notebook - Page 5 of 24

HP Spectre x360 13-inch (2021) Review: Slim Machine, Squat Screen

Our Verdict

The HP Spectre x360 has an attractive design and long battery life, though the 16:9 display feels dated. Its only performance downside is in bursty workloads, which we saw some issues with.

For

Sliim, attractive chassis
Solid speakers for a laptop
Long battery life
Still squeezes in a USB Type-A port

Against

16:9 display is dated, especially as a tablet
Not great with bursty performance
Difficult to upgrade

Sure, the

best ultrabooks and premium laptops

are tools, but you also want your computing device to look good. Design is important, after all.

The HP Spectre 360 13t ($949.99 to start, $1,249.99 as tested) continues to be one of the best-looking Windows devices out there, with a refined, thin design and clever port placement with both Thunderbolt 4 and USB Type-A.

But a tool also has to do the job well. With a 16:9 screen, the Spectre x360 can still, well, compute, but it doesn’t show as much as some others. And then there’s the question of whether or not this laptop can tame Intel’s latest Tiger Lake processors.

Design of the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

HP’s Spectre lineup has had an aesthetic that would make a jeweler proud for the last few years. The Spectre x360 13t is no different there. The laptop, made from silver aluminum (it comes in black or blue for an extra cost), and has a reflective, modernized HP logo that I think the company should really start using on all of its products. But what makes it stand out are the cut-off corners near the back hinge, one of which has the power button while the other houses a Thunderbolt 4 port.

Those corners are always accessible, and easy enough to reach whether the laptop is being used as a notebook or a tablet.

The 13.3-inch display has very thin bezels, but looks short and squat with a 16:9 aspect ratio. As more notebooks move to taller 16:10 displays, like the

Dell XPS 13

and

MacBook Pro

or a 3:2 display like the

Microsoft Surface Laptop 3

, it makes the whole design here, not just the screen, seem a little cramped and dated. (HP does have a 3:2 Spectre x360 with the 14-inch version of this laptop, which we hope to be able to test soon.)

HP has packed in a full-size keyboard, including a row for home, page up, page down and end keys, and the rest of the construction is aluminum. This thing is built solid.

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

While thicker notebooks may have more ports, HP hasn’t given up on USB Type-A here, which I really appreciate. The left side of the notebook has a USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A with a drop-jaw hinge to squeeze it into the chassis, as well as a 3.5 mm headphone jack. The right side has two Thunderbolt 4 ports (one in the top-right corner), a kill switch for the camera, and a microSD card reader.

The Spectre x360 13 measures 12.08 x 7.66 x 0.67 inches and weighs 2.8 pounds. That makes it ever so slightly lighter than the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 9310, which is 2.9 pounds and 11.6 x 8.15 x 0.56 inches. The Asus ZenBook Flip S UX371 is a slighter 2.7 pounds and 12 x 7.3 x 0.6 inches. Apple’s MacBook Pro, a clamshell, is 3 pounds and 11.97 x 8.36 x 0.61 inches.

HP Spectre x360 13-inch Specifications

CPU	Intel Core i7-1165G7
Graphics	Intel Iris Xe Graphics
Memory	16GB LPDDR4X-4266
Storage	512GB PCIe NVMe SSD with 32GB Intel Optane
Display	13.3-inch, 1920 x 1080 IPS touchscreen
Networking	Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX 201 (2×2) and Bluetooth 5
Ports	2x Thunderbolt 4, USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A, Headphone/microphone jack, microSD card reader
Camera	720p IR
Battery	60 WHr
Power Adapter	65 W
Operating System	Windows 10 Home
Dimensions(WxDxH)	12.08 x 7.66 x 0.67 inches / 306.83 x 194.56 x 17.01 mm
Weight	2.8 pounds / 1.27 kg
Price (as configured)	$1,249.99

Productivity Performance HP Spectre x360 13-inch

The Spectre is the latest machine we’ve tested with Intel’s Core i7-1165G7 “Tiger Lake” mobile processors. Our configuration of the 2-in-1 has paired that with 16GB of RAM, a 512GB Intel SSD and 32GB of Intel Optane memory.

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)

On comparable versions of Geekbench 5, an overall performance benchmark, the Spectre had a single core-score of 1,574 and a multi-core score of 4,749. The ZenBook Flip S had a higher multi-core score (4,952) but a lower single-core score (1,512) with the same CPU. The Dell XPS 13 2-in-1, also with the same Core i7, has a far higher multi-core score (5,639) but a lower single-core score (1,532). On the same test, the MacBook Pro had a multi-core score of 5,925 and a single-core score of 1,316, and that was through Rosetta emulation that can decrease performance.

The Spectre transferred 25GB of files at a rate of 452.62 MBps, edging out the XPS 13 2-in-1. But the ZenBook Flip S out-performed here at 979.37

It took the Spectre x360 18 minutes and 39 seconds to complete our Handbrake test, which transcodes a 4K video to 1080p. That’s faster than the ZenBook, though the XPS 13 2-in-1 had it beat, while the MacBook Pro was more than five minutes faster than the Spectre, even through Rosetta 2 emulation.

We also ran the Spectre through our stress test, which runs Cinebench R23 twenty times on a loop. The results were largely in the high 3,000’s, occasionally peaking over 4,000. Towards the end, it was a bit erratic. The CPU ran at an average of 2.52 GHz and an average temperature of 64.88 degrees Celsius (148.78 degrees Fahrenheit). HWInfo’s monitoring software detected several instances of cores’ power limits being exceeded.

Display on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch Specifications

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Our review unit has a 13.3-inch, 1920 x 1080 touchscreen with a 16:9 aspect ratio. That seems a bit squat, even outdated, compared to some competitors, which have moved on to 16:10 or 3:2 displays that are taller and show more of your work at once. It’s also more natural for tablet mode.

Part of my testing included watching the trailer for The Falcon and The Winter Soldier. Some explosions early in the trailer showed some intense burst of orange, though some scenes on a football field had fireworks that didn’t pop against the night sky as much as I would have liked to see. It’s usable, but not the best I’ve seen.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The Spectre’s IPS display covered 67.7% of the DCI-P3 color gamut, in the range of the XPS 13 2-in-1 (70%). We reviewed the ZenBook Flip S with an OLED display that hit 113.1% (you can get the Spectre with OLED; see configurations below). Apple’s 13-inch MacBook Pro reached 78.3%.

HP’s display measured an average of 391 nits of brightness, beating the ZenBook, but falling short of the MacBook Pro and the XPS 13 2-in-1.

Keyboard and Touchpad on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The keyboard on the Spectre x360 is comfortable, with a satisfying click (at least, as far as membranes go), that bounces up in a responsive fashion.

My bigger issue was the wristrest. The deck is a bit short, so my hands hung off it while I typed. I hit 88 words per minute on the 10fastfingers.com typing test, which is a bit low for me; I’m generally in the high 90’s. It wasn’t because of the keyboard, but because I was floating my wrists in the air. A taller screen would require a longer deck, which could help solve this.

I would prefer that the 4.4 x 2.2 inch touchpad be a bit taller, but there’s also not any room for that on the device. Still, the vertical height was slightly limiting, and I often hit the edge of it. That said, the precision touchpad is sensitive enough that I was able to perform gestures, even with four fingers, without any issues.

Audio on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

For such a trim device, HP is offering up decent quality sound. The bottom-firing speakers, tuned by Bang & Olufsen, were clear with detailed sound. In Yellowcard’s “City of Devils,” the mix of violins, guitars, cymbals and drums were well leveled and textured, though, like many laptops, the bass wasn’t particularly perceptible.

The included Bang & Olufsen Audio control app helped that a bit when I switched to the Bass equalizer preset, but I preferred the overall mix of the default settings, which better highlighted the violins and vocals.

Upgradeability of the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

There are only two visible screws (a pair of Torx) on the bottom of the Spectre x360. If only things were that easy.

There are four additional Phillips-head screws beneath one of the laptop’s two adhesive-backed rubber feet. Removing the foot could potentially rip or tear it, making it difficult to replace later, so the average person probably shouldn’t attempt to open the laptop up.

Per HP’s maintenance manual for this laptop, the battery, Wi-Fi card and SSD are all replaceable if you do get in there, though the RAM is soldered down.

For most people, we recommend ensuring you get the configuration with enough storage and RAM to future proof it for you. Enthusiasts who can risk that rubber foot will find some upgradeable and repairable parts inside.

Battery Life on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

This 2-in-1 has some endurance. While it comes with a nice USB Type-C charger with a braided cable, you should be able to go quite a while without it. The Spectre ran for 12 hours and 32 minutes on our battery test, which continuously browses the web, runs OpenGL tests and streams video over Wi-Fi, all at 150 nits of brightness.

It outlased both the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1, which ran for 10:52, and the Asus ZenBook Flip S, which lasted 8:11. But Apple’s MacBook Pro, powered by its incredibly-efficient M1 processor, lasted four hours longer at 16:32.

Heat on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Beyond internal temperatures, we took skin temperatures while we ran our Cinebench R23 stress test.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The center of the keyboard, between the G andH keys, measured 36.2 degrees Celsius (97.16 degrees Fahrenheit), though the keyboard was a cooler 29 degrees Celsius.

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

The hottest point on the bottom of the laptop hit 41.7 degrees Celsius (107.06 degrees Fahrenheit).

Webcam on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

The 720p camera in the Spectre x360’s bezel produces blurry images and doesn’t capture color well. In a shot at my desk, My blue eyes looked dark, my orange shirt muted, and the whole image was covered in visual noise.

Is it usable? Sure. But you may also want to consider buying best webcams for improved image quality. There’s a kill switch on the right side of the laptop for extra privacy when you’re not using the webcam.

Software and Warranty on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Most of the software preinstalled on the Spectre is from HP itself. The most important is HP Command Center, a one-stop-shop to choose between performance presets, network prioritization for applications and system information. The others include HP Support Assistant (which I think could be rolled into Command Center), HP Privacy Settings and a link to the user manual for the laptop. There’s also MyHP, which gives you easy access to your serial numbers and a bunch of short tutorials for Windows and Microsoft Office.

Of course, there’s still the bloat that comes with most Windows 10 installs, like Spotify, Hulu, Roblox and Hidden City: Hidden Object Adventure.

HP sells the 13-inch Spectre x360 with a 1-year warranty that can be extended at an additional cost.

HP Spectre x360 13-inch Configurations

We tested the Spectre x360 with an Intel Core i7-1165G7, 16GB of RAM, 512GB of storage with 32GB of Intel Optane memory and a 1920 x 1080 IPS touchscreen. All of that comes for $1,249.99.

The base model is $949.99, with an Intel Core i5-1135G7, 8GB of RAM, a 1080p screen and a 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.

Many of the components are configurable. You can go up to a

UHD OLED touch screen (add $180), or opt for FHD

OLED

(add $30) or even WLED with Sure View Privacy (a $60 extra.) Storage goes up to a 2TB PCIe SSD. If you don’t want the silver color, you can pay $10 for black or $20 extra for blue.

The most expensive version, with a “Poseidon blue” chassis, Windows 10 Pro and the maximum specs runs $1,869.99.

Bottom Line

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

In its latest iteration, the 13-inch HP Spectre x360 continues to be an attractive choice, quite literally. The Spectre remains one of the best-looking notebooks on the market, and it’s sleek and trim. Its battery life is impressive, and the Bang & Olufsen audio is pretty good for a 2-in-1 laptop.

While many ultrabook owners may not use their laptops for the most intense workloads, those who do may notice the issues we saw in our Cinebench gauntlet. That’s not a huge issue for day-to-day use, but enthusiasts or power users may seek other options.

If you’re looking for a convertible 2-in-1, the go-to continues to be the

Dell XPS 13 2-in-1

, which offers strong performance and a taller, 16:10 display that works better as a tablet. You will, however, give up the full-sized USB Type-A port. HP also offers a comfier keyboard, in this author’s opinion, though a short wrist rest mars the typing experience.

But if a mix of style and endurace strikes your fancy, the Spectre x360 should be under consideration, though I’m hoping we can check out the 14-inch, 3:2 version soon.

Intel Fires Back at Apple’s M1 Processors With Benchmarks

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

In November 2020, Apple announced M1. By the end of the year, it announced three devices — the MacBook Air, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and the Mac Mini — that ditched Intel’s processors.

Those devices received largely positive reviews based on benchmark performance and battery life. But Intel has also released its 11th Gen “Tiger Lake” processors, and after several months of silence, now it’s firing back at Apple. Slides from the Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker shows how it tested, and why it thinks Windows 10 laptops can beat back Apple’s ARM-based solution.

Below, we are publishing the slides in full (minus a title slide, be sure to look through the galleries), as well as our analysis. Intel shared benchmarks for the chips, but as with all vendor-provided benchmarks, take them with a grain of salt.

Intel’s Performance Claims

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 2 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 3 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 4 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

For pure productivity performance, Intel’s testing eschews typical benchmarks. Sure, it used Principled Technologies’ WebXPRT 3, but the Microsoft Office 365 tests appear to be based on Intel’s internal RUG (real-world usage guideline) tests. Intel claims the 11th-Gen system, an internal whitebox with an Intel Core i7-1185G7 and 16GB of RAM, is 30% faster overall in Chrome and faster in every Office task. This largely goes against what we saw in our 13-inch

MacBook Pro with M1 review

, where benchmarks showed M1 to be largely on the same level, if not better.

For what it’s worth, in most laptops, we’ve seen the companies that make them opt for the Core i7-1165G7. We’ve only seen the 1185G7 in one production laptop, the

MSI Prestige 14 Evo

Intel also claims that the i7-1185G7 is six times faster than M1 on AI-tools from Topaz Labs and Adobe Premiere, Photoshop and Lightroom functions. (Again, using the company’s internal RUG tests).

Gaming was a mix, with Intel and Apple trading blows with integrated graphics. But Intel also got a little snarky, placing Apple at 0 frames per second for a number of games that don’t currently work on macOS and the M1 CPU. Apple’s ecosystem hasn’t been a hardcore gaming platform for years now, especially after 32-bit app support was cut in macOS 10.15 Catalina.

It’s unclear how many people are playing some of the listed games, like Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020, Halo: The Master Chief Collection, Crysis Remastered or Red Dead Redemption 2 on Intel’s integrated Xe graphics, but yes, the point is made – Windows PCs have far larger collections of triple-A games.

Intel Evo vs. Apple M1

Image 1 of 3

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 2 of 3

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 3 of 3

(Image credit: Intel)

When Intel revealed

Evo

, its second-generation upgrade to Project Athena to make the best portable devices, it included a number of experiences from studies that it believed would create the best notebooks. So when evaluating M1, it used those tests.

Intel claims that the M1 in the MacBook Pro it tested failed eight out of 25 tests it uses, including “Switch to Calendar” in Outlook, “start video conference” in Zoom, and “Select picture Menu” in PowerPoint. Intel’s workloads don’t explain how these are run, but they’re also simple tasks that work quite well on just about any modern processor, so they’re odd choices. (I had plenty of Zoom conferences while testing the MacBook Pro with no issue.)

Interestingly, in the configurations document at the end of the slides, Intel shows that it switched to a MacBook Pro with 8GB of RAM, rather than the 16GB model it tested for performance.

In battery life, Intel switched to an Intel Core i7-1165G7 notebook, the Acer Swift 5, rather than sticking with the Core i7-1185G7 in the whitebook it used for performance testing. It also tested a MacBook Air. They ran Netflix streams and tabs and found the MacBook Air came ahead with a six-minute difference.

Intel didn’t list battery life for the MacBook Pro.

In our tests,

that beat Intel PCs by hours.

The Form Factor Argument

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Intel)

There has been an interesting debate among Mac users for a long time about whether or not Apple should add a touchscreen to MacBooks. It hasn’t, and left that on the iPad.

Per Intel’s slides, a Windows machine offers more choice, including 2-in-1s, desktops, small form-factor desktops, desktops with touchscreens, and even easels. This is somewhat odd, considering Apple does offer a small desktop (the Mac Mini), as well as various desktops in the iMac and the Mac Pro, and Apple has promised that its own chips will land there, too. Touchscreens and convertible 2-in-1s are the big areas where Apple lacks.

The second slide about choice shows the various form factors and configurations. And yes, Apple’s laptops are limited to clamshells. Interestingly, Intel only includes the MacBook Pro on this list, and not the MacBook Air, which starts at $999 with an M1, 8GB and 256GB of memory. That’s less than the Dell XPS 13 listed at $1,499 and has a higher display resolution. However, it is right that the MacBook Pro can get expensive at higher configurations, and certainly about the fact that Apple’s port selection on the 13-inch MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air is lacking.

(Image credit: Intel)

Intel also took a dig at the M1’s display capabilities. The slide is right – both the M1 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air only support one external display, up to 6K at 60 Hz. (This isn’t the case for the Mac Mini desktop, which also has an HDMI 2.0 port.)

Some users have found a workaround by using DisplayLink drivers and docks, but it is a weak point, especially for the Pro-branded notebook.

Compatibility

Apple includes Rosetta 2 to emulate x86 software on the Mac, but some software just doesn’t support M1. Intel includes games, again, as a weak point, as well as a lack of support for Boot Camp.

It also suggests many accessories won’t work. This is somewhat true. The M1 laptops don’t support external graphics docks, and some software won’t work on the Mac. (For instance, Razer recently announced a docking station that doesn’t have RGB lighting control because Synapse doesn’t currently work on the Mac).

Perhaps the Xbox controller wasn’t fully supported when Intel tested, but PS5 and Xbox Series X/S controller support showed up in the beta for macOS 11.3, so it’s on the way.

It’s definitely showing a disadvantage to early adoption, though many people use headphones, hard drives and other accessories that don’t require software to use.

Intel has made a similar argument about software. To a degree, again, this is true; not all software works. In my experience, I found anything that ran through Rosetta 2 seemed fairly seamless. Since then, more native software has become available or announced. For instance, Box, which is listed as incompatible, has called the issue a “High priority investigation.”

The other angle here is that the Mac has a devoted league of developers that make software only for Apple’s platform. So, in that case, people using M1 are likely to use some of that software, or Apple’s alternatives. Others, like Google Drive, are also available on the web.

On the Adobe front, Lightroom currently runs natively on M1, while the company has promised native versions of its other software.

So Intel does make some points here, but it seems far less about the M1’s capability and more about being an early adopter.

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 2 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 3 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 4 of 4

(Image credit: Intel)

Notes and Disclaimers

Intel included these, so we’re including them here for the sake of transparency.

The company makes some good points about the current state of Apple’s chip initiative, especially if you demand a specialized form factor or play games casually.

Intel’s performance claims need to be taken with a certain grain of salt, as they’re in Intel-created tests and not industry-standard benchmarks. The fact that it switched out between the Pro and the Air for battery life (as well as the Core i7-1185G7 and Core i7-1165G7) also shows an incomplete picture.

Intel’s thoughts on software and compatibility get a bit tricky. Early adopters may feel a bit of a sting, but it’s been rapidly improving, and much of the software that doesn’t work at all may be counteracted with Apple software.

The slides paint two pictures: Yes, Apple has work to do in this transition, and the touchscreen, multi-display support, and limited port selection need to be fixed. But the fact that Intel went through putting these slides together also shows that it sees a formidable opponent worth comparing its chips against, suggesting a competitive future for notebooks.

Image 1 of 5

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 2 of 5

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 3 of 5

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 4 of 5

(Image credit: Intel)

Image 5 of 5

(Image credit: Intel)

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Our 14 favorite gadgets and hacks for working at home

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

It’s been nearly a year since many of us started working from home due to the pandemic, and if you haven’t yet adjusted your workspace to accommodate your needs, then it’s probably time to get to it. Whether you’ve set yourself up in the guest bedroom, on your living room couch, or in a walk-in closet, you may need a little extra to make it possible to type comfortably, meet online, or just concentrate. Sometimes it means buying a new desk, lamp, or monitor; sometimes it just means finding a household item that will make life a little easier.

We asked the staff of The Verge what they’ve been using to make their work-at-home situations more practical, more pleasant, or simply more possible. Here are some of the answers we got.

Tech products

Apple AirPods Pro

Photo by Chris Welch / The Verge

I basically live in my AirPods Pro during the day. They let me listen to music, catch Slack pings, and take calls, all with the added benefit of some noise cancellation to help drown out outside noise. Their range is also great for my apartment — I can be anywhere in the house without losing connection to my computer, which is really nice if I need to step away from my desk to, say, microwave my second cookie of the afternoon. —Jay Peters

Apple AirPods Pro

Phone as webcam

Turning my phone into a fully functional webcam was surprisingly easy and cost-effective. I already had a Nexus 6P sitting around, and with these steps that work on most Android and iOS devices, I now have a phone-meets-webcam. It’s got video quality that’s roughly on par with a standalone webcam that would probably cost $200 right now. What makes it even better is that my iOttie car mount connects perfectly to my glass desk, so I don’t have to awkwardly arrange the phone to get a good angle on my face. —Cameron Faulkner

Satechi Aluminum Multi-Port Adapter V2

Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge

While I’m working off a MacBook, this Satechi hub has been a lifesaver for plugging in podcasting mics and any other gear I’m suddenly using on my own. —Adi Robertson

Satechi Aluminum Multi-Port Adapter V2

Rechargeable batteries

I go through tons of batteries with my flash when photographing at home and I find that these rechargeable batteries last so much longer than regular single-use batteries. Not only do they save me trips to the store and keep more batteries out of the landfills, but they also save me money in the end. —Amelia Holowaty Krales

Panasonic AA NiMH 2,550mAh rechargeable batteries

CalDigit TS3 Plus Thunderbolt 3 dock

Photo: CalDigit

This Thunderbolt 3 dock lets me switch my whole desk setup (keyboard, mouse, speakers, Ethernet, display, external storage drives, and microphone) from one computer to another by just moving one cable. I plug all of my peripherals into the dock, and then just use the one Thunderbolt cable to hook up my Mac or whatever Windows machine I need to test at the moment. It also has a very useful high-speed SD card slot on the front, which is great for whenever I need to dump images from my camera onto my computer. —Dan Seifert

CalDigit TS3 Plus Thunderbolt 3 dock

Google Nest Wifi Router

Photo by Vjeran Pavic / The Verge

Last year, I installed a Google Nest Wifi router with a mesh point. I’ve had a lot of networking equipment over the years, and this was immediately the best. And it was extremely easy to set up. —TC Sottek

Google Nest Wifi router

Ultrawide monitor

Photo: LG

An ultrawide monitor is the best purchase I ever made for working from home. It’s so big I have to physically lean from side to side to see it all. I can have three full-size windows up at the same time or countless windows overlapping. (Right now, I have nine different windows open and it doesn’t feel cramped at all.) Mine is an old LG 34UM94-P that they don’t make anymore — it looks like there is an updated version, the LG 34BL850-W. However, any monitor that is at least 34 inches in size with 1440p or better resolution is what I recommend. —Dan Seifert

LG 34BL850-W 34-inch QHD monitor

Home office helpers

Fully Jarvis Bamboo Standing Desk

Photo: Jarvis

We heard from three staffers about this desk:

The Jarvis from Fully was recommended to me by my colleague Christian Mazza, and it’s been far and away my best work-from-home purchase in years. It’s rather pricey by desk standards, but cheap by standing desk standards.

Assembly was far less cumbersome than I thought it would be. Just having the option to sit or stand, when you’re cooped up in your room or home office all day, makes a big difference. Plus it looks great and has some nice customization options for color and desk material. —Nick Statt

I love my Jarvis desk for all of the same reasons Nick does. If you’re considering one, I highly recommend spending the extra $20 for the extended-range height, which lets the desk get lower for sitting and higher for standing, and the extra $35 for the programmable height switcher, which lets you preset heights that you can switch back and forth to just by pressing a button.

I also sprung for the $29 casters so that I could wheel the desk around my apartment, which lets my wife and I use it as a mobile entertainment system. When we’re done working for the day, we can roll the desk over to our comfy chairs and watch Netflix or play Animal Crossing on the desk’s monitor. —Jay Peters

I have the Jarvis, too, just in a larger size. It has served me well for about four years now. It’s a comfortable, stable, spacious desk that has more versatility than typical desk options. —Dan Seifert

LapGear Designer Lap Desk

Photo courtesy LapGear

I should work at a desk more, but I spend a lot of time working from a couch. It’s bad for me, but also very comfortable. Using a lap desk like this one helps me at least pretend to be a little more conscientious about my posture; plus, it’s helpful for writing on physical paper (or when my laptop gets too hot). —Chaim Gartenberg

LapGear Designer Lap Desk

Huanuo monitor mount stand

Photo: Huanuo

This monitor mount brings my screen up to a nice height so that I don’t hunch over, and it’s the tallest one I’ve found. Other monitor arms I tried just weren’t tall enough for me when I was standing while working — and I’m not that tall at five feet, 11 inches. The mount also lets me adjust my monitor to exactly the right height for movies or Animal Crossing when I’m using my desk as a mobile entertainment center. —Jay Peters

Huanuo monitor mount stand

Nespresso Inissia Espresso Machine

Photo: De’Longhi

I’m hopelessly addicted to iced lattes and I finally invested in this espresso machine with my stimulus check. It makes waking up in the morning a little more exciting when I don’t have to French press my coffee. And it came with a milk frother! —Makena Kelly

Ello Devon Glass Tumbler

Photo: Ello Products

I never drink enough water. I just seem to forget to and I get headaches from dehydration, but something about this bottle helps remind me. Maybe it’s the design? I love it! —Amelia Holowaty Krales

Ello Devon Glass Tumbler

Herman Miller Sayl Chair

The Herman Miller Sayl is a common chair — Vox Media’s NYC office has hundreds of them. I bought one without arms, though, because it works a little better for my posture. I’m tall, and it’s hard to find chairs that don’t encourage me to slouch. Also, I like the red. —Sam Byford

Herman Miller Sayl Chair

Notebook and pen

While all of my work and most of my writing happen on my computer, sometimes it’s easier (especially for sudden phone calls or when I don’t want to switch out of a video) to simply turn to the notebook I keep next to my laptop and jot down a note or two. And I’ve found that using a classy pen is not only good for my morale, but makes it a lot less likely that I’ll find myself out of ink (or with a hand cramp) when I need to get something important written quickly. Currently, I’m using a True Writer ballpoint pen from Levenger that I got as a birthday present, but any pen that makes you feel good will do. —Barbara Krasnoff

Update February 4th, 2021, 2:37PM ET: This article was originally published on April 28th, 2020, and has been updated to include changes in prices and circumstances.

Razer’s Thunderbolt 4 Dock Brings Speedy Chroma Connectivity

(Image credit: Razer)

Razer is adding its Chroma RGB to a new part of your setup: a Thunderbolt 4 dock. It’s the latest office-style accessory to get a touch of the company’s gaming aesthetic, and its selection of ports is clearly meant for those looking to future-proof their setups.

The dock, dubbed Razer Thunderbolt 4 Dock Chroma, costs $329.99 and is up for pre-order at Razer’s website and retail stores. It has ten ports in total and is compatible with any Windows 10 laptop with Thunderbolt 3 or 4 and Macs with Thunderbolt 3, as long as they run macOS Big Sur (including both Intel-based laptops and those with Apple’s own M1 processors).

(Image credit: Razer)

Of the four Thunderbolt 4 ports, you’ll use one to connect your laptop to the anodized aluminum dock. The other three can be used for power delivery, data or a display. Razer claims the dock supports up to 40Gbps data transfer speeds.

The dock supports up to two monitors at 4K60 or a single 8K monitor at 30 Hz, but it doesn’t use traditional HDMI or DisplayPort outputs. You’ll either need to use this dock with a USB-C or Thunderbolt monitor or get Thunderbolt-to-DisplayPort cables.

(Image credit: Razer)

On the front, besides a TB4 port, there’s also an SD card reader and a 3.5mm headphone jack. The back features the other three TB4 ports, RJ-45 Ethernet, and three USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-A ports. It comes with a 135W power brick and offers 90W power delivery to charge your laptop without other cables.

One thing that’s unclear is if this dock will work with regular USB 4, given that Thunderbolt 4

is largely USB 4 with some optional features

The dock is 7.48 inches wide, 2.93 inches deep and 1.06 inches tall. That will take up a bit more space than some docks that have vertical stands, and it allows for more room for its RGB showcase.

And what would a Razer device be without Chroma RGB? The Thunderbolt 4 dock works with Razer’s Synapse software for lighting customizations, at least if you’re on Windows 10. The company says Synapse isn’t supported on macOS, so it’s likely Mac users will have to opt for a generic rainbow pattern.

But Razer isn’t the first to an RGB dock. WD added the D50 Game Dock NVMe to its Black line last year, which is $320 or more if you add up to 2TB of internal storage. It, however, is more about the storage and has fewer ports.

It’s not a huge surprise to see Razer, known primarily as a gaming-focused company, continue its dive into the office. It made its first productivity-focused notebook, the Razer Book 13, last year. It has also made office-bound peripherals in a partnership with Humanscale.

Razer is also updating its laptop stand, the Laptop Stand Chroma V2, with more ports (USB 3.2 Gen 1 both Type-A and Type-C, HDMI 2.0 and USB-C for power delivery) and an 18-degree angle which is meant to improve ergonomics. It, too, features Chroma RGB. The $150 laptop stand is also up for pre-order.

HP’s Spectre x360 14 review: the best 2-in-1 you can buy

HP’s Spectre x360 14 is a luxury worth paying for.

I have used a heck of a lot of laptops in the past year, and some of them are quite nice. MacBooks have nailed the “premium” look and feel for years, and I’ll never waste an opportunity to gush about the build quality of Dell’s XPS line.

But I’ve never touched a consumer laptop as gorgeous as the Spectre x360 14. The new Spectre’s sturdy black body, lustrous accents, and boldly sharp edges would make it a standout among convertible laptops across the board, even if it didn’t have a slew of other excellent qualities — which, from its 3:2 screen and packaged stylus to its stellar performance and battery life, it absolutely does.

With a starting MSRP of $1,299.99 ($1,589.99 as tested) the Spectre x360 is easily my new favorite 2-in-1 laptop. Today’s market is full of capable convertibles that look good, work well, and do certain things really well. But while the Spectre x360 14 isn’t a perfect laptop, it tops the pack in almost every area. It’s a stylish chassis, premium panel options, stylus support, a powerful processor, and fantastic battery in one. It’s proof that you can have it all — for a price.

The HP Spectre line is second to none when it comes to design, and this latest model is no exception. Like its 13-inch predecessor, the Spectre x360 14 is made of CNC-machined aluminum. Also like its siblings, you can get the 14 in “nightfall black,” “Poseidon blue,” or “natural silver.” Take a look at some pictures before selecting your color because they each have pretty different vibes. The nightfall black option has a sophisticated, svelte aesthetic that looks tailor-made for a boardroom. Poseidon blue is friendlier and probably the one I’d go for myself.

The accents, though, are what make the Spectre stand out from the legions of other black laptops out there. Lustrous trim borders the lid, the touchpad, and the deck. The hinges share its color, as does the HP logo on its lid. It’s bold without being obnoxious. The two rear corners are diamond-shaped, and one of them houses a Thunderbolt 4 port on its flat edge. (On the sides live an audio jack, a USB-A, a microSD slot, and an additional Thunderbolt 4, which is a decent selection — gone is the trapdoor that covered the USB-A port on the 13-inch model.) And the edges are all beveled, making the notebook appear thinner than it actually is (it’s 0.67 inches thick). Careful craftsmanship is evident here — I’m not exaggerating when I say this Spectre feels like artwork.

Take it in.

And, as the “x360” moniker implies, the Spectre is a 2-in-1. At 2.95 pounds, it’s a bit heavy to use as a tablet for long periods, but it’s smooth and easy to fold and the hinges are quite sturdy. Unlike with many convertibles, there’s barely any wobble when you use the touchscreen. The display is also stylus-compatible; the Spectre ships with HP’s MPP2.0 pen, which attaches magnetically to the side of the chassis.

Despite its design similarities, this Spectre looks noticeably different from its ancestors, and that’s because of the screen. The new model has a 3:2 display, which is 13 percent taller than the 16:9 panel on last year’s device. (It’s kept the same 90 percent screen-to-body ratio.)

Microsoft’s Surface devices have been using the 3:2 aspect ratio for years, and I’m glad that the Spectre line is finally making the switch. If you’re used to using a 16:9 display (which many modern Windows laptops have) and you give a 3:2 a shot, you’ll see what I mean. You have significantly more vertical space, which means less scrolling up and down and less zooming out to fit everything you want to see. It makes multitasking significantly easier without adding much size to the chassis.

This 3:2 panel can come in a few different forms. My test unit has an FHD option that HP says should reach 400 nits of brightness. I measured it multiple times, but it only reached 285 in my testing — which is dimmer than I’d hope to see from a device at this price point. I’ve reached out to HP to see what’s up and will update this review if it turns out to be a bug. (Of course, 285 nits is still more than enough for indoor office work.)

The OLED panel is certified for “low blue light.”

In addition to the FHD display, you can opt for a 3000 x 2000 OLED panel (HP didn’t provide a brightness estimate for this one; LaptopMag measured it at 339 nits) or a 1,000-nit option with HP’s Sure View Reflect technology, which makes the screen difficult to read from the sides. This will mostly be a benefit for business users.

In terms of other specs, the base model pairs the 400-nit screen with a Core i5-1135G7, 8GB of memory, and 256GB of storage (plus 16GB of Intel Optane). Then, there are a few upgrades you can go for. My test unit, priced at $1,589.99, keeps the base model’s screen but has a heftier processor (the quad-core Core i7-1165G7) and double its RAM and storage. I think this model is a good option for most people — it gets you a top processor and a good amount of storage without too stratospheric of a price tag. If you want to get fancier, you can get the OLED screen and 1TB of storage (plus 32GB of Intel Optane) for $1,699, or the Sure View screen and 2TB of storage for $1,959.99.

Of course, laptops aren’t just for looking at, but you’re not compromising on performance to get this build quality. The Spectre is verified through Intel’s Evo platform, which means that it offers a number of Intel-selected benefits including Thunderbolt 4, Wi-Fi 6, all-day battery life, quick boot time, fast charging, and reliable performance. In my testing, it more than surpassed those standards.

The system handled my heavy workload of Chrome tabs, downloads, and streams speedily with no issues. Battery life was excellent; I averaged 10 hours of continuous use with the screen around 200 nits of brightness. That means if your daily tasks are similar to mine, the Spectre should make it through your workday with no problem. (You’ll likely get less if you opt for the OLED panel.) The processor also includes Intel’s Iris Xe integrated graphics. While you wouldn’t want to use those for serious gaming, they’re capable of running lighter fare.

Elsewhere, I have almost no complaints. The backlit keyboard is snappy with a solid click — it’s easily one of my favorites. The speakers sound good, with very audible bass and percussion. There’s a fingerprint sensor to the left of the arrow keys and a Windows Hello camera, neither of which gave me any trouble.

Apart from the dimness, there are only two things about this laptop that I’m not in love with. They’re both minor; the fact that I’m even mentioning either of them in this review is a testament to how excellent this device is.

The first is the touchpad. It’s quite smooth and roomy (16.6 percent larger than that of last year’s Spectre x360 13) and handles scrolling and gestures just fine. But it’s noticeably stiffer than some of the best touchpads on the market. The press required to physically click is firm enough that I ended up doing it with my thumb most of the time. On the likes of the Dell XPS 13 and the MacBook, clicking with a finger is much less of a chore. When I first clicked with the integrated buttons, I also had to overcome some initial resistance to hit the actuation point (put plainly, every click felt like two clicks). This issue resolved itself during my second day of testing, but it’s still a hiccup I generally only see with cheaper items.

My complaints are minor — this is almost perfect.

Secondly, bloatware. There are a number of junk programs preloaded onto the Spectre and several pinned to the taskbar. Dropbox, ExpressVPN, McAfee, and Netflix are all on here, and I got all kinds of notifications from them. This is an oddity at this price point, and seeing cheap McAfee alerts popping up on the Spectre is like seeing really ugly bumper stickers on a Ferrari. This software doesn’t take too long to uninstall, but I’m disappointed to see it nonetheless.

But those are really the only two complaints I have, and neither of them should stop you from buying this laptop. It’s beautiful to look at and a dream to use. I found myself using it in my free time instead of my personal device (which almost never happens with review units — I really like my products).

When we’re evaluating a convertible laptop at the Spectre’s price point, the big question is how it compares to the gold standard of Windows convertibles, the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1. The XPS has a few advantages: it’s a bit thinner and lighter, its touchpad is less stiff, and it has a more modest look that some users might prefer.

But for me, the ball game is close but clear. The Spectre x360’s meticulous craftsmanship, classy aesthetic, and 3:2 screen put it over the top. It also edges out the XPS in a few key areas: the keyboard is more comfortable, the battery life is better, and Dell’s closest-priced configuration to this unit only has half its storage. The Spectre’s smaller amenities that the XPS lacks — like the bundled stylus, the USB-A port, the blue color, and the OLED option — are icing on the cake.

If you’re looking for a premium Windows convertible with a classy aesthetic, that makes the Spectre a no-brainer purchase. This is HP at its best; it’s a luxury laptop in pretty much every area. I can’t imagine that it won’t be the next laptop I buy.

Photography by Monica Chin / The Verge

Intel Claws Back Desktop PC and Notebook Market Share From AMD, First Time in Three Years

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

The Mercury Research CPU market share results are in for the fourth quarter of 2020, with the headline news being that Intel has clawed back share from AMD in the desktop PC market for the first time in three years. Intel also stopped its slide in notebook PCs, gaining share for the first time since we began collecting data for that segment in early 2018. AMD also lost share in the overall x86 market during the quarter but notched a solid gain for the year. Meanwhile, AMD continued to make slow but steady gains in the server market.

It’s noteworthy that the fourth quarter of 2020 was anything but typical: The PC market continued its pandemic-fueled surge, seeing its fastest growth in a decade. For example, while AMD lost share in the overall x86 market (less IoT) during the quarter, Mercury Research pegs the overall x86 market growth rate at an explosive 20.1%.

Intel obviously captured more of that growth than AMD, but it’s important to remember that a slight loss of share in the midst of an explosive growth environment doesn’t equate to declining sales – AMD grew its processor revenue by 50% last year and posted record financial results for the year.

Shortages have plagued AMD due to ongoing supply chain issues. Given the lack of AMD products on shelves, the company is obviously selling all of the silicon it can punch out, signaling strong demand. AMD expects to see ‘tightness’ throughout the first half of 2021 until added production capacity comes online, meaning we could see a limited supply of AMD’s PC and console chips until the middle of the year (you can see AMD CEO Lisa Su’s take on the situation in our recent interview).

Those shortages led to a scarcity of AMD’s chips during the critical holiday shopping season in the fourth quarter, while Intel’s chips were widely available and often selling at a discount. That obviously helped Intel recoup some share. During its recent earnings call, Intel also cited improving supply of lower-end processors, like those destined for Chromebooks, as a contributing factor. Intel CEO Bob Swan noted the company increased its PC CPU units by 33% during the fourth quarter.

Intel has also expanded its chip production by leaps and bounds over the last several years as it recovered from its own shortage of production capacity. The advantages of its IDM model are on clear display during the pandemic – the company’s tight control of its supply chain and production facilities have allowed it to better weather disruptions. That’s an important consideration as the company has come under intense criticism that it should spin off its fabs while it weighs how much of its own production it should outsource (you can see Bob Swan’s take on the situation in our recent interview).

That said, given the dynamic nature of the market, it’s hard to draw firm conclusions on several of the categories below without more information. Dean McCarron of Mercury Research will provide us with detailed breakdowns for each segment in the morning, and we’ll add his analysis as soon as it is available. For now, here’s our analysis of the raw numbers.

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)

4Q20

3Q20

2Q20

1Q20

4Q19

3Q19

2Q19

1Q2019

4Q18

3Q18

2Q18

1Q18

4Q17

3Q17

2Q17

1Q17

4Q16

3Q16

AMD Desktop Unit Share

19.3%

20.1%

19.2%

18.6%

18.3%

18%

17.1%

15.8%

13%

12.3%

12.2%

12.0%

10.9%

11.1%

11.4%

9.9%

9.1%

Quarter over Quarter / Year over Year (pp)

-0.8 / +1.0

+0.9 / +2.1

+0.6 / +2.1

+0.3 / +1.5

+0.3 / +2.4

+0.9 / +5

Flat / +4.8

+1.3 / +4.9

+2.8 / +3.8

+0.7 / +2.1

+0.1 / +1.2

+0.2 / +0.8

+1.1 / +2.1

-0.2 / +1.8

-0.3 / –

+1.5 / –

+0.8 / –

–

AMD recently introduced its Ryzen 5000 processors that take the lead in every meaningful metric from Intel’s Comet Lake chips, but a lack of supply could have hindered the company’s gains in this fast-growing segment. Intel’s Rocket Lake lands in Q1 2021, which could present more competition for AMD’s Ryzen 5000.

While AMD lost some share here during the quarter, it gained 1 percentage point for the year. However, AMD recently noted that its Ryzen 5000 chips doubled the launch sales of any other previous Ryzen generation, and annual processor revenue grew 50% even though the PC market only grew 13%. It’s logical to expect that AMD will prioritize the production of these higher-margin desktop processors to maximize its profitability.

AMD has noted that its shortages are most acute in the lower end of the PC market, while Intel says it has improved its own shipments of small-core (lower-end) CPUs.

	4Q20	3Q20	2Q20	1Q20	Q419	3Q19	2Q19	1Q2019	4Q18	3Q18	2Q18
AMD Mobile Unit Share	19%	20.2%	19.9%	17.1%	16.2%	14.7%	14.1%	13.1%	12.2%	10.9%	8.8%
Quarter over Quarter / Year over Year (pp)	-1.2 / +2.8	+0.3 / +5.5	+2.9 / +5.8	+0.9 / +3.2	+1.5 / +4.0	+0.7 / +3.8	+1.0 / +5.3	+0.9 / ?

Recently, this has been AMD’s fastest-growing market. The mobile segment comprises roughly 60% of the client processor market, meaning any gains are very important in terms of overall volume and revenue.

Intel has cited its increasing penetration into the lower-end of the market, like Chromebooks, which likely contributed to its strong gains here. Again, AMD has said that its shortages are most pressing in the lower-end of the market.

Notably, AMD remained in the black here for the year, with a 2.8 percentage point gain. AMD recently launched its Ryzen 5000 Mobile processors, which bring the powerful Zen 3 microarchitecture to laptops for the first time. AMD has 50% more designs coming to market than the previous-gen Ryzen 4000 lineup, but supply could be tight.

AMD bases its server share projections on IDC’s forecasts but only accounts for the single- and dual-socket market, which eliminates four-socket (and beyond) servers, networking infrastructure and Xeon D’s (edge). As such, Mercury’s numbers differ from the numbers cited by AMD, which predict a higher market share. Here is AMD’s comment on the matter: “Mercury Research captures all x86 server class processors in their server unit estimate, regardless of device (server, network or storage), whereas the estimated 1P [single-socket] and 2P [two-socket] TAM [Total Addressable Market] provided by IDC only includes traditional servers.”

4Q20

3Q20

2Q20

1Q20

4Q19

3Q19

2Q19

1Q2019

4Q18

3Q18

2Q18

4Q17

AMD Server Unit Share

7.1%

6.6%

5.8%

5.1%

4.5%

4.3%

3.4%

2.9%

3.2%

1.6%

1.4%

0.8%

Quarter over Quarter / Year over Year (pp)

+0.5 / +2.6

+0.8 / +2.3

+0.7 / +2.4

+0.6 / 2.2

+0.2 / +1.4

+0.9 / +2.7

+0.5 / +2.0

-0.3 / –

+1.6 / 2.4

+0.2 / –

AMD continues to chew away server share from Intel at a steady rate. These gains come on the cusp of the company’s highly-anticipated EPYC Milan launch in March. It’s logical to expect that some customers may have paused purchases on current-gen EPYC Rome processors in anticipation of the looming Milan launch, and the resultant pent up demand could increase AMD’s server penetration next quarter. Also, given the importance of this lucrative segment, AMD will likely prioritize server chip production.

	4Q20	3Q20	2Q20	1Q20	4Q19	3Q19	2Q19	4Q18	3Q18
AMD Overall x86	21.7%	22.4%	18.3%	14.8%	15.5%	14.6%	13.9%	12.3%	10.6%
Overall PP Change QoQ / YoY	-0.7 / +6.2	+4.1 / +6.3	+3.5 / +1.2 (+3.7?)	-0.7 / ?	+0.9 / +3.2	+0.7 / +4	?	?	–

The overall x86 market grew at an explosive 20.1% rate during the quarter, reflecting that a growing TAM benefits both players. AMD lost a minor amount of overall share during the quarter, but gained 6.2 percentage points for the year.

We’ll add McCarron’s segment analysis as soon as it is available.

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD whipped the covers off of its Ryzen 5000 ‘Cezanne’ mobile chips at CES 2021, but today marks the official launch and AMD has unveiled the deep-dive details of the SoC that brings the Zen 3 architecture to the notebook market for the first time. The new chips will power a large range of notebooks, like the Asus ROG Flow X13 that we reviewed today, and finally bring Ryzen to the highest-end gaming notebooks to compete with Intel’s Tiger Lake chips.

On the surface, the Ryzen 5000 chips look like an iterative update to existing Ryzen 4000 Renoir processors, but there’s a surprising amount of ingenuity under the hood. AMD’s Ryzen 5000 Mobile chips bring the 7nm process paired with Zen 3’s 19% IPC increase to notebooks for the first time, largely by replacing the Zen 2 CPU cores with faster Zen 3 cores while leveraging much of the Ryzen 4000 design (like the 7nm Vega graphics cores and existing I/O accommodations) to minimize time to market.

And time is of the essence. For now, Intel will fend off the Ryzen 5000 chips with its Tiger Lake lineup that’s currently capped at four cores and eight threads with its 35W H35 series chips. Intel says its long-awaited eight-core 45W H-series chips are still in development, with headline specs including a 5.0 GHz boost on multiple CPU cores, but the company’s first eight-core 10nm processors won’t come to market until later this quarter.

Meanwhile, AMD is shipping Ryzen 5000 and has wrung out extra performance through clever modifications to its existing Ryzen 4000 SoC design, which we’ll cover below, culminating in a 23% overall improvement in single-threaded work and a 17% increase in multi-threaded performance for the 5000 series.

AMD says the improvements open up new levels of performance and set a new standard for battery life in x86 notebooks, with up to a 20-hour increase in standby life and an additional two hours during general productivity work, all while remaining the only 8-core x86 chips for ultrathin laptops.

The Ryzen 5000 Mobile series looks promising. Provided that AMD can provide sufficient quantities, they could mark yet another escalation in the increasingly-competitive notebook market. Let’s take a closer look.

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Mobile Processors 35W – 45W+ H-Series
	Cores / Threads	Base / Boost	TDP	GPU CU / Boost	Cache
Ryzen 9 5980HX	8 / 16	3.3 / 4.8	45W+	8 / 2.1 GHz	20MB
Ryzen 9 5980HS	8 / 16	3.0 / 4.8	35W	8 / 2.1 GHz	20MB
Ryzen 9 5900HX	8 / 16	3.3 / 4.6	45W+	8 / 2.1 GHz	20MB
Ryzen 9 5900HS	8 / 16	3.0 / 4.6	35W	8 / 2.1 GHz	20MB
Ryzen 9 4900H	8 / 16	3.3 / 4.3	45W	8 / 1.75 GHz	12MB
Ryzen 9 4900HS	8 / 16	3.0 / 4.3	35W	8 / 1.75 GHz	12MB
Ryzen 7 5800H	8 / 16	3.2 / 4.4	45W	8 / 2.0 GHz	20MB
Ryzen 7 4800H	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.2	45W	7 / 1.6 GHz	12MB
Ryzen 7 5800HS	8 / 16	2.8 / 4.4	35W	8 / 2.0 GHz	20MB
Ryzen 7 4800HS	8 / 16	2.9 / 4.2	35W	7 / 1.6 GHz	12MB
Ryzen 5 5600H	6 / 12	3.3 / 4.2	45W	7 / 1.8 GHz	19MB
Ryzen 5 4600H	6 / 12	3.0 / 4.0	45W	6 / 1.5 GHz	11MB
Ryzen 5 5600HS	6 / 12	3.0 / 4.2	35W	7 / 1.8 GHz	19MB
Ryzen 5 4600HS	6 / 12	3.0 / 4.0	35W	6 / 1.5 GHz	11MB

The 13 new processors span from low-power 15W chips up to two new overclockable 45W+ HX-series models designed to bring desktop PC-like gaming performance to notebooks. The Ryzen 5000 mobile processors all come with threading enabled, the 7nm Vega graphics engine with higher graphics boost clocks than the prior-gen models, support CPPC (Collaborative Power and Performance Control) technology, which we’ll dive into shortly, and have higher CPU boost clocks than the previous-gen.

As before, the H-series models are designed for notebooks that will use discrete graphics. The two 45W+ eight-core HX models carve out a new high-performance niche by bringing CPU, memory, and fabric overclocking to AMD-powered notebooks for the first time, but overclocking headroom will largely be dictated by the thermal and power characteristics of each notebook. Naturally, bulkier notebooks with more robust cooling and power delivery will unlock better overclockability.

The two H models slot in with eight- and six-core variants and a 45W TDP rating, with the former having eight CUs that boost to 2.0 GHz, while the latter has seven CUs that stretch up to 1.8 GHz.

AMD also expanded its HS series with four chips with boost clocks that reach up to 4.8 GHz within the 35W TDP envelope. AMD segments the HS stack with three eight-core models with varying base and boost clocks, but these models have lower base clocks than the H-series models to accommodate the 35W TDP envelope. AMD also has a lone six-core twelve-thread model to round out the bottom of the H-Series stack. AMD also segments the HS models with either seven or eight Vega CUs, with peak boost clocks weighing in at 2.1 GHz.

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Mobile Processors 15W U-Series
	Cores / Threads	Base / Boost	GPU CU / Boost	Cache
Ryzen 7 5800U – Zen 3	8 / 16	1.9 / 4.4	8 / 2.0 GHz	20MB
Ryzen 7 4800U	8 / 16	1.8 / 4.1	8 / 1.75 GHz	8MB
Ryzen 7 5700U – Zen 2	8 / 16	1.8 / 4.3	8 / 1.9 GHz	12MB
Ryzen 7 4700U	8 / 16	2.0 / 4.1	7 / 1.6 GHz	8MB
Ryzen 5 5600U – Zen 3	6 / 12	2.3 / 4.2	7 / 1.8 GHz	19MB
Ryzen 5 4600U	6 / 12	2.1 / 4.0	6 / 1.5 GHz	8MB
Ryzen 5 5500U – Zen 2	6 / 12	2.1 / 4.0	7 / 1.8 GHz	11MB
Ryzen 5 4500U	6 / 6	2.3 / 4.0	6 / 1.5 GHz	8MB
Ryzen 3 5400U – Zen 3	4 / 8	2.6 / 4.0	6 / 1.6 GHz	10MB
Ryzen 3 4300U	4 / 4	2.7 / 3.7	5 / 1.4 GHz	4MB
Ryzen 3 5300U – Zen 2	4 / 8	2.6 / 3.8	6 / 1.5 GHz	6MB

The 15W U-Series models slot in for thin and light devices and will often lean on the integrated graphics units. AMD recently chose to unify its Ryzen Mobile branding under the same Ryzen 5000 umbrella as its desktop chips to clear up the confusion with the Ryzen 4000 series processors that came with an older architecture than desktop Ryzen 3000 models.

However, AMD also sprinkled in three Zen 2 ‘Lucienne’ chips in the Ryzen 5000 Mobile stack, muddying the waters. AMD says this approach meets specific pricing criteria and customer (OEM) demand on the lower end of its product stack. These Zen 2-powered Ryzen 3, 5, and 7 models slot into the lowest-end 15W U-series category.

The Zen 2 variants come with the same design as their predecessors, but again, the targeted enhancements to the SoC (all of the same modifications listed below apply) and increased clock rates result in higher performance.

The Ryzen 7, 5, and 3 families also include one Zen 3 model apiece with either eight cores and 16 threads, or four cores and eight threads. Unlike the previous-gen Ryzen 4000 chips, all of the 15W models come threading enabled.

AMD Ryzen 5000 Mobile Architecture Deep Dive – Design Goals

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD’s performance claims for the Ryzen 5000 chips are quite impressive, with a 23% generational improvement in single-threaded performance being the highlight feature. The increased single-threaded performance over the Zen 2-powered Ryzen 4000 chips stems from the 19% IPC improvement borne of the Zen 3 microarchitecture and more fine-grained SoC-level optimizations that optimize power delivery, among other factors. AMD also claims two additional hours of battery life and a 108% advantage in multi-threaded work over Intel’s 11th-gen mobile processors.

AMD’s design goals focused on three key areas: Performance (particularly in IPC and per-core performance), latency improvements that come via the unified L3 cache and eight-core CCX, and improved power efficiency.

Zen 3 Unification

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

The Ryzen 5000 Mobile chips come with all the hallmarks of the Zen 3 microarchitecture, which you can read more about here. Like the desktop chips, AMD increased the L3 cache to 16MB over the prior gen’s 8MB and unified the eight cores and cache into one contiguous cluster inside the CCX (Core Complex). In contrast, Zen 2 had two four-core clusters, each with 4MB of cache.

This new arrangement improves both core-to-cache and core-to-core latency. For highly-threaded applications, this new design imparts a 2X cache increase, and lightly-threaded workloads now have access to a full 16MB of cache, which is equivalent to a 4X increase in directly-accessible cache.

Ryzen 5000’s monolithic die, meaning it is one large die instead of the multi-die arrangements on desktop chips, allows for tighter control of power efficiency. The company also improved performance-per-watt (power efficiency) by targeting the highest-end of the frequency/voltage curve it could maintain while controlling thermal density. That’s a key consideration for thin-and-light devices with limited cooling capability. By sustaining the highest clocks possible while the chip is still in the thermal and power efficiency sweet spot, the company increased single-threaded performance beyond Zen 3’s 19% IPC uplift to a 23% improvement in per-core performance.

The Ryzen 5000 Mobile Die

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

In many respects, AMD simply replaced the Zen 2 cores with Zen 3 cores, leaving the rest of the design untouched. AMD’s re-use scheme allowed the company to accelerate time to market; AMD introduced the mobile variants a mere 90 days after the desktop models, which is the fastest transition of a new architecture to mobile in the company’s history (it typically takes a year).

The company’s forward-thinking modular design eased the process: AMD planned for this eventuality when it designed the Ryzen 4000 SoC. AMD also preserved the same pinout (BGA mounting scheme) for the Ryzen 5000 processors, meaning they are backward compatible with existing designs. This also allows OEMs to use the same motherboards and componentry for both existing and future products, speeds the design of new laptops, and allows OEMs to leverage existing supply chains. However, while these design elements largely remain the same, AMD fine-tuned the various elements to extract more performance, which we’ll dive into below.

Although it doesn’t equate directly to the physical layout on the die, the topology in the second slide shows us the design’s basic outlay. Here we can see the eight threaded cores clustered around the central 16MB slice of L3 cache, two DDR4-3200 / LPDDR4x-4266 controllers, and the 7nm Vega GPU with 1MB of L2 cache and eight CUs.

The SoC also has a host of other fixed-function acceleration blocks for multimedia, the System Management Unit (SMU) for power delivery control, Fusion Controller Hub (FCH) for external sensors, audio engine, Platform Security Processor (which comes into play in the Pro models), and the usual external interfaces, like NVMe and three flavors of USB (Type-C, 3.1, 2.0).

As before, the chips have 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity, meaning Cezanne will not have PCIe 4.0 support. AMD allocates eight lanes to the graphics, while the remaining eight lanes are split between two NVMe interfaces for storage.

The Ryzen 5000 mobile die spreads 10.7 billion 7nm TSMC transistors across 180mm2 of silicon, with the core complexes, L3 cache, and GPU in the center of the die, while the I/O componentry lines the periphery. This is slightly larger (~15%) than Renoir’s 156mm2 die and comes with 900,000 more transistors (the larger caches contribute to the higher transistor count).

	Die Size	Transistor Count	Transistor Density
Ryzen 5000 Mobile Cezanne	180mm2	10.7 billion	59.44 MTr/mm2
Ryzen 4000 Mobile Renoir	156mm2	9.8 billion	62.82 MTr/mm2

Ryzen 5000 Mobile Memory Controller Enhancements

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD’s engineers turned their eye to optimizing the memory PHY to reduce the overall SoC power draw. With Ryzen 4000, the PHY remained fully ‘on’ if the SoC wasn’t in a standby power state, consuming a significant amount of power draw. Ryzen 5000 introduces a deep power state that the SMU engages when the PHY is in a lower-activity state (but not idle). This shifts the digital portion of the PHY into a lower power state, bypassing it to reduce supply voltage. This technique engages a new low-dropout (LDO) power regulator and turns off the primary on-chip voltage regulator for the memory PHY during low usage. This approach reduces power consumption from the PHY and the power delivery network as well.

Of course, minimizing latency when the controller shifts back to its full-performance state is paramount. AMD leverages the data fabric’s hardware-assisted fast entry/exit mechanisms to shift into different power states, thus lowering latency.

Each memory controller supports a single 64b memory channel or dual 32b virtual channels. Each controller supports DDR4-3200 in single-channel (1DPC SR/DR) or two channels of LPDDR4x-4266.

Quad-channel LPDDR4x provides 33% more theoretical bandwidth than DDR4-3200 and has twice the density of standard DDR4, thus improving maximum capacity to 32GB of memory with a two-channel die.

Vega Rides Again

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

As before, the Vega graphics unit comes with a maximum of 8 compute units (CU) and 1MB of L2 cache, but AMD increased the peak frequency by 20% (up to 2.1 GHz).

AMD fine-tuned the power management mechanisms, like the on-chip voltage regulator, to improve sustained performance. AMD also reduced Vmin (the minimum voltage required for operation) to improve power efficiency (performance-per-watt). These improvements enable higher-frequency operation in tandem with improved frequency-per-watt throughout the entire voltage/frequency range. That frees up additional power that’s used to sustain higher frequencies in either the CPU or GPU.

AMD’s new intelligent graphics Dynamic Energy Management (DEM) functionality steps in to detect which workloads are impacted heavily by graphics frequency, allowing the GPU to operate at lower frequencies when increasing the frequency wouldn’t result in tangible performance gains (for example, when the workload is primarily memory bound).

Ryzen 5000 uses the latest revision of the 7nm process, which has less leakage. It also marks the debut of per-core CPU voltage regulation to the Ryzen Mobile lineup, which reduces overall power consumption during gaming workloads. The saved power savings from these two factors can be directed to the GPU to boost gaming performance.

AMD also optimized its graphics drivers for enhanced memory management and tweaked anti-aliasing and other functions, with peak performance weighing in at 2.15 TFLOPS (FP32) and 4.30 TFLOPS (FP16). AMD used benchmark results from Timespy, a CPU intensive workload, to quantify the performance improvement, noting a 171% increase over the first-gen Ryzen processors. Notably, the Ryzen 5000 Vega iGPU is 15% faster than Ryzen 4000.

AMD carries all the security features present in the 4000 series to the 5000 series, with the addition of Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) that eliminates control flow attacks that hijack legitimate applications to run malicious code. As before, the chips also have other security features that serve as the bedrock of the Pro Security suite for Ryzen Pro processors.

Ryzen 5000 Mobile, Boosting Boosts

Image 1 of 3

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 3

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 3 of 3

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD’s addition of its Collaborative Power Performance and Control (CPPC) interface was truly a watershed breakthrough for its Ryzen 3000 desktop chips. This tech tells the operating system which cores are the fastest, and the Windows scheduler then targets lightly-threaded workloads at those cores. This allows AMD to bin its chips into higher speed grades based on the fastest available cores on the chip, instead of the older technique of binning the chip based on the lowest common denominator (slowest core).

This technique discards the old paradigm of only having three power states, which provides more granular power control to improve both power efficiency (battery life) and performance. The CPPC interface also allows the operating system to dictate power state transitions on a per-core basis via a broader range of voltage and frequency settings. Now the processor can assign any voltage or frequency within its operating range on the fly. Additionally, this technique reduces transition latency from ~30ms when it is controlled by firmware down to 1-2 ms, which improves performance in bursty workloads and saves power.

AMD also added per-core power and frequency management to provide another layer of granularity. In the past, the CPU cores were tied to the same voltage plane as the GPU, resulting in a 1:1 relationship between CPU vCore and GPU Vgfx, regardless of load on either unit.

The illustration on the right of the second slide illustrates the impact – Ryzen 4000’s cores all ran at the same voltage regardless of voltage, matching that of the graphics unit, while Ryzen 5000 adjusts on a per-core basis regardless of GPU voltage.

During multi-threaded heterogeneous workloads, the chip can match frequency and voltage on all the cores running that specific workload, thus ensuring consistent operation. AMD’s on-chip power regulation also supports software quality of service (QoS) hooks that allow the operating system to more effectively identify higher- and lower-priority workloads, which then is used to dictate voltage and frequency of the affected cores to maximize power efficiency.

As you can see in the last slide, AMD says that the culmination of these technologies delivers significant reductions in SoC power draw, with a head-to-head comparison between the Ryzen 7 5800U and 4800U showing impressive reductions in a few different scenarios. That includes a 26% reduction in standby mode, an impressive 47% reduction at idle, a 33% reduction in video playback, and an 18% reduction when the chip is under load in the MobileMark 2018 benchmark.

Ryzen 5000 Mobile Battery Life

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD also made a host of other refinements at the system level to help reduce power draw, including working with audio codec vendors to increase the occurrence and duration of low-power/idle residency states for the audio codec. Likewise, AMD worked with hardware vendors for certain components, like DC-to-DC regulators and embedded controllers, to enable support for new ‘hints’ that trigger lower-power states.

AMD says it has increased standby state time by 20 hours, idle battery life by 3.9 hours, video playback by 1.1 hours, and MobileMark by 2 hours. The company also claims that the Ryzen 9 5900HX is 19% faster in single-threaded workloads than Intel’s flagship 10980HK.

AMD Ryzen 5000 Mobile Performance Benchmarks

AMD provided a host of performance benchmarks in three key areas: Mobile gaming, content creation, and ultrathin performance. As with all vendor-provided benchmarks, you should take these results with a grain of salt. We’re sharing the full slide deck for each category, but without commentary – take the results as you will. We also include the endnotes that contain the test configurations.

Today marks the launch of the chips, so there should be plenty of third-party reviews for another take on performance, like our Asus ROG Flow X13 review.

AMD Ryzen 5000 Mobile Cezanne Gaming Benchmarks

Image 1 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 3 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 4 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 5 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 6 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 7 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 8 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 9 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 10 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 11 of 11

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD Ryzen 5000 Mobile Content Creation Benchmarks

Image 1 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 3 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 4 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 5 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 6 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 7 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 8 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 9 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 10 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 11 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 12 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 13 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 14 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 15 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 16 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 17 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 18 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 19 of 19

(Image credit: AMD)

AMD Ryzen 5000 Mobile Ultrathin Benchmarks

Image 1 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 3 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 4 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 5 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 6 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 7 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 8 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 9 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 10 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 11 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 12 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 13 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 14 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 15 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 16 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 17 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 18 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 19 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 20 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 21 of 21

(Image credit: AMD)

Thoughts

Ryzen 5000 Mobile brings a new level of competition to the laptop market through a more refined 7nm process, the Zen 3 architecture, and good old fashioned engineering. Some will see AMD’s decision to re-use key parts of the design, like the Vega graphics unit and PCIe 3.0 controllers, as a liability. Still, AMD managed to wring out enough extra performance and longer battery life to offset most of the downsides.

AMD’s re-use tactic allowed it to speed the chips to market and also simplify the design process for its OEM partners. That’s important in the face of a much larger and entrenched competitor like Intel. AMD’s deeper levels of engagement with ecosystem partners are emerging as it gains more market share and thus has access to more resources. And this is a virtuous cycle: AMD has made the types of adjustments and collaborations that OEMs appreciate, which should further deepen its partnerships.

AMD’s Ryzen 4000 series mobile processors have already taken the notebook market by storm, granting the company its biggest slice of the mobile market in history, and the Ryzen 5000 Mobile chips look to continue that momentum. AMD pulled off this feat in record time — the Raven Ridge chips didn’t come to the mobile market for a year after debuting on the desktop, while the Zen 3 transition should take roughly four months.

Image 1 of 4

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 2 of 4

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 3 of 4

(Image credit: AMD)

Image 4 of 4

(Image credit: AMD)

Speaking of Raven Ridge, those chips came to market in 75 designs, while the next-gen Ryzen 4000 chips landed in 100 devices. AMD expects Ryzen 5000 to power over 150 notebooks by the end of the year, many with the highest-end graphics cards, a distinction that has long eluded the company. As you can see above, the chips will debut in a wide range of devices from leading OEMs.

For now, supply could be AMD’s biggest obstacle. Record demand, coupled with the trade war and conditions associated with the pandemic, has strangled the supply of chips for almost every segment, spanning from automobiles to the CPUs and GPUs craved by enthusiasts, which has lead to price gouging. Hopefully AMD can ensure enough supply to keep OEM pricing within reasonable bounds.

AMD’s partners do have Ryzen 5000 Mobile laptops on the market, but we’ll have to wait and see how long term supply pans out. Given what we’ve seen from the first reviews, it looks like AMD will have plenty of demand for its latest chips.

CPU	Core i9-10980HK
Graphics	Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080
Memory	32GB DDR 2933 MHz
Storage	512GB Boot, 2TB (2 x 1TB RAID 0) SSD
Display	17.3-inch, 1920 x 1080 360 Hz
Networking	Killer Wi-FI AX1650 (Wi-Fi 6), Killer Ethernet 2.5 Gbps NIC, Bluetooth 5.1
Ports	3x USB Type-A 3.2, 1x HDMI 2.2, 1x mini DisplayPort 1.4, 1x Thunderbolt 3, 1x microSD card reader
Camera	1280 x 720
Battery	86 WHr
Power Adapter	330W
Dimensions (WxDxH)	15.74 x 11.56 x 0.87 inches
Weight	6.6 pounds
Price (as configured)	$3,586

CPU	Single-Core	Multi-Core	Cores/Threads, uArch	Cache	Clocks	TDP	Link
AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS	1540	8,225	8C/16T, Zen 3	16MB	3.30 ~ 4.53 GHz	35W	https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6027200
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H	1230	7,125	8C/16T, Zen 2	8MB	3.30 ~ 4.44 GHz	35~54W	https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6028856
Intel Core i9-10885H	1335	7,900	8C/16T, Skylake	16MB	2.40 ~ 5.08 GHz	45W	https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6006773
Intel Core i7-1185G7	1550	5,600	4C/8T, Willow Cove	12MB	3.0 ~ 4.80 GHz	28W	https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/5644005
Apple M1	1710	7,660	4C Firestorm + 4C Icestorm	12MB + 4MB	3.20 GHz	20~24W	https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/6038094

	GeForce RTX 3080	GeForce RTX 3070	GeForce RTX 3060
GPU	GA 104	GA 104	GA 106
CUDA Core	6144	5120	3840
Freq. Boost	256 – 1710 MHz	1290 – 1620 MHz	1283 – 1703 MHz
Bus	256 bit	256 bit	192 bit
Memory	8 GB / 16 GB GDDR6	8 GB GDDR6	6 GB GDDR6
TGP	80 W – 150 W	80 W – 125 W	60 W – 115 W

CPU	Intel Core i7-11370H
Graphics	Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 (8GB GDDR6)
Memory	16GB DDR4-3200
Storage	1TB M.2 2230 NVMe PCIe
Display	15.6-inch IPS panel, 1920 x 1080 resolution @, 240 Hz
Networking	Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax), RJ45 Ethernet, Bluetooth 5.2
Ports	Thunderbolt 4 (USB Type-C), 3x USB 3.2 Gen1 (Type-A), HDMI 2.0, 3.5mm audio jack
Camera	None
Battery	76 WHr
Power Adapter	200W
Operating System	Windows 10 Pro
Dimensions (WxDxH)	14.17 x 9.92 x 0.78 inches (360 x 252 x 19.9mm)
Weight	4.41 pounds (2kg)
Price (as configured)	$1,450

Our Verdict

For

Against

Design of the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

HP Spectre x360 13-inch Specifications

Productivity Performance HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Display on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch Specifications

Keyboard and Touchpad on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Audio on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Upgradeability of the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Battery Life on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Heat on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Webcam on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

Software and Warranty on the HP Spectre x360 13-inch

HP Spectre x360 13-inch Configurations

Bottom Line

Intel’s Performance Claims

Intel Evo vs. Apple M1

The Form Factor Argument

Compatibility

Notes and Disclaimers

Tech products

Apple AirPods Pro

Apple AirPods Pro

Phone as webcam

Satechi Aluminum Multi-Port Adapter V2

Satechi Aluminum Multi-Port Adapter V2

Rechargeable batteries

Panasonic AA NiMH 2,550mAh rechargeable batteries

CalDigit TS3 Plus Thunderbolt 3 dock

CalDigit TS3 Plus Thunderbolt 3 dock

Google Nest Wifi Router

Google Nest Wifi router

Ultrawide monitor

LG 34BL850-W 34-inch QHD monitor

Home office helpers

Fully Jarvis Bamboo Standing Desk

LapGear Designer Lap Desk

LapGear Designer Lap Desk

Huanuo monitor mount stand

Huanuo monitor mount stand

Nespresso Inissia Espresso Machine

Ello Devon Glass Tumbler

Ello Devon Glass Tumbler

Herman Miller Sayl Chair

Herman Miller Sayl Chair

Notebook and pen

Our Verdict

For

Alienware m17 R4 Specifications

Design of the Alienware m17 R4

Gaming Performance on the Alienware m17 R4

Productivity Performance of Alienware m17 R4

Display on Alienware m17 R4

Keyboard and Touchpad on Alienware m17 R4

Audio on Alienware m17 R4

Upgradeability of the Alienware m17 R4

Battery Life on Alienware m17 R4

Heat on Alienware m17 R4

Webcam on Alienware m17 R4

Software and Warranty on Alienware m17 R4

Configurations of Alienware m17 R4

Bottom Line

Design and display

Reading, writing and rhythm

New System Architecture Requires New Memory Architecture

An Important Technology

Not An Apple Exclusive

Our Verdict

For

Against

Asus TUF Dash F15 Specs

Design on the Asus TUF Dash F15

Gaming and Graphics on the Asus TUF Dash F15

Productivity Performance on the Asus TUF Dash F15

Display on the Asus TUF Dash F15

Keyboard and Touchpad on the Asus TUF Dash F15

Audio on the Asus TUF Dash F15

Upgradeability of the Asus TUF Dash F15

Battery Life on the Asus TUF Dash F15