Don’t mind me triple back-flipping into a parry with my Stellar Blade (heh). My blade in this context is an RTX 5090 gaming laptop, the question is: how well does this PlayStation exclusive hold up on PC?

If you’re nostalgic for the Devil May Cry and Bayonetta era, Stellar Blade is a similar action-adventure game with a whole lot of style and a sprinkle of Soulslike energy. But similar to that era, it also walks a questionable line between objectifying or empowering its female cast. It was written and directed by men, so take that for what you will.

I played Stellar Blade on an HP Omen Max 16 outfitted with an Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX processor, an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 24GB GPU, 32GB of RAM, and a 16-inch, 2560 x 1600, 240Hz, OLED display.

Here’s how it ran.

Getting bodied by Cthulhu’s children

Stellar Blade threw me right into the action, and I found myself parrying and slashing through the borderline eldritch horrors that are the Naytiba. Then I discovered another eldritch horror… the looting system. Those tiny, unlabeled rainbow dots are way too easy to walk right past. Thankfully, you can enable auto-loot.

Good news, my fellow DualSense lovers. Stellar Blade on PC is compatible with those unique DualSense features. I didn’t know how much of it would be used, but when I got to the first city, I felt the pleasant tingle of the subtle haptic feedback simulating the rain around me. And each slash of my weapon felt unique and impactful.

As for the graphics, I hopped across dilapidated city rooftops with everything turned up to Very High at a 2560 x 1600 resolution. That applies to all of the following tests. Stellar Blade developer Shift Up included native support for Nvidia’s DLSS 4 technology, which you can access with an RTX 50-series GPU

DLSS 4 is a supersampling technology that boosts visuals and performance. We’ve seen native support in many titles at this point, from Doom: The Dark Ages to Dune: Awakening. I’m a fan and critic of the technology because I’ve seen what happens when tools like Multi-Frame Generation are relied upon too heavily, like in Monster Hunter Wilds. For those unaware, frame generation produces frames with AI that analyzes the true frames rendered on your GPU. This is dark magic at best because not everything is all sunshine and rainbows, but let’s get into it.

I took to the streets with my new perfect dodge and tried to slay those Cricket Slashers and got poisoned to death — ouch. With no help from DLSS, my RTX 5090 laptop GPU managed a strong 106 frames per second on TAA. If you want to go raw graphics with no upscaling, the RTX 5090 will take you for a smooth ride.

Now, I am a diehard advocate for making games as playable as possible without upscaling, but I cannot help but enjoy DLSS’ DLAA upscaler. This uses native resolution to enhance the overall visuals. It’s more taxing than raw performance, but it looked flawless when I gave one of those beefier Guardians a beatdown at 92 fps. But what happened when I turned frame generation on?

Frame generation is not without its trade-offs; you might see some artifacts or overall fuzziness here and there. I did see some in the windows of a building in the distance, but for the most part, Stellar Blade does a great job of keeping things smooth.

Set to DLAA, I tested 2x Frame Generation (FG) and 4x Multi-Frame Generation (MFG). I saw the immediate impact with FG when I perfectly dodged my way through a group of enemy combos, averaging a strong 141 fps. As I swam my way to the next camp, the RTX 5090 pulled through 224 fps with MFG.

If you don’t want to use frame generation to maximize your frames, you can opt for the High Performance mode. Upscaling with raw performance netted me 128 fps as I tried to navigate through this hella confusing cityscape — seriously, I’m both delighted and annoyed by the multi-directional parkour. But if you want to really go hard on frame rates, you can flip on frame generation on top of the High Performance mode. With FG, I got 211 fps when I doubled back and failed to dodge that stupid Cricket Slasher. And when I got bodied by Abaddon, the RTX 5090 managed a whopping 316 fps. I’d be impressed if I wasn’t so furious at that lightning turd.

Overall, I’m happy with how Stellar Blade performs with kitted-out hardware. And thankfully, the minimum spec requirements are quite light as well, requiring just a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB or AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB GPU. And if you’re interested in getting one of the best gaming laptops, you can expect some stellar performance, with or without DLSS 4 black magic.

Hold my spice, I’m jumping into Dune: Awakening to see if Nvidia’s wild DLSS 4 claims are true, and what better device to test it on than an RTX 5090 gaming laptop?

If you ever wanted an MMO survival base-building game set on Arrakis, that’s exactly what you’re getting. While we did get Dune: Spice Wars in 2022, Dune: Awakening is a more definitive debut for the Dune franchise simply because its genre is more popular.

I played Dune: Awakening on an HP Omen Max 16 outfitted with an Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX processor, an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 24GB GPU, 32GB of RAM, and a 16-inch, 2560 x 1600, 240Hz, OLED display.

Here’s how it ran.

Surviving and thriving

I spent more time with the character creator than I care to admit, but I quickly sped through the tutorial so I could get to the online portion of the game. I drank some water, crafted a knife, and made some bandages. You know, the usual. Then I got into some knife fights where I learned how to dodge and parry, which I had no idea was a thing in this game, but now I am invested in the combat system.

Fair warning, controller players — Dune: Awakening is not friendly to us. Everything from the radial wheel to the menus themselves feels like they are designed for a keyboard and mouse. Pulling up a wheel to select your quick items takes so much longer and breaks the flow of combat compared with a simple numbered button click. And the menu replicates a mouse experience except with the analog stick, and that… is slow. I hope the controller experience on console is better because the PC experience had my patience evaporating like it was left out in the desert.

As far as the graphics go, I crash landed into the player-infested desert with everything cranked up to Ultra (apart from the experimental features) at a 2560 x 1600 resolution, which applies to all of the following tests below. If you remember, Dune: Awakening was among Nvidia’s featured DLSS 4 titles when the RTX 50-series launched, with promises of wildly high frame rates.

For those unaware, DLSS 4 is a super sampling technology that boosts visuals and performance. I have a love/hate relationship with it after my experiences in Doom: The Dark Ages and Monster Hunter Wilds, and that’s because of Multi-Frame Generation. It’s a technology that replicates frames with AI based on the true frames rendered on your GPU. This isn’t a perfect technology, and I’ll go into why later. But first, I turned off all of that.

Starting raw, with no DLSS, I set the upscaler to TAA. At max settings, this got me an average of 60 frames per second while I shot my way through a bandit camp just to pilfer some scrap. That’s a pretty strong opening. If you don’t want to touch Nvidia’s dark magic, you’ll be perfectly fine with an RTX 5090.

However, I enjoy playing with the DLSS 4 upscaler set to DLAA, as it uses the native resolution and enhances the visuals. It can be a little more taxing, but when I started mining for copper ore, the RTX 5090 managed a solid 63 fps. Again, that’s pretty solid. This got my hopes pretty high for frame generation. Maybe I’d get the wild numbers that Nvidia claimed. And I did… but there was a catch.

So whether I was avoiding the sandworm, sand storm, or trying my best to build a base that didn’t look like a cookie cutter stone box, the frame generation had some trouble. But first, let’s talk about performance.

With DLAA, I first turned on 2x Frame Generation (FG) and then 4x Multi-Frame Generation (MFG). With FG, the RTX 5090 jumped to 88 fps while I tried my best to parry and stab an annoying bandit near my base. That’s not as high of a jump as I expected. But when I flipped the switch to MFG, I got a whopping 144 fps.

If you’re just interested in high performance play, then you’ll want to set DLSS to Ultra Performance. With no frame generation, I got 144 fps when I used my freaky Bene Gesserit compel ability on a nearby enemy. When I started dissecting a broken Ornithopter, the RTX 5090 managed 156 fps on FG. And then, when I had to outrun the sun itself because my skin was practically on fire, I got up to a wild 257 fps.

Awesome, right? Wrong. You see, I noticed straight from the tutorial that Multi-Frame Generation was an issue. As I said, DLSS 4 isn’t magic. The generated frames you’re getting aren’t perfect, so you may see some artifacts, like a pixelated asset, just for a moment. Some games hide this well, but Dune: Awakening is not one of them. Just from moving the camera around, I noticed the foliage around me become distorted. Even the ground looked like it had a hard time keeping up, with little blotches in the sand appearing.

Unfortunately, this isn't the magical performance we saw in those RTX 50-series trailers. If you absolutely need the frame generation because you’re on a lower spec 50-series rig, do it. But I’d avoid it for now, at least until either Nvidia or Dune: Awakening gives us an update.

But overall, if you’re interested in getting one of the best gaming laptops, you can expect some spicy performance without all the DLSS 4 magic.

Are you ready, Nightfarers? I battle-bused my way down to Limveld in Elden Ring Nightreign and got a proper hazing from the Night Lords, all so I can tell you how this monster performs.

Elden Ring Nightreign is the latest entry into FromSoftware’s medley of masochist nightmares, a co-op roguelike spin-off of its renowned namesake. It’s not just an asset-reskin, either — the combat got a much-needed rework to allow for smoother mobility and even unique movesets. Now, it has its problems mechanically… and performance-wise.

I played Elden Ring Nightreign on the HP Omen Max 16 (RTX 5090), the Lenovo ThinkPad X9-15 Gen 1 Aura Edition (Intel Arc 140V), and the Asus ROG Flow Z13 (AMD Radeon 8060S). My plan was to initially play it only on an RTX 5090 and see how it ran, but you’ll see why that plan went out of the window in a moment.

Here’s what happened.

How I (night)fared in Elden Ring Nightreign

After I finished fangirling over the menu music, I jumped right into Nightreign on Maximum settings at 2560 x 1600 with the HP Omen Max 16, which features the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 GPU — the best GPU commercially available.

It’s important to note that there are no customizable DLSS 4 settings within Elden Ring Nightreign, so I couldn’t enable DLAA or anything like that, which would boost visuals and performance. Technically, I could use DLSS 4 Override to change some settings via the Nvidia app, like turning on Multi-Frame Generation, but unfortunately, that was irrelevant.

Why? Well, like Elden Ring and nearly every other FromSoftware game, Nightreign is capped at a sad 60 frames per second. As you might imagine, the most powerful gaming laptop around was more than capable of hitting that cap. So, fps performance data is effectively useless.

I did want to measure the latency, which is super important for multiplayer games, but Nvidia’s performance-measuring software FrameView doesn’t pick up Nightreign’s latency numbers. That’s likely because FromSoftware didn’t include latency markers to measure that exact data.

However, despite crushing that 60-fps cap, I experienced some performance hiccups while playing Nightreign.

One issue I had was Nightreign not saving my setting to Borderless Windowed mode, instead switching back to Fullscreen. This became an issue when I alt-tabbed at the beginning of an expedition, and the whole game slowed down to a crawl. I wasn’t the only one who experienced it either — my whole team got the same lag spike. You might think it’s a coincidence, but when I switched my setting back to Borderless, the lag stopped and the game loaded normally. I did host the session, so it may have had something to do with that.

Another huge issue I clocked was some choppy network performance. I raced to speak with God in the churches across Limveld, and it felt smooth as butter. But when we got to the creatively named Gaping Jaw boss of the second expedition, all of our games experienced massive frame drops when it started to yeet some lightning at us. This seemed more like a network issue than a hardware issue since the experience was shared. Yet it happened only when there were a ton of effects on the screen. This is something that must be addressed in an update, either at or post-launch. Needless to say, we died.

Otherwise, playing Elden Ring Nightreign on a $4K+ gaming laptop felt like a dream. But what about a regular old laptop? Yep, I ran Nightreign on the Lenovo ThinkPad X9-15 Gen 1 Aura Edition’s Intel Arc 140V iGPU, and it was rough, but not for the reason I expected. I thought the game would crash on startup, but it booted up, and I managed to get to the Roundtable Hold without the game breaking.

At Low, 1200p settings, I managed a decent 30 to 40 fps. That’s way better than what I expected. And when jumping into an expedition, it dropped to 20 to 40 fps. That’s still perfectly fine. But it still managed to be completely unplayable. Why? Frame drops. Every eight to twelve seconds, the fps would tank to 2 to 4 fps for one to three seconds. I did manage to kill an Abductor Virgin (terrible name by the way), but I wouldn’t recommend anyone play the game like this. I even turned the graphics all the way down to 800 x 600 to see if that would help, and it boosted the fps a little bit, but the frame drops remained consistent.

The Omen and ThinkPad showcased the best and worst kind of performance you can experience, respectively. But not all integrated graphics are created equal, which is why I also tackled Nightreign with the Asus ROG Flow Z13’s AMD Radeon 8060S iGPU.

Running performance tests on the Flow Z13 provided a little more variety, but overall, consistently strong numbers. On Maximum settings at 2560 x 1600, the Flow Z13 captured a strong 50 frames per second. I’ve gushed about the Flow Z13’s integrated graphics before, but it’s still damn impressive. Bumping the graphics down yielded 55 fps on High, 57 fps on Medium, and 58 fps on Low. You get some diminishing returns once you start lowering the graphics. Overall, I’d recommend maxing it out and experiencing all that Nightreign has to offer.

I called it out when Elden Ring Nightreign’s PC requirements were announced, but this game can run completely fine on low-end and older hardware. But for the most part, I’d stay away from integrated graphics, unless you got those slick new AMD iGPUs.

I got the chance to jump into Doom: The Dark Ages on an RTX 5090 gaming laptop, and let me tell you, it feels good blasting away demons in this high-fidelity, beautiful nightmare.

Doom: The Dark Ages is the latest entry in the Doom reboot franchise. It takes place before Doom (2016) and Doom Eternal, at a time when the Slayer was bound by gods and kings to combat the forces of hell. It’s like if medieval fantasy and Doom had a baby, and I love it (insert sob emoji here).

I played Doom: The Dark Ages on an HP Omen Max 16 outfitted with an Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX processor, an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 24GB GPU, 32GB of RAM, and a 16-inch, 2560 x 1600, 240Hz, OLED display.

Here’s how it ran.

Slaying my Nightmare

I wasted no time jumping into the hardest difficulty… Well, not the hardest. I don't have it in me to get my whole save wiped in Pandemonium or Ultra-Nightmare, so I went with regular ol’ Nightmare. However, for the graphic settings, I pulled that level like Kronk all the way to Ultra Nightmare, 2560 x 1600, and that applies to all of the following tests below.

Now, Nvidia’s RTX 5090 and all of its RTX 50-series siblings boast DLSS 4, which is a super sampling technology that boosts visuals and performance. I’ve been somewhat critical of the technology due to my fear of developers relying on Multi-Frame Generation too heavily in order to optimize their performance (ahem, Monster Hunter Wilds). So naturally, the first thing I did was turn off all of that.

I started tearing through demons in the Village of Khalim with the upscaler set to its default, TAA (there’s no option to turn off upscaling). After Oblivion: Remastered scorned me with its sub-60 fps performance, I had my doubts that the RTX 5090 could pull through. But to Nvidia’s credit, and id Software’s for optimizing their game so well, I got a sweet 85 fps. Getting above 60 fps on a laptop with a 1600p display is ideal.

However, I do like playing with the DLSS 4 upscaler, especially when set to DLAA, which maintains the native resolution while also enhancing the visuals. I expected the performance to be about the same as TAA or maybe better, but when I thrashed some devils with my new power gauntlet, it came back with 50 fps. It’s not terrible, but it’s not 60 fps.

This is when I turned to Frame Generation (2x) and Multi-Frame Generation (4x). This technology uses AI to create frames for every true frame, 2x being one for one and 4x being one for three. It’s pretty cool in theory, but it has its issues, like occasional fuzziness or artifacting. I didn't notice anything egregious in Doom: The Dark Ages, but you may have a different experience than I.

I leapt back into the fray, doubling up on my aggression (turning on 2x FG), and I broke demon spines at 82 fps. That's a more comfortable frame rate, but I'm surprised FG couldn't push it further than TAA. But of course, cranking it up to MFG (4x), I saw a blistering 140 fps.

Using DLAA provides the most optimal visuals outside of raw performance. However, if you want to make use of that high refresh rate display, set the DLSS to Ultra Performance.

I bounced across the battlefield like my child when I say we’re going outside, which got me a smooth 131 fps. And that's without frame generation. Popping on FG (2x) bumped me up to 178 fps. Then, meleeing my way to MFG (4x), the RTX 5090 blasted through the Omen’s 240Hz display with a score of 260 fps.

It’s nice to see that id Software took care in optimizing the performance of Doom: The Dark Ages. Some beloved AAA games have failed to present respectable frames at max settings even on the most powerful hardware to date.

Right now, id Software’s minimum spec requirement for Doom: The Dark Ages is an RTX 2060 Super or AMD RX 6600 GPU. That’s a little higher than I’d like it to be, but it feels honest considering the performance I got.

But overall, if you’re interested in getting one of the best gaming laptops, you can expect some slayer performance.

The first RTX 50-series gaming laptops are finally here, and after dozens of hours of testing, we have our first look at how they perform on battery life. I review laptops for a living and even I was surprised by the results.

The Razer Blade 16 (2025) and the Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 are the first RTX 50-series gaming laptops to arrive in Laptop Mag's lab for testing.

Have you been eagerly waiting to see how the new generation of gaming laptops running Nvidia's latest GPUs perform? I can now safely say they have one major advantage over their RTX 40-series predecessors:

Battery life.

How do RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 gaming laptops compare on battery life?

Battery life is a common weakness for gaming laptops. As a general rule, more powerful laptops drain their batteries faster. So, my expectations for the battery life test results on the first couple RTX 50-series gaming laptops were low.

I'm glad to say I was wrong. The Razer Blade 16 and Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 both performed well above average on our battery life tests. While they still fall short of the battery life you'd get on a mainstream laptop, they each lasted much longer than most other gaming laptops:

Both RTX 50-series laptops lasted well over 2 hours on our gaming battery life test, with the Gigabyte Aorus coming just a few minutes shy of 3 hours. For context, 2 hours or more is considered impressive gaming battery life. We normally see anywhere between 50 minutes and 1:30, so for both of these laptops to last significantly longer than average is a major win.

The Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 has an edge in gaming battery life, but its normal web browsing battery life is on par with what we usually see from gaming laptops (around 4 to 6 hours).

The Razer Blade 16 takes the lead in this category with a time of 7 hours and 21 minutes. That's not quite enough to get through a full day of work or school, but it's still above average for a gaming laptop.

Do RTX 50-series gaming laptops have better battery life than the RTX 40-series?

If you're in the market for a new gaming laptop, you might be considering saving some money and going with an RTX 40-series model. There are plenty of long-lasting RTX 40-series gaming laptops out there. That includes some that are surprisingly affordable, like the HP Victus 16, and several currently ranked in our best gaming laptops guide.

If battery life is a deciding factor for you, though, you may want to consider paying a little extra for an RTX 50-series gaming laptop. The test results from the first couple are already showing a noticeable improvement in battery life over RTX 40-series models.

The 2024 and 2025 Razer Blade 16 is a perfect example:

The 2025 Razer Blade 16 has a huge lead on battery life, especially in our regular web browsing test, where it lasted nearly 3 hours longer than the 2024 model. It lasted about 1 hour longer in our gaming battery life test.

That's a pretty significant lead, enough to make a difference if you need to bring your laptop to work or school with you on a regular basis. It's still too soon to say if we'll see similar battery life numbers across the board on RTX 50-series gaming laptops, or if this result is unique to the Blade 16.

But the Razer Blade 16 and Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 both lasted over 2 hours (particularly the Aorus). If nothing else, these early results indicate that RTX 50-series laptops have an edge in gaming battery life over RTX 40-series models.

We'll get a better idea of how RTX 50-series gaming laptops compare to their RTX 40-series predecessors as more launch, so stay tuned for our full reviews and analysis.

More from Laptop Mag

• RTX 5090 Laptop GPU performance: The frame-gen future has arrived
• The RTX 5090 was supposed to be the chosen one, but does the RTX 4090 have the high ground?
• Games are colliding with AI whether you like it or not — and Razer is proof

Nvidia’s slew of RTX 50-series GPUs makes a splash in the gaming laptop world, and we’ve tested the first RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 chips and I could not have predicted the results.

I reviewed the Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 outfitted with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5080 16GB graphics chip, and I’m putting that up against the Razer Blade 16, which is powered by the RTX 5090 24GB GPU.

Now, there are a few reasons why the results might shock you, but let’s dive into the numbers and then I’ll explain why the numbers are so interesting.

RTX 5090 vs. RTX 5080: Benchmarks

Let’s get this out of the way. The Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 comes in at 5.5 pounds and 14.05 x 10 x 0.91~1.18 inches, while the Razer Blade 16 stacks up to 4.6 pounds, 13.98 x 9.86 x 0.59~0.69 inches.

Why is that important? Well, the Razer Blade’s size may have affected its thermal efficiency, which can impact its overall performance.

Now, the RTX 5090 took victory overall, as you might’ve expected. However, it surpassed the RTX 5080 on only 22 out of 30 tests. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. If you buy a superior graphics card for more money, you want to see improvements across the board.

So where did the RTX 5080 eke out over the RTX 5090?

The RTX 5080’s first victory was in Assassin's Creed: Mirage (Ultra, 1080p), hitting 145 frames per second over the RTX 5090’s 120 fps. That’s a steep gap.

At 1080p and 1600p, the RTX 5080 saw an average 20-fps bump over the RTX 5090 in Far Cry 6 at Ultra settings. The RTX 5080 swept up the Grand Theft Auto V benchmark as well as both 1080p and native resolutions.

It started getting bumpy when it had to push through at 1600p on a few benchmarks. However, the RTX 5080 killed it on the 1080p, Ultra benchmarks for Monster Hunter Wilds, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Total War: Warhammer III.

Well, Total War is a cheap shot, to be fair. It took away a 0.5 fps victory (yeah, I know). However, Tomb Raider was fair game, as the RTX 5080 beat the RTX 5090 by 19 fps.

What I really want to highlight is the RTX 5080’s win in Monster Hunter Wilds. If you know anything about Wilds you know that it’s terribly optimized for PC, which is why it was exciting to see the RTX 5080 score a 15-frame lead on the RTX 5090. That’s 86 fps vs. 71 fps. A gap like that is noticeable when your fps is in the double digits.

Of course, the RTX 5090 took home a host of victories, 22 to be precise (18 on gaming alone). However, 9 out of those 18 games were the result of a victory falling within 6 frames or less. You’re telling me that this monstrous RTX 5090 offers only a 6 fps bump in half of the games it surpassed the RTX 5080?

What does that mean for you, though?

RTX 5090 vs. RTX 5080: Which should you buy?

To throw the disclaimer out there again, the Razer Blade 16 is a thin-and-light gaming laptop, so it’s naturally going to underperform compared with bigger laptops with the same GPU. It even failed a few tests against a bigger laptop with a weaker GPU, aka the Aorus Master 16.

So what does that tell us? A bigger GPU is not always better.

There are plenty of factors to consider when buying a new gaming laptop, especially if you want it to be one of the best gaming laptops. As we’ve seen here, size may be one of those factors.

As you’re shopping for a new gaming laptop this year, stay tuned to Laptop Mag for our full reviews and benchmarks of 50-series rigs to find the best bang for your buck.

Intel's most powerful mobile CPU has arrived: the Intel Core Ultra 200HX series.

We've tested Intel's latest chipset on the Gigabyte Aorus Master 16, HP Omen Max 16, and MSI Raider 18 HX gaming laptops. But does it live up to the hype?

As with any new silicon, we compared Intel's Arrow Lake HX processor against its predecessor and current competition, especially AMD's latest chips.

While Arrow Lake HX will mostly be used in gaming laptops, a few workstation models, like the HP ZBook Fury 18 G1i, have opted for the HX variant instead of Arrow Lake H, so we decided to throw Apple's M4 Pro chipset into the mix.

So how does Intel's Core Ultra 200HX series stack up? Let's break it down.

Intel Arrow Lake HX benchmarks: Performance

Intel's initial claims about the Arrow Lake HX indicated more than 5% single-thread uplift and 20% multithread performance gains over the 14th-generation Raptor Lake Refresh HX chipsets.

Our initial report didn't have an ideal comparison between the Core Ultra 200HX and 14th Generation Intel SKUs, but even then our test results indicated a solid leap in performance over the 14th generation and improvement over the Arrow Lake H model, which is designed for high-performance thin and light laptops.

The Gigabyte Aorus Master 16's Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX had a 5.7% increase in single-core performance on Geekbench 6 compared to the Intel Core i9-14900HX in the Razer Blade 16 (2024). It also outperformed the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H (MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo), AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (Razer Blade 16 2025), and AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 (Asus ROG Flow Z13 2025) in single-core performance by 4-5%. The MacBook Pro 16's M4 Pro still holds the single-core performance record, but Arrow Lake HX is helping close the gap.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX also had a 9.8% increase over the i9-14900HX in multicore performance on Geekbench 6, and Arrow Lake outperformed the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 by 19.6%. The Ultra 9 275HX was just shy of the multicore performance of the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and almost gave Apple's M4 Pro a run for its money.

Granted, the Flow Z 13 does cap AMD's big Strix Halo Ryzen AI Max APU to just 70W of power, while the Gigabyte, Omen, and MSI laptops can hit up to 230W of power. At it's full wattage, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 could offer higher performance, but we've seen that chip in only one device so far.

When we throw in the HP Omen Max 16, which features a similar Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX processor, it has a 7% increase in single-core Geekbench 6 performance and a 13.5% increase in multicore performance over the 14th gen i9-14900HX.

As for the MSI Raider 18 HX, it features the flagship Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX processor. So it's the ideal comparison for the i9-14900HX, as both are the top-end of Intel's most powerful mobile silicon for their respective generations.

The Core Ultra 9 285HX has a 5% increase in single-core performance on Geekbench 6 over the Razer Blade 16 (2024)'s i9-14900HX CPU, and a 25% increase in multicore performance. In fact, the 285HX is just 1,000 points shy of the Apple MacBook Pro 16's M4 Pro chipset in Geekbench multicore scores.

You'll notice that our Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX processor doesn't quite meet that 20% gen-to-gen uplift Intel promised. However, the Ultra 9 285HX came in with a 25% gen-to-gen performance uplift.

This is likely because we don't have a good comparison for the Ultra 9 275HX chipset. Intel's 285HX, 275HX, and i9-14900HX are all 24-core CPUs, but Intel ditched hyperthreading for the Arrow Lake generation. So the 285HX and 275HX both have just 24 total threads while the i9-14900HX has 32.

The real difference between the 285HX and 275HX is their max turbo frequency. The 275HX has a lower max speed of 5.4GHz, while the 285HX has a higher boost clock at 5.5GHz which helps it compete against the i9-14900HX's 5.8GHz turbo frequency.

As you can see with the difference between the Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 and HP Omen Max 16's 275HX CPUs, Intel CPU performance can vary based on implementation by manufacturers.

So, even this 25% multicore uplift with the 285HX is far from the final word on multicore performance for the 200HX series. However, we've seen solid gen-to-gen performance updates with the Arrow Lake HX series in Geekbench 6, Handbrake video encoding, and CrossMark scores.

And it's more obvious than ever that Intel is working to close the performance gap between x86 and Apple Silicon. Though there is still work to be done.

Intel Arrow Lake HX benchmarks: Battery life

Battery life is not the priority for an Intel HX processor. That's just a fact.

The HX suffix chipsets are high-performance silicon designed for gaming or workstation laptops. They're almost always paired with high-end discrete GPUs, which cause battery life to suffer compared to the H suffix laptops, often shipped with just the integrated GPU.

However, things may get better in this generation.

Our Gigabyte Aorus Master 16 was paired with the Nvidia RTX 5080, which comes with Nvidia's revamped Battery Boost technology for up to 40% better battery life when gaming.

While the web surfing battery life on the 275HX/5080 Gigabyte Aorus wasn't groundbreaking at 5 hours and 31 minutes, the gaming battery life hit an astounding 2 hours and 54 minutes based on the PCMark 10 Gaming Battery life benchmark. This is about 50 extra minutes of web surfing and nearly an 1 hour and 30 minutes more gaming time than the i9-14900HX/4090 Razer Blade 16.

While the HP Omen Max 16 with an RTX 5090 (3:20) and MSI Raider 18 HX with an RTX 5080 (2:32) also saw pretty poor web surfing battery life, both saw better battery life when gaming, with the Omen hitting 1:24 and the Raider lasting for 1:46 hours. While not the 40% increase Nvidia claimed, it's clear battery life is also subject to a lot of wiggle room depending on how the manufacturer configures a laptop.

AMD's Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (7:22) is more efficient while surfing the web than the Arrow Lake HX CPUs, but that's to be expected considering the Ryzen AI 9 processor is a 25W ultra-portable laptop chip compared to the 55W Arrow Lake HX.

As for AMD's Ryzen AI Max+ 395, while the Flow Z 13 did offer longer web surfing battery life (10:14), the Arrow Lake Gigabyte Aorus and MSI Raider both outlasted AMD's big APU in gaming battery life (1:34).

Naturally, the Arrow Lake H chipset outlasted the Arrow Lake HX, since our MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo is using the integrated Intel Arc 140T graphics chip compared to a discrete Nvidia RTX 50-series GPU.

The Core Ultra 200HX chips don't even come close to challenging the Apple MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro's incredible battery life, nor would we expect it to. Arm-based computers like the MacBook Pro and the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s are in a class of their own, and Intel's Lunar Lake is the chip built to challenge that.

Intel's Arrow Lake HX is built to offer competition against Apple Silcon's CPU power, and function in concert with a discrete GPU.

Unfortunately, Apple remains unchallenged for another generation when it comes to offering benchmark-breaking CPU performance and outstanding battery life.

Perhaps this Fall, we'll get that big blockbuster x86 CPU. Intel's Panther Lake is expected later this year, after all.

Bottom line

It's still very early in the Intel Arrow Lake HX reviews cycle, so we don't have complete data on the new silicon yet. But based on this early look, Intel's managed to eke out a solid 10-25% boost to performance and a bit better gaming battery life with this new generation.

Of course, results will vary depending on each laptop build, as multiple factors like GPU, battery size, and TDP can heavily impact performance and battery life on these machines. That's true of all laptops, but when you get to the high-performance machines, each different implementation of a CPU or GPU can have a great impact.

Plus, few people will be upgrading their 14th-gen, RTX 40-series gaming laptops for the new generation. For those with an 11th-gen/30-series laptop or older, these new chips are a huge improvement across the board.

After all, the base Geekbench 6 multicore score of 11,000 was set based on the desktop i7-12700K. And in 2025, those are rookie numbers even for thin and light laptops.

More from Laptop Mag

• "Arrow (Lake) is a wonderful, wonderful notebook product,” Intel VP shares what to expect from Intel's new processors in 2025
• The RTX 5090 was supposed to be the chosen one, but does the RTX 4090 have the high ground?
• Handheld gaming PCs have a Windows problem — but maybe not for long

Nvidia's RTX 50-series GPUs launched in January, and while the hardware has been tested to no end on the desktop side, we have yet to see how the upcoming laptop equivalents perform. Until now.

Yes, we've got our hands on an RTX 5090 laptop and tested it with multiple games, monitoring its graphical performance across both synthetic and real-world benchmarks.

The question lingering in many gamer's minds is whether or not an RTX 5090 is worth the upgrade, especially after the mixed reception towards the desktop 50-series as a whole.

Let's answer that question with our tests: We've directly compared the RTX 5090 laptop's performance to a machine with an RTX 4090. However, it's good to note that the RTX 5090 laptop is much thinner than the RTX 4090 laptop. While that may not seem like a big deal, it may change thermal efficiency which can similarly impact performance.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's determine if the RTX 5090 is worth your money by comparing it to last generation's RTX 4090.

How much better is the RTX 5090 laptop when compared to an RTX 4090 laptop?

3DMark Fire Strike Ultra is a DirectX 11 graphics test that determines how well your hardware handles rendering, putting stress upon both the GPU and CPU. On this test, the RTX 5090 laptop received a score of 14,024, while the RTX 4090 laptop was a bit behind with 12,906.

You might have noticed that the difference here isn't particularly breathtaking, and you'd be right. Nvidia has made it no secret that a major focus on the RTX 50-series is on DLSS 4. The RTX 5090 is undeniably stronger than its predecessor, but we would have expected more than just a 1,000 point increase between generations. And unfortunately, this is an issue that persisted in our gaming tests.

We tested seven games on the RTX 5090 laptop: Far Cry 6, Assassin's Creed: Mirage, Black Myth: Wukong, Cyberpunk 2077, Monster Hunter: Wilds, Red Dead Redemption II, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. If you're worried about the RTX 5090's raw performance, don't be, as it did excellently across every game.

However, comparing it to the RTX 4090 led to some mixed results. On one hand, while playing Red Dead Redemption II at 1080p and Ultra graphics, the 5090 crushed the competition, yielding an average of 87 frames per second. This is miles ahead of the RTX 4090 laptop's 61 fps.

But otherwise, the RTX 5090 was outperformed on more than one test, and for the rest, the scores were alarmingly close. We played Assassin's Creed: Mirage at 1080p, and the RTX 4090 laptop soared ahead at 130 fps, while the 5090 landed a bit behind at 120 fps. Far Cry 6 at 1080p told a similar story: The RTX 4090 hit 111 fps, and the 5090 scored 97 fps.

Those are the only two instances where the RTX 5090 is outperformed, but it didn't create as wide of a gap as it did during Red Dead Redemption II. While playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p, the RTX 4090's 164 fps is only a bit behind the RTX 5090's 166 fps. Our experience with Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p is in the same boat, with the RTX 5090's 66 fps only the tiniest bit better than the 4090's 63 fps.

We also tested some new games, which unfortunately weren't out when we reviewed the RTX 4090 laptop in question. On Black Myth: Wukong, the RTX 5090 laptop achieved 58 fps with graphics set to Cinematic and resolution at 1080p. And in Monster Hunter Wilds at 1080p, the laptop averaged 71 fps.

Is an RTX 5090 laptop worth your money?

Yes, the RTX 5090 performs excellently, and you'll have no issue playing demanding AAA titles at high framerates. All of our tests did well at high graphics settings, and while you won't get anywhere near the power of its desktop equivalent, it's still great.

However, comparing the RTX 5090 laptop's performance to an RTX 4090 laptop reveals only a marginal improvement, and in some games, we even saw the RTX 4090 perform better. This could be a result of the RTX 5090 laptop being a thinner machine overall, but for now, our early tests don't look so hot.

We recommend waiting. It could be that further tests of RTX 5090 performance reveal that this was just a poor showing for the GPU, or we could continue to see the same results in future gaming laptops. If so, you're better off with an RTX 4090 laptop.

Apple's MacBook Air M4 refresh is expected to come in the next few months, and we've already got a few early looks at how the M4 MacBook Air will fare.

The M4 Air surfaced on the Geekbench archives earlier this week (spotted by Wccftech) and indicated performance that rivals the M4 MacBook Pro 14. If this benchmark holds, you could get MacBook Pro performance at a budget price with the upcoming MacBook Air.

M4 MacBook Air: What are the leaked benchmarks

The leaked MacBook Air M4 benchmark was a Geekbench Metal run, testing the GPU of the M4's integrated graphics tile. The MacBook Air M4 scored 54,806 points on the Geekbench Metal benchmark.

The MacBook Air M4 used in the leaked benchmarks features 10 GPU cores, which is the same number of GPU cores as the M4 base chip on the Apple MacBook Pro 14 (M4, 2024).

If Apple follows the same pattern with the M4 MacBook Air as the MacBook Air M3 models, then this would be a benchmark for an upgraded chip, since the base M3 in the MacBook Air features 8 CPU cores and 8 GPU cores.

Also noteworthy is that the MacBook Air M4 in the leaked benchmark features upgraded RAM, with 24GB of memory onboard. So, base models of the Air with 16GB RAM won't benchmark quite as high as the laptop in this Geekbench run.

M4 MacBook Air: How does it stack up?

A Geekbench Metal score of 54,806 sounds pretty impressive. But how does it stack up?

We don't run the Geekbench Metal and Geekbench Vulkan benchmarks in our standard suite of lab tests, so we've got to rely on the official Geekbench archives for comparison scores to see how the MacBook Air M4 fares in comparison to the MacBook Air 13 (M3, 2024), MacBook Pro 14 (M4, 2024), and the MacBook Pro 16 (M4 Pro, 2024).

We don't expect the M4 in the MacBook Air to compete with the M4 Pro, but it serves as a good reference point since the M4 Pro is easily capable of taking on the M3 Max.

The MacBook Air M4 scored 33.5% higher on the Geekbench Metal test than the MacBook Air 13 M3, and it's just 4.8% lower the MacBook Pro 14 (M4, 2024).

Considering the MacBook Air is a fanless laptop design, the fact that it can put out GPU performance that's less than 5% under MacBook Pro 14 is beyond impressive.

Bottom line

The leaked MacBook Air is almost certainly an upgraded configuration, so the base MacBook Air M4 won't be getting MacBook Pro-like performance for $1,099. If Apple keeps the pricing for the M4 refresh the same as the M3, then a similarly configured MacBook Air M4 would cost about $1,499. This is still a more wallet-friendly price compared the MacBook Pro 14 which starts at $1,599 and would cost about $1,999 with upgraded RAM to 24GB.

So this particular MacBook Air M4 punches well above its weight-class on the Geekbench: Metal archives, but we'd expect the base configuration of the MacBook Air M4 to be a little less powerful. Not that it's a bad thing.

This means that the base MacBook Air M4 won't be quite as powerful as the MacBook Pro 14, but it will definitely be a powerhouse.

The MacBook Air M4 refresh is expected as early as March 2025.

More from Laptop Mag

• Apple needs to do this one thing to make the M4 MacBook Air a clear winner among budget laptops
• The iPhone 16's fiercest competitor is actually the cheapest Apple phone you can buy
• Best MacBook in 2025: Which Apple laptop should you buy?

Intel launched its new silicon this week, so naturally we wanted to see how it stacks up compared to the competition.

Intel's Arrow Lake H systems launched yesterday, offering up to 20% increases in multithread performance over the previous Meteor Lake generation. Based on our testing of the Asus Zenbook Duo 2025 (UX8406) and MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo (B2HM), it seems Intel's initial performance claims have held up in our testing.

But how does Arrow Lake H compare to the M4 and M4 Pro, or the Snapdragon X Elite (XIE-84-100)?

Let's take a look at the numbers.

Arrow Lake-H Geekbench 6 performance

In terms of gen-over-gen performance, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H on the Zenbook Duo saw a 22% increase in Geekbench 6 multicore score over the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H on the Acer Swift Go 16. The Prestige 16 scored 32% higher than the Swift Go 16. All three systems had 32GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD. There are some build differences between the three laptops that can account for that variation, but this is about as close to a perfect comparison as we can get since our 2023 Prestige 16 and 2024 Zenbook Duo models featured an Intel Core Ultra 7 155H CPU.

What's more exciting is seeing how Arrow Lake stacks up against the Apple M4 in the MacBook Pro 14, the M4 Pro in the MacBook Pro 16, AMD's Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 in the Zenbook S16, and the Snapdragon X Elite (XIE-84-100) in the Samsung GalaxyBook 4 Edge.

Intel's Core Ultra 9 285H processor is the high-end for Intel's mid-range performance chipset, so we've pit it against the best of the best from the competition. On both the ZenBook Duo and the Prestige 16, Intel's Arrow Lake outperforms the Apple M4, Snapdragon X Elite, and AMD Ryzen AI 9 on multicore performance. Apple still has the edge on Single-core performance, while Arrow Lake is more in line with Qualcomm and outperforms AMD on single-thread power.

The Prestige 16's Core Ultra 9 Geekbench multicore scores were 15% higher than the Apple M4, but 31% behind the M4 Pro. This is about where we'd expect things to be, considering the M4 Pro outperforms the M3 Max for significantly less money.

Arrow Lake-H HandBrake performance

Most folks don't just sit around running Geekbench on their systems, so we supplement our performance testing with more real-world simulated benchmarks. Handbrake is a useful tool for measuring video editing prowess, which can get you a more holistic view of a laptop's performance in stress tests.

For our Handbrake test, we compress the 4K version of Tears of Steel into a more social media-friendly 1080p 30fps format and calculate the time it takes for the machine to complete the encoding.

The ZenBook Duo's Intel Core Ultra 9 285H chipset took 5 minutes and 4 seconds to complete the compression, while the Prestige 16's Core Ultra 9 285H was quite a bit faster at 4:12. This difference of nearly 1 minute between the two Core Ultra 9 laptops likely comes down to thermal management, since the Zenbook Duo is a dual-screen laptop while the Prestige 16 is a thicker, mid-range business device.

The ZenBook Duo's Handbrake time is faster than the Zenbook S16's Ryzen AI 9, while the Prestige 16 is faster than the M4 MacBook Pro 14 and Snapdragon X Elite Samsung GalaxyBook Edge 4. As expected, the M4 Pro smokes all of the other laptops on this list, but the Prestige 16's 4:12 completion time is nothing to scoff at.

Arrow Lake-H Gaming performance

We do have a more in-depth hands-on based around our experience gaming with Intel's Arrow Lake-H systems, and the integrated Arc 140T deserves some serious praise, but what about the benchmarks?

None of the laptops on this list are gaming machines, but we do test them for gaming performance regardless as a way to evaluate the iGPU's performance in 3D rendering, GPU-powered AI generation, and casual gaming settings.

Based on our cross-platform gaming benchmarks in Borderlands 3, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Gathering Storm, the Arrow Lake-H gaming benchmarks on the Prestige 16 sit in close competition with the Apple M4 and AMD Ryzen AI 9. The ZenBook Duo's gaming performance is a little slower than the MSI, but again that's likely due to the thermal constraints of the Zenbook's dual-screen chassis.

Interestingly, because Intel's Arrow Lake is a successor to Meteor Lake, its iGPU isn't quite as powerful as the Intel Arc 140V offered on Intel's Lunar Lake chipsets. It isn't a huge difference, but it does help explain why MSI opted for Lunar Lake on the Claw 8 AI+.

Bottom Line

We have tested only two systems with Intel's Arrow Lake-H silicon and both feature the Core Ultra 9 285H processor. So this is just a small look at what Arrow Lake-H is capable of via two premium spec laptops. Consider, however, that there are always performance variations thanks to implementation choices made by manufacturers. Some laptop designs will inherently thermal throttle more than others.

Despite that, things look pretty good for Arrow Lake H on the performance front, particularly when looking at industry standard benchmarks like Geekbench 6 and 3DMark.

While we can expect lower performance on multithread benchmarks from the Core Ultra 5 and Core Ultra 7 200H variants of the Arrow Lake H chipsets, it seems Intel's early claims of up to 20% performance increase gen over gen adds up.

More from Laptop Mag

• Intel Arrow Lake battery life: After over 100 hours of testing, we've got good news and bad news
• "Arrow (Lake) is a wonderful, wonderful notebook product,” Intel VP shares what to expect from Intel's new processors in 2025
• “Not everybody has a killer app for AI yet”: Intel’s Robert Hallock opens the company playbook on AI, NPUs, and more

Intel's Arrow Lake CPUs are here, but do they offer a significant battery life upgrade over last year's Intel processors? We spent over 100 hours testing the first two Intel Arrow Lake systems in our labs to find out.

While you shouldn't really be looking to upgrade from a Lunar Lake laptop yet (the first of them launched in late 2023), you may be wondering if it's worth picking up a brand-new Arrow Lake laptop or perusing our best laptop deals for a discounted Lunar Lake system.

The MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo and Asus Zenbook Duo are the first Arrow Lake laptops to come through our labs, so we looked closely at how they hold up on battery life — and whether they're worth your money.

While it's too soon to say if either of these laptops will make the cut for our best laptops of the year, they do paint an interesting picture of the overall performance and efficiency we can expect from Arrow Lake, especially when compared to last year's Meteor Lake chips.

How does Intel Arrow Lake battery life compare to Meteor Lake?

Arrow Lake, the latest generation of Intel processors, is finally here. In a recent interview with Laptop Mag, Intel's Robert Hallock explained that, "A lot of time this year was spent on battery life," hinting that we could see some strong battery life test results from Arrow Lake laptops.

Laptop Mag's lab testing team has just finished putting our first two Arrow Lake laptops through the paces in our intensive battery life test. So, we can finally see whether battery life actually is better on Arrow Lake and how it compares to last year's Meteor Lake laptops.

The results aren't as black-and-white as one might expect:

The good news is that the 2025 Arrow Lake version of the MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo lasted significantly longer than its Meteor Lake predecessor in our tests. The 2025 model survived for 15 hours and 20 minutes, over 2 hours longer than last year's model.

That's even more impressive considering that the Arrow Lake model also improved the Geekbench 6 multicore score by 31% and single-core performance by 19%, meaning dramatically better performance for most tasks. That bump is partly attributable to our 2025 review model featuring an Intel Core Ultra 9 285H compared to a weaker Core Ultra 7 155H in our 2024 review unit. However, it's clear the 2025 Prestige 16 AI Evo will win on both fronts, even at the same configuration.

However, things get a little more interesting when we look at the Asus Zenbook Duo. Considering this laptop has to power a unique dual-screen design, I wasn't expecting it to last as long as the MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo. However, I also wasn't expecting to see worse battery life than last year's model.

The Arrow Lake Zenbook Duo came in behind the Meteor Lake Zenbook Duo in both the single-screen and dual-screen battery life tests. In fact, the 2024 model lasted almost as long in dual-screen mode as the 2025 model lasted in single-screen mode. That's a dip of about 2 hours in the single-screen battery test between the 2024 and 2025 models. The Arrow Lake Zenbook Duo lasted just 6 hours and 5 minutes in dual-screen mode.

One factor to consider is that the 2025 model uses a more powerful Core Ultra 9 chip, while the 2024 model we tested was equipped with a Core Ultra 7 chip. So, it's possible the more powerful processor is simply slurping up battery life faster. However, a two-hour drop is significant, particularly if you're looking to upgrade to a Zenbook Duo.

We'll unpack all the details on the new versions of the MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo and the Asus Zenbook Duo in our full reviews, so stay tuned for a more in-depth look at how they performed in our tests.

More from Laptop Mag

• “Not everybody has a killer app for AI yet”: Intel’s Robert Hallock opens the company playbook on AI, NPUs, and more
• "We were not going to prevail in that lawsuit": Arm admits its legal feud with Qualcomm was a lost cause
• MacBooks "without any compromises": Apple's Doug Brooks says performance and battery life dominance will continue as M5 rumors emerge

Apple has made some astounding claims about the M4 MacBook Pros — enhanced power efficiency and increased performance to name a couple. You'd be wise to approach those claims with skepticism, especially without independent testing.

Luckily, we've now had a chance to put the new MacBooks to the test in our own labs, and it seems the M4 MacBook Pros do actually live up to the hype.

So just how impressive are Apple's new MacBooks? Let's get into it.

Apple MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro battery life

Apple claimed up to 24 hours of battery life on the new MacBooks, and thanks to our own lab tests and hands-on time, Apple has made a solid play for the top of the battery life charts.

The MacBook Pro 16 M4 lasted an astounding 20 hours and 46 minutes on the Laptop Mag battery test. Our proprietary battery test benchmark sets a laptop to 150 nits of brightness and surfs through a series of static, dynamic, and video web pages.

Thanks to that impressive battery life, the MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro is one of the longest-lasting consumer laptops we've tested this year. The only laptop that lasted longer than the new MacBook Pro 16 is the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 6 which clocked in at an incredible 21:03.

We also compared the new MacBooks to the previous generation of MacBook Pro laptops, and more recent battery life champions like the Dell XPS 13 (9345) with Snapdragon X Elite and Dell XPS 13 (9350) with Intel Core Ultra 200V processors, the new Macs leave the competition in the dust, outpacing even last year's MacBook Pro 16 M3 Max and MacBook Pro 14 M3 by a solid margin.

The new Apple MacBook Pro 14 M4 is also competitive against the Dell XPS 13s and has better power efficiency than the MacBook Pro 16 M3 Max and MacBook Pro 14 M3.

So this year's Macs do indeed live up to Apple's hype in terms of battery life. While we didn't get quite 24 hours, Apple did back that claim with a video streaming test, which differs from our benchmark quite a bit. Apple's web surfing claim for the MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro was just 17 hours, while the MacBook Pro 14 M4 had just 16 hours of expected web surfing battery life. We set our laptops to a lower brightness than Apple's web benchmark, which helps account for the disparity.

Apple MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro performance

Apple claims the MacBook Pro laptops with M4 chipsets are up to 3.5 times more powerful than the comparable M1 chips. The M3 was 20% faster than the M2, and 31% faster than the M1. So we expected a pretty solid leap forward with the M4 chipsets, and once again Apple hasn't let us down.

Based on the Geekbench 6 multicore scores of the MacBook Pro 14 M4, the M4 is about 27% faster than the M3.

While we didn't get our hands on a MacBook Pro 16 M4 Max chipset, our M4 Pro chip outpaced the high-end M3 Max chipset we tested last year. While it's just a 9% increase with the M4 Pro, the fact that the mid-range M4 chip has a 9% lead on the highest M3 chip is an impressive leap in performance, and at a much lower price.

Both M4 chipsets we tested performed better than the Snapdragon X Elite and Intel "Lunar Lake" Dell XPS 13s. The M4 was just 3% better than the Snapdragon X Elite-powered Dell XPS 13 (9345), but it has a 39% lead on Intel's Core Ultra 200V model of XPS 13 (9350). We also included the Asus Zenbook S 16's performance to compare with the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 chipset, and AMD was also left in the dust by the Apple M4 chipset with a 13% lead.

Outlook

If you've been dragging your heels on the Apple M-series laptops because they just didn't feel worth the upgrade from your Intel MacBook or Windows laptop, there's never been a better time to make the jump than now.

While some configurations of M4 MacBook Pro are expected to get less battery life than the MacBook Pro 14 M4 and MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro configurations we tested, based on Apple's expectations, you're still getting an impressive amount of battery life:

• 14-inch M4: Up to 24 hours video streaming, up to 16 hours wireless web
• 14-inch M4 Pro: Up to 22 hours video streaming, up to 14 hours wireless web
• 14-inch M4 Max: Up to 18 hours video streaming, up to 13 hours wireless web
• 16-inch M4 Pro: Up to 24 hours video streaming, up to 17 hours wireless web
• 16-inch M4 Max: Up to 21 hours video streaming; up to 14 hours wireless web

As for performance, the M4 chips once again dominate the current chip environment. While we are still waiting on some configurations of the Intel Core Ultra 200 series based on other architectures, the M4 chips have outperformed the most recent Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm offerings. So if you want the fastest processors, the M4 chips are indeed the way to go.

These days, most apps work on macOS natively or through Apple's solid Rosetta emulation. So you won't have the same compatibility issues as the Snapdragon X laptops.

And with the MacBook Pro 16 M4 Pro having better battery life and better performance than the MacBook Pro 16 M3 Max at a $500-$900 discount, this is the laptop we'd have to recommend to just about anyone.

More from Laptop Mag

• Windows 10 users, you don't have to upgrade to Windows 11 in 2025 — but it will cost you
• This new iOS 18 feature could end iPhone users' battery anxiety for good
• How Nvidia's consumer ARM chips could turn gaming laptops on their head

After a three-year wait, the iPad mini 7 is finally here, and it impressed me more than I expected.

Last week, Apple quietly announced a long-awaited refresh to the iPad mini 6, which launched in October 2021. Our lab testing team put it through the paces, so we can now see how the iPad mini 7 compares to the Air and the base iPad.

Three years is a long time in the tech world, and the new mini got some major upgrades, but even given that, I was still blown away by just how well it performed. Our sister site Tom's Guide gave the iPad mini 7 a shining 4.5 out of 5 stars, so I'm not alone in my admiration for the new mini.

If you're considering trading in your old iPad or buying a new one, you should look at these test results to see just how well the iPad mini 7 compares to its rivals.

iPad Mini 7 overall performance

The iPad mini 7 boasts an A17 Pro CPU, a six-core integrated GPU, an 8.3-inch Liquid Retina display with support for P3 wide color, a 12MP rear camera with 4K video, and a 12MP portrait-mode front-facing camera.

This is the first Apple device featuring an A17 chip since the iPhone 16 line-up skipped an entire generation and went straight to the A18 chips. So, we're finally getting a look at how the A17 generation compares to the M-series chips, specifically the M2 chip in the iPad Air 6.

Surprisingly, the iPad mini 7 outscored the iPad Air 6 by 283 points in the Geekbench 6 single-core test. The Air has the lead in the multi-core and Crossmark tests, but it's still impressive to see the A17 Pro chip come so close to the M2 chip's performance.

While the iPad mini 7 and iPad Air 6 scored similarly, the base iPad lagged behind in the Crossmark test. (It's a few years old at this point and was tested with an older version of Geekbench, so we can't directly compare its single-core or multi-core scores.)

Since the iPad Mini finally got an update, the base iPad is now several generations behind with the old A14 Bionic chip, which has a significantly lower overall performance score, as one might expect. Hopefully, the base iPad will get a refresh in Apple's next update cycle.

iPad mini 7 graphics and gaming

With the A17 Pro chip, the iPad mini is uniquely well-suited for gaming, especially with cloud gaming getting more popular. The display is bigger than a phone's but not as bulky as a full-size iPad, let alone a MacBook, making the mini perfect for mobile entertainment. Plus, the iPad Mini 7 is small enough to pop into a handheld controller like the Razer Kishi Ultra and carry around like a handheld gaming console.

Apple claims the iPad mini 7 can run AAA games, although only a few are available natively on iPadOS right now. However, cloud gaming platforms like Xbox Cloud Gaming and Nvidia GeForce Now can run on any mobile device through a browser, significantly expanding the number of desktop-level games you can play on an iPad.

More mainstream titles have also been getting ported over to iPadOS recently. For example, Netflix Games brought hits like Hades, Death's Door, and Oxenfree to the iPad. Similarly, Apple Arcade includes a port of Disney Dreamlight Valley along with expanded mobile versions of Dead Cells and Stardew Valley.

I love gaming on my iPad, so I was excited to see how the new iPad mini 7 performed in this category. It didn't disappoint, but I was surprised at just how well it scored. The iPad mini 7 not only maxed out the 3DMark Wild Life benchmark test, but it also achieved an average of 59.9 frames per second, nearly identical to the iPad Air 6's average of 60 fps.

Considering the iPad Air 6 has an M-series chip, I was expecting it to have a noticeable edge over the mini 7 in gaming, but it looks like the two perform virtually identically.

The base iPad fell significantly behind with an average of just 46 fps, so if you're looking for a tablet for gaming and entertainment, the iPad Air 6 or iPad mini 7 are your best options.

Should you upgrade to the iPad mini 7?

If you have a 6th-generation iPad mini, the 7th-generation model is definitely worth the upgrade. The long wait for a refresh means a significant leap in chip technology. The iPad mini 7's benchmark results show that the A17 Pro chip performs on par with the M2 chip in the iPad Air 6, so you can expect fantastic overall and gaming performance, despite the smaller form factor.

It may also be worth upgrading to the iPad mini 7 if you have a base iPad 10 or an older iPad Air, particularly if you are an avid mobile gamer. The iPad mini 7 and iPad Air 6 are significantly more powerful than the iPad 10, although the Gen 10 is still a strong, affordable tablet.

The main differences between the iPad mini 7 and the iPad Air 6 are accessories and screen size. If you want to use your tablet as a laptop replacement with the Magic Keyboard, you'll need to opt for the Air. On the other hand, if you mainly want a tablet for travel and entertainment, the new-and-improved mini is the way to go. The new mini and Air are compatible with the Apple Pencil Pro for artists or note-takers.

It's also worth noting the mini costs $100 less than the Air but includes the same amount of base storage, so it's a good option for anyone in between the $600 Air and the $350 base iPad.

More from Laptop Mag

• Apple quietly releases iPad Mini with major chip upgrade and double the storage
• iOS 18.1 releases next week, bringing Apple Intelligence to iPhone 15 and 16
• Is the Apple Pencil Pro worth buying? A singular new feature could propel it to the mainstream

Ultra-thin and light laptops like the Asus Zenbook S 14 live and die by their battery life. No one likes forever hunting for outlets, and that's particularly frustrating with computers designed to be highly mobile; there's no use in being able to take your laptop everywhere if it's always dying on you.

Long-lasting battery life is one of the key selling points of Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite and X Plus ARM processors. However, Intel's brand new Core Ultra 200V "Lunar Lake" processors claim up to 50% lower power consumption than the previous generation, which was enough to make for some interesting competition for Qualcomm.

The Asus Zenbook S 14 didn't take the battery life record from the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite-powered Dell XPS 13, but it delivers an impressive overall time on the Laptop Mag web surfing battery test. Our proprietary battery test sets a laptop to 150 nits of brightness and scrolls through a series of 20 static and video web pages until the laptop runs out of battery, and the Zenbook S 14 lasted a solid 13 hours and 51 minutes.

Intel claimed 16 hours of battery life based on the UL Procyon Office Productivity Battery Life test. While we don't typically run that battery benchmark, we were able to confirm Intel's claim, as our Zenbook S 14 lasted for 16 hours and 21 minutes on that test with the display set to 150 nits of brightness.

What battery test should you care about?

We don't usually run the Procyon test, so we can't quite compare the Zenbook S 14 to most other laptops using that metric. We ran that battery test on the other Intel Lunar Lake laptops in our test lab, like the Dell XPS 13 (9350) and Asus ExpertBook P5. This still leaves the Zenbook S 14 on the low end, as the XPS 13 (9350) came in at an astounding 23:38 on the UL Procyon battery test, and even the Asus ExpertBook P5 lasted 16:38 on the Procyon test.

For most comparisons, we still use the Laptop Mag battery test numbers as that benchmark is fully cross-compatible with MacBooks and all of our other testing data. While the Zenbook S 14 isn't setting records in these tests, almost 14 hours of battery life on a laptop just 0.51 inches thick is nothing to scoff at. It's also a solid increase over Intel's Core Ultra 100 "Meteor Lake" series processors, which often failed to meet the 10-hour battery life mark.

Intel vs ARM: Who will win the battery wars?

The longest-lasting Qualcomm and Apple laptops outlast the Zenbook S 14, with the Snapdragon-based Dell XPS 13 (9345) lasting an incredible 19:01 on our battery test, and the Apple MacBook Pro 16 M3 Max lasted for 18:05. But those aren't fair comparisons, as the Zenbook S 14 has an OLED display panel and a much smaller battery than the MacBook Pro 16.

The Zenbook S 14 fares much better when compared to similar laptops like the Apple MacBook Air 13 M3 (15:13) and Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x (14:14). So while Qualcomm and Apple’s ARM processors still have a lead on battery life, the gap is shrinking.

Intel's Lunar Lake chips are full x86 processors, so you don't have to worry about software emulation and compatibility issues like you do with Apple and Qualcomm's ARM chipsets.

More from Laptop Mag

• Why Qualcomm's bid to buy Intel could be doomed from the start
• 'You somehow have to make friends with uncertainty': Apple's Jony Ive hints at mysterious new AI device and OpenAI collaboration
• This Google experiment can turn any link, article, or document into a professional podcast — try it yourself for free

Portability and performance are two key factors to consider when shopping for a laptop. However, those factors mean very little if you don't have the battery life to fully take advantage of them. Thankfully, battery life is back on the books as a key attraction to the latest laptops coming to the market, and Intel's Lunar Lake chips are helping to keep the space competitive.

Apple has had bragging rights in this area for some time, with its shift to ARM-based M-series chips leading to impressive longevity in the battery department. From that moment on, it was something of a one-horse race.

Though a few x86 models punched above their weight to rival the MacBook, they were few and far between and acted as more of an exception to the general rule than anything else. Then Qualcomm deployed its Snapdragon X platform in June — bringing ARM-backed battery life to Windows laptops in a major way.

That's a rough overview of the battleground that Intel is stepping into as its latest Lunar Lake chips hope to reclaim some ground while hopefully showcasing exceptional performance under the x86 banner. And it's a great moment to highlight Intel's nominated fighter, the Dell XPS 13 (9350).

Dell XPS 13 (9350): Sticking the Lunar landing

What better machine to attempt to showcase Lunar Lake's improved performance and efficiency than the Dell XPS 13 (9350)? The XPS lineup has been a mainstay in our best laptops list over the years, and if there was ever a choice of flagship laptops to showcase the performance and impact of your next-gen chipset, this isn't a bad pick.

Our Dell XPS 13 (9350) review reveals its solid performance, impactful speakers, and some respectable graphics. It also highlights a glaring difference in battery life between the OLED and non-OLED models that could make all the difference to those in search of a genuine all-day contender.

The XPS lineup has often been considered a MacBook counterpart for Windows laptops. But, with Intel's latest Lunar Lake CPU at its heart, can it stand toe-to-toe with Apple's efforts in uptime, and how does it fare when facing off against a Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite chipset version of itself? Let's find out.

• See our full Dell XPS 13 (9350) review

Dell XPS 13 (9350): Battery life benchmark results

At Laptop Mag, we've developed our own method of testing laptop battery life over the years. This involves closing all background processes (including antivirus software), turning off battery-saving power modes, and any keyboard backlighting or additional chassis lighting.

From here, we disconnect our laptop from its charger and begin cycling through a set collection of 20 web pages containing a mix of static, dynamic, and video content until the battery runs out.

That's the treatment that both Lunar Lake-housing Dell XPS 13 (9350) laptops (OLED and non-OLED) received during our battery benchmark, and our findings couldn't have been further apart.

While we expected a gap between the two due to the heavier power draw of the tandem OLED model, a nearly ten-hour difference shows the impact and cost of the Dell XPS 13 (9350)'s OLED panel, something consumers will have to get to grips with if they place great value in vibrant and rich displays.

In our Laptop Mag battery test, the Dell XPS 13 (9350) with an LCD panel lasted an incredible 18 hours and 34 minutes.

Meanwhile, the same Intel Core Ultra 7 258V-touting tandem OLED model lasted just 8 hours and 40 minutes.

Dell XPS 13 (9350) battery life: Where does it line up?

With our results in hand, how does the new Dell XPS 13 (9350) slot in among recent ARM and x86 releases, specifically those that have also been put through our in-house battery test previously?

Interestingly, the Dell XPS 13 can claim an incredible win and record a shortfall simultaneously.

The LCD-equipped Dell XPS 13's 18+ hours of battery life place it second, only by 30-minutes to the impressive 19 hours and one-minute record set by the Dell XPS 13 (9345) and its Snapdragon X Elite chipset.

Less close is the lead that the XPS 13 takes ahead of the Apple MacBook Pro 14 M3, which managed a 17-hour and 16-minute run during our November 2023 review. 

While that's a great success for one model of XPS 13, the OLED configuration fared much worse — coming up short against the Asus Zenbook S 14 OLED featuring the same Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Lunar Lake chipset which lasted for a non-too-special 13 hours and 51 minutes.

Outlook

While the XPS 13's OLED configuration leaves much to be desired when it comes to battery life, the standard model excels — not only proving itself to be an excellent laptop but showcasing Intel's Lunar Lake platform as a real contender once again against a wave of ARM-based alternatives.

The impressive 18 hours and 34 minutes of uptime achieved by the Dell XPS 13 (9350) will no doubt cause us to perform a major reshuffle of our tracking of the laptops with the best battery runtime, and have us looking forward to Apple's October event for the company's M4 retort to Qualcomm and Intel's overtaking of its MacBook Pro.

More from Laptop Mag

• Best laptop 2024: 10 best laptops tested and rated
• Overall Intel Lunar Lake battery life rundown: Which new Intel Lunar Lake laptop comes out on top?
• Asus Zenbook S 14 UX5406 review: a near-perfect ultraportable

The first wave of laptops powered by Intel's Lunar Lake chips is here, and our battery life benchmark results paint an intriguing picture of which one is the best.  

Intel set the bar high for the first Lunar Lake laptops ahead of their launch, claiming up to 50% lower power consumption along with top CPU, GPU, and NPU performance. Now that we're finally able to test these new laptops, we can see how accurate those claims are. Our lab testers have combined to run hundreds of hours of battery life tests on these laptops to come up with a fair average for each one.

If you're considering buying a Lunar Lake laptop, you should see these results before you make your purchase. They reveal the best Lunar Lake laptop for battery life but also offer a warning about one you might want to avoid. 

Dell XPS 13 leads Lunar Lake battery life benchmark — but there's a catch

Of the four Lunar Lake laptops we've tested so far, one is the clear frontrunner on battery life: the Dell XPS 13. In our Laptop Mag web surfing battery life test, which involves surfing a set group of websites with the display set at 150 nits of brightness, it lasted a staggering 18 hours and 34 minutes, which is even longer than the MacBook Pro M3 Max (18 hours and 5 minutes). 

There's a catch, though: that's the result for the non-OLED version of the Dell XPS 13, but the OLED version lasted less than half as long!

That's especially noteworthy since the Dell XPS 13 isn't the only Lunar Lake laptop with an OLED display. The ASUS Zenbook S14 also has an OLED panel and lasts significantly longer, with a battery life of 13 hours and 51 minutes. 

Laptop Mag's in-house battery life test isn't the only one showing a significant dip in battery life for the OLED Dell XPS 13. The UL Procyon Office Productivity Benchmark battery life test shows longer times across the board, but the OLED Dell XPS 13 still comes in last by a significant margin: 

The ASUS Zenbook S14's battery life result isn't breaking any records, but it's still scoring well above average. It offers enough battery life to get through a full workday, and there is a far smaller gap between its battery life and that of the ASUS ExpertBook P5 (which doesn't have an OLED display). 

The OLED Dell XPS 13's battery life trails its non-OLED rival's time by over 50 percent and falls short of many non-Lunar Lake laptops. It could be a fluke in the Lunar Lake line-up, though. We won't know for sure until we get more models in for testing.

Considering the ASUS Zenbook S14 had much longer battery life with its OLED panel, it's too soon to say whether the OLED Dell XPS 13's lackluster result is due to its Lunar Lake processor or some flaw in Dell's software optimization for that display specifically. 

Which Lunar Lake laptop is best for battery life? 

If you're considering a Lunar Lake-powered laptop and want the best battery life possible, the obvious choice is the Dell XPS 13, but make sure you opt for the non-OLED version. With 18 hours and 34 minutes of battery life, you won't have to worry about bringing a charger along to have enough power for a full day at work or school. 

If an OLED display is a must-have, then go for the ASUS Zenbook S14. It could have scored better on our display tests, reproducing just 82 percent of the DCI-P3 color gamut compared to the OLED Dell XPS 13's score of 144 percent. However, the battery life trade-off with the OLED Dell XPS 13 is not worth it unless you mainly use your laptop at home. The ASUS Zenbook S14 gets you a much longer battery life. Plus, it received Laptop Mag's award for best laptop design at IFA Berlin 2024. 

We'll be unpacking all of our benchmark results for the first wave of Lunar Lake laptops and sharing our full reviews soon, so stay tuned for more details. 

More from Laptop Mag

• Intel's Lunar Lake is here to change how we think about AI PCs because "an NPU isn't enough for the AI Market"
• In a stunning debut, Intel claims 3x better AI performance for its new Lunar Lake chips
• Could the Asus Vivobook S 14 Flip 2-in-1 be the best AI PC this year?

Intel Lunar Lake debuted on September 3, just ahead of IFA 2024, and we've been counting down the days until we got laptops running Intel's latest into our hands. Last week, they finally arrived, and our lab testers quickly went to work, running a combined hundreds of hours of battery, performance, display, and heat tests.

The Asus ExpertBook P5 is the lone business laptop among the first wave of Lunar Lake laptops we've received for review. Our full review is coming later this week, but the tests tell a compelling early story for the first Copilot+ PC for work from Asus.

Efficiency and productivity performance (including AI performance) were two key focuses for the Lunar Lake laptops, and based on what we've seen so far, they deliver.

These are critical battlegrounds facing up against laptops featuring Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chipset, which saw laptops like the HP EliteBook Ultra deliver over 16 hours of battery life and excellent performance earlier this summer. These were the first laptops to truly challenge the MacBook lineup in performance and efficiency in years.

Apple has been the dominant force in our guide to the laptops with the best battery life since its transition to ARM-based Apple Silicon chips in 2020. The best MacBooks still deliver in that regard, but the competition has upped its game, and the Intel Lunar Lake chips are continuing the run of challengers started by Qualcomm.

But just where does it stand among the recent titans? Here's what our lab tests are showing us.

How long does the Asus ExpertBook P5 last on a charge?

Longevity is a critical feature for most business laptops, so let's start there and see how the ExpertBook P5 compares to the competition.

The Laptop Mag proprietary battery test sets the laptop to 150 nits of brightness and cycles through a series of dynamic, static, and video webpages with standby periods in between until the battery completely runs down.

Our lab testers ran this test three separate times to arrive at a reliable average result of 14 hours and 22 minutes for the ExpertBook P5.

While it's not enough to unseat some of the recent long-lasting laptops, over 14 hours is an excellent result, particularly considering its 14-inch 2.5K 144Hz display.

This compares well with the oft-recommended Apple MacBook Air 13 M3, which, at roughly the same price and display size, delivered 15 hours and 13 minutes in our test.

While benchmark testing plays a significant role in our review process, we are still working on the full review, which will examine my real-world experience using the ExpertBook P5 to complete my work.

How does the keyboard feel? Can it handle the dozens of Chrome tabs along with a handful of apps that I tend to build up over a day? Is it robust enough to hold up to a regular commute or frequent travel?

These are all questions I'll address in the full review, but for now, here's a look at how it fares against the Dell XPS 13 (9350, Non-OLED), which is another new Intel Lunar Lake laptop, the MacBook Air 13 M3, and finally the aforementioned HP EliteBook Ultra.

More from Laptop Mag

• Best laptop 2024: 10 best laptops tested and rated
• Overall Intel Lunar Lake battery life rundown: Which new Intel Lunar Lake laptop comes out on top?
• Asus Zenbook S 14 UX5406 review: a near-perfect ultraportable

Integrated GPUs keep improving over the years, to the point where you don't need a dedicated gaming GPU to play most games on medium settings at 1080p. 

AMD has updated the Fluid Motion Frames technology to boost frame rates and enhance gameplay on integrated AMD Radeon graphics cards. We've already raved about the gaming experience on the new AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 chips, so of course we had to check out the technical preview of AFMF 2 to see how the new tech changes the AMD gaming experience.

Granted, some games will always be an exception, its not likely you'll be playing Red Dead Redemption II on an iGPU anytime soon. But for games like Assassin's Creed Mirage, Far Cry 6, and Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail you could get a solidly smooth gaming experience.

Cue the benchmarks

Given my previous role as a lab tester for Laptop Mag, I naturally decided to benchmark the one AMD laptop I still have on hand. While the AFMF 2 technology is designed to work best with the AMD Ryzen AI 300 series processors, it is compatible with Ryzen 7000 and Ryzen 8000 series chipsets as well. My one AMD system is the Razer Blade 14, which features a Ryzen 9 8945 HS processor and an Nvidia RTX 4070 GPU. To test the new AFMF 2 technology, I disabled the RTX 4070 to check the Radeon 780M iGPU performance. While I would have preferred to use a laptop without a discrete GPU, I didn't happen to have any other AMD systems around. Since the Blade 14 is designed to run a discrete GPU and has an older AMD processor than the Ryzen AI 300 series, my results could be well under what you might see once AFMF 2 gets its full launch.

To test the iGPU performance across a range of game types and optimization levels, I benchmarked the Razer Blade 14 on Assassin's Creed Mirage, Cyberpunk 2077, Far Cry 6, and Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail using the external benchmark program. The laptop was set to "Best Performance" mode in Windows 11's power settings, and I disabled all programs running in the background. I ran the benchmarks using Medium and Standard (Laptop) graphics presets at 1080p resolution and AMD FSR 2 where possible. I ran all four benchmarks three times and reported the average frame rate for a better indication of performance.

I ran the first set of benchmarks with Radeon Super Resolution and AFMF 1 enabled on the latest drivers for the Ryzen 8945HS processor and Radeon 780M integrated graphics card (32.0.11037.4004). The second set of benchmarks updated the graphics driver to the AFMF 2 technical preview build (32.0.12011.1010) provided by AMD, with Radeon Super Resolution and AFMF 2 enabled.

Our benchmarks saw a 2 fps gain on Assassin's Creed Mirage which equates to a 7% increase in performance, a 13 fps gain on Cyberpunk 2077 which equates to a 59% increase in performance,  a 1 fps gain on Far Cry 6 which equates to a 3% increase in performance, and a 0 fps gain on Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail. Of course, the Dawntrail benchmark is an external .exe file, so it may not benefit from the AFMF 2 technology.

While a gain of only a few frames per second isn't a massive increase, when we're talking about framerates below 60 fps, each extra frame can do a lot to smooth out the feeling of a game from something that feels like a slideshow into something that feels actually playable. Plus, getting Cyberpunk 2077 to run above 30 FPS on an integrated graphics card is pretty darn impressive.

Hands-on testing

As much as I love a good benchmark, benchmark scores can only tell you so much about the lived experience of playing a game on an iGPU. So I spent some time noodling around in Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail and Cyberpunk 2077 to see how both games handled with the updated AMD drivers.

In Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail, I had fun running around the end-game hub city Solution Nine to see how well the integrated GPU handled the cyberpunk-style zone, then popped into a randomized encounter to check how the updated AFMF 2 drivers handled combat. While the iGPU did alright with Solution Nine maintaining a steady 30 fps, the Dawntrail graphics update presented a clear challenge to the integrated Radeon graphics. The combat encounter I ran was a trial from the Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn cycle and was a far smoother experience. Based on the in-game framerate monitor, the new Fluid Motion Frames 2 technology presented a consistent 40-45 fps experience.

On Cyberpunk 2077, I was able to start a new character, run through the intro, and even wander around the bar with no visible artifacting, frame-rate drops, or stutters. I did have the game on medium settings still since the 3 iGPU on my Ryzen 9 8945HS doesn't have ray tracing capabilities. I did miss the slick ray-traced reflections and enhanced lighting and shadow effects, but otherwise, the game played as smoothly on the Radeon 780M as it does on modern consoles.

Outlook

I'm using a Ryzen 8000 series CPU which does have a less powerful iGPU than the current AMD Ryzen AI 300 series processors with the updated Zen 5 architecture and RDNA 3.5 graphics technology. So new AMD cards will likely get much greater increases, and AMD themselves have indicated users should expect up an increase of up to 78% on Cyberpunk 2077 with the new Fluid Motion Frames.

While most gamers aren't going to be swapping out their desktop PCs or gaming laptops for an ultrabook anytime soon, this does have some great implications for the handheld gaming PC market. All handheld gaming PCs from the Steam Deck to the Asus ROG Ally X and MSI Claw 8 AI+ use integrated graphics chips, and most of them use AMD processors. So getting the update to AFMF 2 could make your AMD-powered handheld gaming PC better than ever.

This feels especially true as AMD's Fluid Motion Frames technology was one of the reasons Acer opted for the Ryzen 7 8840HS processor on the Nitro Blaze 7 handheld PC coming later this year.

While the new Copilot+ PCs deliver plenty of impressive benchmarks, many crave the blend of performance and battery life that Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chipset promised.

The good news is that, for the most part, that is coming true. We've tested seven of the new Copilot+ PCs so far, and battery life is generally excellent; there's just one notable exception.

The Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge is the most powerful Copilot+ PC available today, so it's not shocking that it has the worst battery life. However, the disparity between reality and Samsung's claims and the rest of the Snapdragon X Elite laptops had us run multiple additional battery life tests to confirm.

Here's how far short the Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge came from matching the rest of the Copilot+ PC laptops.

How long does the Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge last on a charge?

We went in-depth on how we test AI PCs, which is a challenging process at the moment as benchmark developers work to properly capture Neural Processing Unit (NPU) performance along with overall AI performance that utilizes the CPU, GPU, and NPU. 

While that process will continue to evolve over the coming months and years, fortunately, our battery test remains as applicable as ever.

The Laptop Mag battery test involves setting the laptop to 150 nits of brightness and cycling through dynamic, static, and video webpages with standby periods in between until the battery entirely runs down.

At the top of the Copilot+ battery life pecking order are the HP EliteBook Ultra and the HP OmniBook X. Both managed a remarkable 16 hours and 22 minutes in our test. Scroll to the bottom and you'll find the Galaxy Book 4 Edge, which called it quits at 9 hours and 56 minutes. 

Barely under 10 hours isn't an abysmal showing from the Galaxy Book 4 Edge if we are grading it against the entire laptop market. The premium laptop average on our test is 10 hours and 7 minutes, just narrowly beating the Book 4 Edge. However, Samsung claimed up to 22 hours of battery life for video playback, so below 10 in our admittedly much more rigorous test still came as a surprise. 

Just look at the chart below, and you'll understand why we find this to be a disappointing result grading against the Copilot+ PC laptop curve. The only other Snapdragon X Elite laptop to finish under 14 hours was the Surface Pro 11th Edition, a fanless tablet that you would expect to come up short of the competition.

Bottom line

Multiple Copilot+ PCs are candidates for our laptops with the best battery life page, so it's unfortunate to see one fail to live up to that standard. This isn't enough to warn you away from the Galaxy Book 4 Edge; it has enough battery life to get most people through the day, and it has plenty else to recommend.

For example, if you want the best performance of any Copilot+ PC then the Galaxy Book 4 Edge is the clear choice, it scored decisive victories against its Snapdragon X Elite rivals in Geekbench 6, Handbrake, and 3DMark Wildlife Extreme. It even edged out the MacBook Pro M3 Pro in Geekbench 6 multicore performance.

Add in the 3K 120Hz AMOLED display, thin and light chassis (0.43 inches, 2.62 pounds), and a solid array of ports, and you may forgive the Galaxy Book 4 Edge's battery shortcomings. 

The final ace up its sleeve is perhaps the most relevant: It can charge up to 40% in just 30 minutes using the bundled charger, so as long as you can occasionally access an outlet, you can easily keep it topped up.

More from Laptop Mag

• I tried gaming on the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition... I wanted to cry
• Microsoft Surface Pro 11th Edition vs. MacBook Pro 14 M3: Which is better?
• 67 early Amazon Prime Day deals to shop before July's big sale

The first wave of Microsoft Copilot+ PCs arrived on June 18, which means our labs have been hard at work testing all of the claims made about the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite chipset's performance. 

The HP EliteBook Ultra is HP's AI business laptop, so we're looking for a good balance between performance and battery life. HP made multiple claims about the laptop's performance, pitting it against the MacBook Air 13 M3 and MacBook Pro 14 M3. 

While the EliteBook’s battery life easily beats the MacBook Air, things are a bit less cut and dry in the performance score face-off. In a reviewer's workshop for the new Copilot+ AI PCs, HP admitted that the EliteBook Ultra takes a performance hit over the OmniBook X thanks to the increased HP Wolf Security system onboard the EliteBook platform.

So when it comes to pure computing power, can the EliteBook keep up?

Apple MacBook Air 13 M3

The MacBook Air 13 M3 is a 13-inch fanless laptop while the HP EliteBook Ultra is a 14-inch laptop with cooling fans. So the MacBook Air will suffer from more heat-induced performance degradation than the EliteBook. With that said, the MacBook Air 13 M3 stays surprisingly cool under most conditions, so the comparison isn't completely off base.

On the Geekbench 6 benchmark, the MacBook Air has the edge on single-core performance with an average of 3,082 while the EliteBook's single-core average is just 2,371. On the multicore side, the laptops flip and the EliteBook comes out the winner with an average of 12,717 compared to the Air's 12,087 score. Of course, most of your general laptop usage will involve multiple cores so we often weigh multicore performance higher than single-core performance. 

However, depending on what kind of business you are in, the scales may tip in the other direction. For example, photo and video editing or CAD software require higher single-core performance, so if those are primary tasks for you it may make more sense to opt for the MacBook Air instead.

As for our Handbrake test which takes the 4K version of Tears of Steel and encodes it to 1080p 30FPS, the HP EliteBook Ultra was one minute faster at converting the video file than the MacBook Air. The EliteBook took 6 minutes and 40 seconds to complete the conversion while the MacBook Air took 7 minutes and 40 seconds to complete the same task.

So unless you desperately need to run a lot of Photoshop, the HP EliteBook wins the performance battle with the MacBook Air.

Apple MacBook Pro 14 M3

The MacBook Pro 14 and the HP EliteBook Ultra are both 14-inch clamshell laptops with cooling fans, so this is the closest one-to-one comparison we can find between the Copilot+ AI PC and an Apple laptop.

On Geekbench 6, we found the MacBook Pro had a similar lead on single-core performance as the MacBook Air. The MacBook Pro averaged 3,163 on Geekbench 6's single-core CPU benchmark while the EliteBook averaged just 2,371. Much like with the MacBook Air, those places flipped on multicore performance. The HP EliteBook's 12,717 multicore average outpaced the MacBook Pro 14's 11,968 score.

However, things were much different on our Handbrake test. The MacBook Pro 14 M3 was able to take the 4K version of Tears of Steel and encode it to a 1080p 30FPS format in just 5 minutes and 38 seconds, while the HP EliteBook Ultra took 6:40 to complete the same task.

Of course, if your job mostly involves balancing spreadsheets, responding to emails, and having 20+ Chrome tabs open the HP EliteBook is still the better choice. However, if you do any design or editing work the increased single-core performance and speedy video encoding speeds of the MacBook Pro 14 M3 are far more useful.

HP OmniBook X

The HP OmniBook X is a nearly identical laptop to the HP EliteBook Ultra. The primary difference between the two laptops comes down to chassis color and the HP Wolf Security software loaded onto the EliteBook Ultra as part of HP's enterprise laptop platform. HP already confirmed that the EliteBook will take a bit of a performance hit compared to the OmniBook X, but just how much of a performance hit is it?

On Geekbench 6, the EliteBook had a slightly higher single-core performance average of 2,371 compared to the OmniBook X's average of 2,347. However, a difference of under 50 points on Geekbench's single-core metric is practically nothing so they're nearly identical. On the multicore side, the OmniBook X has a little more power, averaging 12,861 compared to the EliteBook (12,717). Again, we're talking only 150 points on GeekBench multicore scores which is not the biggest difference though it's a little more significant than the single-core performance gap.

On Handbrake, the OmniBook X was far faster, completing the Tears of Steel encode in 5 minutes and 46 seconds. That's almost a minute faster than the EliteBook (6:40).

As the OmniBook X and EliteBook Ultra are both Windows laptops we were able to run our 25GB file transfer test. The OmniBook X was quicker at copying over our 25GB multimedia test folder, taking just 30.08 seconds to copy the files for a transfer rate of 893 MBps. The EliteBook took 37.7 seconds to copy the folder for a transfer rate of 712 MBps.

Overall performance results

The HP EliteBook Ultra stacks up well against to the MacBook Pro 14 M3 and MacBook Air 13 M3. Based on pure computing power, the HP OmniBook X is the better Windows laptop. The OmniBook X even gives the MacBook Pro 14 a run for its money on our Handbrake test.

The MacBook Pro and MacBook Air will still offer better single-core processing power, so if you need to do heavy design work, Apple still retains the edge. But if you just need a laptop to handle more generalist tasks, the EliteBook and OmniBook make a great case for Microsoft's Copilot+ PC program.

The OmniBook X packs a more powerful punch in terms of pure performance and it's also cheaper than the EliteBook Ultra, though it does miss out on the increased security platform. So if you need a personal laptop, the OmniBook X is the way to go, but if you need to buy some laptops for your small business the EliteBook is the safer choice.

More from Laptop Mag

• In a battle of Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chips, is there a clear winner?
• Microsoft Surface Laptop's Snapdragon X Elite tears through the MacBook Pro in performance
• Microsoft's Copilot+ PC battery tests are good — but worrying for Snapdragon X Elite

With each new era of laptop CPUs comes the question of battery life. Will Qualcomm's Snapdragon X chipset's response be satisfactory? 

We saw massive improvements when AMD pushed into gaming laptops in 2020, producing an 11+ hour battery in the Asus Zephyrus G14. Then Apple launched its own M-series chips, which rocketed MacBooks into the stratosphere with 16+ hours. 

But does Qualcomm do the same with its Snapdragon X Elite X1E80100 platform?

I'm happy to say that the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition kicked butt with its new CPU, delivering numbers to rival even modern MacBooks. This push from Microsoft is the greatest yet, so let's see if its laptops can become as universal as its own operating system.

Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition: Battery life

On the Laptop Mag battery test — which continuously surfs through webpages over wifi at 150 nits of brightness — the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition lasted 15 hours and 44 minutes.

That beats the MacBook Air 13 M3, which clocked in 15 hours and 13 minutes. 

For context, the MacBook Air places fourth on our laptops with best battery life page and number one on our best laptops page. Dethroning this absolute king in terms of battery life is no small feat.

What about its other competitors? Well, it demolished the Dell XPS 14, which lasted 10:58 (at most). The Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (Q425M) managed only an 8-minute difference, so I'd say it's comparable with the Surface Laptop. However, the MacBook Pro 14 (M3, 2023) achieved a whopping 17:16.

Regarding the average premium laptop, the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition survived it several hours ago, as it died around 11:05. The average is still great. Still, the Surface Laptop is in that high-tier of battery life, sipping champagne with the king.

If the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition excels in more than battery life, it'll easily find a place on our best battery life ranking.

Bottom line

The Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition, and therefore the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite X1E80100, is killing it in battery life. With any luck, Qualcomm can continue its victory lap over major competitors throughout its visit to laptop land. Who knows? Maybe Qualcomm is here to stay.

However, where does this put the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition on a smaller scale? In our performance benchmark story, I laid out the facts: The new Snapdragon X Elite chip beats the MacBook Pro M3 in some critical tests. Between battery life and performance, is the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition the laptop you should buy?

I can't say until I finish my Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition review, so stay tuned for that and more.

• Microsoft Surface Laptop's Snapdragon X Elite tears through the MacBook Pro in performance
• Best laptop 2024: 10 best laptops tested and rated
• Acer Predator Helios Neo 18 review: A big gaming laptop with a smaller price

Could laptops powered by Qualcomm's Snapdragon X platform be the new kings of battery life? 

The first wave of Copilot+ AI PCs debuted on June 18, and Laptop Mag’s testing experts have been putting these new laptops through our extensive benchmark tests. The results so far paint an intriguing picture of one area where Snapdragon-powered laptops might dominate the laptop market: battery life. 

Copilot+ PCs are a new collection of laptops running Microsoft’s Copilot on-device AI platform using Snapdragon X chipsets. Snapdragon chips have historically been mainly for phones and tablets, but Qualcomm is aiming to change that with Copilot+ PCs. The competition is heated, though, with major rival Apple launching its own on-device AI platform for macOS at WWDC 2024. 

However, Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite and Snapdragon X Plus chips might give Apple a run for its money. Our battery test results are finally revealing how Snapdragon-powered laptops compare to the competition and which Snapdragon chips may be best for long battery life. 

HP leads the pack on Copilot+ PC battery life

The first wave of Copilot+ PCs includes laptops from several top brands, including HP, Microsoft, Lenovo, Samsung, ASUS, and Acer. Laptop Mag is putting these new AI-powered laptops through the paces, testing everything from AI performance to display quality and, of course, battery life. 

The results from our intensive battery life tests highlight one area where Copilot+ PCs shine. So far, our battery life results range from just under 10 to over 16 hours. Only one model, the Samsung Galaxy Book4 Edge, did not meet our premium laptop average of 10 hours and 7 minutes. 

The star of our battery life tests so far is HP, which launched two Copilot+ PCs in June, the HP Elitebook Ultra G1q and the HP OmniBook X. Both averaged a staggering 16 hours and 22 minutes of battery life, absolutely demolishing our premium laptop average.

While HP took first and second place in our Copilot+ PC battery life rankings, Microsoft is close behind with its 13-inch and 15-inch Surface Laptops. The 13-inch Microsoft Surface Laptop 7 clocked in at 15 hours and 44 minutes, less than an hour behind HP’s offerings. The 15-inch Surface Laptop 7 lagged at just over 15 hours, but that’s still an impressive battery life score. 

The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x came in reasonably close to Microsoft’s Surface Laptops, scoring 14 hours and 14 minutes on its first round of battery tests. There’s a sharper fall-off after that, though, with the Microsoft Surface Pro 11 lagging behind the Yoga Slim 7x by 2 hours and the Samsung Galaxy Book4 Edge lasting 9 hours and 56 minutes. 

Snapdragon-powered laptops vs Apple

Most of the Snapdragon-powered laptops we’ve tested scored above average on battery life, with a few skyrocketing to 15 hours or more. These test results highlight which Snapdragon-powered laptops could be the top performers and how Qualcomm’s foray into AI PCs compares to its rivals. 

Maybe the biggest competitor is Apple. Its MacBooks often lead battery life rankings. The first round of Copilot+ PCs is extremely competitive with Apple’s laptops, but the MacBook Pro still outscores them. The 16-inch MacBook Pro M3 Max lasted an incredible 18 hours and 5 minutes in our battery tests, followed closely by the 13-inch MacBook Pro M3, which lasted 17 hours and 16 minutes. 

So, the first round of Snapdragon-powered laptops might be unable to dethrone the MacBook Pro as the king of battery life. However, the MacBook Air’s standing isn’t as safe. The 13-inch MacBook Air M3 lasted 15 hours and 13 minutes in our battery tests, putting it behind the HP Elitebook Ultra G1q, HP OmniBook X, and Microsoft Surface Laptop 7 (13-inch). The 15-inch MacBook Air M3 also fell short, with 15 hours and 3 minutes.

Which Snapdragon X CPUs have the best battery life?

While the first wave of Snapdragon-powered laptops might not be able to beat the MacBook Pro’s battery life, they still have fantastic battery life and could be great options for many users. If you want to get the best battery life possible, you might want to pay attention to which Snapdragon CPU you get. 

The first wave of Copilot+ PCs currently includes four versions of the Snapdragon X chipset. Recent rumors hint that a few more budget-friendly versions may be on the way later this year. The current offerings include three variants of the premium Snapdragon X Elite chip and one Snapdragon X Plus variant. 

The main differences between these four chips are the number of CPU cores, integrated graphics performance, and the inclusion of Dual Core Boost functionality. However, the most powerful Snapdragon X chips might not always have the best battery life. 

The HP Elitebook Ultra G1q and OmniBook X had the longest battery life results in our tests. Both are equipped with the Snapdragon X Elite X1E-78-100, the lowest-tier variant of the Elite chipset. The 13-inch and 15-inch Microsoft Surface Laptop 7 models have the Snapdragon X Elite X1E-80-100, which is more powerful than the chip in HP's Copilot+ PCs. 

Despite having a more premium chip, the Surface Laptop 7 delivered lower battery life scores than both HP laptops. In fact, the Snapdragon-powered laptop that performed the worst in our battery life tests, the Samsung Galaxy Book4 Edge, had the most powerful chip, the Snapdragon X Elite X1E-84-100. 

Of course, the results are close between all four top-performing Snapdragon-powered laptops. There are also plenty of use cases where the more powerful processor in the Surface Laptop 7, for example, is worth settling for a slightly lower battery score. However, based on our thorough battery life test results so far, the Snapdragon X Elite X1E-78-100 is the best option if you want the most battery life possible. 

What’s next?

Snapdragon-powered Copilot+ PCs are kicking off an exciting new era of mobile tech featuring on-device AI. This first wave of Copilot+ PCs hints at the performance these new laptops could offer, both now and in the future. 

We're already seeing impressive battery life results from Snapdragon-powered laptops, so we can expect them to improve in future models. Could we soon see laptops boasting 20-plus hours of battery life? It's certainly possible. 

Of course, there are still wrinkles to iron out. For instance, a notice appeared on the Samsung South Korea website last week warning consumers that the Samsung Galaxy Book4 Edge may not be compatible with many leading apps and games due to the switch to Arm architecture on the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite and Plus chips. This is likely a temporary issue, but we'll see it resolved as app developers update their apps to run on Qualcomm chips. 

Likewise, we can expect more on-device AI features down the road. One of the flagship features for the Copilot+ PC line-up, Recall, is currently delayed as Microsoft works to improve security. That feature, as well as many others down the line, will significantly impact helping Copilot+ PCs stand out thanks to a growing list of unique on-device AI capabilities. 

The team at Laptop Mag is thoroughly testing and reviewing the new Snapdragon-powered laptops, so stay tuned for our full reviews and more insights, details, and news. 

More from Laptop Mag

• Microsoft Surface Laptop's Snapdragon X Elite tears through the MacBook Pro in performance
• Lenovo Yoga Slim 7X trounces the competition in performance benchmarks
• Microsoft's Copilot+ PC crushes Intel Meteor Lake and MacBook Pro in a key area

Last week, the first wave of Copilot+ PCs finally debuted, kicking off an exciting new era for AI-powered laptops. Among them is the sleek Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x, which aims to compete with Apple's MacBook Air M3. 

The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x is one of the first Copilot+ PCs, a collection of Windows laptops running Microsoft's Copilot AI platform. It unlocks various on-device AI features using Qualcomm's Snapdragon X chipsets. The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x is equipped with the Snapdragon X Elite X1E-78-100, the lowest-tier version of the Snapdragon X Elite chip. 

The lab testing team at Laptop Mag is putting the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x through the paces, but we're already seeing some interesting results. The Yoga Slim 7x knocked it out of the park in the Geekbench 6 benchmark, handily outpacing Apple's M3 MacBooks. How does it stack up when it comes to battery life, though? 

Here's a look at our first battery test results for the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x and how it compares to rivals from Apple and HP. 

Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x battery life vs Apple and HP

Battery life can be a deciding factor when choosing a new laptop, so it's one of the most critical tests Laptop Mag runs in our review process. MacBooks are often frontrunners in terms of battery life, but a few new Copilot+ PCs could dethrone Apple in that category. 

The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x showed fantastic battery life in our first test, clocking in at 14 hours and 14 minutes. That's far above our premium laptop average of 10 hours and 7 minutes and more than enough to get through a whole day. 

However, as impressive as the Yoga Slim 7x's first battery life test result is, it's not quite good enough to outmatch its top competitors. The MacBook Air M3 lasted an hour longer (15:13), and the HP EliteBook Ultra, another new Copilot+ PC, clocked in a whopping 16 hours. 

Of course, Laptop Mag is still testing the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x, so it could still have a higher average battery life result in our final review. Even if it doesn't, there's one crucial reason why it could still be the top pick among these three laptops. 

Why the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x is still a top contender

The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x fell a couple of hours short of beating the HP EliteBook Ultra and MacBook Air M3, at least in its initial battery life test. However, there's one important reason not to count it out yet. 

The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x has one thing its biggest rivals lack: an OLED display. OLED displays are sharper and brighter than LCD displays, making everything from webpages to movies and games look stunning. They're also usually more energy efficient. 

The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x's OLED display showed stellar performance in our testing, covering a staggering 155% of the DCI-P3 color gamut and averaging 464 nits of brightness. That's almost double the MacBook Air M3's DCI-P3 color gamut score and within ten nits of the MacBook's average display brightness. 

A display like the OLED panel on the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x is a significant enough advantage that it could be a fair tradeoff for an hour or two less in battery life. This is especially true for users who watch many shows and movies on their laptops. 

What's next?

Laptop Mag is still testing the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x, so we will soon have more detailed battery life test results in our full review. The Yoga Slim 7x's initial battery life result is already promising. 

At over 14 hours, it's more than enough to get through a full day of work or school. Even though that's a bit lower than the battery life results of competitors like the MacBook Air M3, the OLED display on the Yoga Slim 7x still makes it a top contender in the premium laptop space. 

We will share our benchmark results and expert insights on the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x and many other Copilot+ PCs soon. So, make sure to stay tuned for all of the latest updates, details, and test results from Laptop Mag. 

More from Laptop Mag

• Lenovo Yoga Slim 7X trounces the competition in performance benchmarks
• HP’s first Copilot+ PC smashes MacBook Air battery life — here’s the results
• Samsung's Copilot+ PC blows past MacBook Pro in key performance test — but is it better?

Yet another trend is making its way onto our doorstep: Copilot+ PCs. Naturally, I'm skeptical about any marketing tactic from big tech companies, but something about Qualcomm revitalizing its effort into the laptop chip-making game is exciting. Competition is healthy, but did it help the new Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition?

Our lab testers ran Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite X1E80100 processor ragged, testing its mettle in the critical performance tests you'd find in our reviews. The Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition's new CPU is going head-to-head with the Dell XPS 14, Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (Q425M), and the MacBook Pro 14 (M3, 2023).

As you might've guessed, the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition tears through its competitors — including the MacBook M3 Pro — on overall performance thanks to its Snapdragon X Elite X1E80100 CPU. However, its Qualcomm Adreno GPU suffers quite a bit in the graphics department.

Does Microsoft finally stand a chance against the biggest competitors in the laptop space? Let's find out.

Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition: Geekbench 6

On the Geekbench 6 overall performance test, the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition scored 2,809 on single-core performance and 14,426 on multicore performance. That surpasses the average premium laptop (8,799) by miles.

Did it beat the MacBook Pro 14 M3, though? Technically, yes. It beat the M3 (11,968) and the M3 Pro (14,357). I say technically because the M3 and M3 Pro scored higher on single-core performance, with 3,163 and 3,154, respectively.

But how does that compare to the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H processor? The Dell XPS 14 (multicore: 12,711; single-core: 2,373) and Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (multicore: 12,707; single-core: 2,453) lagged.

Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition: HandBrake

The Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition transcoded a 4K video to 1080p in just 5 minutes and 10 seconds on our HandBrake benchmark, crushing the average premium laptop (7:45).

It easily outpaced the Dell XPS 14 (5:44) and Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (6:36). Even the MacBook Pro 14 M3 didn't stand a chance (5:38). However, the M3 Pro comes in with a killing blow, completing the test in just 4 minutes and 26 seconds.

Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition: 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme

How well does the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition's new Qualcomm Adreno GPU do under pressure?

On the 3DMark Wildlife Extreme synthetic graphics benchmark, the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition scored 6,499. A solid score, but not relatively as high as the MacBook Pro 14 M3 (7,861) or M3 Pro (7,311)

Since this is an ARM-optimized test, the x86 Zenbook and XPS 14 couldn't participate.

Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition: Gaming

Forget about synthetic graphics benchmarks. Let's throw the Adreno GPU back in time. That's right, it's time for the Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Gathering Storm benchmark. 

At Medium, 1080p settings, the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition scored... oof. That's just 21 frames per second, which fails to hit the minimum 30 fps for playability.

And that's not the worst of it. Every single competitor outpaced the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition. The Dell XPS 14 (88 fps; RTX 4050 GPU), MacBook Pro 14 M3 (51 fps), and M3 Pro (54 fps) excelled, and even the Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (31 fps; Intel Arc Graphics) managed a playable frame rate.

Bottom line

The Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition is a champ when it comes to CPU performance, and that's all thanks to the Snapdragon X Elite X1E80100. Qualcomm put its best in this. 

However, I'm not excited to play games on this rig. The Qualcomm Adreno GPU is not even capable of 30 fps on our lowest gaming benchmark. It's possible that the GPU doesn't play well with that specific game. I plan on loading up a number of games on the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition and writing about that experience this week.

Following that, you'll see the full review of the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition. From what I'm seeing so far, it will score well. The question is how well. Gaming is disappointing, but that's not the point of the laptop, despite Qualcomm showing off demos of Baldur’s Gate III, Control, and Redout II.

If you're as excited about this new age of laptops as I am, stay tuned for my full review and benchmarks of the Microsoft Surface Laptop 7th Edition.

MORE FROM LAPTOP MAG

• How to save up to $88 on a year of Xbox Game Pass Ultimate right now
• Best laptop 2024: 10 best laptops tested and rated
• Acer Predator Helios Neo 18 review: A big gaming laptop with a smaller price

On June 18, the first wave of Copilot+ PCs finally launched, including the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x, which could give the MacBook Air M3 serious competition. Laptop Mag is putting the Yoga Slim 7x through the paces in our thorough lab tests, which have already revealed some exciting results. 

At $1199, the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x is similar in price to the MacBook Air M3 and features a similarly slim, sleek design. Could this Copilot+ PC also become the MacBook Air’s biggest rival? 

Copilot+ PCs are a new series of Windows laptops running Microsoft’s Copilot AI platform, enabling various on-device AI features. The launch of the first Copilot+ PCs comes just a week after Apple revealed its own on-device AI platform at WWDC 2024, which will arrive on macOS in stages over the next several months. These back-to-back announcements are setting the stage for a heated AI PC showdown. 

Here’s a look at how the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x fared in our performance benchmark testing and how it compares to the MacBook Air M3. 

Geekbench and Handbrake

After months of speculation, we finally get some hands-on benchmark testing results for the first wave of Copilot+ PCs. The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x came out swinging with some awe-inspiring results on our performance tests. It scored a whopping 13750 on Geekbench 6 and completed the HandBrake video transcoding test in five minutes and 16 seconds. 

Those results are well above our premium laptop average of 9,910 on Geekbench 6 and 8:07 on the HandBrake test. The Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x outperformed the MacBook Air M3 and the MacBook Pro M3. 

The Yoga Slim 7x scored over 1,600 points higher than the MacBook Air M3 on Geekbench 6 and over 1,700 points higher than the MacBook Pro M3. It also outpaced the Air by over a minute on the HandBrake test. The MacBook Pro M3 came fairly close to the Yoga Slim 7x on HandBrake, though, falling just 22 seconds behind.

These results hint at how powerful the Yoga Slim 7x’s CPU is. It’s equipped with the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite X1E-78-100, the lowest-tier Snapdragon X Elite variant. You wouldn’t know it from these test results, though. If the lowest-power version of the Snapdragon X Elite can blow Apple’s M3 chips out of the water, the more powerful X13-80-100 and X1E-84-100 variants could be groundbreaking. 

These results bode well for the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x, indicating that it could be a stellar laptop for creative and productive tasks like video editing, design, or everyday web browsing. However, there is one area where it fell a bit short in our first round of performance tests. 

Where the M3 MacBooks still have the advantage

In an ironic twist, the M3 MacBooks showed stronger gaming performance in one of our core graphics tests compared to the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x. Macs aren’t typically seen as top gaming devices, but Apple has been trying to change that with the M-series chips, so this might not come as a surprise. The M3 chip features significant graphics improvements over Apple’s previous chipsets, including support for ray tracing. 

Of course, neither MacBook can compete with the best gaming laptops regarding gaming-specific performance. However, it’s worth noting the gap between the M3 MacBooks and the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x in our Sid Meier’s Civilization VI: Gathering Storm graphics test:  

What's next: More testing and a full review

We’re running additional graphics tests with several other games, so we will soon look more in-depth at the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x’s gaming performance in our full review. However, at first glance, the MacBook Air M3 achieved about twice as many frames per second in Sid Meier’s Civilization VI: Gathering Storm than the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x. The MacBook Pro M3 scored about three times higher than the Yoga Slim 7x with 51 frames per second. 

While the Yoga Slim 7x’s gaming performance could be better, remember that many games may not yet be optimized for Arm architecture. Some games are also not natively compatible with Qualcomm chips, such as those revealed on the Samsung South Korea website last week. The Yoga Slim 7x’s overall benchmark results are still fantastic, so don’t count it out on gaming just yet. 

Our full review will provide more detailed information about the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7x’s overall gaming performance. We will also soon publish in-depth test results and reviews for all of the other new Copilot+ PCs. So, stay tuned for more test results, insights, and details from Laptop Mag. 

More from Laptop Mag

• In a battle of Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chips, is there a clear winner?
• Samsung's Copilot+ PC blows past MacBook Pro in key performance test — but is it better?
• HP’s first Copilot+ PC smashes MacBook Air battery life — here’s the results

The first wave of Copilot+ PCs has crashed into our testing labs this week, and our expert testers are hard at work running a blend of synthetic and real-world tests on them to gauge performance, battery life, and more before handing them off to our reviewers.

Naturally, we reviewers are eagerly awaiting these laptops in our hands, but for now, we can only press our faces up against the metaphorical glass of the testing lab and look on as new results come in. Some of the astounding benchmarks are making the wait that much harder.

We've highlighted the HP EliteBook Ultra's battery life, the Microsoft Surface Pro's performance, the Lenovo Slim 7x's performance, and the Microsoft Surface Laptop's performance, but that leaves the most powerful of them all: the Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge. As the lone Copilot+ PC currently available with Qualcomm's high-end Snapdragon X Elite X1E-84-100, performance is the metric that I have a close eye on, and overall it looks pretty amazing.

Our lab is still wrapping up the final tests, but the majority are done, and Samsung is putting up impressive numbers. To be clear, I don't just mean it's beating Copilot+ PCs with lesser Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite chips; even the MacBook Pro 14 M3 and M3 Pro can't keep up with it on some tests. Let's dive into the hard numbers.

Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge vs. MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro: Geekbench 6

We can lead off with the Geekbench 6 test, where the Book 4 Edge averaged an incredible 15,818 for multi-core and 2,935 for single-core. That's solidly ahead of the  MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro, which recorded scores of 14,357 and 3,154, respectively. Looking at the base M3 MacBook Pro 14, it falls distantly behind in multi-core at 11,968, while it retains the single-core advantage with 3,163.

One of our favorite recent Intel Core Ultra laptops, the Asus Zenbook 14 OLED, came in behind them at 12,615 and 2,453. Multi-core performance is more relevant for modern computing, so this is a meaningful victory for Samsung and Qualcomm despite Apple retaining that single-core advantage. 

Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge vs. MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro: Handbrake

Turning to our Handbrake test, which involves converting a video from 4K to 1080p using the Fast 1080p30 preset, the Galaxy Book 4 Edge acquitted itself well. It finished the conversion in 4 minutes and 59 seconds, but it wasn't quite fast enough to beat the 14 Pro's 4-minute and 26-second finish. The M3 MacBook Pro on the other hand falls behind at 5 minutes and 38 seconds, while our Intel competitor slots in last with 6 minutes and 36 seconds.

Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge vs. MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro: 3D Mark Wildlife Extreme

For graphics testing, we use the synthetic 3DMark Wild Life Extreme test and this is where Apple claims a decisive victory with a score of 11,938 from the M3 Pro MacBook Pro 14 compared to 7,311 for the Galaxy Book 4 Edge. However, dropping to the base M3 MacBook Pro makes it much closer with 7,861.

This test looks at the device's ability to handle heavy performance tasks over short periods, which does not bode well for gaming on the Galaxy Book 4 Edge. This is an ARM-optimized test so the x86 Zenbook couldn't participate.

Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge vs. MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro: Gaming

Our typical suite of gaming tests isn't well-suited to the Snapdragon X Elite laptops, a subject we'll be digging into further as we spend time reviewing these laptops, but we have results from Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Gathering Storm. In keeping with the previous test results, the MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro and M3 both rocketed past the Galaxy Book 4 Edge.

Samsung mustered 24 frames per second in 1080p, while the M3 Pro and M3 MacBook Pros averaged 53 and 51 frames per second, respectively. The Intel laptop did score a win against Qualcomm here with the Asus Zenbook 14 OLED delivering 30.5 frames per second.

Bottom line

That's an early look at the performance and graphics testing on the Samsung Galaxy Book 4 Edge. We naturally have many other test results to come, including display benchmarks, battery life testing, and additional performance and graphics tests.

While the MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro does still hold the edge in some areas, Qualcomm and Samsung are beating this third-generation Apple Silicon in any metrics, which is impressive. Notably, the Galaxy Book 4 Edge is also cheaper at $1,749. The comparable MacBook Pro 14 M3 Pro with 1TB of storage is $2,199, and the 16-inch model (matching the size of this Galaxy Book) is $2,699.

We'll need to finish our full review before we can crown an overall winner, but this early look is undoubtedly favorable for Samsung and the rest of the Copilot+ PC makers. The second half of 2024 will be an intriguing time to be in the market for a new laptop.

MORE FROM LAPTOP MAG

• Lenovo Yoga Pro 9i vs. Lenovo Slim Pro 9i: What's the difference?
• Best laptop 2024: 10 best laptops tested and rated
• I found 55 best early Amazon Prime Day deals to shop before July's big summer sale

Battery life is one of the main selling points with Windows on ARM laptops like the new Copilot+ PCs. After days of testing in our labs, we can confirm the HP EliteBook Ultra with Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chipset delivers on those expectations.

Apple dominates our list of laptops with the best battery life since its transition to ARM-based Apple Silicon chips in 2020, with the entire lineup offering over 15 hours of battery life in 2024. Recent Windows laptops like the Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (Q425M) have closed that gap. But while the Zenbook has over 15 hours of battery life, many Intel Core Ultra (Meteor Lake) laptops can't say the same. This is where the Snapdragon platform comes into play.

Qualcomm and Microsoft have made many claims about the new Snapdragon X Copilot+ PCs, but the battery life claims were the most attention-grabbing. According to Qualcomm, the chipset's efficiency will lead to long battery life across the entire laptop lineup. HP claimed up to 26 hours of battery life for the HP EliteBook and HP OmniBook. 

So, naturally, we had to put that claim to the test in our lab. 

How long does the HP EliteBook Ultra last on a charge?

While a handful of specific benchmarks are part of how we test AI PCs, I was more interested in getting results for our battery test over anything NPU-specific on these new Qualcomm-powered laptops. 

Everyone is still figuring out how to leverage AI in laptops, but battery life is universally applicable. And, at least as far as HP's EliteBook Ultra goes, it seems Qualcomm was correct about the increased battery life of ARM processors.

While the Apple MacBook Air 13 M3 doesn't have the longest battery life of any Apple machine, its 15 hours and 13 minutes in our test is nothing to scoff at. And the HP EliteBook Ultra easily eclipsed that mark. 

The Laptop Mag proprietary battery test involves setting the laptop to 150 nits of brightness. At that point, the test cycles through a series of dynamic, static, and video pages with standby periods in between, until the battery completely runs down.

We've only run two battery tests on the HP EliteBook Ultra so far, but coming in at 16:22 and 15:39, this HP business laptop could easily take over as the best business laptop for battery life. After all, an average of 16:01 is almost an hour above the MacBook Air 13's battery life and nearly 90 minutes longer than the 14:38 battery life of the Lenovo ThinkPad Z16, which currently holds rank as the best business laptop for battery life. That's before we even get into the superior performance of the HP Elitebook Ultra, but we've got more benchmarks and hands-on tests to run before we can give you our full review.

The Apple MacBook Pro 14 M3's 17:16 battery life still hangs on to the crown at this size, but it's an exciting showing from HP that bodes well for the battery life of this first generation of Copilot+ PCs.

More from Laptop Mag

• Samsung sounds the alarm on Qualcomm Copilot+ PC: Some apps, like 'Fortnite', won't run natively
• Copilot+ PCs: Release date, reviews, price — and what Reddit thinks
• New Snapdragon X chips leak just as the first Copilot+ PCs arrive — should you wait?

The brand new Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (Q425M) is our current reigning champ of battery life when it comes to Windows laptops. But more than that, it also has better battery life than both the Apple Macbook Air 13 M3 and Macbook Air 15 M3 models.

When it comes to laptops with the best battery life, Apple has sat at the top of the list for years now. But Apple’s strict hold on battery life has met a decent challenge from a Windows laptop with the newest Zenbook 14. Does this mean Windows laptops are catching back up in terms of battery life? Let’s find out.

Battery life: the facts

All three laptops were tested using our Laptop Mag battery test, which is run almost identically on Windows and Mac laptops. We set the laptop displays to 150 nits of brightness, uninstall any pre-loaded antivirus software, disable Bluetooth and location tracking, disable battery saver mode, deactivate keyboard backlights, and adjust display and power settings so the display stays on for the full duration of the test. We then set the laptop to surf through a series of web pages until the laptop dies. For more information on our battery test, our Head of Testing has put together a very detailed explanation on our How we test laptops page.

The major difference between the Windows and Mac versions of our battery test comes down to browsers. On Windows machines, we run the test using the new Chromium version of Edge while we run the test on Macs using Safari. These are the default browsers, which is why we ran with those instead of any of the other myriad browser options.

So outside of browsers, the tests are easy to compare to one another despite the operating system differences. So when it comes to raw numbers, the Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (Q425M) outpaced both Macbooks on our battery test with 15 hours and 52 minutes of battery life. By comparison the Macbook Air 13 M3 reached 15 hours and 13 minutes and the Macbook Air 15 M3 hit 15 hours and 3 minutes.

It's nice to see a Windows laptop put up a true fight in the battery life stakes, and the Zenbook 14 OLED is now our laptop with the fourth-best battery life. Of course, the top three laptops are still Macs. The Macbook Pro 16 M2 Max still holds the crown at 18 hours and 56 minutes, with the Macbook Pro 16 M3 Max and Macbook Pro 14 M3 coming in second and third respectively. So Apple does still hold onto the lead, but it is slowly losing the edge.

It’s worth noting that the Zenbook isn’t just a marathoner with long battery life, it also managed to beat the MacBooks on several performance benchmarks. If you want to read more about this impressive new MacBook challenger, read our full Asus Zenbook 14 OLED (Q425M) review.

If you're crunching numbers in a giant spreadsheet, transcoding a huge 4K video or playing a demanding game, you'll need a computer that's just plain speedy. We use Geekbench 4 (and 4.1), a synthetic benchmark, to measure overall performance. We then took the scores from all the laptops we've tested and listed the top 10 in order of best CPU performance.

As expected, the laptops with the latest Intel Core i9 (H-series) processors topped the list, followed by those with Core i7 CPUs. If you'd like to learn more about the components powering these laptops, check out our laptop processor comparison. You'll also notice that most of these top machines are featured on our best gaming laptops ranking, proving that these RGB-illuminated rigs aren't just great at gaming, but also at powering demanding programs. 

If you're interested in buying a gaming laptop, you should check out our list of the laptops with the best graphics performance and our best and worst gaming laptop brands report. If you prefer a laptop for business use, consider one of the laptops on our best workstations page.

Best laptop CPU performance (Geekbench 4.1)

1. Asus ROG Mothership: 34,879
2. Alienware Area-51m: 32,591
3. MSI GT76 Titan: 32,167
4. Apple MacBook Pro (15-inch): 31,012
5. Alienware m17 R2: 29,862
6. Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR: 28,879
7. Dell XPS 15: 28,165
8. Origin PC Eon17-X: 27,347
9. Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581: 26,470
10. Dell Precision 7730: 24,800

Here is a closer look at the 10 laptops with the best CPU performance. 

1. Asus ROG Mothership: 34,879

Part laptop, part all-in-one, this unique hybrid device offers shockingly fast performance, thanks to its Intel Core i9-9980HK GPU and Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 GPU. Yes, you could argue that the ROG Mothership isn't really a laptop, but we don't care: This thing is crazy powerful, having notched a record-breaking 34,879 on the Geekbench 4.1 overall performance test. Despite that insane power, the ROG Mothership remained cool throughout our testing. Impressive.

Read our Asus ROG Mothership review

2. Alienware Area-51m: 32,591

The Alienware Area-51m topped our best graphics performance ranking and now comes in second in CPU performance. It's no wonder Alienware marketed this beast as a true desktop replacement. It lives up to that title, not just for the performance it brings but also because all of its major components are upgradable. Beyond the numbers, the Alienware Area-51m has a striking design, a comfortable keyboard and a superfast SSD.

Read our Alienware Area-51m review

3. MSI GT76 Titan: 32,167

The GT76 Titan isn't just one of the most powerful laptops around, it's also one of the most well rounded. Sure, it's a beefy monster and costs a small fortune, but you get a lot for your money, including a gorgeous 4K panel, a supercomfortable keyboard and an attractive aluminum design. Now, about that CPU performance: With a score of 32,167 on the Geekbench test, the GT76 is faster than almost every other laptop we've tested. It's really no wonder the GT76 Titan is featured on both our best gaming laptops and best 4K laptops pages. 

Read our MSI GT76 Titan review

4. Apple MacBook Pro (15-inch): 31,012

Notice anything about the top laptops on this list? That's right, they're all chunky, heavy gaming rigs. But then there is Apple's incredibly sleek MacBook Pro, which offers class-leading performance when equipped with an Intel Core i9-9980HK CPU and 32GB of RAM. At 4 pounds and 0.6 inches, the MacBook Pro is much more portable than just about every other laptop on this list. And the MacBook Pro's more than 10 hours of battery life crushes any gaming laptop on the market. If that powerful Intel CPU weren't enough performance, Apple outfitted the MacBook Pro with the fastest SSDs we've ever clocked. Oh, and you also get Apple's reliably gorgeous Retina display. 

Read our Apple MacBook Pro (15-inch) review

5. Alienware m17 R2: 29,862

If you can get past its lofty price, the Alienware m17 R2 is essentially the perfect productivity laptop. Unlike most of its gaming laptop rivals, the m17 R2 is actually surprisingly portable and even gets decent battery life (for a gaming laptop). If you're wondering how it shapes up against the MacBook Pro, we can say with confidence that the m17 R2 has a much better keyboard and stronger graphics performance. When it comes to the CPU, the Core i9-9980HK inside the m17 R2 is an absolute beast at productivity. 

Read our Alienware m17 R2 review

6. Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR: 28,879

Gigabyte might not be a mainstream laptop brand, but the company's flagship Aero 17 HDR can go toe-to-toe with the best of them. The laptop's 0.8-inch-thin chassis houses a beastly Intel Core i9-9980HK processor, which blazed through our real-world performance tests without the slightest hint of lag. Along with that excellent performance, the Aero 17 HDR has a bright, 4K display, a comfortable keyboard and surprisingly long battery life (5:30).

Read our Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR review

7. Dell XPS 15: 28,165

Dell's XPS 15 is the bigger, more powerful brother of the best overall laptop, the XPS 13. As such, it offers a lot of the same perks, including a compact, premium design, a stunning 4K OLED display and excellent performance. Because the XPS 15 packs a beefier Core i9-9980HK processor, you can expect significantly faster performance than what its smaller cousin can muster. All things considered, the XPS 15 is the best MacBook Pro (15-inch) alternative Windows has to offer, and one of the best laptops on the market.  

Read our Dell XPS 15 review

8. Origin PC Eon17-X: 27,347

With blistering performance offered by its Core i9-9900K CPU and a supercomfortable keyboard, the Origin PC's Eon17-X is an outstanding laptop for gamers or creators. That said, the laptop's screen is very dim, so we recommend buying a monitor while you're plunking down several thousands of dollars on this beast. Fortunately, you won't need to purchase a pair of headphones, because the speakers in this tank of a laptop can seriously jam. 

Read our Origin PC Eon17-X review

9. Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581: 26,470

The Asus ZenBook Pro Duo's outstanding performance will undoubtedly be overshadowed by its dual, 15.6-inch and 14-inch displays. And that's just fine by us. After all, the highlight of this innovative machine is the secondary, 14-inch, 4K display on the deck, which lets you multitask like never before. The components that allow you to do so — an Intel Core i9 CPU and RTX 2060 –– might not be as sexy, but they're churning away while your eyes feast on the ZenBook Pro Duo's stunning displays.  

Read our Asus ZenBook Pro Duo review

10. Dell Precision 7730: 24,800

Some of the fastest laptops we review are for gaming, but don't rule out workstations, or devices meant specifically for productivity. Among those, the Precision 7730 offers the fastest CPU performance when equipped with an Intel Core i9-8950HK processor and 32GB of RAM. But the best reason to buy the Precision 7730 rather than any of these other laptops is for its extensive security features and endless configuration options. Moving away from the specs sheet, the Precision 7730 has a gorgeous 4K display, a durable chassis and a comfortable keyboard.  

Read our Dell Precision 7730 review

Gaming laptops have grown in popularity, and for good reason.These powerful rigs not only let you play the latest games, but they also offer the graphics performance needed for certain productivity tasks, like photo or video editing. But of the best gaming laptops available, which offers the very best performance?

We measure graphics performance a number of ways, and one of the best is with 3DMark Fire Strike, a synthetic benchmark that measures each laptop's overall graphics prowess. We've compiled the scores from all the laptops we've reviewed and listed, in order, the top 10 with the best graphics performance.

Best laptop gaming performance (3DMark Fire Strike)

1. Alienware Area-51m (23,212)
2. Asus ROG Mothership (22,931)
3. MSI GT76 Titan (21,601)
4. Origin PC Eon17-X (21,196)
5. Alienware m17 R2 (19,113)
6. Alienware 17 R5 (17,331)
7. Razer Blade Pro 17 (17,165)
8. Digital Storm Avon (16,929)
9. Alienware m17 (16,918)
10. Origin PC EVO-17S (16,851)

Here is a closer look at the laptops with the best graphics performance. 

1. Alienware Area-51m (23,212)

Topping our graphics benchmarks is the Alienware Area-51m, which comes as no surprise considering this monster was marketed as a true desktop replacement. The Area-51m, packing an Intel Core i9-9900K CPU and a GeForce RTX 2080 GPU, scored an incredible 23,212 on the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark. As a result of that incredible power, we could play Battlefield V (1920 x 1080) at 112 frames per second with Ultra settings enabled. Along with raw power, the Area-51m has a gorgeous space-age design, superfast computing performance and upgradable components.

Read our Alienware Area 51m review

2. Asus ROG Mothership (22,931)

Is the ROG Mothership overkill? Probably. But this part-laptop, part-all-in-one hybrid is one of the most powerful gaming rigs around. Not only is the ROG Mothership equipped with a Core i9-9980HK GPU and GeForce RTX 2080 graphics, but it has a detachable keyboard that gives you more flexibility as you game. This unique beast's other perks include excellent audio quality and a striking design. 

Read our Asus ROG Mothership review

3. MSI GT76 Titan (21,601)

MSI threw everything they had at the GT76 Titan and included the kitchen sink. No, the GT76 Titan isn't for everybody –– it's massive and incredibly expensive –– but passionate gamers who want the best performance should look no further. Similar to other heavy-hitters in the category, the GT76 Titan has a Core i9 CPU and GTX 2080 graphics. However, this machine has a more traditional clamshell design that's thinner than some competing laptops. It also sports a bright, colorful 4K display (which makes it one of the best 4K laptops) and a comfortable keyboard. 

Read our MSI GT76 Titan review

4. Origin PC Eon17-X (21,196)

With blistering gaming performance and a super-comfortable keyboard, the Origin PC's Eon17-X is an outstanding laptop for gamers who want high-fidelity graphics. That said, the laptop's screen is very dim, so we recommend buying a monitor while you're plunking down several thousand dollars on this beast. While you're at it, why not spend a bit extra on one of Origin's legendary custom lid paint jobs? 

Read our Origin PC Eon17-X review

5. Alienware m17 R2 (19,113)

Alienware's m17 R2 is one of the best gaming laptops in part because of its excellent graphics performance. But there is so much more to love about this sleek machine. For one, it has a gorgeous and surprisingly thin chassis. That, along with decent battery life, makes it one of the few laptops on this list that's actually portable. And despite that slimmer chassis, the m17 R2 has a comfortable keyboard.

Read our Alienware m17 R2 review

6. Alienware 17 R5 (17,331)

It may have the older GeForce GTX 1080 GPU, but the Alienware 17 R5 can still play the latest games at super-high frame rates. Other things we like about this powerful machine are its relatively slim design and decent battery life, which make the Alienware 17 R5 a good choice for gaming on the go. You also get solid audio quality out of its dual speakers and 13 lighting zones for all the RGB you could ask for. 

Read our Alienware 17 R5 review

7. Razer Blade Pro 17 (17,165)

Sleek, premium and incredibly powerful, the Razer Blade Pro 17 is the best 17-inch gaming laptop on the market. It boasts an Intel 9th Gen processor and an RTX 2080 Max-Q GPU, making it great for gaming or content creation. A pair of blisteringly fast SSDs and surprisingly good cooling are some other standout features of this strongly recommended laptop. 

Read our Razer Blade Pro 17 review

8. Digital Storm Avon (16,929)

You probably haven't heard of Digital Storm before, but this is one company you should have on your radar. The flagship Avon 17 is an excellent laptop that gets you fast performance, an incredibly comfortable mechanical keyboard and enough graphics oomph (thanks to an RTX 2070 Max-Q GPU) to play Middle-Earth: Shadow of War at 104 frames per second. Best of all, Digital Storm ships the Avon with a generous three-year warranty. 

Read our Digital Storm Avon review

9. Alienware m17 (16,918)

You know Alienware for its massive, powerful beastly gaming rigs. With the m17, the company took all that power, downsized it, and put it into a slim chassis. Equipped with the Max-Q version of the RTX 2070, the m17 might not get the same benchmark numbers as its chunky competitors, but the size-to-performance of the m17 is best in its class. Beyond its slim, premium design, the Alienware m17 has a gorgeous 4K display and great audio.

Read our Alienware m17 (2019) review

10. Origin PC EVO-17S (16,851)

If you can look past its dim display and poor battery life, the Origin PC EVO17-S is a solid gaming laptop because of the strong graphics performance it offers. You also get a snappy, RGB keyboard and a relatively slim chassis, all for a lower price than what other RTX 2080 Max-Q-equipped laptops cost. 

Read our Origin PC EVO17-S review

When you want the best display, brightness is only part of the equation. You also have to consider color-reproduction capability. This is what separates a lackluster viewing experience from a truly captivating, can't-take-your-eyes-off the-screen event. Here at Laptop Mag, we use the sRGB color gamut to measure this quality, with 100% being our accepted minimum. 

The following notebooks far surpass the minimum, delivering incredibly vivid vistas that will make it hard for you to look away. Dell has a big presence on this list, with three entries: the Alienware m15, the Precision 7730 and one of the best laptops available, the XPS 15. Another big winner on this list is OLED, with the ultracolorful panel appearing in half of the laptops we've named, including the HP Spectre x360 and the Razer Blade 15.

But without further adieu, here is our list of the laptops with the most colorful screens. 

Best laptop color gamut (sRGB %)

1. Alienware m15 (2019): 265%
2. HP Spectre x360 (15-inch OLED): 258%
3. Razer Blade 15 (OLED): 243%
4. Dell XPS 15 (2019): 239%
5. Dell Precision 7730: 211%
6. Asus ZenBook Pro Duo: 203%
7. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga: 201%
8. Samsung Galaxy Book 2: 200%
9. Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED: 200%
10. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon: 199%

1. Alienware m15 (2019): 265%

The Alienware m15 tops the list with its incredibly vibrant display. The 15.6-inch 4K OLED panel registered a whopping 256% on the sRGB gamut, eliciting its fair share of oohs and ahhs. But the m15 is more than a pretty screen. The laptop also offers powerful overall and graphics performance by way of its Intel Core i7 processor and Nvidia RTX 2070 Max-Q GPU. That means the system can ably handle gaming and multitasking and look amazing doing it. 

Read our Alienware m15 full review.

2. HP Spectre x360 (15-inch OLED): 258%

The HP Spectre x360 was already a gorgeous and incredibly versatile machine. But HP raised the bar to the nth level by adding a stunning 4K, OLED touch screen. The 15.6-inch display was "so colorful and vibrant that it made watching the IT Chapter 2 trailer that much more terrifying." The panel reproduced an impressive 258% of the sRGB gamut. And this machine's Core i7 U-series CPU and Nvidia MX150 GPU make the Spectre one sexy-looking workhorse. 

Read our HP Spectre x360 (15-inch OLED) full review.

3. Razer Blade 15 (OLED): 243%

We were incredibly taken with the Razer Blade 15 and its 4K OLED panel. With its ability to reproduce 243% of the sRGB gamut, how could we not? We described colors on the system as being vivacious and bold, with clean details. Watching movies and playing games on this panel was a joy. Speaking of games, sporting an Nvidia RTX 2080 Max-Q GPU, the Blade delivered smooth graphics and high frames. It's a lean, mean gaming machine with an outstanding display. 

Read our Razer Blade 15 (OLED) full review.

4. Dell XPS 15 (2019): 239%

We thought nothing could make the Dell XPS 15 better. Boy, were we wrong. Not only did Dell fix its grievous nose-cam issue, but the company also loaded the slim stunner with an overclockable Core i9 processor and added a 4K OLED display –– a first for the series. The pretty display can reproduce 239% of the sRGB gamut, which means rich, luxurious colors with sharp details and contrast. The discrete Nvidia GTX 1650 GPU means the laptop can handle more graphic-intensive tasks than your average consumer laptop, all in a 0.7-inch-thick chassis. 

Read our Dell XPS 15 (2019) full review.

5. Dell Precision 7730: 211%

We love a good workstation. The Dell Precision 7730 is a great one. It offers blazing-fast performance, a comfortable keyboard and a premium design with a rugged build quality. And as if that weren't enough, it has a 4K display with a 211% sRGB gamut. During our review, we noted that the 17.3-inch panel is incredibly detailed, with "exceptionally rich, vivid color" delivering a "theater-like viewing experience."

Read our Dell Precision 7730 full review.

6. Asus ZenBook Pro Duo: 203%

What's better than one 4K display? Two, especially if one of those panels is also OLED. Such is the case with the Asus ZenBook Pro Duo, one of the most innovative laptops currently on the market. This laptop's main OLED display reached 203% of the sRGB gamut, while its secondary display notched 108%. Together, they changed the way we worked and gamed, with a little help from the overclockable Core i9 CPU and Nvidia RTX 2060 GPU. This is one of those laptops that has to be seen to be believed. 

Read our Asus ZenBook Pro Duo full review.

7. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga: 201%

Lenovo made one heck of a business laptop with the ThinkPad X1 Yoga. Not only do you get all the security and durability you'd expect from a ThinkPad, but you also get a myriad of use cases thanks to the 360-degree hinges. The company also added a 14-inch, 2560 x 1440, HDR LTPS LCD display. This screen can reproduce 201% of the sRGB gamut, and our reviewer declared it "the most gorgeous screen [he'd] ever seen in a laptop." Thanks to a Core i7 processor, integrated graphics and a 1TB SSD, the notebook scored high marks on all our performance tests.

Read our Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga full review.

8. Samsung Galaxy Book 2: 200%

The Samsung Galaxy Book 2 has two things going for it: an integrated LTE connection and its captivating, 12-inch Super AMOLED display with 200% sRGB gamut. While the former will keep you connected without a hotspot or phone, the latter will keep you coming back for more with its luscious color and crisp detail. Our reviewer praised the wide viewing angles and deep blacks and said he "could make out individual raindrops bouncing off a bold, blue chair" in the X-Men: Dark Phoenix trailer. 

Read our Samsung Galaxy Book 2 full review.

9. Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED: 200%

What is thin and light, packs a punch, and has an AMOLED panel? If you said the Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED, you'd be right. The 15-inch gaming laptop has a comfortable, customizable keyboard and a powerful Core i7 CPU with a Nvidia RTX 2070 Max-Q GPU, which helps this machine stand toe to toe with competing systems. However, where the laptop truly shines is in its 15.6-inch display, which reproduces 200% of the sRGB average. This panel effortlessly serves up vivacious color and crisp detail. 

Read our Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED full review.

10. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon: 199%

We dubbed the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon "the Maserati of business laptops" due to its excellent performance and battery life. But the notebook's main attraction is its 14-inch, 2560 x 1440 HDR (high dynamic range) panel, which achieves 199% of the sRGB gamut. The colors, according to our reviewer, "were on another level; the reds and blues were so deep and saturated" that it reminded him of the screens you'd find on a high-end smartphone. The incredibly comfortably keyboard and far-field microphones are just bonuses.

Read our Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon full review.

Sure, your laptop's screen is easy to read when you're working at night, but how does it handle the scourge of natural light? To make sure that your favorite YouTube videos don't look like drek on a dim screen, and that you can edit your documents in broad daylight, we performed thorough testing to see just how bright a laptop screen can get.

Specifically, we used a light meter to measure the maximum brightness (in nits) from the four corners and center of each laptop screen. We then took the average of those five scores to find a laptop's brightness score. 

While ruggedized laptops (which are made for service workers such as police or firefighters) are rated for up to 1,000 nits, we hope to see brightness scores of at least 400 nits on consumer systems. On occasion, we've seen screen scores in the 500's. And, on this list of brightest laptops, we've even got a 626-nit notebook, the Dell XPS 15.

Here are the brightest laptops we've tested in the last 2 years.

Best Laptop Brightness

1. Dell XPS 15 (626 nits) 
2. Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR (575 nits) 
3. Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 (542 nits) 
4. Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (516 nits) 
5. HP Envy x2 (486 nits) 
6. HP Spectre x360, 15-inch, OLED (483 nits) 
7. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga (477 nits) 
8. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon (469 nits) 
9. Huawei MateBook X Pro (458 nits) 
10. MacBook Pro 13-inch (441 nits)

Just skimming through our brightest laptops list, you'll see that Dell's got a solid track record, with three of the four top entries — all above 500 nits. Of course, the XPS 13, XPS 15 and Latitude 5290 2-in-1 models set the bar a lot higher than Dell's Inspiron models do, so don't expect all Dells to outshine the competition.

Slots 3 through 7 in this list of super-bright laptops are all 2-in-1 notebooks, such as the Long-Term Evolution (LTE)-capable HP Envy x2 and Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga. Their ranking makes a lot of sense, as you can make a better case for a convertible (which can cost more) when you can use it in tablet mode as you walk around not worrying about how much sun is drenching your room, or any light sources around you.

Those looking for an Apple (or Apple-esque) laptop don't need to settle for a dim display, as the 13-inch MacBook Pro and the MateBook X Pro fill out the bottom of our top 10. Of course, we're hoping that the rumored 16-inch MacBook Pro pumps a lot of nits out of its larger screen.

1. Dell XPS 15 (626 nits)

If you're used to dim laptops, you might need to look into a pair of sunglasses before you trip the light fantastic on the amazingly bright 626-nit organic light-emitting diode (OLED) panel version of the Dell XPS 15. It's the sweetest cherry on top of an amazing system, which packs an overclockable Intel Core i9 processor and an Nvidia GTX 1650 GPU. Oh, and don't worry about the XPS' nosecam problem – it's fixed.

Read our full Dell XPS 15 review

2. Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR (575 nits)

The 575-nit Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR is a sleek, aluminum beast of a gaming laptop, and its brilliantly bright 4K HDR screen won't blink if you open the shade behind your game station. Its gaming performance may not hit the high marks we wanted, but its comfortable keyboard and capable overall performance make it a well-rounded laptop. And at less than an inch thick and less than 6 pounds, it's aerodynamic enough to be portable.

Read our Gigabyte Aero 17 HDR review

3. Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 (542 nits)

Detachable 2-in-1s like the Latitude 5290 deserve to go anywhere and do anything, and this tablet's 542-nit screen practically guarantees it. The panel also produces 125% of the sRGB color gamut, so all of your Netflix binges will come through in vivid hues. Dell's Surface Pro competitor also features an automatically deploying kickstand, long battery life and a robust set of security features. 

Read our Dell Latitude 5290 2-in-1 review

4. Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 (516 nits)

The 516-nit score from the Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 may not place it at the very top of this list, but it's still bright enough to annihilate your average laptop's output. Other perks of this convertible include nearly 11 hours of battery life, an elegant platinum silver-white design and an ultra-wide 16:10 aspect ratio. A speedy 10th Gen Intel Core i7 processor ties it all together for an excellent package.

Read our Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 review

5. HP Envy x2 (486 nits)

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 835-powered HP Envy x2's bright 486-nit panel isn't the only reason that you'll want to take this laptop everywhere. The detachable's LTE connectivity means you're beholden to no Wi-Fi boundaries, and its 15-plus hours of battery life make it a perfect compatriot for your next road trip. The Envy's strong (Bang & Olufsen-branded) audio completes the cycle.

Read our HP Envy x2 review

6. HP Spectre x360, 15-inch, OLED (483 nits)

The dark-ash silver (think copper and gunmetal gray) is a beautiful laptop, and its 15-inch OLED screen only sweetens the pot. Strong overall performance (U-series quad-core and H-series hexa-core options) and a comfortable keyboard mean that its beauty is not shell-deep, either. Don't make the mistake of looking past the Spectre x360's unique, 45-degree back corners, as a Thunderbolt 3 port is tucked away on the far right corner.

Read our HP Spectre x360, 15-inch, OLED review

7. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga (477 nits)

The ThinkPad X1 Yoga is a durable convertible that packs a 477-nit 2K panel into its 0.7-inch thick design. A privacy shutter and fingerprint reader round-out its security features, while its fast 8th-gen Intel Core i7 CPU helps you get the job(s) done. This 2-in-1 also surprises with its array of input/output options: 2 Thunderbolt 3 ports, 2 USB 3.0 ports and a mini-Ethernet jack.

Read our Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga review

8. Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon (469 nits)

The 6th Generation ThinkPad X1 Carbon is one of the best business laptops we've ever seen. Its slim, 0.6-inch carbon-fiber chassis protects its 469-nit HDR screen that produces a whopping 199% of the sRGB color gamut. The Thinkpad's excellent keyboard, one of the best we've ever tested, makes typing long projects a breeze, while its pointing stick is a bit of retro brilliance.

Read our Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon review

9. Huawei MateBook X Pro (458 nits)

The original MateBook X Pro — not the model that's been delayed and hasn't hit the U.S. yet — is one bright laptop, with a 458-nit, 3000 x 2000-pixel display that is nearly all-screen. This achievement happened thanks to Huawei burying its webcam in a fake key in the deck. And with nearly 10 hours of battery life, you also get solid endurance.

Read our Huawei MateBook X Pro review

10. MacBook Pro 13-inch (441 nits)

Don't despair, Apple users – you're not completely shut out of this top 10 list. We saw a maximum brightness of 441 nits when testing the 13-inch panel in this fast, long-lasting MacBook Pro. While its butterfly-style key switches are a bit controversial, its strong speakers and tried-and-true design are indisputably great.

Read our MacBook Pro 13-inch review