The most significant result here is not that Dell has produced another inexpensive laptop, but that Intel’s low-end Core 5 delivers efficiency the reviewer did not expect from an x86 processor. The XPS 13 is framed throughout as Dell’s answer to Apple’s similarly priced MacBook Neo, with a $699 standard price and a claimed $599 education price. Rather than declaring an outright winner, the comparison quickly establishes a more useful premise: Dell improves on several practical limitations of Apple’s machine while still falling substantially behind in graphics performance and some hardware details.
The physical comparison gives that argument substance. Dell’s display is described as higher-resolution, more matte, touch-enabled and capable of 120Hz variable refresh, while the keyboard adds backlighting and the two USB ports both support 10-gigabit speeds and display output. Most importantly for longevity, the included 512GB SSD can be replaced. The demonstration of swapping the drive reinforces that advantage more effectively than simply listing specifications, although the XPS also makes compromises: its hinged trackpad cannot be clicked comfortably across its entire surface, its speakers disappoint compared with Apple’s, and the unexplained absence of a headphone jack is particularly difficult to justify on an inexpensive laptop that could plausibly be used in schools.
Intel’s integrated graphics are the clearest technical weakness. The reviewer reports needing to reduce Halo Reach to 720p before achieving acceptable smoothness under Proton, while the GPU benchmarks consistently favor Apple’s A19, including a GravityMark result where the Mac scores nearly twice as highly. These tests support the narrower conclusion that this particular Dell configuration is poorly suited to graphics-heavy workloads or gaming. They also prevent the broader efficiency story from becoming an unqualified declaration that Intel has surpassed Apple across the board.
The CPU testing produces the video's most interesting findings. Using a demanding supercomputing benchmark that heavily loads both processor and memory, the reviewer observes the chip settling around 20 watts after initially throttling, then tests its efficiency and performance cores separately. On the measurements presented, the Core 5 becomes one of the most compute-efficient systems he has tested and can outperform many Apple Silicon Macs in efficiency. That is an impressive benchmark result, but the presentation appropriately adds important boundaries: this is an eight-gigabyte low-end system, it achieves some of its efficiency by reducing clock speeds, and the conclusion that Intel's newer efficiency cores are comparable with ARM or low-end M-series designs applies specifically to these tests rather than establishing universal architectural parity.
Power measurements strengthen the efficiency case beyond one intensive benchmark. The XPS reportedly draws less than a watt while idling with the display off, around four watts at half display brightness, and only a few watts while transferring data over Wi-Fi 7 at roughly one gigabit per second. Those measurements make the argument for strong battery potential considerably more convincing, although the video does not provide a conventional controlled battery-runtime test. Saying this should translate into all-day battery life is therefore a reasonable expectation based on the demonstrated power consumption, not a directly established runtime result.
The Linux section gives the review an unusually practical dimension. Fedora 44 initially lacks functioning sound, Wi-Fi and other hardware support, requiring Ethernet and updates before everything works, so this is clearly not presented as a seamless out-of-box alternative to Windows. Once configured, however, Linux combines with the replaceable SSD to make the XPS considerably more flexible for the reviewer’s priorities. His argument that Linux could extend the machine’s useful life beyond official Windows support is plausible as a general advantage of an open operating-system ecosystem, but the stronger suggestion of an almost indefinite lifespan is more aspirational than something this hardware test can demonstrate.
Presentation is strongest when measurements, hands-on demonstrations and subjective judgments remain distinct. The disclosure that Dell supplied the laptop on loan is made immediately alongside the statement that Dell had no control over the coverage, while shortcomings ranging from fan noise to Windows advertisements and weak graphics receive substantial attention despite the favorable verdict. The recurring Apple comparison occasionally pushes the framing toward a broader “Intel caught up” narrative than the evidence warrants, since the video itself demonstrates major GPU differences and tests only particular workloads. Within those limits, however, this is a focused and technically informative budget-laptop review that explains why efficiency, repairability, connectivity and operating-system flexibility can matter as much as raw benchmark leadership.
Pros
- Provides concrete CPU, GPU, idle-power and Wi-Fi efficiency measurements rather than relying solely on specification comparisons.
- Clearly identifies the limits of Intel's achievement, particularly the substantial integrated-graphics disadvantage.
- Compares practical hardware differences including the display, keyboard, ports, trackpad, speakers and replaceable SSD.
- Demonstrates the Linux installation experience realistically, including the initial hardware-support problems and required updates.
- Discloses that Dell supplied the review unit while still giving meaningful attention to the laptop's shortcomings.
- Connects efficiency measurements to the intended budget-laptop use case instead of treating benchmark performance as the only measure of value.
Cons
- The broad suggestion that Intel has reached Apple Silicon efficiency is stronger than the limited selection of processors and workloads shown can establish universally.
- Battery-life enthusiasm is inferred from power measurements without a complete controlled runtime comparison.
- Linux longevity is compelling as an argument for flexibility, but claims about extending the computer's life almost indefinitely go beyond what this review can demonstrate.
- Heavy emphasis on the MacBook Neo comparison sometimes overshadows evaluating the XPS independently against the wider budget-PC market mentioned at the beginning.
This is a persuasive examination of a budget XPS whose most noteworthy achievement is unexpectedly strong CPU efficiency rather than across-the-board performance leadership. Careful measurements, practical hardware comparisons and meaningful Linux testing make the recommendation well supported, while the poor GPU and a few conclusions that extend beyond the demonstrated benchmarks keep the larger Intel-versus-Apple claim in perspective. As a technical budget-laptop review, it is informative, transparent and notably good at explaining why this particular machine exceeded expectations.
