Dell has begun shipping its Core Ultra 7 U-series XPS 14 configuration, priced starting at $1700. This model presents a compelling option for consumers seeking the premium design enhancements of the latest XPS line without the higher cost associated with the flagship Core Ultra X7 variant. However, an in-depth analysis reveals that while the Core Ultra 7 355 configuration retains many physical advantages, its performance and efficiency metrics align more closely with previous-generation hardware.

The Core Ultra 7 355 variant largely mirrors the acclaimed design of the Core Ultra X7 OLED XPS 14, which garnered high marks for its comprehensive improvements in both performance and aesthetics. Both SKUs are visually identical, boasting a noticeably stronger construction than earlier 2025 models and incorporating increasing levels of recycled materials. The non-touch IPS configuration is marginally thinner at 14.6 mm compared to the 15.2 mm OLED touchscreen model, though the overall impression of quality remains consistent.

Central to the Core Ultra 7 355 experience is its base 1200p IPS panel. This display stands out among its peers for image quality, offering a very good contrast ratio exceeding 2000:1. While it can be slightly brighter at the center than the OLED panel, some dimming around the edges and corners is observed due to uniformity variations. Notably, Windows VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) is supported down to 1 Hz when idling, a feature that must be manually enabled. However, the IPS panel’s primary drawbacks include significantly slower black-white response times, which can lead to noticeable ghosting during dynamic content like gaming, and a lack of DCI-P3 coverage, meaning HDR is not officially supported. Out-of-the-box calibration is decent, with potential for further improvement through professional calibration.

Under the hood, the Core Ultra 7 355 exhibits a distinct performance profile. Its raw multi-thread performance is approximately 40 percent slower than the Core Ultra X7 358H, placing it on par with laptops featuring older Arrow Lake-U Core Ultra 7 255U or Lunar Lake-V Core Ultra 7 258V chips. This suggests minimal year-over-year gains in CPU performance for this tier. Turbo Boost potential is also significantly more limited compared to the Core Ultra X7. The unit ships with a SanDisk SN7100S PCIe4 x4 NVMe SSD, offering performance comparable to the Samsung PM9C1b found in the Core Ultra X7 configuration, with no observed throttling.

Graphics performance sees a more pronounced divergence. The Core Ultra 7 355 is equipped with a 4-core Xe3 iGPU, which is about 60 percent slower than the 12-core Xe3 B390 integrated into the Core Ultra X7. This places its gaming capabilities roughly on par with Intel’s Arc 8, a solution from two years prior. For professional applications such as Blender rendering, the deficit is even greater, with performance being approximately 2.5 times slower. This substantial difference underscores the Core Ultra 7’s positioning away from graphics-intensive tasks.

Despite the performance disparities, the Core Ultra 7 355 does not translate its lower power ceiling into significantly improved thermal or acoustic performance across all scenarios. While fan noise can remain quieter for longer during moderate loads - stabilizing at 35 dB(A) in Cyberpunk 2077 compared to 43 dB(A) on the Core Ultra X7 - both SKUs can reach nearly identical maximum noise levels under extreme stress like Prime95. Surface temperature hot spots also stabilize at similar levels to the faster X7 configuration. The CPU, when fully stressed, boosts briefly to 3.7 GHz and 54 W at 100°C before stabilizing at 2.9 GHz, 28 W, and 81°C, indicating a constrained Turbo Boost.

Efficiency metrics reveal that the Core Ultra 7 355 does not fully inherit the performance-per-watt benefits of the Core Ultra X7 series. When running Prime95, it consumes only 13 percent less power than the Core Ultra X7 while delivering 40 percent less performance. Similarly, demanding tasks like Cyberpunk 2077 or FurMark see only a 7 to 15 percent reduction in energy consumption for a substantial 60 percent drop in graphics performance. All 2026 XPS 14 configurations use an identical 100 W universal USB-C AC adapter, though the Core Ultra 7 variant reaches a maximum draw of 80 W under full CPU stress, compared to 101 W for the Core Ultra X7. Battery life for day-to-day loads is excellent and comparable across both Core Ultra X7 and Core Ultra 7 configurations, as well as other modern ultraportables.

For users who prioritize the physical design improvements of the new XPS 14 and engage primarily in less demanding tasks such as browsing, word processing, and general multimedia consumption, the Core Ultra 7 355 presents a viable and more affordable option. While not optimized for graphics-intensive gaming, it can handle lighter entertainment needs, much like how many users might enjoy a casual session of Stardew Valley 1.7 Update to Add Marriage Options and Child Upgrades. However, content creators and occasional gamers who require robust performance will find the higher-end Core Ultra X7 configuration to be a more suitable investment, despite the nearly $500 price difference.

In conclusion, the Dell XPS 14 with the Core Ultra 7 355 successfully integrates the premium design language and high-quality IPS display of its more expensive sibling. Its performance, however, represents a more conservative step forward, aligning closely with last-generation chips in many respects. This makes it a compelling choice for a specific segment of the market - those who value design and everyday functionality over cutting-edge processing power and graphical prowess.