Core i3 - Page 6 of 7

XPS 13 2-in-1 9310 Review: Great Output, Lackluster Input

Our Verdict

Under the hood, Dell’s Tiger Lake update to its XPS 13 2-in-1 convertible makes it the best iteration of the line yet. But an unreasonably shallow keyboard makes using it as a laptop a chore.

For

Strong performance
Bright screen
Clear audio

Against

Low keyboard travel
Few ports
Not upgradeable

Dell’s latest iteration on the XPS 13 2-in-1 brings

Tiger Lake

to this popular line of convertibles, complete with

Intel Evo

certification that promises a better mobile experience. That means you’ll be getting up to 11 hours of battery life, plus features like instant wake. You’ll also get Intel’s new Iris Xe integrated graphics, plus

Thunderbolt 4

ports.

That’s a lot of quality-of-life improvements (or at least quality of your PC life), and our benchmarking shows that you can expect strong performance on CPU-heavy tasks like Geekbench and video editing as well. But that arguably doesn’t matter if the laptop itself is difficult to use, especially given that convertibles sell themselves on their all-in-one nature. We had complaints about Dell’s new keyboard direction for this line of computers on last year’s model, saying it resembled Apple’s much-maligned butterfly keyboard. How does this new model hold up?

XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310) Specifications

CPU	Intel Core i7-1165G7
Graphics	Intel Iris Xe Graphics
Memory	16GB LPDDR4x-4267 MHz
Storage	512GB M.2 NVMe SSD
Display	13.4 inches, 1920 x 1200, WLED, multi-touch
Networking	AX1650 Wi-Fi 6
Ports	2x Thunderbolt 4, 1x 3.5mm combination microphone/headphone jack, 1x microSD card reader
Camera	720p
Battery	51 Whr
Power Adapter	45W
Operating System	Windows 10 Home
Dimensions(WxDxH)	11.6 x 8.2 x 0.6
Weight	2.9 pounds
Price (as configured)	$1,650

Design of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Image 1 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 5 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 6 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 7 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 8 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 9 of 9

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Dell’s latest XPS 13 2-in-1 updates last year’s model with a silver and black color scheme that makes it look largely generic on the outside, but much more premium on the inside. While the silver case does have a slightly glittery finish that gives it some texture, its noticeable hinge means it doesn’t give too sleek of a first impression –that is, until you open it up.

Opening the XPS 13 2-in-1 reveals an all-black keyboard surrounded by a comfortable black “woven glass fiber” cushion that has a leathery appearance. It feels great on my wrists while typing, and its checkerboard pattern immediately makes the laptop look boardroom-level fancy.

That impressive look means you might want to take this machine into the conference room with you, but since it’s sacrificed most I/O options in exchange for a thinner form factor, you’ll probably need to bring a dongle or two. There’s a single Thunderbolt 4 port on the laptop’s left side along with a microSD card reader, as well as another Thunderbolt 4 port on the laptop’s right side next to a 3.5mm combination headphone and microphone jack. That’s all the connectivity you’ll get out of the box, though our review unit did come with a USB Type-A to USB Type-C dongle for connecting older devices to the laptop’s Thunderbolt ports more easily.

That lack of ports does mean the 2-in-1 is impressively thin, though other recent machines have offered more connectivity while still hitting the same thinness. At 11.7 x 8.2 x 0.6 inches, it’s roughly on par with the 11.6 x 7.8 x 0.6 inch non-convertible

XPS 13 9310

, as well as the 12 x 8.3 x 0.6 inch

Zenbook Flip S

. The Dell clamshell has the same ports as the 2-in-1, while the Asus has a full HDMI connection and a USB Type-A port. The non-convertible

Zenbook 13

is slightly thinner than the XPS 2-in-1 at 11.9 x 8 x 0.5 inches, despite also having a full HDMI connection and a USB Type-A port.

The XPS 13 2-in-1 is also slightly heavy for an ultraportable, though certainly not clunky. At 2.9 pounds, it’s heavier than its 2.8-pound nonconvertible cousin, as well as the 2.7-pound ZenBook Flip S and the 2.4-pound Zenbook 13.

Productivity Performance of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

The Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 is the first Evo-certified Dell convertible, which means it packs a Tiger Lake i7-1165G7 chip and has a number of mobile optimizations such as greater than 9 hours of battery life and the ability to wake from sleep in less than 1 second. The laptop’s Evo features held up in our testing, but even beyond that, it was able to excel against other i7-1165G7 laptops like the nonconvertible XPS 13, the ZenBook Flip S and the ZenBook 13 in most tests.

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 3 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 4 of 4

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

In Geekbench, which tests general system performance, the 2-in-1 snagged 5,571 points, more than any other contender. The nonconvertible XPS 13 was the closest, with a score of 5,254 points, while the Zenbook 13 was next with 5,084 points and the ZenBook Flip S lagged behind with 3,880 points.

Both of Dell’s recent XPS options lagged behind on file transfer speeds, though. The 2-in-1 transferred 4.97GB of files at a rate of 503.1 MBps, while its nonconvertible cousin was faster at 806.2 MBps. But both Dells lagged behind Asus’ machines, as the ZenBook Flip S was much speedier at 1,297.2 MBps and the ZenBook 13 was respectable at 966.8 MBps.

However, video editing once again put the 2-in-1 in the spotlight. On our Handbrake video editing benchmark, which tests how long it takes a computer to transcode a video down from

FHD

, the XPS 13 2-in-1 was easily the fastest computer we tested, with a time of 15:52. The next quickest contender was the ZenBook 13, with a time of 17:51, while the nonconvertible XPS 13 had a time of 18:22 and the Flip S was the slowest with a time of 22:05.

New to Intel’s Tiger Lake chips are Intel Iris Xe integrated graphics, which we tested using 3DMark’s Fire Strike benchmark. The ZenBook 13 performed best here, with a score of 4,407, with the 2-in-1 coming in next with a score of 3,847. The nonconvertible XPS 13 and ZenBook Flip S rounded out the list with scores of 3,598 and 3,351 respectively.

If you’re curious how those numbers translate to games, we also played about a half hour of Overwatch on the XPS 13 2-in-1 at various settings. Despite some hiccups on the first try, the system ran mostly smoothly after a reboot. At 1920 x 1080, we were most comfortable playing on low settings, which tended to hover around 60 fps exactly and had the fewest drastic framerate drops. Medium settings will drop you down to 30-40 fps, but runs the risk of occasional dips into the 20s.

We also stress tested the XPS 13 2-in-1 by running it through Cinebench R20 on a loop 20 times. It started off with fairly strong performance at 2,056.3 points, before dropping off to an average of 1,584.8 points. During this benchmark, its CPU ran at an average clock speed of 2.53 GHz and had an average temperature of 60.3 degrees Celsius.

Display on Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The XPS 13 2-in-1 has a basic 13.4 inch LED touchscreen that, despite not being

IPS

OLED

, makes an impression thanks to a bright backlight and a 16:10 1920 x 1200 aspect ratio.

I tested the 2-in-1’s screen by watching the trailer for The Devil All the Time on it. The first thing I noticed was how bright the picture was, though this didn’t save the screen from having poor viewing angles. Regardless of how much surrounding light I had on it, the 2-in-1’s screen tended to wash out whenever I got more than a 45 degree angle away from the center. Still, the blacks were deep and the colors were accurate, if not particularly vivid.

The taller aspect ratio also proved helpful when scrolling through webpages, although that feels more intuitive in vertical orientation in tablet mode.

According to our tests, the XPS 13 2-in-1 has an average brightness of 488 nits, which was the highest among the laptops we compared it to. By comparison, the non-convertible XPS 13 had an average brightness of 469 nits, while the ZenBook Flip S and ZenBook 13 had average brightnesses of 370 nits and 375 nits, respectively.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The color rankings were a bit closer. According to our colorimeter, the 2-in-1 covers 70% of the DCI-P3 color gamut, which is indistinguishable from the conconvertibles XPS 13’s 69% score. Asus’ laptops performed generally better here, with the ZenBook 13 covering 76.1% of the DCI-P3 spectrum and the ZenBook Flip S hitting a much wider 113.1%.

Keyboard and Touchpad on Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Keyboards are often the bane of convertible laptops, and the XPS 13 2-in-1 is a great example of this form factor’s greatest weakness.

The difficulty with putting a keyboard on a convertible is making sure it doesn’t become distracting or cumbersome when the laptop is in tablet mode. One answer to this issue (while also keeping the device thin) is to heavily reduce key travel distance. This will make the keys seem flatter and less present when not in use. That seems to be the answer Dell has gone for here, but the issue with this solution is that it greatly hampers the keyboard’s comfortable usability in laptop mode.

The XPS 13 2-in-1’s keyboard easily has the shallowest travel distance of any laptop keyboard I’ve reviewed yet, which makes it difficult to feel much feedback when typing. This meant that not only did I make frequent typos while using it, but I also had to completely change up my typing style. While I usually type with all of my fingers, I found that I frequently lost track of where I was on the keyboard as I typed, and that the best way to keep track of my finger placement and thus increase speed and reduce typos was to limit my typing to just my two index fingers.

That might sound like overkill, but this strategy isn’t too dissimilar to my approach when using a touchscreen keyboard, which the XPS 13 2-in-1’s keyboard shares some similarities to due to the lack of noticeable feedback on each keypress. Even so, my speed on 10fastfingers.com tended to hover anywhere from 59 wpm to 70 wpm, with my average being closer to 80, as well as having far fewer typos.

While your mileage may vary on typing speed or accuracy, the keyboard also just isn’t very comfortable. The lack of travel distance also made the keyboard feel hard and tough to press, like I was repeatedly jamming my fingers up against a wall as opposed to pressing buttons. Even Apple’s much-maligned butterfly keyboard, which has similar issues, feels comparatively cushiony when bottoming out.

In tablet mode, I also still found myself accidentally pressing keys more often than I’d like. Keyboard input is disabled in tablet mode, so this doesn’t have any effect on your activity, but it still felt clumsy and made me wonder if the sacrifices to the keyboard’s travel distance were worth it.

With all that said, the 2-in-1’s touchpad and touchscreen input are both excellent. The laptop uses Windows precision drivers and expertly handles multi-touch gestures on either device, and the 4.4 x 2.6 inch touchpad in particular is smooth and feels almost cushiony to the touch. This mirrors the cushiony, leathery material on the laptop’s wrist rest area, which is also comfortable.

Audio of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

The XPS 13 2-in-1 has bottom-firing speakers on either side, which I tested by listening to Be Prepared from the Lion King soundtrack — the original one. I found that despite being somewhat quiet, the laptop packs impressively true-to-life audio.

Be Prepared is arguably more dialogue than music, which turned out to be a great way to demonstrate the XPS 13 2-in-1’s voice quality. Scar’s actors in this scene (he actually swaps from Jeremy Irons to Jim Cummings partway through, fun fact) sounded clear and unmuddled throughout, with a rich quality that both expressed performance and clarity. That’s despite the song’s numerous background sound effects, like hissing geysers, which did not distract and sounded as atmospheric as ever.

The backing music also didn’t lose its bass, nor did the xylophone segments sound tinny, regardless of how high I raised the volume.

That leads me to the speakers’ biggest issue: They don’t get very loud. Even at maximum volume, I had difficulty filling more than one room with sound. Still, if you’re sitting next to the laptop, it gets plenty loud for personal use.

Upgradeability of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

There’s not much point to opening the XPS 13 2-in-1, though Dell hasn’t gone out of its way to make it too difficult. Just use a Torx screwdriver- we used a T5 bit- and remove the 8 screws along the bottom, then pry off the case with a spudger.

Once you’re inside, the only component you’ll have access to is the battery. The RAM is soldered in and the SSD and networking cards are unfortunately inaccessible. That’s not too unexpected for an ultraportable convertible, but it does mean you’ll want to make sure you like your laptop’s configuration before you buy it.

Battery Life of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

The Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 is Intel Evo certified, which means Intel has verified that it has at least 9 hours of battery life on FHD screens. That held true during our testing, though the 2-in-1 faced some stiff competition from other Tiger Lake laptops.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

During our battery benchmark, which continually browses the web, streams video and runs OpenGL tests over Wi-Fi at 150 nits of brightness, the XPS 13 2-in-1 held out for 10 hours and 52 minutes. That’s significantly longer than the 8:11 battery life of the nonconvertible XPS 13, but not quite as lengthy as the 11:07 life of the ZenBook 13 or the 13:47 ZenBook Flip S’s endurance on the same test.

Heat of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

The XPS 13 2-in-1 is thin and designed to be held when in use, which makes strong heat management vital. Luckily, the XPS 13 2-in-1 more than meets the task.

We took the 2-in-1’s temperature after streaming 15 minutes of video over YouTube. The touchpad was the coolest spot, at 74.7 degrees Fahrenheit (23.7 degrees Celsius), while the keyboard (between the G and H keys) was the next coolest location at 81 degrees Fahrenheit (27.2 degrees Celsius). The bottom of the laptop jumped up to a still manageable 88 degrees Fahrenheit (31.1 degrees Celsius), while the hottest location was near the print screen key. Even this just ended up being 92.3 degrees Fahrenheit (33.5 degrees Celsius), which is still plenty comfortable to the touch.

Webcam on Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

The XPS 13 2-in-1’s 720p webcam might not match the webcam built into a dedicated tablet, but it still manages to come out above most laptop webcams, which often feel like afterthoughts.

That’s because its picture lacks any kind of noticeable grain or color inaccuracy, which means that any photos you take will appear true-to-life as opposed to distorting your picture. This extends to texture too, and the camera works well across lighting levels, able to perform well in low light and only improving more with greater ambient brightness.

The camera also intelligently swaps to a vertical orientation when using the 2-in-1 in tablet mode and holding it vertically. While your selfies aren’t bound to look as good as those taken on an iPhone, it’s good to know you can recreate that casual experience here.

The 2-in-1’s camera also has an IR sensor for Windows Hello.

Software and Warranty of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

The Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 packs the usual Windows bloat, like Netflix and Microsoft Solitaire Collection, but the real depth of this laptop’s pre-installed software is in the 13 utility programs Dell includes alongside it.

Some of these programs are helpful, like Dell Mobile Connect, which lets you access your phone’s functions and mirror its screen to your laptop. Dell Update, meanwhile, lets you update your BIOS and drivers. But plenty of these programs are either niche, or just hidden storefronts.

For instance, Dell Cinema Guide lets you consolidate your streaming apps into a single program, while “MaxxAudio Pro by Waves” attempts to use your webcam to make spatial audio more realistic on headphones. These might be helpful to some users, but most will likely end up skipping them. Most egregious are inclusions like Dell Digital Delivery, MyDell and “Dropbox promotion,” which attempt to get you to buy even more software.

Because these programs are so hit and miss, it’s very likely some users will ignore them entirely and thus miss out on the more helpful utilities. Meanwhile, competitors like Lenovo are making the utility experience more accessible by bundling programs like these together into one package — Lenovo’s is called Vantage.

We’d prefer a solution that lets us choose whether we want to turn on a movie or nighttime screen color mode without having to click on “Dell CinemaColor” and hoping that’s how we access it.

Configurations of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The XPS 13 2-in-1 9310 starts at $1,099 with options ranging up to $1,949, so it’s got plenty of configurability.

Our $1650 review unit packed an Intel Core i7-1165G7 CPU with 16GB of LPDDR4X memory and a 512 GB SSD. If you don’t quite need that much power, there are also Core i3 and Core i5 options that will cut your price down by a few hundred dollars, plus you can lower your memory and storage down to 8GB of RAM and a 256GB SSD for even more savings. Conversely, you can also choose up to 1TB of storage if you need more space.

Our review unit also used a 1920 x 1200 WLED display, but if you’re a 4K fanatic, you can also upgrade to a 3840 x 2400 WLED screen instead.

Bottom Line

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The XPS 13 2-in-1 is a powerful convertible with a bright screen and plenty of mobile convenience thanks to its Intel Evo certification. But its keyboard hampers its laptop usability.

When it comes to performance, it’s hard to beat the new 2-in-1. It leverages the same CPU as both other recent convertibles and other recent ultraportables to much greater effect in tests like Geekbench and Handbrake, though it can be on the slow end on file transfer speeds. Still, it’s in-app performance is impressive.

The Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 has also got a bright (if not overly colorful) screen, a more-than-decent webcam and clear audio for such a small size. Were it not for one glaring flaw, the new XPS 13 2-in-1 would be a no-brainer.

The biggest factor drawing this convertible down is the keyboard. While your experience may differ from mine, I found it inaccurate and uncomfortable, thanks to the smallest travel distance on keypress I’ve encountered yet. Typos were prevalent when I was using it, and I was a slower typist than usual.

While keeping the keyboard so flat does fit the tablet mode well, even this intention doesn’t succeed. I still found the keyboard distracting when using the 2-in-1 as a tablet, and still pressed plenty of keys when holding it as one (though keyboard input is disabled in tablet mode).

You can get around this flaw by using an external keyboard, sure, but that negates the point of the machine. As an all-in-one portable device, the XPS 13 2-in-1 is powerful, but doesn’t make for the most convenient, comfortable-to-use laptop.

If you’re willing to sacrifice some performance for a more comfortable keyboard while still buying a convertible, the

Asus ZenBook Flip S

promises 1.4mm of travel. It also has a 4K OLED screen at $1,450, while the XPS 13 2-in-1 doesn’t have 4K options until you hit the $1,950 price point.

If you just want an ultraportable, the

ZenBook 13

generally outperformed the nonconvertible

Dell XPS 13

in our benchmarks, aside from Geekbench, while costing much less and having a much larger (and faster) SSD. It’s a good choice if value is your prime concern, but the XPS 13 does have the trendy, taller 16:10 1920 x 1200 aspect ratio.

If a poor keyboard doesn’t bother you, then the XPS 13 2-in-1 is a clear standout here. It performs well and has great convenience features like strong audio and a good webcam. But if you want one device that can do it all, then you’re better off sticking to something that can support comfortable typing for longer periods.

Best PC Builds for Gaming, Streaming and Productivity

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

While you can buy one of the best gaming PCs and resolve your dilemma about whether to buy or build a PC that way, putting together your own system is less expensive and more rewarding. When you build a system yourself, you get total control of everything from the exact make and model of motherboard to aesthetics of the chassis and how many RGB fans you want.

Depending on what type of computer you create, you may also be saving a few hundred dollars over the cost of buying a prebuilt system. To help you assemble the best PC build for gaming or productivity on your budget, we’ve created a set of recommended parts lists below, organized by total price.

Getting High-End GPUs for Best PC Builds

However, before we get to our recommendations, we have to talk about the state of the market right now and why this is a terrible time to buy a high-end graphics card and a very difficult time to build a high-end gaming PC. At the moment, Nvidia’s new RTX 3080, 3070 and 3090 cards are top-of-the-line, but nearly impossible to get (see how and where to buy an RTX 3080, 3090 or 3070 card for your best chance). And AMD’s new Radeon RX 6000 series cards won’t be out until later this month and, at that time, could also sell out quickly.

So, while we will be recommending RTX 3000 series cards in our $1,500+ builds, know that you may have a difficult time finding one in stock right now. Your options are either to wait and keep trying, buy a prebuilt PC with the card inside or substitute in a cheaper, mid-range card, which we’ll offer some suggestions for. However, if you’re building a PC that’s about $1,250 or less, this is a perfectly good time to build as sub-$300 CPU and graphics cards aren’t getting replaced or lowering in price anytime soon.

Best PC Build Caveats

We will update this best PC builds page on a regular basis to keep pace with the changing hardware marketplace. Because availability and price of components changes so frequently, we will not have tested every single component. Nor, unless otherwise stated, are we able to gather all the parts for each suggested build together and test for clearance issues or other potential compatibility issues.

Note also that hardware prices change daily and vary by country, so the total cost for any given build may be slightly higher or lower when you read this than it was at publication time. We don’t include the cost of an operating system, because you can get Windows 10 for Free or Cheap. Nor do we include the price of peripherals such as the best gaming monitors, best gaming keyboards or best gaming mouse.

Best $500 PC Build for Gaming

(Image credit: Cooler Master)

For around $500, you can build a brand new gaming PC that has a recent-generation Intel Core i3 processor, Nvidia’s entry-level GTX 1650 graphics and 512GB of speedy solid-state storage. At this price point, you can expect AAA games to run at low to mid settings at 1080p resolution, but you will be able to at least play them. Dropping down to 720p will allow you to turn on some more eye candy.

For the best $500 PC build for gaming, we recommend a Core i3-9100F processor from Intel, which has a reasonable four cores and a max rated turbo boost of 4.2 GHz. The 9100F comes with a usable stock cooler in the box and, with a TDP of 65W, it’s not going to require a high-end power supply.

Our graphics card is the GTX 1650, because it’s the most powerful card we could fit into this budget, though you’d be better off stretching another $30 or so and getting a 1650 Super Card of some kind. This card should allow you to play games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Borderlands 3 at around an 80 fps average at 1080p and normal settings.

If you’re looking to save money on your $500 PC build, you can find chassis that are $10 to $20 cheaper than the Cooler Master MasterBox Q300L, but we’ve built in this case and found it has excellent build quality and an attractive clear side panel for the price. You can also find other B365M motherboards for around $10 less, but we went with the Gigabyte B365M DS3H because it is highly rated.

Best $800 PC Build for Gaming and Productivity

(Image credit: Antec)

If you can stretch your budget up to $800, you can build a very strong PC with the ability to play games, broadcast your gaming to Twitch (see how to stream PC games to Twitch) and even do some serious photo editing. We actually made the best $800 PC Build for Gaming a just a few weeks ago and were able to pack in a 6-core, 12-thread AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU, an Nvidia GTX 1660 Super graphics card and 1TB of speedy PCIe storage, all in a case with an attractive RGB front panel.

For the best $800 PC build for gaming and productivity, we chose AMD’s Ryzen 5 3600 as our processor. For just $175 (at pub time), this CPU offers 6 cores and 12 threads with a maximum boost clock of 4.2 GHz and a competent Spectre Stealth cooler in the box. With that many threads, streaming games via OBS with x264 compression was really smooth, with a degradation of only about 10 percent in frame rates over playing the games alone.

At pub time, cards based on the Nvidia GTX 1660 Super graphics card were the best we could fit into our budget for the best $800 PC build. With this card, we were able to play games like Borderlands 3 at Badass settings and Shadow of the Tomb Raider at its highest settings while getting average frame rates in the high 40s and 50s at 1080p. Less demanding games such as Grand Theft Auto V pulled over 60 fps at very high settings.

We picked the WD Blue SN550 SSD because it’s a speedy NVMe SSD for the money. Priced at $105 at pub time and often on sale for less, the 1TB capacity of this drive provides plenty of room for games and media files while offering sequential read and write speeds of 2,400 and 1,750 MBps, respectively.

The Antec Dapper Dark Phantom DP301M case is a great value. While it’s not full-featured enough to make our list of the best PC cases, it is easy to build in and has excellent cable management, along with a tempered-glass side panel for under $60. It also has an attractive RGB light panel on its front, though you can only control it using a button and not via software.

Best $1000 PC Build for Gaming

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

With a $1,000 budget, our best PC build for gaming keeps the same solid Ryzen 5 3600 CPU but provides a much faster graphics card in the Nvidia RTX 2060, which is the cheapest card to support hardware ray tracing. It can also take advantage of Nvidia’s Broadcast software for filtering out unwanted background noise and blurring the messy home office behind you during video calls.

In addition to upgrading the graphics card from what we had on our $800 PC build, we doubled our RAM to 32GB, went with the speedy XPG SX8200 Pro drive, which tops our list of the best SSDs, and chose the very attractive NZXT H510 as our case.

We also got a Bronze 80+ rated power supply, which should be more efficient and reliable over the long haul than some cheaper models that don’t make the Bronze designation. At this price point, you wont’ get one of the best power supplies, but the Cooler Master MWE 600 should be more than competent.

The MSI MPG B550 Gaming Plus is a nice upgrade over the Gigabyte B550M DS3H we chose for the $800 Build. MSI’s board has USB 3.1 Gen 2 on the board and some RGB lighting to boot. If any of these components are sold out or have gone up in price, you can cut costs by going with a cheaper SSD, a non-Bronze PSU or a lower-cost B550 motherboard.

Best $1500 PC Build for Gaming

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Jumping up to a $1,500 budget, our best PC build for gaming incorporates a 6-core, 12-thread Intel Core i5-10600K, the best CPU overall right now, and a speedy Nvidia RTX 3070 card. Now, as we stated above and elsewhere, you may have a hard time getting an RTX 3070 card at this time. The card listed above is just one of many that third-party RTX 3070s that’s out of stock; grab whatever one you can.

If you can’t get an RTX 3070 right away, your options are to delay your purchase, buy one of the best prebuilt gaming PCs, or settle for a lower-end card like the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT or, if you can find one, an RTX 2060 Super. If you need to build right now, your best bet might be to stick with integrated graphics for a few weeks or pop in an old video card you have on hand from a prior build.

We also have adequate cooling and power to do some overclocking (see how to overclock Intel processors) and push our CPU past its stock boost speed of 4.8 GHz. In our tests, we were able to get the Core i5-10600K up to 5-GHz and you should be able to do the same with the CoolerMaster MasterLiquid ML240L V2 240mm AIO cooler on board. However, spending another $50 on the Corsair H100i, our pick for best CPU cooler, might yield even better results.

To accommodate the 10th Gen processor, we went with the MSI Pro Z490-A motherboard, which promises excellent passive cooling, including a built-in heatsink for the M.2 slot, great cable management for the SATA ports and support for both 2.5 Gbps Ethernet and USB 3.2.

We’ve stuck with the same RAM and SSD from our $1000 Build, simply because they offer the best combination of performance and value here. Available in black or white, the Lian Li Liancool II has plenty of room for our 240mm radiator and any extra case fans you’d like to add. We love the sleek DRGB lights on the front panel and the in-depth cable management options. This is one sleek looking case.

Best $2000 PC Build for Gaming

(Image credit: NZXT)

For the best $2000 PC build for gaming, there’s an elephant in the room that we can’t ignore. We’re recommending Nvidia’s brand new RTX 3080 (see our RTX 3080 review) as the GPU, because you can fit it into the $2,000 budget, if you can actually find one selling for the MSRP of $799. However, RTX 3080 cards are nearly impossible to buy right now (see where to buy an RTX 3080).

However, if you can’t get an RTX 3080 card today, you have the same choices that we mentioned with our $1,500 build. You can delay your build entirely, waiting for either more 3080 stock or a Radeon RX 6800 XT, you can buy a prebuilt PC with RTX 3080 inside or you can temporarily live with either integrated graphics or whatever old graphics card you have lying around from a prior build.

To go along with the graphics card, we’ve chosen an Intel Core i7-10700K CPU. This unlocked chip has 8 cores, 16 threads and the ability to overclock up to 5 or 5.1 GHz when paired with an adequate AIO cooler like the NZXT Kraken X63. That makes the 10700K a much better value than the Core i9-10900K which currently costs $100 more.

Even though this is a $2,000 PC build, we still have to make some compromises to hit our price point. That means that we’re sticking with 32GB of RAM rather than 64GB and, instead of getting a speedy 2TB SSD, we’re using the fast XPG SX8200 Pro as our boot drive and pairing it with a cheap Team Group GX2 SATA drive for additional storage.

If we had a higher budget, we could put some money into purchasing a more glamorous case, but instead we’ll go with the classy but affordable NZXT H510i, which provides plenty of space for fans in an elegant black or white design. You may, however, want to add a few dollars to buy your own front case fans.

Dell XPS 13 (late-2020) review: greatness, refined

If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

This is an easy review. Today, we’re looking at the XPS 13 9310, Dell’s best-in-class 13-inch ultraportable laptop. It’s identical to the Dell XPS 13 9300, which I reviewed back in April, in every way, except one: it has Intel’s new 11th Gen Tiger Lake processors.

The new XPS 13 starts at $999.99. The base model includes a Core i3-1115G4, 8GB of RAM, 256GB of storage, Intel’s UHD integrated graphics, and a 1920 x 1200 non-touch display. But the most exciting feature of the Tiger Lake line is Intel’s new Iris Xe integrated graphics. Models with those graphics start at $1,099.99 ($1,077.99 as currently listed) and include a quad-core Core i5 1135G7 or i7-1165G7. You can go up to a $2,499.99 model with 32GB of RAM, 2TB of storage, and a 3840 x 2400 touchscreen. I tested a $1,649.99 configuration (listed at $1,616.99 as of this writing), which includes 16GB of RAM and 512GB of storage.

If you haven’t read my review of the XPS 13 9300 from earlier this year, go ahead and do that now because everything I said about the exterior of that machine also applies here. TL;DR: it’s really good. The chassis is made of CNC-machined aluminum, the logo is stainless steel, the screen is Corning Gorilla Glass 6; the palm rests are a woven-glass fiber with a unique texture. It’s lustrous, sturdy, and just about the best build quality you’ll find in a laptop. It’s also portable (2.8 pounds and 0.58 inches thick). The speakers are adequate, the keyboard is snappy and comfortable, and the touchpad is smooth and effortless to click. Another highlight is the 16:10 display with a 91.5 percent screen-to-body ratio, which gives you more vertical space than most consumer laptops (which are 16:9). You’ll notice the difference.

Two main downsides: the port selection is meh (two USB-C ports with Thunderbolt 4, a headphone jack, and a microSD reader), and the 2.25mm 720p webcam isn’t great, delivering a blurry and washed-out picture. It also doesn’t include a privacy shutter or kill switch.

Like I said, check out the 9030 review if you want to read about the laptop’s exterior in more detail. What we’re focusing on here is the new processor’s performance and whether the 1165G7 (and its Xe graphics) are an improvement over the Ice Lake generation. The answer is yes. But it’s not an emphatic or particularly excited yes.

It’s also one of the first systems to be verified through Intel’s new Evo program. By giving a laptop an Evo badge, Intel claims to be certifying that it offers a number of benchmarks for “premium” thin-and-light laptops — Tiger Lake processors, Thunderbolt 4, Wi-Fi 6, all-day battery life, fast charging, quick boot time, and, perhaps most importantly, solid real-world performance.

In day-to-day tasks, the 1165G7 certainly measured up. It was never overwhelmed by my legions of Chrome tabs, apps, and occasional Spotify, YouTubing, and Zoom calls overtop — no slowdowns or delays. I never once heard the fans spin up during daily use and never felt any heat either. If you’re using this configuration for work or school, you shouldn’t experience any performance issues.

I saw a slight improvement in content creation as well. The 9310 took 10 minutes and 43 seconds to complete our real-world media test, which involves exporting a 5-minute, 33-second 4K video in Adobe Premiere Pro. That’s a bit faster than any laptop with Ice Lake CPUs and integrated graphics completed the task. The MacBook Pro 13 with Iris Plus graphics took 11 minutes and 26 seconds, and the Surface Laptop 3 took just over 15. It’s also better than we’ve seen from other 1165G7 systems. Asus’ ZenBook 14 was about a minute slower.

Here’s the thing: when it comes to productivity, this XPS is good. It’s an uptick over its predecessor (and I’d be very worried if it wasn’t). On the other hand, the 9300 (and other Ice Lake systems) were already quite good. The difference in Chrome tab loading speed and Premiere Pro export time isn’t earth-shattering enough that I can see it making a difference in the lives of the average XPS 13 user. If you already own a comparable Ice Lake system or are considering buying one to cut costs, I won’t urge you to upgrade.

Folks for whom it may be worth upgrading are those who want to play some light games. On titles with lighter textures (the only ones you’d want to run on a laptop like this), the XPS 13 did a noticeably better job than its predecessor. It averaged 111fps on Rocket League’s maximum settings without dipping below 100; the 9300 put up 70fps with a minimum of 41. The 9310 also won out on League of Legends, averaging 205fps while its predecessor averaged low 160s. (Of course, the XPS 13’s screen is only 60Hz, so your experience in these games won’t change. You’ll see 60fps on either machine.) And it beat its predecessor on Overwatch, averaging 48fps on Ultra settings to the 9300’s low-40s average — a 10-ish percent increase.

More good news for Intel: those results also put Tiger Lake slightly ahead of AMD competitors when it comes to gaming. The IdeaPad Slim 7, with AMD’s eight-core Ryzen 7 4800U, averaged 46fps on the same Overwatch settings. (You won’t notice a difference that small while you’re actually playing.)

Unfortunately, demanding games in 1080p are still out of reach for this machine. The 9310 chugged through Shadow of the Tomb Raider at an average of 22fps. That’s a respectable increase from the Ice Lake XPS, which averaged 17fps on the same title, but you can’t really play the game (at native resolution) on either machine. So while Tiger Lake will give you a better experience with some of your titles, it probably won’t expand the range of games you can play. (We do expect gaming performance to get better over time.)

I think this form factor is also close to the limits of what it can cool. Throughout my gaming session, the CPU hit 100 degrees Celsius at a few points and spent a lot of time in the high 90s. (The keyboard was toasty throughout but not quite uncomfortable.) That’s hotter than I’d like to see, and I worry that if Dell continues with this design and Intel’s chips don’t make substantial gains in efficiency, the XPS 13 is going to hit a wall when it comes to performance.

Finally, battery life was a pleasant surprise. I got nine hours and 15 minutes using this XPS as my primary work driver at around 200 nits of brightness. That time doesn’t top the category, but it does mean this should comfortably last you a full work or school day. The caveat is that I had all the various battery-saving things on — the Windows Battery Saver profile, Dell’s Battery Extender, Intel’s Display Power Savings, etc. When I ran a trial on the Windows Better Performance profile with Battery Extender off, I could expect closer to six hours. I didn’t notice a performance difference between those two scenarios when I was just doing office work and streaming, so I recommend that you do the battery-saving stuff if you want all-day juice.

This XPS has a performance edge over what we’ve seen so far in 2020. The Tiger Lake processor is a respectable step forward, particularly in graphics performance. People who work with graphics and video will probably find the increase most useful. For everyone else who’s mostly using the XPS 13 for school and office tasks, both Ice Lake and Tiger Lake systems should be fine — upgrading isn’t essential. Gaming performance clearly varies widely by title — gamers may see a substantial difference or may see very little. But if you mostly play lighter fare that Ice Lake was already tearing through (which is probably the case for a good chunk of folks who are gaming on the XPS 13), you won’t see the improvement on this screen.

So overall, the XPS 13 is still an excellent laptop. It’s still one of the best you can buy. But I’m not as starstruck as I was at the beginning of this year, because the competition is creeping up. Zenbooks, Swifts, Yogas, Envys, and Spectres have all made strides in design, build, nifty features, and performance this year — and there are ARM-based Macbooks on the way. There are quite a few releases on the horizon that are looking more and more like the XPS 13.

This is the best laptop of 2020 with the fewest compromises and the fewest risks. But Dell will need to stay creative if it wants to keep XPS at the top of the stack in 2021.

Photography by Monica Chin / The Verge

Processor market shares: AMD reached highest level since 2007

AMD’s processor market shares continue to grow. The market researcher Mercury Research estimates that the chip manufacturer in the third quarter 2020 on a total share of 20, 4 percent came – mobile, desktop and server included. All end customer CPUs added up, i.e. desktop models (20, 1 percent) and notebooks (20, 2 Percent), AMD has the 20 er mark cracked.

It went ahead within a year, especially with notebooks, where AMD’s market share was 5.5 percent or 37, 4 percent increase (Q3 / 2019: 14, 7 percent). For desktop processors, it was 2.1 percentage points or 11, 6 percent high (Q3 / 2011: 18 percent). The exact numbers from Mercury Research are broken down on the website Tom’s Hardware .

AMD’s CPU market shares broken down by segment (source: Mercury Research) Quarter Q3 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2019 Desktop 20,1% 19, 2% 18, 0% Mobile 20, 2% 19, 9% 14, 7% Server 6.6% 5.8% 4.3% Desktop + Mobile 20, 2% 19, 7% 15,8th% Total (x 86) 22, 4% 18, 3% 14, 6% Ryzen ensures high proportions For AMD, the development looks bright before the market launch of the Ryzen – 5000 – generation: The The share of end customer CPUs was recently so high in the middle 2011. In the case of notebooks, 20, 2 percent represents a best value. According to market researchers, AMD mainly sold Ryzen processors, while Intel was able to improve the delivery situation for entry-level models (Celeron, Pentium, Core i3). Otherwise the plus at AMD would have been even greater.

If you include server CPUs, the chip manufacturer was in the third quarter 2020 for a total of 22, 4 percent (+ 6.3 percentage points vs. Q3 / 2011) – maximum value since the end of the Athlon – 64 – era 2007. Mercury Research includes network infrastructure and edge servers in its own statistics, which benefits Intel with Atoms and Xeon-D. AMD was 6.6 percent in Q3 / 2020 – plus 2.3 percentage points or 37, 5 percent compared to the previous year.

In the pure server comparison Epyc vs. Xeon SP should AMD the third quarter 2019 with a share of high 12, have completed 1 percent. This corresponds to a plus of 16, 3 Percent or 1.7 percentage points in just three months (Q2 / 2020: 10, 4 percent).

(mma)

AMD CPU Market Share Best Since 2007: Sprint to Notebooks

Data on the third quarter 2020 by Mercury Research show how AMD has gained market share in all sectors of the microprocessor market x 86. Compared to last year, big leap in notebook CPU sales, for a share in the client market of 20,2%.

by Manolo De Agostini published 04 November 2020 , at 07: 59 in the Processors channel

AMD EPYC RyZen

AMD reached the highest market share since Q4 2007 in the microprocessor compartment x 86 , driven by increasing sales in all sectors, in particular the area of notebooks , where the ‘company has registered a new record .

This is the summary of Mercury Research’s analysis on the third quarter of this year , in which it is certified (but the last quarterly had been very clear about it) how the company led by Lisa Su is collecting the fruits of years of work and the opportunities left by Intel due to delays in setting up the 10 nanometers and the absence of new architectures for a long period of time.

The new data arrive on the eve of the market debut of the new Ryzen microprocessors 5000 for desktop systems, capable (according to AMD) to outperform Intel in all respects, including gaming. Intel will not respond to Ryzen 5000 except during the first quarter 2021 with Rocket Lake CPUs, effectively leaving AMD the Christmas season to extend its run.

Let’s get to the heart of Mercury Research’s analysis, starting from the “macro” data, that is the general share in the CPU sector x 86 (all data excludes the IoT sector): AMD rises to 22, 4% with an increase of 4.1 percentage points compared to the second quarter and 6.3 points over the year last. As written at the beginning, it is the highest data since Q4 2007.

Moving to the desktop sector only , AMD’s share reached 20, 1% , an increase of 0.9 percentage points over the previous quarter and +2.1 over the same period last year. AMD’s share in the desktop sector grows from 12 quarters in a row, and the new figure is the highest since the fourth quarter 2013.

According to analyst Dean McCarron, “ a little more than 60 % of AMD’s largest desktop sales come from what I would consider the high-end (e.g. not APUs or dual-cores, so Matisse and a small fraction of Pinnacle processors Ridges that remain.) I would say that 100% of the gain comes from these solutions as for the wing band, because Intel’s high-end has been flat and AMD’s has grown, while Intel’s entry-level business has surpassed that of AMD . Core i3, Pentium and Celeron grew very strongly and if you limited the share to entry-level only, Intel would have gained in the third trimes three “.

Regarding the notebook sector, AMD reached 20, 2% of the market x 86 , with an increase of 0.3 percentage points on the second quarter and 5.5 points over the past year . Again, the company’s share grows from 12 consecutive quarters and has surpassed the previous record of 19, 9% of Q2 2020.

It is precisely in the context of laptops that AMD is running, and it is not a small sector when you think it makes up about the 60% of the client market. “I would say Intel’s greatly improved availability of Core i3, Pentium and Celeron CPUs has had an impact , as AMD’s quarterly earnings were much lower than in previous quarters, especially in the mobile segment: the share grew by 0.3 points versus 2.9 points in the second quarter and 0.8 points in the first quarter, so growth is slowing and Intel appears to be in the process of catching up . I expect the market to continue to become more competitive in the coming quarters, especially in the low-end, due to the increased availability of entry-level solutions from Intel, “explained analyst McCarron.

The market share in the client sector x 86 , then the set of desktop and notebook CPUs, touched 20,2%, an incremen by 0.5 points on the previous quarter and 4.3 points on Q3 2019, marking a new high from Q2 2011.

And i server? The situation here is a moment more complex in numerical terms. AMD bases its market estimates on data from IDC, but it only takes into account single- and dual-socket platforms, cutting out four-socket and multi-socket servers, network infrastructure and edge computing. So the data that AMD usually reports is different from Mercury Research estimates, much higher and probably already in double digits.

That said, for the third quarter

Mercury Research analysts point to a 6.6% server share for AMD, an increase of 0.8 points on Q2 2020 and 2.3 points on Q3 2019 . “AMD has gained share in servers, but if only EPYC and Xeon Scalable were compared, last quarter’s number would have been around 12, 1% against 10, 4%, a pretty big gain, “McCarron explained. “This is mainly because Intel’s Xeon SP business fell due to a cloud recession and a degree slump in sales to businesses and governments, while AMD’s server solutions set a new revenue record and are still growing. . Entering the strong growth of Intel’s Atom SoC, AMD’s gain is much less and stops at 0.8 points. “

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War requires up to 250 GB of free hard disk space

As on 23. August 2019 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was released First person shooter in addition to the scandalous story also caused a stir due to the required hard drive space. With full 150 GB presented itself to the 16. Part of the Call-of-Duty series as extremely memory-hungry. Also in the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, which will start from 13. November 2019, the Activision development studio is not exactly reluctant regarding the resources required on the hard drive. As can be seen from the published system requirements, the latest part of the series in the Ultra RTX specifications requires at least 250 GB of free space.

Data protection notice for YouTube

At this point we would like to show you a YouTube video. Protecting your data is important to us: YouTube sets cookies on your computer by embedding and playing them, with which you can possibly be tracked. If you want to allow this, just click the play button. The video will then be loaded and then played.

Your Hardwareluxx team

From now on, display YouTube videos directly

Whoever screws down the requirements comes with 175 GB out. If you only want to play the multiplayer of the new Call of Duty with the minimum requirements, you only have to 50 GB of free space available. An Intel Core i3 – 3700 or an AMD FX – 6300 out. When it comes to graphics cards, all shooter fans should have at least one NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 or GTX 1650 or a Radeon HD 7950. The required 8 GB of RAM should hardly be a problem. The operating system can also be used with both Windows 7 and Windows 10 – each in the 64 – bit version – can be accessed.

As soon as the demands are higher and gamers want to use ray tracing, an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 recommended. Since this is very rare at the moment and is difficult or impossible to obtain in retail, at least a GeForce GTX 970 or better be built into your own computer. Otherwise, high FPS can hardly be implemented on displays that have a high refresh rate. For the supreme discipline “Ultra RTX”, in addition to an RTX 3080, an Intel i9 9900 K or an AMD Ryzen 3700 X required.

System requirements

Minimum:

Windows 7 64 – Bit (SP1) or Windows 10 64 – Bit (Version 1803 or higher)
Intel Core i3 – 4340 or AMD FX – 6300
8 GB RAM
50 GB (multiplayer only), 150 GB (all game modes)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 / GeForce GTX 1650 or Radeon HD 7950

Recommended:

Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update)
Intel Core i5 – 2500 K or AMD Ryzen R5 1600 X processor
12 GB RAM
150 GB hard disk space
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 / GTX 1660 or Radeon R9 390 / AMD RX 580

Recommended (Raytracing ):

Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update)
Intel i7 – 8700 K or AMD Ryzen 1800 X
16 GB RAM
150 GB hard disk space
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2500

Competition:

Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update)
Intel i7 – 8700 K or AMD Ryzen 1800 X
16 GB RAM
150 GB hard disk space
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 / RTX 3070 or Radeon RX Vega 64 Graphics

Ultra RTX:

Windows 10 64 Bit (latest update)
Intel i9 – 8700 K or AMD Ryzen 3700 X
16 GB RAM
250 GB hard disk space
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080

Whether you’re building a new PC or upgrading a system that now struggles to compete with today’s best gaming pcs, the best RAM kit for your money depends on the platform you pick and the software you plan to run. Every desktop sold in recent years uses DDR4 RAM and supports at least DDR4-2133 speeds. That’s the easy part.

The hard part is understanding when faster memory matters when choosing the best RAM. If you’re running an Intel-based PC with an add-in graphics card, most programs won’t respond in a meaningful way to faster or slower system memory. A few will scale upward with data rate to the highest possible speeds, including some games and programs like the file compression program 7-Zip.

On the other hand, AMD’s Zen-based architectures are affected much more by memory speeds. The company’s “Infinity Fabric” (the internal bits that link various blocks of logic inside of Ryzen CPUs) is tied to the speed of the memory bus. You can read about this in detail here. So, increased memory speeds on Ryzen- and Threadripper-based platforms often translate to real-world performance gains. In games, that means faster frame rates at mainstream resolutions like 1080p, as well as smoother performance at higher resolutions.

Lastly, memory speed makes a big difference if you’re gaming on an integrated graphics engine using either Intel or AMD processors. Since the graphics silicon baked into CPUs doesn’t generally have its own dedicated memory (as discrete graphics cards do), upping the clock rate of your system memory also generally increases performance (though the ultimate speed-up varies greatly from game to game). So, the best RAM for those kinds of systems is faster RAM if mainstream gaming is important to you. Keep in mind, however, that if you have to pay top dollar for the fastest RAM to get playable framerates, you’re better off buying slower system memory and an add-in graphics card.

In short, the best RAM for you is faster memory if you’re gaming without a dedicated graphics card, if you’re running an AMD Ryzen system, and in some edge cases with Intel chips. But if you don’t care so much about squeezing the best performance possible from your hardware, DDR4-2133 memory should be drop-in compatible with any modern PC platform.

For many people, 16GB is the current sweet spot. Programs get bigger and messier over time, 1080p and 4K video are now common, PC game files are always expanding, and websites get more complex by the day. While heavy multitaskers and power users may need 32GB to keep from tapping into much slower disk-based virtual memory, 16GB is far more affordable, and sufficient for gaming and mainstream productivity tasks.

Memory speeds advertised as part of an XMP profile might not be achievable on AMD-based motherboards. XMP is a sort of automatic memory overclocking setting that was designed for Intel motherboards. Some motherboard makers offer BIOS settings to help you achieve these faster speeds on AMD motherboards. But these settings aren’t present on all boards, and they don’t always work when they are present.

Want the fastest RAM speed on an Intel platform? Get a K-series CPU. Non-K-series Core i7 and Core i5 processors have the same DDR4-2666 limit as that imposed by Intel’s lesser H370 and B360 chipsets. Core i3 processors have a lower limit of DDR4-2400. While most boards lack XMP, those that have it will more easily configure XMP memory with enhanced timings.

Best RAM You Can Buy Today

Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-4400

1. Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-4400 (2x 8GB)

Best High-Speed 16GB Kit

Superb 19-19-19-39 DDR4-4400 timings

Outperforms competing DDR4-4600 kits

Reasonably priced

RGB-free design

Pricier than the closest-performing RGB kit

Top XMP profiles require specially-selected motherboards

For those with a board that can handle its top speed and games or workloads that can take advantage of it, Patriot’s Viper Steel DDR4-4400 16GB kit is an excellent high-performance option that also skips RGB.

Keeping the kit simple has allowed Patriot to equip the Viper Steel with enhanced timings that dramatically boost the performance of certain programs, including some games. Since the market for pure gaming rigs and focused builds designed for singular tasks is still competitive, the Viper Steel DDR4-4400 sits comfortably in this niche.

Read: Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-4000 Review

Patriot Viper RGB DDR4-3600

2. Patriot Viper RGB DDR4-3600 (2x 8GB)

Best High-Speed RGB 16GB Kit

XMP timings at DDR4-3600

Overclocking capability

Excellent latency-tuning capacity

Compatible with motherboard RGB software

Patriot RGB software free for download

LED diffuser causes color merging/bleeding

Patriot bucks the trend of pairing cosmetic features with mainstream DRAM ICs, instead pushing data rates up to 4,133 megahertz (MHz) on its Viper RGB. This DDR4-3600 kit is only $10 more than the white-LED version and several dollars cheaper than competing products with similar latency. That makes it a great value at this speed, though slower kits have greater pricing advantages.

The fastest DDR4-3600 kit we’ve tested, Patriot’s Viper RGB DDR4-3600 kit provides great value to buyers who want both go (overclocking capability) and show (RGB LEDs).

Read: Patriot Viper RGB DDR4-3600 Review

Patriot Viper 4 DDR4-3400

3. Patriot Viper 4 DDR4-3400 (2x 8GB)

Best Overclocker Value 16GB Kit

Top overclocking from a mid-priced 16GB two-DIMM kit

Still pricier than budget kits

It may not have fancy software-controlled RGB lights, and there are faster kits on offer for higher prices, as well as budget-priced kits that cost less. But for many who don’t want or need their memory to glow like a rainbow, Patriot’s Viper 4 DDR4-3400 C16 16GB (PV416G340C6K) sits in a sweet spot of price and performance.

The kit includes two 8GB modules rated with XMP values of DDR4-3400 CAS 16-18-18-36. Those last three number aren’t great, but it’s important for DDR3 lovers to remember that 16 cycles at 3400 MHz data rate have the same latency time as 8 cycles at 1700 MHz data rate. This kit is an excellent DRAM overclocking value, while also providing some stylish red heatsinks to make sure your memory looks good enough to show off in your windowed case.

Read: Patriot Viper 4 DDR4-3400 Review

Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3200

4. Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3200 (4x 8GB)

Best 32GB RGB Kit

Excellent performance at rated (XMP) settings and across multiple data rates

Supports both Corsair and third-party RGB utilities

Reasonably priced

Didn’t reach DDR4-4000

White light diffusers cast pastel hues

Builders who put a premium on aesthetics often face a tough choice between the best-looking and best-performance parts. Corsair brings a bit of both in its Vengeance RGB DDR4-3200 kit, providing four 8GB DIMMs (32GB total) at CAS 16 timings for a price that’s reasonably moderate given recent market trends. And this kit isn’t all about looks; it has the goods where benchmarks are concerned, too.

Superb performance and moderate pricing earns the Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3200 our Editor’s Choice Award for RGB-equipped memory, though its pastel colors might be off-putting to a few builders.

Corsair’s kit beat our previous favorite, the HyperX Predator RGB, in overall performance at every speed, barring the DDR4-4000 setting that it didn’t reach. Corsair also provides a better-performing XMP value and a lower price than the competition, making the Vengeance RGB Pro the uncompromised winner here, and an excellent addition to your next RGB build.

Read: Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3200 Review

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

5. Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200 (2x 16GB)

Best Two-DIMM 32GB Kit

Supremely inexpensive DDR4-3200

Competitive performance

No RGB

Some buyers want RGB

Buyers within the performance PC market really have only two excuses to stop at DDR4-3200: Either they’re trying to save money, or they’re trying to coax good performance from a system that really can’t be pushed much farther.

For those in either camp, but the former in particular, Patriot Patriot’s 32GB Viper Steel 3200 kit slams the competition on price, undercutting its closest rival in our analysis by nearly 18%. And that’s without any performance penalties, beyond those of having the same mid-market timings as its competitors.

Even though the Patriot Viper Steel’s performance victories are less than 1% overall, its low price puts it well ahead of even the least-expensive competitor in our basic performance-to-price comparison. Value seekers within the performance PC market have just found their new champion.

Read: Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200 Review

Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3600 C18 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

6. Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3600 C18 (2x 32GB)

Best Two-DIMM 64GB Kit

Superb all-around performance

Great capacity for content creators

Perfect for boards with two RAM slots

Little headroom for performance improvement

The Viper Steel DDR4-3600 C18 is a terrific memory kit for content creators or professionals that don’t have the luxury of many DDR4 memory slots. Performance isn’t a problem because the memory kit excels at everything that you throw at it.

Patriot practically binned these modules to the max, so overclocking headroom is almost non-existent, even if you’re willing to go crazy on the voltage. But running the Viper Steel at the advertised frequency should be more than sufficient in the majority of scenarios.

Advertisement

Patriot prices the Viper Steel DDR4-3600 C18 64GB memory kit very attractively, too. At $239.99, the memory kit is neither cheap nor expensive. The Viper Steel finds itself right in the middle of the competition. Given it stands tall in terms of performance, that makes this kit easy to recommend for those who need speed and density in a dual-DIMM scenario.

Read: Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3600 C18 2x32GB Review

G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 C16 2x16GB (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

7. G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 C16 2x16GB

Best High-Speed 32GB Kit for Manual Tuning

Good XMP performance

Excellent headroom for manual tuning

A little on the expensive side

It’s easy to write G.Skill’s Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 C16 kit off if you don’t look beyond the published specifications. but the RAM kit proved its performance and value in different workloads during our review.

And the real value is hidden below the heat spreader – the memory modules use Samsung B-die ICs. With a bit of patience and time, you can optimize the timings for better performance. As always, your overclocking mileage will vary, but we got our sample down to CL13.

The Trident Z Neo memory modules come with XMP timings of 16-16-16-36, which aren’t the worst in the memory world. However, with DRAM voltage set to 1.45V, we tightened the timings down to 13-14-14-35 before the kit became unstable.

Read: G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 C16 2x16GB Review

Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 (Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

8. Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 (2x 8GB)

Best 16GB Kit for H370 And B360

Big performance benefit from dual-rank DIMMs

No secondary XMP for DDR4-2400-limited motherboards

Top non-XMP setting is DDR4-2133

Intel’s H370 and B360 chipsets instruct its Core i5 (and above) processors to lock out any memory settings above DDR4-2666, which is particularly unfortunate in a market that’s moved way past that setting. DDR4-3200 is now mainstream within the enthusiast PC market, and is often treated as such by the memory sellers that cater to enthusiasts and gamers. Thus, the best way to get a top-performing brand new DDR4-2666 kit would be to dial the way-back machine to 2016 and get the high-performing kit from that time. Barring that, Corsair has a workaround.

Corsair’s easy workaround for the performance problem that is Intel’s DDR4-2666 limit was to use older, low-density chips to populate its 8GB DIMMs with two rank, rather than the single rank of its competitors. The best part is that they did this without a significant increase in price. We recommend it for anyone whose XMP-compatible platform has a maximum DDR4-2666 data rate, which includes most retail boxed H370 and B360 motherboards.

Read: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 Review

Radiator Specification
Dimensions (H x W x D)	397 x 120 x 27 (mm)
Radiator material / finish	Aluminum / Black spray painted
Base material / finish	Copper / Nickel plated
Fan Specification
Dimensions	120 x 120 x 25 (mm)
Speed @ 100% PWM	2000 RPM
Bearing technology	Rifle
Motor technology	4-pole fan motor
Rated Voltage	12 V
Input current	0.30 A
Input power	3.6 W
Connector	4-pin PWM
Cable length	400 mm
Lifespan (h / 25°C)	80,000
Socket Compatibility	Intel 1200 / 2066 / 1150 / 1151 / 1155 / 2011(-3) Square ILM AMD AM4 / AM3(+)
Warranty	Three Years

Our Verdict

For

Against

XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310) Specifications

Design of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Productivity Performance of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Display on Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Keyboard and Touchpad on Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Audio of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Upgradeability of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Battery Life of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Heat of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Webcam on Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Software and Warranty of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Configurations of Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (9310)

Bottom Line

Getting High-End GPUs for Best PC Builds

Best PC Build Caveats

Best $500 PC Build for Gaming

Best $800 PC Build for Gaming and Productivity

Best $1000 PC Build for Gaming

Best $1500 PC Build for Gaming

Best $2000 PC Build for Gaming

Data protection notice for YouTube

System requirements

Check Also

World of Warcraft: Shadowlands gets a new release date

The hardware requirements for Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War indicate that if we want to get the best graphics quality from the game, we must have really top equipment, and also 250 GB of disk space.

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War – Sony exclusive Zombies mode

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War – Sony exclusive Zombies mode

Watch via our Vimeo channel (below) or over on YouTube at 2160p HERE

Dynabook announced the introduction of new Portégé X laptops in Poland 30 LJ and Portégé X 40 – J with 11 Intel Tiger Lake-U generation .

Best RAM You Can Buy Today

1. Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-4400 (2x 8GB)

2. Patriot Viper RGB DDR4-3600 (2x 8GB)

3. Patriot Viper 4 DDR4-3400 (2x 8GB)

4. Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3200 (4x 8GB)

5. Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200 (2x 16GB)

6. Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3600 C18 (2x 32GB)

7. G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 C16 2x16GB

8. Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 (2x 8GB)