Conclusion: Generations Change

I don't think I'm out of line for being disappointed that the fundamental flaws of the Dell XPS 13's chassis design that I cited a year ago haven't really changed. Maybe I'm the only person that uses Intel's Quick Sync, but I've found it to be a tremendously useful tool in the field as a videographer just for making it easy to hand off YouTube ready clips to anyone who wants them, and the lack of an SD card reader in the XPS 13 is aggravating. Personally I'd rather have that than the battery meter on the right side, but maybe that's just me.

The bottom vent continues to be an awful idea that's still regularly implemented in ultrabooks and notebooks. A system this light should be pretty portable and usable wherever, and a bottom vent really flies in the face of that. The bumped feet on the bottom of the notebook just aren't enough to keep that vent clear on any soft surface.

Finally, the clickpad's performance under Windows 8 leaves an awful lot to be desired. Gestures that were easy to perform even on the budget Acer Aspire V5-171 are difficult to do consistently on the XPS 13's pad

Obviously what I'm trying to get at is that the XPS 13's chassis still needs work, almost every bit as much as it did in 2012, and we're not in the business of handing out awards for companies that stand still. The XPS 13 is an attractive ultrabook and certainly distinctive compared to the competition, but there's a lot of room for improvement that was essentially ignored in the refresh. The best we can hope for is that Dell will revisit the XPS 13 again soon and fix the existing problems.

Of course, for all my griping, Dell still did an awful lot right with the newer XPS 13. They benefit handily from the improvements Intel made with their 7 series chipsets, but especially with the improvements from Ivy Bridge. The primary benefit of Ivy Bridge in both notebooks and on desktops hasn't been raising the performance ceiling, but lifting the floor. At the top, in the quad cores, you get a minor bump in IPC and clocks, but the HD 4000 is less relevant. Down here in the ultrabook/notebook sector, though, both IPC and clock bumps see larger improvements, and HD 4000 throws a haymaker at Sandy Bridge's HD 3000.

Hardware historically has a proof of concept generation that precedes the generation where that concept's potential is essentially fulfilled, and that's evident here with the two XPS 13s. Sandy Bridge fulfilled the promise of quad core CPUs in notebooks where Clarksfield merely proved it could be done affordably, and Ivy Bridge fulfills the promise of powerful CPUs in ultrabooks where Sandy Bridge merely proved it could at least be done.

Dell can't really take credit for Intel's achievements here, but they do themselves a major solid in offering a 1080p IPS display in the XPS 13. High quality displays are vital to the continued survival of notebooks as a collective species, but especially to ultrabooks, whose market can be encroached upon by the x86 tablets that will undoubtedly share shelf space with them. The ASUS Eee Pad's keyboard dock was far ahead of its time and dockable tablets are proving to be very popular. When I see a notebook come through that uses a ULV processor from Intel, has no dedicated graphics, and employs a crappy display, that's a notebook that could be very easily eaten alive by a convertible tablet.

The changes under the hood coupled with the pristine display give Dell's current generation XPS 13 a fighting chance in the ultrabook market. The crappy 720p display of old is only available on the entry-level $999 XPS 13; starting at $1,299, they all have the 1080p one. Our $1,399 model is solid, but the sweet spot in Dell's lineup is actually the $1,299 version, featuring the i7-3537U, 8GB of DDR3L, and the 128GB SSD. This model is price competitive (if not better) on NewEgg with everything but the entry level ASUS Zenbook Prime, but Dell smartly includes 8GB of DDR3 instead of the more common 4GB, an important distinction when you can't upgrade the system memory.

We're not at Editor's Choice level yet (the chassis design needs to be fixed for that), but at least the Dell XPS 13 is now far, far easier to recommend.

Display, Battery, Noise, and Heat
Comments Locked

53 Comments

View All Comments

  • DanNeely - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    "t should surprise no one that the RAM is soldered to the board; there's also a black sticker layer that sits between the mSATA SSD and the inside of the bottom panel. It's good to know that you can replace the mSATA drive and wireless card, though, should you need to/desire to."

    Is there anyone who's more interested in swapping the wifi card than they would have been in upgrading the ram in a few years? The former's something that IMO should have been at the top of the list when looking for ways to shave a few cubic mm.
  • moep - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    Dell is more interested in selling you a new laptop than letting you swap the RAM, so that’s that.
  • baldun - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    The problem is not integrating the WiFi card to the motherboard. The problem is with regulatory for each country. If the WiFi card is with antenna connectors, then the regulatory certification is handled by the card vendor, in this case Intel, paying millions of dollars to every country where they want to sell the card. If the WiFi is integrated in the motherboard, then the regulatory will be handled by Dell. Regulatory certification is all about where the antenna connectors are.
  • nportelli - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    Agreed. That goes for ANY manufacturer. 8GB ram should be the minimal anymore. Same for 1080p.
  • Silma - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    Absolutely. If RAM is soldered then it should be 8GB RAM at the very least.
    There may be some cons to 1080p in a few situations (touchscreens with items too small to accurately touch) but I'm betting on Microsoft improving Windows pixel scaling soon.
    Ideally I would vote for 1200p, which I have had for many years on my Dell Laptops but unfortunately it's out of fashion.
  • jeffkro - Monday, March 25, 2013 - link

    You should be able to increase the size of icons and text without lowering the screen resolution, this is bad design.
  • jeffkro - Monday, March 25, 2013 - link

    Nope, lower spec is fine for a low price point. Windows 7 and 8 both run great on 4 gigs of ram, so only people who run ram intensive programs require 8gigs. But yeah if I'm spending over $700 I want core i5, 1080p, and 8 gigs of ram, and I don't care about touch.

    PS win7 even runs fine on 2 gigs of ram.
  • GNUminex - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    I may just be sheltered from the reality of windows use as a result of using Linux, but I find it hard to see why any one would need more than 8GB of ram when using a current generation ULV processor. I don't see how you could run the sort of work load to eat up 8GB of ram with out being CPU limited first. If you try to just have lots of applications open and idling I guess you could run into ram limitations but is anyone going to do such a thing on a 13" laptop.
  • DanNeely - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    Needing >8GB is probably not a common today anymore than >4 was a few years ago; but for power users using a laptop as their primary computer it probably will be in a few more years.

    With IVBs improved boost levels the gap between ULV and standard mobile/desktop processors has gotten much narrower. On the road thermal throttling will limit sustained peak boost times somewhat; but when it's on a desk an external cooling pad can mitigate the heating.
  • bkiserx7 - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link

    I do on my 13.3" 3830TG with 2630qm, but I have much more cpu

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now