HP OmniBook X review: 16-hour Snapdragon X power

Long battery life meets premium design in one of the nicer new Arm-powered portables

HP OmiBook X
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

HP's Omnibook X is an excellent laptop with 16 hours of battery life in our testing. But Windows on Arm still feels more "surprisingly good" than great. And rather than spending $1,199 on a premium Snapdragon X Elite laptop right now, most people should probably wait to see what's on the horizon from Intel and AMD.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Class-leading battery life

  • +

    Very good keyboard

  • +

    Premium look and feel

  • +

    Includes a USB Type-A port

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    Windows on Arm compatibility is still complicated

  • -

    Copilot+ features aren't very enticing

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

HP has been busy in recent months, paring down its PC sub-brands to just Omni (consumer), Omen (gaming), Elite, and Pro (business), and launching new laptops based around Qualcomm's Arm-based Snapdragon X Elite platform. In keeping with the new naming scheme, the HP OmniBook X we're looking at here is a high-end consumer laptop for $1,199.

Can this Arm-based OmniBook X knock one of the x86 devices off of our Premium Laptops page? We'll have to benchmark it and try out its AI-focused features to find out. But (spoiler alert) its 16-hour battery life result in our testing is certainly impressive – if not quite the next-level longevity that Qualcomm was promising in the lead-up to the launch of its latest Windows on Arm platform.

Arm Software and App Support

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Matt Safford
Managing Editor

After a rough start with the Mattel Aquarius as a child, Matt built his first PC in the late 1990s and ventured into mild PC modding in the early 2000s. He’s spent the last 15 years covering emerging technology for Smithsonian, Popular Science, and Consumer Reports, while testing components and PCs for Computer Shopper, PCMag and Digital Trends.

  • cknobman
    Good review but your ultimate conclusion and recommendation might be a bit misleading to some.

    The software factor really isnt quite as bad as the article reads and people should know that generally unless they have a few specific workflows there are not a lot of issues with software.

    Yes creators, audio and video, have software issues right now but those types of users are specific and not general use case.
    General users (or most likely 80%+ of buyers) will not experience compatibility issues and their everyday software experience will be unnoticeably different.

    Windows on Arm is a chicken and the egg problem.
    Users: Dont buy until the software gets better
    WIndows and devs: Not going to waste time and effort unless there are enough users

    The Mac Arm transition was not all roses and peaches if you remember.
    The difference there was lack of choice.
    Apple said we are going Arm and all devs and users were forced to accept it.
    It still took a year, or two, before all the software bugs got ironed out.
    Yes it might have been a little smoother than the Windows Arm experience is going but its easy to understand why.
    Reply
  • Notton
    The price tag on X elite laptops is the hardest pill to swallow.
    283 nits is disappointing for a $1200 laptop. 350 minimum, please...
    Reply
  • ezst036
    Admin said:
    Battery59 WHr

    Isn't the Macbook Air's battery only 52.6WHr? Meaning, the battery itself may compensate for that extra hour?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    The article said:
    To measure long-term performance, we run 20 loops of the Arm version of the Cinebench 2024 CPU test
    Cool. So, why isn't there a chart comparing Cinebench scores with the other laptops?

    Also, why no web browser benchmarks? That's another key datapoint for users, and another opportunity to compare native vs. native performance.

    I'm not saying the reviewer is biased, but it sure seems like you guys aren't even trying to show it in a good light.


    The glaring omission of CB24 scores sent me elsewhere. I found them here:
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Qualcomm-Snapdragon-X-Elite-Analysis-More-efficient-than-AMD-Intel-but-Apple-stays-ahead.850221.0.html
    TL;DR: Snapdragon X beats Intel Core Ultra 7 155H and AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS on single-core Cinebench 2024 by 6% to 21%! However, that victory is tarnished by the Apple M3, which beat the x86 contenders by 38%! Efficiency-wise, the X models are 105% to 168% more efficient, but Apple again puts them all to shame.

    The Multicore CB24 test cases look pretty similar, but the AMD laptop's high-power mode is able to beat some of the slower Snapdragon X laptops. Efficiency-wise, the Ryzen 7 8845HS also splits the Snapdragon X pack.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    ezst036 said:
    Isn't the Macbook Air's battery only 52.6WHr? Meaning, the battery itself may compensate for that extra hour?
    IMO, they should include a table, where the following information is presented for all of the models:
    runtime
    battery capacity
    capacity divided by runtime = average power draw
    optionally: screen size & weight
    There's a natural tendency to use runtime as a proxy for efficiency. However, you really need to account for battery size, which is accomplished by point #3.
    Reply
  • dimar
    From my experience Windows x86 laptops last 5-10 years. How long will Qualcomm support driver updates, and for how long will Windows be supported? I have a feeling that this will be failure.
    Reply
  • EzzyB
    ezst036 said:
    Isn't the Macbook Air's battery only 52.6WHr? Meaning, the battery itself may compensate for that extra hour?
    Does it really matter? It's a laptop, it's not like you get a choice. You could, perhaps, say you prefer a particular Mac because it's lighter (perhaps because it used a smaller battery.) But, laptops tend to be a package deal and that's how it was reviewed. This is a product you can buy and it has a better battery life than that product you can also buy.

    What you're really trying to say is an M3 has better efficiency than a Snapdragon X, but that depends on a whole lot more than just a chip and a battery. I suspect the brightness has more to do with this than battery size, for instance.
    Reply
  • vijosef
    Is too expensive for the underwhelming graphic hardware.

    Also, It's the memory and SSD PC compatible, or requires specific hardware for this platform?
    Reply
  • NinoPino
    ezst036 said:
    Isn't the Macbook Air's battery only 52.6WHr? Meaning, the battery itself may compensate for that extra hour?
    Yes, but considering the display difference, the fact that Mac is on ARM by many years and that Macbook Air are the benchmark for battery life on laptops, I see a very promising future.
    Reply
  • NinoPino
    Finally a good and serious review. Thanks.
    Reply