Dell XPS 15 L521X: A Detailed First Look
by Jarred Walton on July 25, 2012 1:10 AM ESTDell XPS 15 LCD: Decent Contrast and Brightness, Mediocre Colors
Dell’s XPS line has had a bit of an on-again, off-again relationship with good LCDs. The M1710 and M1730 way back in the day had good WUXGA panels for the time, and the Studio XPS 16 was the first laptop to offer an RGB LED backlit panel (at least to my knowledge). More recently, the XPS 15 and 15z 1080p panels have been good, but the 768p displays in the XPS 13, 14, 14z, 15, and 15z have all been run of the mill offerings. Thankfully, the new XPS 15 sticks with the pattern of offering a decent 1080p display. It’s not great and has a definite bluish tint, but contrast is pretty good. If you don’t demand accurate colors (which is easily answered by answering this question: do you own a hardware colorimeter?), then the XPS 15 should be good enough to keep you happy. Even with a colorimeter, however, color accuracy remains relatively poor compared to other panels.
Contrast checks in at 677:1, which is better than average but not exceptional. The maximum white level is 350 nits, but that’s with a very strong blue component. Once you calibrate to remove that, the maximum white level drops substantially down to just 250 nits. If you prefer “cool” colors, the LCD will probably make you happy, but those who prefer natural or warmer colors will immediately notice something is off. As noted above, delta E even after calibration is quite poor—just like the XPS 15z. That would make sense, as the two models appear to use the same AU Optronics B156HW03 panel. Color gamut is likewise middling, at 57% of Adobe RGB.
The minor complaints with the panel continue when we look at viewing angles. I’ve seen some TN panels that do a lot better in terms of vertical viewing angles; this LCD isn’t one of those. Viewed from above or below, you get severe color shifting and loss of contrast. There’s still a decent viewing arc where the LCD looks good, but this is on the lower end of the 1080p LCDs that we’ve tested. I also noticed a fair amount of “shimmer” on the edges of windows when moving them around, which appears to come from the 6-bit to 8-bit color interpolation. That’s almost always present to varying degrees, but here it’s as noticeable as on lesser LCDs like that in the Acer V3-571G.
While the IPS panels in laptops like the UX21A, Sony VAIO SE, HP Envy 15, and Lenovo X220 aren’t perfect by any means, they’re still a substantial upgrade from panels like this—and this panel in turn is a substantial upgrade from the poor quality 1366x768 panes. We’d love to see more vendors push for IPS panels, and that goes double (triple even!) for high-end laptops like this XPS 15. If you’re paying under $1000 for a laptop, we understand the need to make some compromises, but ASUS has managed to get 1080p IPS displays into their new 11.6” and 13.3” Ultrabooks so there’s really no excuse for using a lower quality TN panel in a $1300+ laptop. And it almost goes without saying that Apple’s new 2880x1800 Retina MacBook Pro is in a league of its own.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
ananduser - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
Well your stress tests are against Anand's own review and many other reviews that have noticed how under long stress tests the MBP gets extremely hot. You're a lucky one.dtolios - Thursday, July 26, 2012 - link
Apple did nothing "new" with the rMBP...the contrary, it got thinner and the thermal envelope of the notebook got "tighter"...It's just that it is using "cooler" components that intel and nvidia put together.
The metal chassis can only insulate so much, and that is true for all manufacturers. Apple cannot beat physics (doh).
Thus really high end GPUs were always out of the question for MBPs, (and all thin/light laptops) despite the amount of money you were willing to throw in for customizing.
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, July 29, 2012 - link
Ha that is so funny to me - I can see that picky elite machead going for the totally silent room, doing the yoga meditation, some breathing exercises, then firing up the MBP to do some spiritual testing - getting that ear on down low next to it, to see if it can hold it's breath, too.That's why the macgineers had to do what they did do - it's the end user's magical idiot silent wet dream, and there are so many of those people... who cares if they burn their crotch off - that's a good thing.
Yeah, it's really sad. Same type of insanity with gaming gpus as they have the sound cranked to the max and often are wearing noise cancelling expensive headgear for sound. I suppose the fan sound would ruin their delicate and selective critical listening enjoyment.
name99 - Saturday, July 28, 2012 - link
The two are really not comparable. Read what Anand said:http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-mac...
The takeaways are:
- for many purposes attempting to stress the machine did NOT result in reduced performance
- even when it did, the falloff was not that extreme (5% or so)
- there was no mention of the system ever crashing due to thermal overload (and I've never heard of this in earlier Macbooks, eg my 2nd gen MBA very obviously throttles in hot weather, but it never crashes).
One thing I wonder (Anand hinted at the same thing) is whether this is a consequence of using a 45W part rather than 35W --- Apple has more headroom and is using that AS headroom, not as compute capacity. If so, this would be analogous to the way they under-clock pretty much every iOS device relative to the CPU's rated specs. The exact reasoning is slightly different, but the overall point is the same in both cases --- to balance the tangible, measurable goal of maximum performance against the intangible, unmeasurable goal of delight, where delight is increased by things like longer battery life, consistent performance and, of course, no crashes. The editorial aside would, of course, be that you can't build products that delight if you are purely driven by checklists and measured numbers --- you have to be willing to make tradeoffs, like leaving some performance on the table for the sake of battery life, or stability, or temperature.
[I'm not trying to be rah rah Apple here; I'm trying to point out the real differences between these two products, and the real factors that led to these differences.]
GotThumbs - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
Ok Fanboi. Just remember the fact that Apple is now a PC Assembler. When they first came out...they built their own systems. They were not as successful back then. Now they use Intel chips and other PC components available to any other PC Assembler.Now Apple is a PC Assembler and they are very good at designing fashionable/attractive shells, but don't con your self into thinking Apple is a true innovator. The are very much like the Chinese in the 80's (Sony Tv's, Walkman, etc.). Apple is very good at taking an existing idea...and putting its own spin on it. There are features they have that are not mainstream...like fire-wire...but as the reviewer stated....He doesn't use it and most of the users of today are probably in the same boat. How great is an option or feature...in its not used/needed?
You need to put the Cool-Aid down.
Listen, If you like using Apples products and they do what you need....I'm happy for you. Just don't try and make this a pissing game or who's dad can beat up whose.
I'm really getting tired of the regurgitation of which is king.
Now that Apple is a PC assembler...the reviewers point about the OS is the key. Either you prefer windows or Apples OS.....or any other number of Linux alternatives.
All I'd like is for people to grow up and have a little respect for other peoples choices/decisions.
If it your money...spend it how you wish...but don't act like a 5 year old and sing about your ice-cream or whos king of the hill. It just too school yardish.
All the best and enjoy your computer.
solipsism - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
1) So in 1976 when they first started out they were less successful than they are now as the world' largest publicly traded company? No fucking way! /s2) The parts they use today are more specialized then any other time in Apple's history. Using an Intel processor doesn't change anything as the processors they used previously were also available to others. Just look at the Xbox 360 for proof.
3) Also note that Apple builds their ARM SoCs based on reference designs. Same goes for a lot of other components that Apple doesn't directly own but has invested heavily in and therefore has been given exclusive rights for a set period of time. Their display tech for the iPhone, iPad and now MBP come to mind.
kevith - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
I´l just second your opinion of the pissing contest.And this isn´t even a Mac-review...
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, July 29, 2012 - link
Oh come on, we've got to compare. I'm learning here. Let them express.xype - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
…and Apple was the first to figure it out, it seems.At least Dell made the keyboard area black and put the sleep light in the center, that counts for something, amirite?
It’s kind of weird that Apple’s "think different" is becoming a "everyone be like Apple!". I love my MacBook Pro and iPad, but damn, it would feel nice to see an original design on the (big vendor) PC side now and then.
Why do these companies think people will buy a copy of an Apple design/hardware, if they can get the original just as well? Customers like choice, yes, but choice does not mean 5 vendors making the same laptop all over again.
No wonder the PC makers are struggling, they’re all lead by unimaginative MBA retards.
ananduser - Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - link
Yes PC makers are indeed struggling, Apple being one of them. Apple's PC lineup is also not the pinnacle of mobile computing. Get a grip.