There are a lot of great large-screen laptops today, with the 16-inch machine taking over as the most popular choice for creators and productivity power users. It’s no longer necessary to grab a gaming laptop if you want to churn through video editing.
The Dell XPS 16 is that company’s latest mainstream offering, and it’s a mixed bag. That gives the Asus ProArt P16 an opening in winning over Windows users. Can the Asus compete?
The base model of the ProArt P16 is $1,900 for an AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 (the only option), 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, an Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060, and a 16-inch 4K+ OLED display. The XPS 16 base model is less expensive, at $1,500, but that nets a lesser configuration of an Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, 16GB of RAM, a 512GB SSD, integrated Intel Arc graphics, and a Full HD+ IPS display. When configured with 32GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, a (slower) RTX 4050 GPU, a 4K+ OLED display, the XPS 16 is a lot more expensive at $2,700.
Then, the ProArt P16’s $2,700 high-end configuration has 64GB of RAM, a 2TB SSD, and an RTX 4070. The XPS 16 costs $3,300 with the same configuration.
The bottom line is that the ProArt P16 is considerably more affordable.
The XPS 16 is a sleek laptop on the outside, with a streamlined aesthetic that remains unchanged for several generations. Open it up, and it’s full of ultramodern touches — a zero-lattice keyboard, a hidden haptic touchpad, and a row of LED touch function keys. It also has the thinnest display bezels on a 16-inch laptop. The ProArt P16’s design is less of a standout. Its external lines are more minimalist, and when opened, it’s a lot more traditional. If you’re choosing by looks alone, the XPS 16 will be a lot more attractive (no pun intended).
In terms of their build quality, both enjoy all-aluminum constructions. However, the XPS 16 is a lot stiffer and, by virtue of being considerably heavier, it feels denser and more rigid. The ProArt P16 is reasonably solid in its chassis and keyboard deck, but its lid bends under pressure. Again, the XPS 16 gets a design win. That combines with the XPS 16 managing to fit a slightly larger display into a slightly smaller frame, although the ProArt P16 is considerably thinner and, again, a lot lighter.
As you dig into the details a little more, the XPS 16’s most modern features become a little less competitive. The zero-lattice keyboard that has large keycaps and almost no key spacing isn’t demonstrably better in practice than the ProArt P16’s more traditional layout. The switches are roughly equal in feel, as well. The XPS 16’s haptic touchpad is more precise than the ProArt P16’s mechanical version, but its hidden nature can be hard to get used to. Finally, the XPS 16’s LED touch function keys are undeniably poor choices, with no haptic feedback to indicate when they’ve been engaged and no way to feel a function key when you’re not looking at the keyboard. The ProArt P16’s more traditional design gets the win in terms of actual usability.
Connectivity is also a win for Asus. The ProArt P16 is stocked with a variety of ports, although more than just one USB4 port would have been a good idea. But the full-size SD card reader and overall ability to connect legacy devices without dongles is a clear win. Both laptops have the latest in wireless connectivity.
Both also have similar webcams with infrared cameras for Windows 11 Hello facial recognition. The XPS 16 also has a fingerprint reader embedded in the power button. AI support theoretically favors the ProArt P16 with is faster neural processing unit (NPU, see below), but actual AI support remains an open question.
We reviewed the XPS 16 with the 28-watt Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, a 16-core/22-thread chipset running at up to 4.8GHz. The ProArt P16 uses the 28-watt AMD Ryzen AI 9 370 HX, a 12-core/24-thread chipset running at up to 5.1GHz. The Ryzen AI 9 has an NPU capable of 50 tera operations per second (TOPS), compared to the Core Ultra 7’s 10 TOPS. As mentioned above, it’s questionable at this point whether the faster NPU matters — but theoretically, it may one day enable faster, more efficient on-device AI. The XPS 16 can also be configured with the faster 45-watt Core Ultra 9 185H with the same core count as the Core Ultra 7 but with a faster clock speed.
The XPS 16’s performance suffers in that not a lot of power is distributed to the CPU and GPU. So, even the faster chipset wouldn’t make a difference. When compared to the ProArt P16, we see that the Asus is faster across all of our benchmarks. That includes the Pugetbench Premiere Pro benchmark, which can use the GPU to speed up various tasks, and in gaming benchmarks where the ProArt P16 is also significantly faster.
Simply put, the ProArt P16 is faster for productivity users, creators, and gamers.
We reviewed both laptops with their high-end 4K+ OLED displays, which are both excellent. The XPS 16’s panel has a faster 90Hz refresh rate, which is a plus.
According to our colorimeter, the XPS 16’s display is brighter, while the ProArt P16’s display has wider colors in the AdobeRGB color gamut. Both are about equally accurate and both have the usual OLED inky blacks.
You’ll be happy with either of these displays. You can choose a Full HD+ IPS panel with the XPS 16, but it wouldn’t be nearly sharp enough and, while it would afford better battery life, it wouldn’t meet the needs of the creators most likely to buy the laptop.
Both laptops are large and relatively heavy. The ProArt P16 is thinner and lighter, which is a good thing. But you’ll feel both as you lug them around.
Despite having a larger battery, the XPS 16 didn’t last as long on a charge. It managed just 5.5 hours in both our web browsing and video looping battery tests, compared to the ProArt P16 at 8.5 hours and 11 hours, respectively.
If you’re editing video, neither laptop will last very long when unplugged. But for productivity tasks, the ProArt P16 will last a lot longer.
The XPS 16 is a well-built laptop with modern appeal. But it’s also held back in its performance, it’s not the thinnest or the lightest 16-inch laptop, and it’s very expensive. That differs from past XPS machines that have been a class leader.
The ProArt P16, therefore, didn’t have to meet that high a bar. But it did, offering great performance in a thin and light package along with a spectacular display. It’s not as rigid, but it’s also a lot less expensive. It’s the more attractive machine, by a lot.
The absolutely absurd idea of putting a touchscreen display on a mouse isn't exactly new. Turtle Beach already did it with its Command Series MC7, which features a 2.25-inch control screen. But apparently, even that wasn't ridiculous enough for Arctic Fox Technologies. Its new Super Mouse looks like someone took the chunky old Atari ST mouse, slapped a touchscreen and scroll wheel on it, and called it an upgrade.
The result is a rather unusual-looking mouse that is now on Kickstarter, starting at $199. And as ridiculous as it looks, some of its features are genuinely intriguing.
Apple is less than a day away from launching its highly anticipated OLED MacBook Pro with a touch-sensitive screen. But it appears that the upgrade is going to cost a pretty penny. According to a report by Bloomberg, Apple is reportedly eyeing a starting price of $2,899 for the 14-inch MacBook Pro, while the 16-inch version could start at $3,399 in the US.
"At $2,899, the 14-inch model would mark the highest starting price for a new MacBook Pro model, surpassing the $2,799 Apple charged for a 17-inch version introduced in 2006," says the report. The report claims that Apple is targeting a minimum price hike of $400 for its upcoming redesigned 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models.
I've spent a good amount of time digging into the spec sheet of the new M6 MacBook Pro (14-inch), and for all intents and purposes, this is a classic Apple "chip and connectivity" refresh. It's not a full redesign. The chassis, Liquid Retina XDR panel, speakers, ports, and battery, all of them carry over unchanged.
However, the M6 brings more cores, stronger on-device AI, higher memory bandwidth on the larger configs, and modern wireless. Here’s the practical rundown of what actually improved, and whether those gains are worth your money.