway, I saw download speeds of around 350 Mbps and uploads ran between 220 Mbps and 320 Mbps on both systems from my basement office. Both upload and download speeds leapt to 700 Mbps when I was on the same floor as the gateway.)

MacBook Air M3 13-inch and 15-inch side angle
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Design and weight

Two years after the 13-inch M2 MacBook Air debuted, the M3 follow-up is just as sleek and attractive. It seems impossibly thin for a notebook, measuring 0.44 inches thick, and is fairly light at 2.7 pounds. We've seen ultraportables like LG's Gram and the ZenBook S13 OLED that are both lighter and thinner than Apple's hardware, but the MacBook Air still manages to feel like a more premium package. Its unibody aluminum case feels as smooth a river stone yet as sturdy as a boulder. It's a computer I simply love to touch.

Holding the MacBook Air M3 13-inch
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

The 15-inch M3 MacBook Air is similarly thin, but clocks in half a pound heavier at 3.2 pounds. It's still relatively light for its size, but the additional bulk makes it feel more unwieldy than the 13-inch model. I can easily slip either MacBook Air model into a tote bag when running out to grab my kids from school, but the larger model’s length makes it more annoying to carry.

For some users, though, that extra heft will be worth it. The bigger MacBook Air sports a 15.3-inch Liquid Retina screen with a sharp 2,880 by 1,864 (224 pixels per inch) resolution, making it better suited for multitasking with multiple windows or working in media editing apps. It's also a better fit for older or visually impaired users, who may have to scale up their displays to make them more readable. (This is something I've noticed while shopping for computers for my parents and other older relatives. 13-inch laptops inevitably become hard to work on, unless you're always wearing bifocals.)

While I'm impressed that Apple finally has a large, consumer-focused laptop in its lineup, I still prefer the 13-inch MacBook Air. I spend most of my day writing, Slacking with colleagues, editing photos and talking with companies over video conferencing apps, all of which are easy to do on a smaller screen. If I was directly editing more episodes of the Engadget Podcast, or chopping up video on my own, though, I'd bump up to the 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M3 Pro chip. Even then, I wouldn't have much need for a significantly larger screen.

MacBook Air M3 13-inch and 15-inch headphone jack
A lonely headphone jack that could use a USB-C companion.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

It's understandable why Apple wouldn't want to tweak the Air's design too much, given that it was just redone a few years ago. Still, I'd love to see a USB-C port on the right side of the machine, just to make charging easier in every location. But I suppose I should just be happy Apple hasn't removed the headphone jack, something that's happening all too frequently in new 13-inch notebooks, like the XPS 13.

Hardware

For our testing, Apple sent the "midnight" 13-inch MacBook Air (which is almost jet black and features a fingerprint-resistant coating that actually works), as well as the silver 15-inch model. Both computers were powered by an M3 chip with a 10-core GPU, 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD. While these MacBooks start at $1,099 and $1,299, respectively, the configurations we tested cost $400 more. Keep that in mind if you're paying attention to our benchmarks, as you'll definitely see lower figures on the base models. (The cheapest 13-inch offering only has 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD and an 8-core GPU, while the entry-level 15-inch unit has the same RAM and storage, along with a 10-core GPU.)


Geekbench 6 CPU

Geekbench 6 GPU

Cinebench R23

3DMark Wildlife Extreme

Apple MacBook Air 13-inch (M3, 2024)

3,190/12,102

30,561

1,894/9,037

8,310

Apple MacBook Air 15-inch (M3, 2024)

3,187/12,033

30,556

1,901/9,733

8,253

Apple MacBook Air 13-inch (M2, 2022)

2,570/9,650

25,295

1,576/7,372

6,761

Apple MacBook Pro 14-inch (M3, 2023)

3,142/11,902

30,462

1,932/10,159

8,139

M3 chip performance

I didn't expect to see a huge performance boost on either MacBook Air, but our benchmarks ended up surprising me. Both laptops scored around 300 points higher in the Cinebench R23 single-core test, compared to the M2 MacBook Air. And when it came to the more strenuous multi-core CPU test, the 13-inch M3 Air was around 1,700 points faster, while the 15-inch model was around 2,400 points faster. (Since both machines are fan-less, there's a good chance the larger case of the 15-inch Air allows for slightly better performance under load.)

There was a more noticeable difference in Geekbench 6, where the M3 models were around 40 percent faster than before. Apple is touting more middling improvements over the M2 chips — 17 percent faster single-core performance, 21 percent speedier multi-core workloads and 15 percent better GPU workloads — but it's nice to see areas where performance is even better. Really, though, these aren't machines meant to replace M2 systems — the better comparisons are how they measure up to nearly four-year-old M1 Macs or even creakier Intel models. Apple claims the M3 chip is up to 60 percent faster than the M1, but in my testing I saw just a 35 percent speed bump in Cinebench's R23 multi-core test.

MacBook Air M3 15-inch front view

When it comes to real-world performance, I didn't notice a huge difference between either M3-equipped MacBook Air, compared to the M2 model I've been using for the past few years. Apps load just as quickly, multitasking isn't noticeably faster (thank goodness they have 16GB of RAM), and even photo editing isn't significantly speedier. This is a good time to point out that the M2 MacBook Air is still a fine machine, and it's an even better deal now thanks to a lower $999 starting price. As we've said, the best thing about the existence of the M3 Airs is that they've made the M2 models cheaper. You'll surely find some good deals from stores clearing out older stock and refurbished units, as well as existing owners selling off their M2 machines.

Gaming and productivity work

I'll give the M3 MacBook Airs this: they're noticeably faster for gaming. I was able to run Lies of P in 1080p+ (1,920 by 1,200) with high graphics settings and see a smooth 60fps most of the time. It occasionally dipped into the low-50fps range, but that didn't affect the game's playability much. The director's cut of Death Stranding was also smooth and easy to play at that resolution, so long as I didn't crank up the graphics settings too much. It's nice to have the option for some serious games on Macs for once. And if you want more variety, you can also stream high-end games over Xbox's cloud streaming or NVIDIA's GeForce Now.

In addition to being a bit faster than before, the 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Airs are simply nice computers to use. Their 500-nit screens support HDR and are bright to use outdoors in sunlight. While they're not as impressive as the ProMotion MiniLED displays on the MacBook Pros, they'll get the job done for most users. Apple's quad and six-speaker arrays are also best-in-class, and the 1080p webcams on both computers are perfect for video conferencing (especially when paired with Apple's camera tweaks for brightness and background blurring). And I can’t say enough good things about the MacBook Air’s responsive keyboard and smooth trackpad – I wish every laptop used them.

MacBook Air M3 13-inch from the top
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Battery

Unfortunately, the short turn-around time for this review prevented me from running a complete battery test for these computers. At the moment, though, I can say that both machines only used up 40 percent of battery life while playing a 4K fullscreen video at full brightness for over 10 hours. Apple claims they'll play an Apple TV video for up to 18 hours, as well as browse the web wirelessly for up to 15 hours. My testing shows they'll definitely last far more than a typical workday. (I would often go three days without needing to charge the 13-inch M2 MacBook Air. Based on what I've seen so far, I expect similar performance from the M3 models.)

MacBook Air M3 13-inch top down
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Wrap-up

There aren’t any major surprises with the 13-inch and 15-inch M3 MacBook Air, but after years of continual upgrades, that’s to be expected. They’re great computers with excellent performance, gorgeous screens and incredible battery life. And best of all, their introduction also pushes down the prices of the still-great M2 models, making them an even better deal.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/macbook-air-m3-review-2024-13-15-inch-140053162.html?src=rss

Dune 2 kicks butt (literally)

I knew what I was getting into when I sat down for a press screening of Dune Part 2: A towering sci-fi epic best viewed on an enormous theater screen, just like Denis Villeneuve's first Dune film. What I didn't realize was that it would also give me a serious back massage — it really does kick butt. That was my experience at an Atlanta-area AMC, where the film whipped the Dolby Cinema seats into such a frenzy that, for one thrilling sequence, I felt like I was actually riding a sandworm plowing through the spice-filled desert of Arrakis.

Now, I can't guarantee you'll have the same ride at a normal theater (unless the subwoofer is cranked up obscenely high). What makes AMC's Dolby Cinema locations unique is that they feature rumbling transducers in every recliner seat, in addition to powerful dual-laser Dolby Vision projectors and enveloping Atmos sound. I've seen tons of films in AMC Dolby Cinemas since those screens began rolling out in 2017, but Dune Part 2 is the first time the haptic seats actually felt like they enhanced my moviegoing experience. When I rushed out to the bathroom in the middle of the film, I noticed that my body was still vibrating, the way you sort of feel after a deep massage by expert fingers.

Technically, you're still better off watching Dune Part 2 in IMAX theaters — it was actually filmed for that enormous format, and true IMAX theaters also deliver enough walloping low-end sound to shake your core without the need for rumbling seats. But it's hard to find full-sized IMAX screens, and for most US viewers it'll likely be easier to find a nearby AMC Dolby Cinema.

Let's be clear: I'm no fan of theater gimmicks, like the moving seats and various weather effects in 4DX cinemas. So I'm genuinely surprised how much I appreciated a heavy dose of recliner rumbling in Dune Part 2. Perhaps it's because the film is also fanbtastic — not that I expected any less from Villeneuve, a director who turned the first Dune into a cinematic feast and was also miraculously able to deliver a Blade Runner sequel that surpassed the original.

Dune 2
Photo by NIKO TAVERNISE for Warner Bros.

Dune Part 2 picks up where the first film abruptly ended, with Paul Atreides and his mother making their way through the desert with its native inhabitants, the Fremen. It's immediately clear that this isn't actually a sequel to the first film, it's genuinely a second half, with all of the action and more spectacle that many felt were lacking before.

Personally, though, I just loved being back in Villeneuve's vision of Frank Herbert's universe. As much as I appreciate the bombastic costumes and environments from David Lynch's Dune adaptation, I find this iteration far more immersive: Every room seems genuinely lived in, every custom feels like an organic outgrowth of a society that's existed for thousands of years. It's the sort of attention to detail we don't often see in films and TV today, when it's easier to shoot faux desert scenes on ILM's StageCraft set (aka "The Volume," the technology that was so thoughtlessly implemented in Quantumania).

Dune 2
Warner Bros.

Even if you don’t end up seeing Dune Part 2 in a Dolby Cinema (I swear, this isn’t an ad), it’s a film worth seeing on the big screen. Its vast scale and ambition can’t be contained on a TV, and its elaborate soundscape (including Hans Zimmer going extra hard for the score) deserves more than tinny flatscreen speakers or a mere soundbar.

Dune has always seemed like an unadaptable work, something so massive that it could only truly exist in Frank Herbert’s shroom-filled dreams. But once again, Villeneuve and his creative team have seemingly done the impossible: They’ve turned the fantasy of Dune into a cinematic reality. You owe it to yourself to pay tribute.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/dune-2-review-dolby-cinema-194415814.html?src=rss

Dune 2 kicks butt (literally)

I knew what I was getting into when I sat down for a press screening of Dune Part 2: A towering sci-fi epic best viewed on an enormous theater screen, just like Denis Villeneuve's first Dune film. What I didn't realize was that it would also give me a serious back massage — it really does kick butt. That was my experience at an Atlanta-area AMC, where the film whipped the Dolby Cinema seats into such a frenzy that, for one thrilling sequence, I felt like I was actually riding a sandworm plowing through the spice-filled desert of Arrakis.

Now, I can't guarantee you'll have the same ride at a normal theater (unless the subwoofer is cranked up obscenely high). What makes AMC's Dolby Cinema locations unique is that they feature rumbling transducers in every recliner seat, in addition to powerful dual-laser Dolby Vision projectors and enveloping Atmos sound. I've seen tons of films in AMC Dolby Cinemas since those screens began rolling out in 2017, but Dune Part 2 is the first time the haptic seats actually felt like they enhanced my moviegoing experience. When I rushed out to the bathroom in the middle of the film, I noticed that my body was still vibrating, the way you sort of feel after a deep massage by expert fingers.

Technically, you're still better off watching Dune Part 2 in IMAX theaters — it was actually filmed for that enormous format, and true IMAX theaters also deliver enough walloping low-end sound to shake your core without the need for rumbling seats. But it's hard to find full-sized IMAX screens, and for most US viewers it'll likely be easier to find a nearby AMC Dolby Cinema.

Let's be clear: I'm no fan of theater gimmicks, like the moving seats and various weather effects in 4DX cinemas. So I'm genuinely surprised how much I appreciated a heavy dose of recliner rumbling in Dune Part 2. Perhaps it's because the film is also fanbtastic — not that I expected any less from Villeneuve, a director who turned the first Dune into a cinematic feast and was also miraculously able to deliver a Blade Runner sequel that surpassed the original.

Dune 2
Photo by NIKO TAVERNISE for Warner Bros.

Dune Part 2 picks up where the first film abruptly ended, with Paul Atreides and his mother making their way through the desert with its native inhabitants, the Fremen. It's immediately clear that this isn't actually a sequel to the first film, it's genuinely a second half, with all of the action and more spectacle that many felt were lacking before.

Personally, though, I just loved being back in Villeneuve's vision of Frank Herbert's universe. As much as I appreciate the bombastic costumes and environments from David Lynch's Dune adaptation, I find this iteration far more immersive: Every room seems genuinely lived in, every custom feels like an organic outgrowth of a society that's existed for thousands of years. It's the sort of attention to detail we don't often see in films and TV today, when it's easier to shoot faux desert scenes on ILM's StageCraft set (aka "The Volume," the technology that was so thoughtlessly implemented in Quantumania).

Dune 2
Warner Bros.

Even if you don’t end up seeing Dune Part 2 in a Dolby Cinema (I swear, this isn’t an ad), it’s a film worth seeing on the big screen. Its vast scale and ambition can’t be contained on a TV, and its elaborate soundscape (including Hans Zimmer going extra hard for the score) deserves more than tinny flatscreen speakers or a mere soundbar.

Dune has always seemed like an unadaptable work, something so massive that it could only truly exist in Frank Herbert’s shroom-filled dreams. But once again, Villeneuve and his creative team have seemingly done the impossible: They’ve turned the fantasy of Dune into a cinematic reality. You owe it to yourself to pay tribute.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/dune-2-review-dolby-cinema-194415814.html?src=rss

Streaming video changed the internet forever

It’s 1995, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I entered the longest, most complex URL I’d ever seen into AOL’s web browser to view a trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson’s long-awaited film adaptation of Mortal Kombat. I found it in an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, tucked away in the bottom of a full-page ad for the film. Online marketing at the time was such an afterthought, studios didn’t even bother grabbing short and memorable web addresses for their major releases, let alone dedicated websites. (Star Trek Generations and Stargate were among the few early exceptions.)

After the interminable process of transcribing the URL from print, I gathered my family around our Packard Bell PC (powered by an Intel 486 DX and, let’s say, 8MB of RAM), hit return and waited as the video slowly came down our 33.6kbps dial-up connection. And waited. It took 25 minutes for it to fully load. After corralling my family once again, I hit play and was treated to an horrendously compressed, low-resolution version of the trailer I’d been dreaming about for months. It was unwatchable. The audio was shit. But that was the moment I became obsessed with online video.

I imagined a futuristic world beyond my boxy CRT set and limited cable TV subscription. A time after VHS tapes when I could just type in a URL and enjoy a show or movie while eating one of those rehydrated Pizza Hut pies from Back to the Future 2. The internet would make it so.

Looking back now, almost 30 years later, and 20 years after Engadget sprung to life, I realize my 11-year-old self was spot on. The rise of online video transformed the internet from a place where we’d browse the web, update our LiveJournals, steal music and chat with friends on AIM to a place where we could also just sit back and relax. For Millennials, it quickly made our computer screens more important than our TVs. What I didn’t expect, though, was that streaming video would also completely upend Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry.

If my experience with the Mortal Kombat trailer didn’t make it clear enough, video was a disaster on the internet in the ’90s. Most web surfers (as we were known as the time) were stuck with terribly slow modems and similarly unimpressive desktop systems. But really, the problem goes back to dealing with video on computers.

Apple’s Quicktime format made Macs the ideal platform for multimedia creators, and, together with its Hypercard software for creating interactive multimedia databases, it spawned the rise of Myst and the obsession with mixed-media educational software. PCs relied on MPEG-1, which debuted in 1993 and was mainly for VCDs and some digital TV providers. The problem with both formats was space: Hard drives were notoriously small and expensive at the time, which made CDs the main option for accessing any sort of video on your computer. If your computer only had a 500MB hard drive, a slim disc that could store 650MB seemed like magic.

But that also meant video had no place in the early internet. RealPlayer was the first true stab at delivering streaming video and audio online — and while it was better than waiting 20 minutes for a huge file to download, it was still hard to actually stream media when you were constrained by a dial-up modem. I remember seeing buffering alerts more than I did any actual RealPlayer content. It took the proliferation of broadband internet access and one special app from Adobe to make web video truly viable.

While we may curse its name today, it’s worth remembering how vital Macromedia Flash was to the web in the early 2000s. (We’ve been around long enough to cover Adobe’s acquisition of Macromedia in 2005!) Its support for vector graphics, stylized text and simple games injected new life into the internet, and it allowed just about anyone to create that content. HTML just wasn’t enough. Ask any teen or 20-something who was online at the time, and they could probably still recite most of The End of the World by heart.

With 2002’s Flash MX 6, Macromedia added support for Sorenson’s Spark video codec, which opened the floodgates for online video. (It was eventually replaced in 2005 by the VP6 codec from On2, a company Google acquired in 2009.) Macromedia’s video offering looked decent, loaded quickly and was supported on every browser that had the Flash plugin, making it the ideal player choice for video websites.

The adult entertainment industry latched onto Flash video first, as you’d expect. Porn sites also relied on the technology to lock down purchased videos and entice viewers to other sites with interactive ads. But it was YouTube (and, to a lesser extent, Vimeo) that truly showed mainstream users what was possible with video on the internet. After launching in February 2005, YouTube grew so quickly it was serving 100 million videos a day by July 2006, making up 60 percent of all online videos at the time. It’s no wonder Google rushed to acquire the company for $1.65 billion later that year (arguably the search giant’s smartest purchase ever).

After YouTube’s shockingly fast rise, it wasn’t too surprising to see Netflix announce its own Watch Now streaming service in 2007, which also relied on Flash for video. At $17.99 a month for 18 hours of video, with a library of only 1,000 titles, Netflix’s streaming offering didn’t seem like much of a threat to Blockbuster, premium cable channels or cinemas at first. But the company wisely expanded Watch Now to all Netflix subscribers in 2008 and removed any viewing cap: The Netflix binge was born.


It’s 2007, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. In my post-college apartment, I hooked up my desktop computer to an early-era (720p) Philips HDTV, and all of a sudden, I had access to thousands of movies, instantly viewable over a semi-decent cable connection. I didn’t need to worry about seeding torrents or compiling Usenet files (things I’d only heard about from dirty pirates, you see). I didn’t have to stress about any Blockbuster late fees. The movies were just sitting on my TV, waiting for me to watch them. It was the dream for digital media fanatics: Legal content available at the touch of a button. What a concept!

Little did I know then that the Watch Now concept would basically take over the world. Netflix initially wanted to create hardware to make the service more easily accessible, but it ended up spinning off that idea, and Roku was born. The company’s streaming push also spurred on the creation of Hulu, announced in late 2007 as a joint offering between NBCUniversal and News Corp. to bring their television shows online. Disney later joined, giving Hulu the full power of all the major broadcast TV networks. Instead of a stale library of older films, Hulu allowed you to watch new shows on the internet the day after they aired. Again, what a concept!

Amazon, it turns out, was actually earlier to the streaming party than Netflix. It launched the Amazon Unbox service in 2006, which was notable for letting you watch videos as they were being downloaded onto your computer. It was rebadged to Amazon Video On Demand in 2008 (a better name, which actually described what it did), and then it became Amazon Instant Video in 2011, when it was tied together with premium Prime memberships.

As the world of streaming video exploded, Flash’s reputation kept getting worse. By the mid-2000s, it was widely recognized as a notoriously buggy program, one so insecure it could lead to malware infecting your PC. (I worked in IT at the time, and the vast majority of issues I encountered on Windows PCs stemmed entirely from Flash.) When the iPhone launched without support for Flash in 2007, it was clear the end was near. YouTube and other video sites moved over to HTML5 video players at that point, and it became the standard by 2015.

By the early 2010s, YouTube and Amazon weren’t happy just licensing content from Hollywood, they wanted some of the action themselves. So the original programming boom began, which kicked off with mostly forgettable shows (anyone remember Netflix’s Lillyhammer or Amazon’s Alpha House? Hemlock Grove? They existed, I swear!).

But then came House of Cards in 2013, Netflix’s original series created by playwright Beau Willimon, executive produced (and partially directed) by renowned filmmaker David Fincher and starring Oscar winner Kevin Spacey (before he was revealed to be a monster). It had all of the ingredients of a premium TV show, and, thanks to Fincher’s deft direction, it looked like something that would be right at home on HBO. Most importantly for Netflix, it got some serious awards love, earning nine Emmy nominations in 2013 and walking away with three statues.

By that point, we could watch streaming video in many more places than our computer’s web browser. You could pull up just about anything on your phone and stream it over 4G LTE, or use your smart TV’s built-in apps to catch up on SNL over Hulu. Your Xbox could also serve as the centerpiece of your home entertainment system. And if you wanted the best possible streaming experience, you could pick up an Apple TV or Roku box. You could start a show on your phone while sitting on the can, then seamlessly continue it when you made your way back to your TV. This was certainly some sort of milestone for humanity, though I’m torn on it actually being a net win for our species.

Instant streaming video. Original TV shows and movies. This was the basic formula that pushed far too many companies to offer their own streaming solutions over the past decade. In the blink of an eye, we got HBO Max, Disney+, Apple TV+, Peacock, and Paramount+. There’s AMC+, powered almost entirely by the promise of unlimited Walking Dead shows. A Starz streaming service. And there are countless other companies trying to be a Netflix for specific niches, like Shudder for horror, Criterion Channel for cinephiles and Britbox for the tea-soaked murder-mystery crowd.

And let’s not forget the wildest, most boneheaded streaming swing: Quibi. That was Dreamworks mastermind Jeffrey Katzenberg’s nearly $2 billion mobile video play. Somehow he and his compatriots thought people would pay $5 a month for the privilege of watching videos on their phones, even though YouTube was freely available.

Every entertainment company thinks it can be as successful as Disney, which has a vast and beloved catalog of content as well as full control of Lucasfilm and Marvel’s properties. But, realistically, there aren’t enough eyeballs and willing consumers for every streaming service to succeed. Some will die off entirely, while others will bring their content to Netflix and more popular services (like Paramount is doing with Star Trek Prodigy). There are already early rumors of Comcast (NBCUniversal’s parent company) and Paramount considering some sort of union between Peacock and Paramount+.

Online video was supposed to save us from the tyranny of expensive and chaotic cable bills, and despite the messiness of the arena today, that’s still mostly true. Sure, if you actually wanted to subscribe to most of the major streaming services, you’d still end up paying a hefty chunk of change. But hey, at least you can cancel at will, and you can still choose precisely what you’re paying for. Cable would never.


It’s 2024, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I slip on the Apple Vision Pro, a device that looks like it could have been a prop for The Matrix. I launch Safari in a 150-inch window floating above my living room and watch the Mortal Kombat trailer on YouTube. That whole process takes 10 seconds. I never had the chance to see the trailer or the original film in the theater. But thanks to the internet (and Apple’s crazy expensive headset), I can replicate that experience.

Perhaps that’s why, no matter how convoluted and expensive streaming video services become, I’ll always think: At least it’s better than watching this thing over dial-up.


To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/streaming-video-changed-the-internet-forever-170014082.html?src=rss

Streaming video changed the internet forever

It’s 1995, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I entered the longest, most complex URL I’d ever seen into AOL’s web browser to view a trailer for Paul W.S. Anderson’s long-awaited film adaptation of Mortal Kombat. I found it in an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, tucked away in the bottom of a full-page ad for the film. Online marketing at the time was such an afterthought, studios didn’t even bother grabbing short and memorable web addresses for their major releases, let alone dedicated websites. (Star Trek Generations and Stargate were among the few early exceptions.)

After the interminable process of transcribing the URL from print, I gathered my family around our Packard Bell PC (powered by an Intel 486 DX and, let’s say, 8MB of RAM), hit return and waited as the video slowly came down our 33.6kbps dial-up connection. And waited. It took 25 minutes for it to fully load. After corralling my family once again, I hit play and was treated to an horrendously compressed, low-resolution version of the trailer I’d been dreaming about for months. It was unwatchable. The audio was shit. But that was the moment I became obsessed with online video.

I imagined a futuristic world beyond my boxy CRT set and limited cable TV subscription. A time after VHS tapes when I could just type in a URL and enjoy a show or movie while eating one of those rehydrated Pizza Hut pies from Back to the Future 2. The internet would make it so.

Looking back now, almost 30 years later, and 20 years after Engadget sprung to life, I realize my 11-year-old self was spot on. The rise of online video transformed the internet from a place where we’d browse the web, update our LiveJournals, steal music and chat with friends on AIM to a place where we could also just sit back and relax. For Millennials, it quickly made our computer screens more important than our TVs. What I didn’t expect, though, was that streaming video would also completely upend Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry.

If my experience with the Mortal Kombat trailer didn’t make it clear enough, video was a disaster on the internet in the ’90s. Most web surfers (as we were known as the time) were stuck with terribly slow modems and similarly unimpressive desktop systems. But really, the problem goes back to dealing with video on computers.

Apple’s Quicktime format made Macs the ideal platform for multimedia creators, and, together with its Hypercard software for creating interactive multimedia databases, it spawned the rise of Myst and the obsession with mixed-media educational software. PCs relied on MPEG-1, which debuted in 1993 and was mainly for VCDs and some digital TV providers. The problem with both formats was space: Hard drives were notoriously small and expensive at the time, which made CDs the main option for accessing any sort of video on your computer. If your computer only had a 500MB hard drive, a slim disc that could store 650MB seemed like magic.

But that also meant video had no place in the early internet. RealPlayer was the first true stab at delivering streaming video and audio online — and while it was better than waiting 20 minutes for a huge file to download, it was still hard to actually stream media when you were constrained by a dial-up modem. I remember seeing buffering alerts more than I did any actual RealPlayer content. It took the proliferation of broadband internet access and one special app from Adobe to make web video truly viable.

While we may curse its name today, it’s worth remembering how vital Macromedia Flash was to the web in the early 2000s. (We’ve been around long enough to cover Adobe’s acquisition of Macromedia in 2005!) Its support for vector graphics, stylized text and simple games injected new life into the internet, and it allowed just about anyone to create that content. HTML just wasn’t enough. Ask any teen or 20-something who was online at the time, and they could probably still recite most of The End of the World by heart.

With 2002’s Flash MX 6, Macromedia added support for Sorenson’s Spark video codec, which opened the floodgates for online video. (It was eventually replaced in 2005 by the VP6 codec from On2, a company Google acquired in 2009.) Macromedia’s video offering looked decent, loaded quickly and was supported on every browser that had the Flash plugin, making it the ideal player choice for video websites.

The adult entertainment industry latched onto Flash video first, as you’d expect. Porn sites also relied on the technology to lock down purchased videos and entice viewers to other sites with interactive ads. But it was YouTube (and, to a lesser extent, Vimeo) that truly showed mainstream users what was possible with video on the internet. After launching in February 2005, YouTube grew so quickly it was serving 100 million videos a day by July 2006, making up 60 percent of all online videos at the time. It’s no wonder Google rushed to acquire the company for $1.65 billion later that year (arguably the search giant’s smartest purchase ever).

After YouTube’s shockingly fast rise, it wasn’t too surprising to see Netflix announce its own Watch Now streaming service in 2007, which also relied on Flash for video. At $17.99 a month for 18 hours of video, with a library of only 1,000 titles, Netflix’s streaming offering didn’t seem like much of a threat to Blockbuster, premium cable channels or cinemas at first. But the company wisely expanded Watch Now to all Netflix subscribers in 2008 and removed any viewing cap: The Netflix binge was born.


It’s 2007, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. In my post-college apartment, I hooked up my desktop computer to an early-era (720p) Philips HDTV, and all of a sudden, I had access to thousands of movies, instantly viewable over a semi-decent cable connection. I didn’t need to worry about seeding torrents or compiling Usenet files (things I’d only heard about from dirty pirates, you see). I didn’t have to stress about any Blockbuster late fees. The movies were just sitting on my TV, waiting for me to watch them. It was the dream for digital media fanatics: Legal content available at the touch of a button. What a concept!

Little did I know then that the Watch Now concept would basically take over the world. Netflix initially wanted to create hardware to make the service more easily accessible, but it ended up spinning off that idea, and Roku was born. The company’s streaming push also spurred on the creation of Hulu, announced in late 2007 as a joint offering between NBCUniversal and News Corp. to bring their television shows online. Disney later joined, giving Hulu the full power of all the major broadcast TV networks. Instead of a stale library of older films, Hulu allowed you to watch new shows on the internet the day after they aired. Again, what a concept!

Amazon, it turns out, was actually earlier to the streaming party than Netflix. It launched the Amazon Unbox service in 2006, which was notable for letting you watch videos as they were being downloaded onto your computer. It was rebadged to Amazon Video On Demand in 2008 (a better name, which actually described what it did), and then it became Amazon Instant Video in 2011, when it was tied together with premium Prime memberships.

As the world of streaming video exploded, Flash’s reputation kept getting worse. By the mid-2000s, it was widely recognized as a notoriously buggy program, one so insecure it could lead to malware infecting your PC. (I worked in IT at the time, and the vast majority of issues I encountered on Windows PCs stemmed entirely from Flash.) When the iPhone launched without support for Flash in 2007, it was clear the end was near. YouTube and other video sites moved over to HTML5 video players at that point, and it became the standard by 2015.

By the early 2010s, YouTube and Amazon weren’t happy just licensing content from Hollywood, they wanted some of the action themselves. So the original programming boom began, which kicked off with mostly forgettable shows (anyone remember Netflix’s Lillyhammer or Amazon’s Alpha House? Hemlock Grove? They existed, I swear!).

But then came House of Cards in 2013, Netflix’s original series created by playwright Beau Willimon, executive produced (and partially directed) by renowned filmmaker David Fincher and starring Oscar winner Kevin Spacey (before he was revealed to be a monster). It had all of the ingredients of a premium TV show, and, thanks to Fincher’s deft direction, it looked like something that would be right at home on HBO. Most importantly for Netflix, it got some serious awards love, earning nine Emmy nominations in 2013 and walking away with three statues.

By that point, we could watch streaming video in many more places than our computer’s web browser. You could pull up just about anything on your phone and stream it over 4G LTE, or use your smart TV’s built-in apps to catch up on SNL over Hulu. Your Xbox could also serve as the centerpiece of your home entertainment system. And if you wanted the best possible streaming experience, you could pick up an Apple TV or Roku box. You could start a show on your phone while sitting on the can, then seamlessly continue it when you made your way back to your TV. This was certainly some sort of milestone for humanity, though I’m torn on it actually being a net win for our species.

Instant streaming video. Original TV shows and movies. This was the basic formula that pushed far too many companies to offer their own streaming solutions over the past decade. In the blink of an eye, we got HBO Max, Disney+, Apple TV+, Peacock, and Paramount+. There’s AMC+, powered almost entirely by the promise of unlimited Walking Dead shows. A Starz streaming service. And there are countless other companies trying to be a Netflix for specific niches, like Shudder for horror, Criterion Channel for cinephiles and Britbox for the tea-soaked murder-mystery crowd.

And let’s not forget the wildest, most boneheaded streaming swing: Quibi. That was Dreamworks mastermind Jeffrey Katzenberg’s nearly $2 billion mobile video play. Somehow he and his compatriots thought people would pay $5 a month for the privilege of watching videos on their phones, even though YouTube was freely available.

Every entertainment company thinks it can be as successful as Disney, which has a vast and beloved catalog of content as well as full control of Lucasfilm and Marvel’s properties. But, realistically, there aren’t enough eyeballs and willing consumers for every streaming service to succeed. Some will die off entirely, while others will bring their content to Netflix and more popular services (like Paramount is doing with Star Trek Prodigy). There are already early rumors of Comcast (NBCUniversal’s parent company) and Paramount considering some sort of union between Peacock and Paramount+.

Online video was supposed to save us from the tyranny of expensive and chaotic cable bills, and despite the messiness of the arena today, that’s still mostly true. Sure, if you actually wanted to subscribe to most of the major streaming services, you’d still end up paying a hefty chunk of change. But hey, at least you can cancel at will, and you can still choose precisely what you’re paying for. Cable would never.


It’s 2024, and I’m trying to watch a video on the internet. I slip on the Apple Vision Pro, a device that looks like it could have been a prop for The Matrix. I launch Safari in a 150-inch window floating above my living room and watch the Mortal Kombat trailer on YouTube. That whole process takes 10 seconds. I never had the chance to see the trailer or the original film in the theater. But thanks to the internet (and Apple’s crazy expensive headset), I can replicate that experience.

Perhaps that’s why, no matter how convoluted and expensive streaming video services become, I’ll always think: At least it’s better than watching this thing over dial-up.


To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/streaming-video-changed-the-internet-forever-170014082.html?src=rss

Engadget Podcast: Farewell, Apple Car

This week, Cherlynn and Devindra discuss some of the editorial changes happening at Engadget. We’ve lost some amazing colleagues, but we’re still here aiming to deliver the best tech coverage possible. As for this week’s news, we chat about the reported death of Apple’s “Project Titan” EV car project. It never felt quite real, but it still would have been fun to see.

Here’s a hot take: Maybe the Apple Car felt redundant since Tesla basically built it already. Say what you will about Elon Musk today, but Tesla certainly disrupted the car industry in all of the ways we’d expect Apple to. Agree? Disagree?


Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

  • What happened with Engadget last week: layoffs and our continued commitment to tech journalism – 0:31

  • RIP Apple Car 2014-2024 – 9:11

  • Nintendo’s successor to the Switch delayed to 2025 – 21:53

  • Microsoft opens more Xbox exclusives to PS5 and Switch – 25:24

  • Google renames AI suite, ends up in hot water over image generation – 33:47

  • Pop culture picks – 43:21

Subscribe!

Credits
Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/engadget-podcast-farewell-apple-car-133039218.html?src=rss

Engadget Podcast: Farewell, Apple Car

This week, Cherlynn and Devindra discuss some of the editorial changes happening at Engadget. We’ve lost some amazing colleagues, but we’re still here aiming to deliver the best tech coverage possible. As for this week’s news, we chat about the reported death of Apple’s “Project Titan” EV car project. It never felt quite real, but it still would have been fun to see.

Here’s a hot take: Maybe the Apple Car felt redundant since Tesla basically built it already. Say what you will about Elon Musk today, but Tesla certainly disrupted the car industry in all of the ways we’d expect Apple to. Agree? Disagree?


Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

  • What happened with Engadget last week: layoffs and our continued commitment to tech journalism – 0:31

  • RIP Apple Car 2014-2024 – 9:11

  • Nintendo’s successor to the Switch delayed to 2025 – 21:53

  • Microsoft opens more Xbox exclusives to PS5 and Switch – 25:24

  • Google renames AI suite, ends up in hot water over image generation – 33:47

  • Pop culture picks – 43:21

Subscribe!

Credits
Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/engadget-podcast-farewell-apple-car-133039218.html?src=rss

Dell XPS 16 review: Beauty and power comes at a cost

Dell's XPS 16 takes the minimalist design of the XPS 13 Plus and scales it up to a 16-inch system that's far more powerful and functional. But just like with that earlier machine, which was Dell's first attempt at implementing an "invisible" trackpad in its palm rest, there are some usability tradeoffs. It's hard not to be impressed by how sleek the XPS 16 looks — personally, I consider it one of the most attractive Windows laptops around — but power users who demand a wide variety of ports may find it lacking. (Even Apple can fit a full-sized SD card slot and HDMI port on the MacBook Pros, why can't Dell?)

It's no surprise why Dell is leaning so hard on the XPS 13 Plus's design language: That machine looked unlike any other Windows PC when it debuted two years ago. Now instead of being a separate "Plus" variant, it's talking over the XPS 13 mantle entirely. (Pour one out for the traditional XPS 13 design we've loved so much.) The XPS 14 and 16, meanwhile, are more powerful MacBook Pro competitors that fix some of the problems with the smaller model. They both have headphone jacks, for one, and they also offer a total of three USB-C ports (instead of just two) and a microSD card slot.

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

I'll admit, even though I had issues with the XPS 13 Plus, I was still wowed by the XPS 16 the instant I opened it up. Its 16.3-inch OLED screen was glorious to behold, with the barest amount of bezel around the edges. Its all-glass wrist rest and touchpad looked like a crystal clear pond that was frozen over with an elegant layer of frost. And the XPS 16’s elegant keyboard was practically begging to be typed on. It's just so damn pretty.

But will that beauty get in the way of its functionality, as it did for the XPS 13 Plus? The mere presence of more ports (and a headphone jack!) makes it clear that Dell is thinking more practically with the XPS 16. It is, after all, a potential successor to the XPS 15, a product that we've praised as one of the go-to options for 15-inch Windows notebooks.

While Dell is sticking with the invisible trackpad that I found frustrating on the XPS 13 Plus, it's a bit less of a problem on the XPS 16. For one, the actual trackpad area is far larger, stretching between the Windows key on the left and Copilot button on the right, so there's far less chance you'll miss it. Dell also offers adjustable haptics for the touchpad, which you can tweak from absolutely no feedback (a setting for the criminally insane) and to truly deep and satisfying clicks. There's still no real justification for hiding the trackpad entirely, though, and using it takes some adjustment.

I'm all for PC makers taking wild design swings, but Dell's invisible trackpad remains more of a party trick than a leap forward for computing. Techies often criticize Apple for emphasizing aesthetics over functionality, but at least I can clearly tell exactly where a MacBook's trackpad is without looking down. There's still a continuous feeling of smoothness across Apple's palm rests, so Dell doesn't have a major advantage either.

Dell XPS 16

The XPS 16's capacitive top row of buttons, which can switch between function keys and multimedia controls, is another design conundrum. Sure, it looks a bit cleaner than a typical laptop keyboard, and it allows for better airflow since Dell can fit in more cooling hardware underneath it, but it's impossible to touch type any of those keys. Even after several days of testing, I couldn't train my fingers to immediately make their way to a specific function key. That's bad for general usability, as well as for users with accessibility needs.

Most damning of all, the capacitive top row buttons completely disappear in direct sunlight (or even on a cloudy-yet-bright day (see below). You'll need to cup your hands over them or find some sort of shade to change your volume or screen brightness. Is that really worth avoiding another standard row of keys?

Dell XPS 16
Can you see any function keys here?
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

At least Dell got the keyboard right, and that's always been a highlight of the XPS lineup. The XPS 16's keyboard is luxuriously wide, with large key caps and a deep 0.3mm dish. Dell was able to make more room for those features by shaving away the space between the keys. I'll admit, it also takes some getting used to since it feels different than most other laptops, but once I suffered through a few hours of typos, I found myself enjoying the typing experience overall. For once, my hands had room to spread out.

The keyboard and trackpad experience will likely feel similar across all of the new XPS models, but it's the glorious 16.3-inch screen that sets the XPS 16 apart. You can choose between a 1080p+ LCD screen with a 120Hz refresh rate, or a 4K+ OLED panel that tops out at 90Hz. The OLED option (which our review unit came with) is the one to go for if you're looking for true color accuracy, since it supports 100 percent of the DCI-P3 gamut (the LCD model covers 100 percent of the sRGB minimum spec). And of course, it also comes with all of the advantages of OLED: High levels of contrast and inky dark black levels.

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

The XPS 16's massive display allowed me to multitask easily, and it allowed me to see an expansive timeline while working on an Audacity recording in full screen. With its high level of color accuract, everything just popped on the XPS 16, from browsing the web to watching movies on Netflix. (It also supports Dolby Vision HDR, which adds more depth to dark scenes and higher peak brightness highlights).

It's worth noting that the OLED display is rated at 400 nits of brightness, 100 nits less than the LCD model, but I didn't have any trouble reading off our review unit's screen outdoors in direct sunlight. (It's annoying that the pricier OLED can't reach a 120Hz refresh rate, but it still looks decently smooth at 90Hz.)

In addition to having a tremendous display for creative tasks, the XPS 16 also packs in enough power to get you through an overwhelming work day (and also enough to let you game a bit when you need a break). Our XPS 16 review unit was equipped with Intel's Core Ultra 7 155H, 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD and an NVIDIA RTX 4070 GPU, a configuration worth a hefty $3,399.

None

PCMark 10

3DMark (TimeSpy Extreme)

Geekbench 6

Cinebench R23

Dell XPS 16 (Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, NVIDIA RTX 4070)

7,436

4,087

2,298/13,117

1,676/14,755

Framework Laptop 16 (AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS, Radeon RX 7700S)

8,129

4,770

2,557/11,961

1,675/14,448

Razer Blade 18 (Intel i9-13950HX, NVIDIA RTX 4060)

7,326

5,009

2,708/12,874

1,900/15,442

ASUS Zephyrus G14 (2022, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, Radeon RX 6800S)

7,170

3,821

N/A

1,521/12,212

While I've seen Intel's new CPU in action on the ASUS ZenBook 14 OLED, it was far more impressive on the XPS 16, where it scored almost 3,000 points higher than the ZenBook in the Geekbench 6 CPU benchmark. The XPS 16 was also nearly twice as fast in the Cinebench 2024 benchmark when it came to multi-threaded CPU work. (These scores also make me wonder if the ASUS machine was just terribly unoptimized, since it was one of the first notebooks released with a Core Ultra chip.)

The XPS 16 also soundly bested the Framework Laptop 16, another big screen notebook targeted at creative professionals (along with being almost entirely modular). It scored over 1,000 points higher than the Framework machine in the Geekbench 6 multithreaded CPU benchmark, and it was over twice as fast in the Cinebench 2024 GPU test.

Curiously, the XPS 16 only scored a few hundred points higher in PCMark 10 compared to the 2022 XPS 15 (which used an Intel Core i7-12700H CPU and NVIDIA RTX 3050 Ti), but the advantage this year is that Intel's new chips also feature an NPU for AI tasks. The XPS 16 scored 3,109 points in the Geekbench ML test, a cross-platform benchmark for comparing machine learning capabilities. That puts it on par with an iPad Pro with Apple's M2 chips.

In Windows, NPUs mainly enable special features like Studio Effects, which can blur your background or optimize your lighting in video chats. But developers like Adobe and Audacity have committed to adding more AI-powered tools in their apps, so having a capable NPU could pay off down the line.

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

The XPS 16's raw horsepower also makes it a capable (if overpriced) gaming machine. I was able to play Halo Infinite in 1440p+ (2,560 by 1,600 pixels) with maxed out graphics settings at an average of 63fps. Cyberpunk 2077 also reached 63fps on average in 1440p, so long as I enabled NVIDIA's DLSS upscaling and avoided ray tracing. These aren't very impressive scores when compared to dedicated gaming systems, but it's certainly better than what I saw on the XPS 15 a few years ago. The XPS 16's keyboard is well suited to shooters, thanks to its large keys and tactile feedback, but it's a pain if you're playing something that frequently uses function buttons. If you're really eager to game on this system, you're better off opting for the 1080p LCD screen, since it can hit a higher 120Hz refresh rate and requires less GPU rendering power.

After living with the XPS 16 for a few weeks, I'm still genuinely impressed by its sheer beauty and power. But it's not the easiest machine to travel with, since it clocks in at 4.8 pounds. That's about the same weight as the most powerful MacBook Pro 16-inch, so it's not overkill, but is still something to consider. In comparison, the latest XPS 15 weighs 4.5 pounds, while the new XPS 14 is far more portable at 3.7 pounds. If you need a ton of screen space, you've probably already resigned yourself to having a large machine. But it's still worth considering what your actual workflow looks like. Do you truly need a 16 inch screen at all times, or would you rather have something lighter for travel that you pair with a roomier monitor at your desk?

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Another big benefit of a large machine? Tons of battery life. The XPS 16 lasted eight hours and 30 minutes in the PCMark 10 Modern Office benchmark, while the Framework Laptop 16 survived for only four hours. The ZenBook 14 OLED is still our top performer for that test — it went for 12 hours and 43 minutes — but you'll still be able to last a typical workday with the XPS 16 without searching for power.

As you can probably tell from our review unit’s cost, the XPS 16’s price is its biggest potential issue. It starts at $1,899 with the Intel Core Ultra 7, Intel Arc graphics, 16GB of LPDDR5X RAM, a 512GB NVMe SSD and a 1080p+ LCD screen. The latest XPS 15 starts at $1,099 with a 13th-gen Intel Core i7 CPU and a similar build. At the very least, it’s nice to see that Dell isn’t shipping workhorse machines with 8GB of RAM by default (like Apple and so many other companies are). Other upgrades for the XPS 16, unfortunately, will cost you dearly: It’s another $400 to get an NVIDIA RTX 4050 GPU ($600 for the 4060 and $1,100 for the 4070), bumping up to OLED costs another $300 and stepping up to 32GB of RAM is an astounding $600 extra.

Good looks don’t come cheap. But the same is true for every other premium 16-inch laptop (the MacBook Pro 16 starts at $2,499!). This isn’t necessarily a category for finding a good deal, unless you’re looking through older or refurbished models. The XPS 16 is meant for people with deep pockets who demand an enormous screen, tons of power and beautiful hardware. In that respect, it’s a total success — as long as you’re not too annoyed by its invisible trackpad.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/dell-xps-16-review-beauty-and-power-comes-at-a-cost-200513721.html?src=rss

Dell XPS 16 review: Beauty and power comes at a cost

Dell's XPS 16 takes the minimalist design of the XPS 13 Plus and scales it up to a 16-inch system that's far more powerful and functional. But just like with that earlier machine, which was Dell's first attempt at implementing an "invisible" trackpad in its palm rest, there are some usability tradeoffs. It's hard not to be impressed by how sleek the XPS 16 looks — personally, I consider it one of the most attractive Windows laptops around — but power users who demand a wide variety of ports may find it lacking. (Even Apple can fit a full-sized SD card slot and HDMI port on the MacBook Pros, why can't Dell?)

It's no surprise why Dell is leaning so hard on the XPS 13 Plus's design language: That machine looked unlike any other Windows PC when it debuted two years ago. Now instead of being a separate "Plus" variant, it's talking over the XPS 13 mantle entirely. (Pour one out for the traditional XPS 13 design we've loved so much.) The XPS 14 and 16, meanwhile, are more powerful MacBook Pro competitors that fix some of the problems with the smaller model. They both have headphone jacks, for one, and they also offer a total of three USB-C ports (instead of just two) and a microSD card slot.

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

I'll admit, even though I had issues with the XPS 13 Plus, I was still wowed by the XPS 16 the instant I opened it up. Its 16.3-inch OLED screen was glorious to behold, with the barest amount of bezel around the edges. Its all-glass wrist rest and touchpad looked like a crystal clear pond that was frozen over with an elegant layer of frost. And the XPS 16’s elegant keyboard was practically begging to be typed on. It's just so damn pretty.

But will that beauty get in the way of its functionality, as it did for the XPS 13 Plus? The mere presence of more ports (and a headphone jack!) makes it clear that Dell is thinking more practically with the XPS 16. It is, after all, a potential successor to the XPS 15, a product that we've praised as one of the go-to options for 15-inch Windows notebooks.

While Dell is sticking with the invisible trackpad that I found frustrating on the XPS 13 Plus, it's a bit less of a problem on the XPS 16. For one, the actual trackpad area is far larger, stretching between the Windows key on the left and Copilot button on the right, so there's far less chance you'll miss it. Dell also offers adjustable haptics for the touchpad, which you can tweak from absolutely no feedback (a setting for the criminally insane) and to truly deep and satisfying clicks. There's still no real justification for hiding the trackpad entirely, though, and using it takes some adjustment.

I'm all for PC makers taking wild design swings, but Dell's invisible trackpad remains more of a party trick than a leap forward for computing. Techies often criticize Apple for emphasizing aesthetics over functionality, but at least I can clearly tell exactly where a MacBook's trackpad is without looking down. There's still a continuous feeling of smoothness across Apple's palm rests, so Dell doesn't have a major advantage either.

Dell XPS 16

The XPS 16's capacitive top row of buttons, which can switch between function keys and multimedia controls, is another design conundrum. Sure, it looks a bit cleaner than a typical laptop keyboard, and it allows for better airflow since Dell can fit in more cooling hardware underneath it, but it's impossible to touch type any of those keys. Even after several days of testing, I couldn't train my fingers to immediately make their way to a specific function key. That's bad for general usability, as well as for users with accessibility needs.

Most damning of all, the capacitive top row buttons completely disappear in direct sunlight (or even on a cloudy-yet-bright day (see below). You'll need to cup your hands over them or find some sort of shade to change your volume or screen brightness. Is that really worth avoiding another standard row of keys?

Dell XPS 16
Can you see any function keys here?
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

At least Dell got the keyboard right, and that's always been a highlight of the XPS lineup. The XPS 16's keyboard is luxuriously wide, with large key caps and a deep 0.3mm dish. Dell was able to make more room for those features by shaving away the space between the keys. I'll admit, it also takes some getting used to since it feels different than most other laptops, but once I suffered through a few hours of typos, I found myself enjoying the typing experience overall. For once, my hands had room to spread out.

The keyboard and trackpad experience will likely feel similar across all of the new XPS models, but it's the glorious 16.3-inch screen that sets the XPS 16 apart. You can choose between a 1080p+ LCD screen with a 120Hz refresh rate, or a 4K+ OLED panel that tops out at 90Hz. The OLED option (which our review unit came with) is the one to go for if you're looking for true color accuracy, since it supports 100 percent of the DCI-P3 gamut (the LCD model covers 100 percent of the sRGB minimum spec). And of course, it also comes with all of the advantages of OLED: High levels of contrast and inky dark black levels.

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

The XPS 16's massive display allowed me to multitask easily, and it allowed me to see an expansive timeline while working on an Audacity recording in full screen. With its high level of color accuract, everything just popped on the XPS 16, from browsing the web to watching movies on Netflix. (It also supports Dolby Vision HDR, which adds more depth to dark scenes and higher peak brightness highlights).

It's worth noting that the OLED display is rated at 400 nits of brightness, 100 nits less than the LCD model, but I didn't have any trouble reading off our review unit's screen outdoors in direct sunlight. (It's annoying that the pricier OLED can't reach a 120Hz refresh rate, but it still looks decently smooth at 90Hz.)

In addition to having a tremendous display for creative tasks, the XPS 16 also packs in enough power to get you through an overwhelming work day (and also enough to let you game a bit when you need a break). Our XPS 16 review unit was equipped with Intel's Core Ultra 7 155H, 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD and an NVIDIA RTX 4070 GPU, a configuration worth a hefty $3,399.

None

PCMark 10

3DMark (TimeSpy Extreme)

Geekbench 6

Cinebench R23

Dell XPS 16 (Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, NVIDIA RTX 4070)

7,436

4,087

2,298/13,117

1,676/14,755

Framework Laptop 16 (AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS, Radeon RX 7700S)

8,129

4,770

2,557/11,961

1,675/14,448

Razer Blade 18 (Intel i9-13950HX, NVIDIA RTX 4060)

7,326

5,009

2,708/12,874

1,900/15,442

ASUS Zephyrus G14 (2022, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HS, Radeon RX 6800S)

7,170

3,821

N/A

1,521/12,212

While I've seen Intel's new CPU in action on the ASUS ZenBook 14 OLED, it was far more impressive on the XPS 16, where it scored almost 3,000 points higher than the ZenBook in the Geekbench 6 CPU benchmark. The XPS 16 was also nearly twice as fast in the Cinebench 2024 benchmark when it came to multi-threaded CPU work. (These scores also make me wonder if the ASUS machine was just terribly unoptimized, since it was one of the first notebooks released with a Core Ultra chip.)

The XPS 16 also soundly bested the Framework Laptop 16, another big screen notebook targeted at creative professionals (along with being almost entirely modular). It scored over 1,000 points higher than the Framework machine in the Geekbench 6 multithreaded CPU benchmark, and it was over twice as fast in the Cinebench 2024 GPU test.

Curiously, the XPS 16 only scored a few hundred points higher in PCMark 10 compared to the 2022 XPS 15 (which used an Intel Core i7-12700H CPU and NVIDIA RTX 3050 Ti), but the advantage this year is that Intel's new chips also feature an NPU for AI tasks. The XPS 16 scored 3,109 points in the Geekbench ML test, a cross-platform benchmark for comparing machine learning capabilities. That puts it on par with an iPad Pro with Apple's M2 chips.

In Windows, NPUs mainly enable special features like Studio Effects, which can blur your background or optimize your lighting in video chats. But developers like Adobe and Audacity have committed to adding more AI-powered tools in their apps, so having a capable NPU could pay off down the line.

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

The XPS 16's raw horsepower also makes it a capable (if overpriced) gaming machine. I was able to play Halo Infinite in 1440p+ (2,560 by 1,600 pixels) with maxed out graphics settings at an average of 63fps. Cyberpunk 2077 also reached 63fps on average in 1440p, so long as I enabled NVIDIA's DLSS upscaling and avoided ray tracing. These aren't very impressive scores when compared to dedicated gaming systems, but it's certainly better than what I saw on the XPS 15 a few years ago. The XPS 16's keyboard is well suited to shooters, thanks to its large keys and tactile feedback, but it's a pain if you're playing something that frequently uses function buttons. If you're really eager to game on this system, you're better off opting for the 1080p LCD screen, since it can hit a higher 120Hz refresh rate and requires less GPU rendering power.

After living with the XPS 16 for a few weeks, I'm still genuinely impressed by its sheer beauty and power. But it's not the easiest machine to travel with, since it clocks in at 4.8 pounds. That's about the same weight as the most powerful MacBook Pro 16-inch, so it's not overkill, but is still something to consider. In comparison, the latest XPS 15 weighs 4.5 pounds, while the new XPS 14 is far more portable at 3.7 pounds. If you need a ton of screen space, you've probably already resigned yourself to having a large machine. But it's still worth considering what your actual workflow looks like. Do you truly need a 16 inch screen at all times, or would you rather have something lighter for travel that you pair with a roomier monitor at your desk?

Dell XPS 16
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Another big benefit of a large machine? Tons of battery life. The XPS 16 lasted eight hours and 30 minutes in the PCMark 10 Modern Office benchmark, while the Framework Laptop 16 survived for only four hours. The ZenBook 14 OLED is still our top performer for that test — it went for 12 hours and 43 minutes — but you'll still be able to last a typical workday with the XPS 16 without searching for power.

As you can probably tell from our review unit’s cost, the XPS 16’s price is its biggest potential issue. It starts at $1,899 with the Intel Core Ultra 7, Intel Arc graphics, 16GB of LPDDR5X RAM, a 512GB NVMe SSD and a 1080p+ LCD screen. The latest XPS 15 starts at $1,099 with a 13th-gen Intel Core i7 CPU and a similar build. At the very least, it’s nice to see that Dell isn’t shipping workhorse machines with 8GB of RAM by default (like Apple and so many other companies are). Other upgrades for the XPS 16, unfortunately, will cost you dearly: It’s another $400 to get an NVIDIA RTX 4050 GPU ($600 for the 4060 and $1,100 for the 4070), bumping up to OLED costs another $300 and stepping up to 32GB of RAM is an astounding $600 extra.

Good looks don’t come cheap. But the same is true for every other premium 16-inch laptop (the MacBook Pro 16 starts at $2,499!). This isn’t necessarily a category for finding a good deal, unless you’re looking through older or refurbished models. The XPS 16 is meant for people with deep pockets who demand an enormous screen, tons of power and beautiful hardware. In that respect, it’s a total success — as long as you’re not too annoyed by its invisible trackpad.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/dell-xps-16-review-beauty-and-power-comes-at-a-cost-200513721.html?src=rss