The concept that prevents most reviews from being about performance, battery life, or other objective criteria is mostly due to this concept. When a computing OEM makes the decision to buy an intel or AMD platform they buy the whole thing: the chipset, processor, IGP and power target decision is already made for them.
Other broad stroke decisions are also made like is this a "desktop replacement" or the much more popular standard ultrabook? While a big maker can divert and make something of a less popular form factor they very rarely do.
This leaves most of the differences between laptops with the things that you touch and look at; keyboard, touchpad, and monitor quality making up the bulk of the difference of experience. This review could have pointed out that Dell's XPS line is a disaster that's not even part of their professional series, but instead they try to make it sound as if an immature platform with a better processor overrides all of the more tangible advantages.
So would you give up all those advantages of a high quality matte screen, a keyboard that doesn't break after a few hours of use, and a lower power target for a processor that's 15% faster in geekbench? https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/...