In a world where a smartphone is charging on every nightstand, the humble alarm clock is a bit of an antique. Or is it? Lenovo certainly doesn’t think so with its now second attempt at a smart clock that’s part smart speaker. The first one, the Smart Clock Essential, came with Google Assistant. The sequel makes the switch to Amazon’s Alexa voice assistant.
That makes it less of a proper sequel, more like a spin-off. If you own and love the original and you use Google Assistant, you don’t necessarily want to get this one. And you don’t need to, either. Despite an updated design, the two devices remain simplistically similar. But if you prefer Alexa over Google Assistant, as I do, it becomes a more attractive proposition.
The obvious use case is in the bedroom, a modern take on the classic alarm clock. But in essence, this is an Amazon Echo at heart, albeit made by Lenovo. So you can use it anywhere you like, and for more than just telling the time.
93.3mm x 113.48mm x 71.33mm / 3.67″ x 4.46″ x 2.80″
Color
Clay Red
Misty Blue
About this review: This review was written using a Smart Clock Essential with Alexa provided by Lenovo. At no point has Lenovo had any input on the content of this article.
Pricing and Availability
The Lenovo Smart Clock Essential with Alexa is available to purchase now from Lenovo directly and other third parties such as Amazon. The regular price is $69.99, though there are frequent deals that have taken as much as $25 off that.
It comes in two colors; Misty Blue and Clay Red.
Design and Features
Same simplistic approach as its predecessor.
Substitutes Google Assistant for Alexa.
Bright display with additional glanceable information.
The sound quality is a little behind the Echo Dot.
I bought and lived with the original Lenovo Smart Clock Essential. It was great. Exactly the type of smart device I’d been looking for to put on my nightstand. The key to that was not having a camera or a full display. I wanted to be able to see the time through half-open 6.30 a.m. eyes, play music, and ask the usual basic smart speaker questions. For me, the only drawback was a preference for Alexa. As a result, rather than using two assistants in the same house, I ended up replacing it with the Amazon Echo Dot with Clock. As a nightstand device, I like the Echo Dot less than I like the Lenovo Smart Clock Essential.
The best part of this new Smart Clock Essential is that all the good bits remain. All the reasons you would choose it to go on your nightstand are still here. The clock is large and easily legible through sleepy eyes. There’s no camera, the physical controls are easy to feel around for and it doesn’t have a touch screen. It’s simple. And thankfully Lenovo kept that simplicity.
Despite not having a full-touch display, the Smart Clock Essential is a little more advanced than the clock-toting Echo Dot. You get a little more glanceable information, including the current weather conditions temperature, and humidity, saving one more morning question for Alexa. It even has a rudimentary decibel meter. The display also has an auto-dim feature, so at night you’re not going to be lighting up your bedroom. In this version, that display is trimmed with a redesigned housing that makes it a little bigger than the old model, but hardly large. It’s still going to take up less room on your nightstand than an Echo Show 5 or a Google Nest Hub. It comes in two colors, blue or red, trimmed in fabric.
The hardware controls all live along the top edge and it’s the usual fare. You get hardware volume controls, an action button to trigger Alexa, and an alarm button. This is an important feature retained from the original model, after all, it’s an alarm clock. You can use your phone or you can use the button. And silencing the alarm with your voice works just the same as on any Amazon Echo. The only hardware control not on the top is the mute switch, which is awkwardly placed on the back by the power input. You won’t accidentally activate it, at least, but you can’t just roll over and tap it.
The sound quality is good, though if you’ve used the latest generation Echo Dot you might be a little disappointed. For what it is though it’s not bad and certainly loud enough to wake you up with your favorite tunes. Being an Alexa device, it has the same setup process using the Alexa app as an Amazon Echo and most of the same benefits. The setup isn’t quite as seamless, and it’s not made immediately obvious that you have to choose “clock” not speaker. It’s also a little disappointing that some of the custom Amazon Alexa alarms, like The Grand Tour, aren’t made available to the Smart Clock Essential.
There’s also no audio output on the Smart Clock Essential with Alexa. It’s not a deal-breaker for the type of device this is meant to be, but it isn’t an option to add some smarts to an existing home audio setup.
Who should buy the Lenovo Smart Clock Essential with Alexa
Someone who wants a smart device on the nightstand without a camera.
If you prefer Alexa over Google Assistant.
If you’re looking for a better clock than the Echo Dot can offer.
The Lenovo Smart Clock Essential with Alexa is a simple device and a solid alternative to the Amazon Echo Dot with Clock. As a device for a nightstand or even an office desk, somewhere you genuinely want a glanceable clock, it’s the better choice. The display gives you the essential information without becoming a distraction.
If better quality sound is important then the Lenovo falls behind a little, but it’s hardly a huge difference. Both have an excellent range on their microphones, too. And of course, if you prefer Alexa over Google Assistant, this is the one to get over Lenovo’s other model.
It’s a device that at first glance you might not get too excited for, but that does it a disservice. As an affordable smart speaker, it’s most excellent, especially if you’ve been looking for that perfect nightstand device that doesn’t have a camera.
Throughout the course of my working day there is one constant: headphones. I’m either listening to music, a podcast, the news, or on a Google Meet call basically all day. And I also like to be able to move about without missing anything, so they have to be wireless. Since over-the-ear headphones can get tiring, I use wireless earbuds most of the day.
And for those, I have finally resigned myself to using Apple AirPods. Specifically, at least for now, the second generation AirPods. The wireless earbuds that I ridiculed when first announced are my favorite and by a fairly wide margin now.
This is actually my second pair of AirPods after the first met an untimely death at the hands of our washing machine. In between, I’ve tried and enjoyed a lot of alternatives, but ultimately ended up back where I started. It might say more about me than it does about the AirPods, but I’m still a little surprised.
The alternatives to AirPods
I am pretty terrible at buying headphones. I wouldn’t ever claim to be an audiophile, but I love music and I seem to enjoy earphones. And after my initial spell of ridicule, I tried AirPods and instantly fell in love with them. But when I left them in a pocket and destroyed them in the washing machine, I decided to try out the competition first instead of just replacing them with a second pair.
I won’t list everything I’ve tried, it’ll get way too boring. But brands like Razer, Xiaomi, Amazon, and Huawei are all in there, as well as some smaller ones such as Anker’s Soundcore. I only ever came across a couple of pairs of wireless earbuds I really didn’t like, but none I liked as much as AirPods.
The closest was Huawei’s FreeBuds Pro. Everything about them is great. The sound quality is superb, the ANC is very good, they’re not actually too expensive and the battery life is at least comparable to Apple’s. The FreeBuds Pro is actually more feature-packed than my AirPods since I went for the regular old second-generation ones.
But none of that or anything offered by any wireless earbuds has mattered as much as what the AirPods can offer to me: comfort.
AirPods just fit my ears
This is where it might say more about me than anything else. Perhaps my ears are built differently, but no other wireless earbud fits me as well as the AirPods do. The combination of the shape and the weight and the lack of a silicon tip makes the AirPods just nestle into my ears better than anything else. And this has been the case since Apple included the EarPods in the box with the iPhone.
I can sacrifice ANC, I can sacrifice a little on the sound quality. Purely because these seem to be the only buds that actually fit me. With all the others I’ve tried, even the FreeBuds Pro which I did come really close to sticking with, my ears feel fatigued after a couple of hours. With the AirPods, I can pop them in and forget they’re there, which is important to me and my daily routine.
If I want to really enjoy a piece of music, I reach for my favorite over-ear headphones, currently the Audio Technica ATH-M50X. But I don’t want to wear those all day. They’re wired, and for podcasts and meetings, they’re overkill. For everything else I use AirPods. They sound surprisingly good given their size and since I work at home on my own all day, I don’t miss ANC.
I carry an iPhone and I’ve recently moved to working on a Mac again, and using AirPods helps to appreciate how tight Apple has its ecosystem integration down. Switching between the two is so absurdly seamless, it’s almost like magic (and yes, I feel dirty using that word).
So, that’s me. I’m an AirPods guy now. Or I will continue to be assuming Apple doesn’t radically change the design down the line. My ears just seem to be designed for them. I’m sure Tim Cook is thrilled.
The Google Pixel 6 is one of the best camera smartphones on the market. It offers the same primary camera sensor and the processing package as its more pricey sibling, Pixel 6 Pro, while being $300 cheaper. But with the introduction of the affordable Pixel 6a, the regular Pixel 6 has some serious competition. The Pixel 6a is essentially a watered-down version of the Pixel 6, offering the same general design and Tensor chipset for $150 less. But which one is the better buy? We try to find an answer in our Pixel 6 vs Pixel 6a comparison.
Google Pixel 6a vs Google Pixel 6: Specifications
Specification
OnePlus 10 Pro
Google Pixel 6
Build
Aluminum mid-frame
Gorilla Glass 3 on front
Plastic back
IP57 water and dust resistance
Aluminum mid-frame
Gorilla Glass 6 back
Gorilla Glass Victus front
IP68 water and dust resistance
Dimensions & Weight
152.2 x 71.8 x 8.9mm
178g
158.6 x 74.8 x 8.9 mm
207g
Display
6.1-inch AMOLED
FHD+
60Hz
20:9 aspect ratio
Corning Gorilla Glass 3
Always on Display
6.4-inch AMOLED
1080 x 2400
90Hz refresh rate
HDR10+ support
SoC
Google Tensor
Google Tensor
RAM & Storage
6GB RAM
128GB flash storage
8GB RAM
128GB/256GB UFS 3.1 storage
Battery & Charging
4,410mAh
18W fast charging (charger not included in the box)
No wireless charging
4,614mAh
30W wired fast charging (charger not included in box)
21W wireless charging
Security
Optical in-display fingerprint sensor
Optical in-display fingerprint sensor
Rear Camera(s)
Primary: 12.2MP main
Secondary: 12MP ultra-wide
Primary: 50MP wide, f/1.9
Secondary: 12MP ultra-wide, f/2.2 aperture
Front Camera(s)
8MP
8MP
Port(s)
USB Type-C
No headphone jack
No microSD card slot
USB Type-C
No headphone jack
No microSD card slot
Audio
Stereo speakers
Stereo speakers
Connectivity
5G NR
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax)
Bluetooth 5.2
NFC
5G (mmWave)
Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) with 2×2 MIMO
Bluetooth 5.1
NFC
Software
Android 12 with Pixel Launcher
Three major Android OS updates promised
Four years of security patches
Android 12 with Pixel Launcher
Three major Android OS updates promised
Four years of security patches
Other Features
eSIM and Nano SIM
eSIM and Nano SIM
Google Pixel 6a vs Google Pixel 6: Design & display
It’s easy to mistake the Pixel 6a for the Pixel 6 as they share a common design and look quite similar. Both feature a two-toned back with a striking black camera visor at the top that covers the width of the phone. Both have a two-toned back with a prominent black camera visor that spans the width of the phone. The Pixel 6a features a smaller camera bar and protrudes less than the Pixel 6. Nevertheless, a case is necessary for both phones to protect the camera bump. The Pixel 6 and Pixel 6a are among the more unique-looking phones on the market. They stand out from the crowd due to their distinct personalities and will undoubtedly turn heads.
Being an affordable offering, the Pixel 6a opts for fewer premium materials. It has Gorilla Glass 3 on the front and a plastic back with a finger-resistant coating. The Pixel 6 has Gorilla Glass Victus on the front and Gorilla Glass 6 at the back, along with an aluminum frame.
Both phones are dust and water-resistant, though their IP rating differs. The Pixel 6a has an IP67 rating, whereas the Pixel 6 has a slightly higher IP68 rating. Neither phone has a microSD card slot nor a 3.5mm audio port.
The Pixel 6 flaunts a 6.4-inch AMOLED display with full HD+ resolution, while the Pixel 6a has a smaller 6.1-inch FHD+ OLED panel. While both are OLED panels with the same resolution, the Pixel 6 panel has an edge as it can refresh at up to 90Hz, offering a smoother scrolling experience. The Pixel 6a panel, on the other hand, tops out at a 60Hz refresh rate. Both devices support HDR10 and HDR10+ content.
Cameras
The biggest difference between the Pixel 6 and the affordable Pixel 6a is the camera setup. While earlier Pixel A series came with the same camera setup as the flagship Pixel lineup, things are different this time. The Pixel 6a is a downgrade from the Pixel 6 in terms of camera hardware.
While the Pixel 6 gets the brand new 50MP Samsung GN1 sensor, the Pixel 6a uses the same 12.2MP primary sensor that has been used on prior Pixel phones, including the Pixel 4 series and Pixel 5.
Despite having older camera hardware, the Pixel 6a still provides amazing camera performance due to Google’s excellent image processing and the new image signal processor. However, as we noted in our review, the smaller sensor can struggle with low-light and night shots and lags behind the Pixel 6’s superior 50MP camera. Both phones can shoot 4K 60fps videos, but the Pixel 6 delivers better quality footage.
We have attached camera samples from both phones in the galleries below.
Pixel 6a camera samples
Pixel 6 Pro camera samples
Note: The below samples are from a Pixel 6 Pro. Because the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro have the same primary shooter and processing package, there isn’t any difference in image quality.
Performance
The Pixel 6 and Pixel 6a are powered by the same in-house Tensor SoC. Although not quite as powerful as the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, the Tensor is still a capable chipset that delivers flagship-level CPU and GPU performance. It features an octa-core CPU setup consisting of two Cortex-X1 cores, two Cortex-A76 cores, and four Cortex-A55 cores. In addition, the Tensor also has several other components for machine learning and image processing tasks, such as a dedicated Tensor Processing Unit, a low-power Context Hub, a Titan M2 security chip, and an image signal processor (ISP).
Both phones are susceptible to heating and thermal throttling when playing graphics-intensive games such as Genshin Impact for extended periods.
Although both phones have similar horsepower, the Pixel 6a performs worse than the Pixel 6 in real-world use. This is mainly because the Pixel 6a packs less RAM (6GB Vs. 8GB). In our review, we found that the phone struggled to keep apps in memory for a long time and would sometime even kill apps that are actively in use when there’s not much room. Furthermore, due to the 60Hz refresh rate, the Pixel 6a will not feel as smooth and fluid as the Pixel 6, which can reach 90Hz.
All in all, the Pixel 6 is superior in terms of day-to-day performance, thanks to extra memory and a higher refresh rate display. The Pixel 6a is not a bad performer per se, but don’t expect to perform it like a true flagship smartphone.
As for configurations, the Pixel 6a only comes in a single variant which packs 6GB of RAM and 128GB of storage. Meanwhile, the Pixel 6 gives you two options: 8GB/128GB and 8GB/256GB.
Battery life, fingerprint reader, and more
The Pixel 6 packs a 4,614mAh battery, while the Pixel 6a has a slightly smaller 4,410mAh cell. You can expect both phones to deliver an all-day battery life, though the Pixel 6a may fare a little better thanks to its smaller screen size and lower screen refresh rate. While there’s not a huge difference in the battery capacity, charging speed is a different story. The Pixel 6 offers 30W fast charging compared to the Pixel 6a’s 18W charging. Another notable difference is that the Pixel 6 offers wireless charging support while the Pixel 6a doesn’t.
The Pixel 6 and Pixel 6a both come equipped with an in-display optical fingerprint scanner. This is an area where the Pixel 6a is actually superior to the flagship Pixel 6. Google did the right thing by giving the Pixel 6a a new fingerprint scanner, which is quick and more reliable than the Pixel 6’s finicky fingerprint scanner.
On the software front, both phones run a near-stock version of Android 12 with Pixel Launcher and Material You theme. Software support is also similar, with Google promising up to three years of OS updates and five years of security updates.
Google Pixel 6a vs Google Pixel 6: Which one should you buy?
One of the biggest draws of the Pixel A series has always been that you can get the same camera hardware as the regular Pixel smartphone for less. That’s not the case with the Pixel 6a. Instead of the new 50MP GN1 sensor that’s inside the Pixel 6, the Pixel 6a recycles the old 12.2MP sensor that’s been around for many generations. It’s still a capable shooter that gets the job done, but there’s nothing extraordinary about the overall camera performance. It’s better than many other similarly priced mid-rangers on the market. But in case you were expecting massive camera improvements over the Pixel 5a and Pixel 4a, you’re going to be disappointed. It’s also a shame that the Pixel 6a still uses a 60Hz display while almost every other phone in the mid-range segment now has a high refresh rate display. The Pixel 6a retains the same flagship SoC as the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro, but it’s not as good of a selling point as one would think. Other mid-range SoCs will give you similar levels of performance, and the complete experience that you would get out of a similarly priced phone would be better rounded.
If you can spend $150 extra, the Pixel 6 is a better buy, in our opinion, as it offers a higher refresh rate display, better everyday performance, and superior cameras. And the phone regularly sees discounts and price slashes, so you can grab it for even less. In our eyes, the $150 or lesser price difference is worth making the jump for, especially since you get camera hardware that remains more capable for longer.
But if you’re on a tight budget and want a phone with a capable camera and clean software, then you can’t go wrong with the Pixel 6a. It’s a great device and one that is great value-for-money too. But it just can’t beat the value proposition that the Pixel 6 brings to the table.
The Acer Swift 3 is one of the mainstays in the company’s laptop lineup, and the 2022 model brings some very welcome improvements that make this a great laptop for most people. It’s got plenty of performance with Intel’s P series, up to a Quad HD display, and – potentially my favorite aspect – a very good webcam that makes it ideal for remote learning or work.
It’s not without its flaws, with battery life being one of the downsides of having such a powerful CPU and a sharp display, but if you don’t need to be away from an outlet for too long, it’s a great device. I also would have loved to see Windows Hello facial recognition support, but that’s far from a necessity.
For what it offers, the Acer Swift 3 is competitively priced, and it does come in a sleek package that makes it a laptop you can take anywhere and not get any weird looks. It’s not a laptop that will blow your mind in any specific way, but it covers all the basic needs you’d expect and it does it very well.
The Acer Swift 3 launched in various markets, including the United States and Europe, in June, starting at $849.99
The model used in this review officially costs $1,129.99
Acer announced the Swift 3 (2022) in March, but it took a few months for it to launch, with an official launch in June. Officially, the laptop starts at $849.99, but you can actually find some models for lower than that if you look around. Some models are available from Acer directly, but mostly you’ll find it at Amazon and other retailers as well.
The model Acer provided for this review is a high-end configuration (see the spec sheet below), and it’s officially priced at $999.99. You can save some money by going with a smaller 512GB SSD, which is still plenty of storage space.
Acer Swift 3: Specs
CPU
Intel Core i7-1260P (12 cores, 16 threads, up to 4.7GHz, 18MB cache)
Graphics
Integrated Intel Iris Xe graphics (96 EUs)
Display
14-inch IPS, Quad HD (2560 x 1440), 210 DPI, 100% sRGB, up to 300 nits, Acer ComfyView
Body
321 x 210.8 x 15.9 mm, 1.25kg
Memory
16GB LPDDR4x-4266
Storage
1TB NVMe PCIe SSD
Battery
56Wh battery
Ports
2 x Thunderbolt 4/USB4 Type-C ports (40Gbps)
2 x USB 3.2 Gen 1 Type-A (one always on for charging)
1 x HDMI 2.1
1 x microSD card reader
Audio
Dual stereo speakers with DTS Audio, Acer TrueHarmony
Dual array microphones with Acer Purified.Voice
Connectivity
Killer Wi-Fi 6E AX1675i
Bluetooth 5.2
Camera
1080p Full HD MIPI webcam with Temporal Noise Reduction
Color
Silver
Material
Aluminum
OS
Windows 11 Home
Price
$1,129.99
Design: The Acer Swift 3 looks like a laptop
The Acer Swift 3 is available in three colors, but silver is the most common
It weighs roughly 2.75lbs, which is fairly light for an aluminum laptop
As far as looks go, the Acer Swift 3 is an incredibly mundane product, at least in the variant that I got. Acer announced it to be coming in three colorways, but silver is really the only one I’ve been able to find, and it certainly seems to be the more widespread option. It makes sense, because silver laptops are the most popular, but it just doesn’t stand out at all, which is something I find myself wishing more laptops would do.
But just because it doesn’t look unique, that doesn’t mean it’s bad at all. The laptop is made from aluminum, which gives it a very premium feeling all around. While it’s subdued, it looks clean and sleek. The only thing that gives it away as a cheaper device is the plastic bezel around the display. And while the laptop is mostly made of metal, it still feels very light, weighing around 2.75lbs and measuring just 15.9mm thin. Picking up the laptop feels effortless, and I can easily imagine carrying this around in a backpack without much of an issue.
Aside from being somewhat generic in terms of how it looks, the only thing I can really point out with this design is that the hinge is just a little bit too stiff, and opening the lid with one hand is difficult. That’s far from a huge deal, though, and I suspect part of why that happens is that the laptop is designed to lift the base when you open the hinge, putting the keyboard at a more comfortable angle and improving airflow. That’s a fine compromise in my opinion.
Taking a look around the laptop, you’ll find two Thunderbolt 4 ports on the left side, along with one USB Type-A port and one HDMI port. I do wish these ports were a bit more spread out, as you might have some trouble plugging in peripherals with both Thunderbolt ports at the same time since they’re so close together. This is a side note, but my review unit was bumped before getting to me, so that’s why it looks like the lid is curving on the right side of the picture above.
The left side only has one USB Type-A port, a headphone jack, and a Kensington lock slot. I just feel like one of the Thunderbolt ports could have been on this side to even things out a bit more, but it’s not a big deal.
Display and webcam: 1080p webcams are finally standard
The display now comes in up to Quad HD resolution, so it’s much sharper
The webcam has been upgraded to 1080p and it looks great
The Acer Swift 3 comes with a 14-inch display with a 16:9 aspect ratio, which is pretty standard for the series. Of course, a taller display would be nice, but in this price range, this isn’t unexpected, and 16:9 displays still do the job just fine.
The 2022 model comes with a big upgrade, which is the inclusion of a Quad HD panel for the first time. You can still opt for the Full HD display and I think you’ll be just fine, but if you want something a little sharper, it’s nice to know you have the option now. I do think you have to weigh that against the cost in battery life that comes from the higher resolution. While it is sharper, I don’t think most people will notice a difference, and the Full HD display will use less power, which is probably something you need to consider with this laptop, as we’ll discuss later.
Aside from the resolution, the two panel options are similar. They reach up to 300 nits of brightness (according to Acer), which is more than enough for indoor use, though you might have some trouble working under direct sunlight. Acer also claims the display cover 100% of the sRGB color space, and based on our testing, that seems to hold up. It also covers 70% of NTSC, and 76% of Adobe RGB and DCI-P3.
I actually felt the display may have been a little warm during my usage, but our testing actually shows it’s a little on the cool side. The white point stays fairly consistent at different brightness levels, and the contrast ratio peaked at 1420:1, which is a pretty solid score. Plus, our testing actually shows that brightness can go up to just over 340 nits, which is noticeably higher than Acer’s claims and definitely nice to see.
It's great to have a webcam this good.
For sound, Acer is using a pair of stereo down-firing speakers, which is fairly standard for this price range. They sound alright and they can get decently loud, though they don’t particularly stand out for their amazing quality. They’ll do the job fine, but they could also be better.
One of my favorite things about this laptop is right above that display. The laptop now has a 1080p webcam, and out of all the upgrades Acer could have made with this year’s iteration, I’m glad this was it. I’m always really happy to see high-quality webcams in a laptop, and I seem to be one of the few people that felt that way well before the past two years forced a lot more people to work remotely. I’m on video calls almost every day, and it’s great to have a webcam this good built-in. You can see a sample in the photo below.
Of course, it’s still a laptop webcam, so you shouldn’t expect the world from it, and it definitely looks very soft. But in good lighting conditions, you’re going to look pretty good with this camera, and at worst, it’s still solid compared to most webcams of the past. I even prefer it to the 1080p webcam on the Lenovo Yoga 6 I reviewed recently, and that was already pretty good.
Keyboard and touchpad: It gets the job done just fine
Typing on the keyboard feels fine, though there are better keyboards out there
The touchpad is decently large and works well
Talking about keyboards is something where the least you have to say, the better it generally is. The Acer Swift 3 is totally fine to type on, and I would say that’s enough praise, but it’s not the best keyboard out there. It took some getting used to coming from my desktop keyboard (of course), but I didn’t really have any major issues after a couple of hours. However, when testing this alongside the Lenovo ThinkBook 13s Gen 4 (that’s another review I have coming soon), it definitely became noticeable how much more comfortable Lenovo’s laptop feels to type on. The keys just feel more comfortable to press, while the Acer Swift 3 can feel a bit more shallow and it feels harder when it bottoms out.
But like I said, the keyboard on the Acer Swift 3 is totally fine, and it’s backlit, too, which is certainly welcome if you often work in dark environments. I will say, however, that the backlight is a little uneven, and because it’s so similar in color to the keys themselves, it can sometimes be hard to make out certain symbols on some of the keys, particularly during the day. You can work around that by just turning off the backlight, which also saves you a bit of battery, so it’s not a huge deal. An ambient light sensor might have helped here, turning off the backlight when there’s more light around you.
One thing I appreciate is the power button blends with the keyboard itself and Acer built the fingerprint sensor into it. That’s one of the big upgrades from past models, which had a fingerprint sensor near the touchpad which frankly looked kind of ugly. Now, it looks great, and the fingerprint sensor reads your fingerprint as soon as you press the power button, so it can sign you in to Windows right away when you get to the lock screen.
The touchpad itself is also about as good as you could want it to be. I can confirm that the annoying clicking noise I heard with my initial hands-on unit was just a result of pre-production hardware, and everything works great here, and it feels good to use. Again, this is the kind of thing where the least you say, the better it generally is, and I really have nothing negative to point out in this regard.
Performance: Intel 28W processors are fast, but battery life isn’t great
It’s a very fast laptop thanks to Intel P-series processors
Battery life suffers from that performance increase and the Quad HD display
While I did go hands-on with the Acer Swift 3 and Swift 5 earlier this year, this is the first time I’m really coming to grips with testing performance and battery life on a device with Intel’s P-series processors. These new processors have a 28W TDP, and they’re clearly in existence to give Intel a performance advantage over the Apple M1 and M2. After all, Intel used to make 28W processors exclusively for specific MacBook models, so now that Apple has moved on, it makes sense for them to be available on Windows machines.
Acer Swift 3 (2022)
Intel Core i7-1260P
Surface Pro 8
Intel Core i7-1185G7
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga Gen 7
Intel Core i7-1260P
PCMark 10
5,318
4,988
5,168
3DMark: Time Spy
1,830
1,852
1,458
Cinebench
1,661 / 9,351
1,438 / 5,423
1,375 / 6,831
Geekbench
1,729 / 9,594
1,431 / 5,505
1,419 / 6,915
CrossMark
1,795 / 1,690 / 1,897 / 1,824
1,523 / 1,417 / 1,763 / 1,218
My unit comes with an Intel Core i7-1260P, and that means it has 12 cores and 16 threads, making for a very fast laptop across the board. Looking at the graphs below, you can see there’s a big leap in performance compared to laptops with last-gen Intel processors with 15W, and it also seems to perform better than some other laptops with the same processor. It’s all about cooling, because a lot of laptops that have been upgraded to 28W processors didn’t necessarily make enough changes to keep those CPUs running cool. They generate a lot more heat than 15W models, so using the same thermal design doesn’t really work.
Intel P-series burns through battery much more quickly.
This aligns with my personal experience, as I never found myself wanting more performance. Everything runs as smoothly as you could want it to, and multi-tasking isn’t a problem at all, at least with 16GB of RAM. 8GB should still be fine for most people, but if you like having a lot of browser tabs open, that’s one thing you’ll want to consider.
The problem is that with nearly double the TDP, the Intel P-series burns through battery much more quickly. If a laptop like the Acer Swift 3 gets these new processors and there isn’t an accompanying increase in battery size (which there isn’t), battery life is going to suffer. It’s varied a bit for me, but usually, battery life on the Acer Swift 3 hangs around 3 and a half hours, which is barely enough to last me through a morning at work. At best, during a lighter day, I got 4 hours and 11 minutes out of it, and at worst, just around 3 hours when I left the brightness set to 100% for an extended period. It’s really not great if you need to be away from an outlet all day.
As I’ve mentioned, this is also a Quad HD display and that definitely contributes to the worse battery life. If you want it to last longer, I’d recommend getting the Full HD panel instead. I should also note that I did turn off display power savings in the Intel Graphics Command Center. This is a feature that changes the brightness of the display depending on the content being shown, so the display dims for darker images. I turned it off because it becomes very apparent when you switch from a webpage with dark mode to one without it, and it takes a couple of seconds for it to be comfortable to read. Otherwise, I used the default power settings, I had the keyboard backlight turned on, and display brightness was usually set to around 30% to 50%.
Should you buy the Acer Swift 3?
With the 2022 edition of the Acer Swift 3, we definitely get some major improvements from previous models, with options for a sharper screen, a much better webcam, and great performance, all wrapped in a premium-feeling and lightweight design, even if it’s a little boring to me personally.
You should buy the Acer Swift 3 if:
You want a great-performing laptop that isn’t overly expensive
The 1080p webcam is something you’ll be using often
You want something that’s lightweight while still feeling solid
You shouldn’t buy the Acer Swift 3 if:
You plan to use it away from an outlet for a full day
The 16:9 aspect ratio feels out of date to you
You’re looking for something that stands out from the crowd
It really falls short in terms of battery life, which might defeat the point of a laptop depending on who you are. If your usage involves being away from an outlet for a whole day, this won’t be the laptop for you. You’ll either need to look for a bigger battery or a PC that’s still using U-series processors, like the Lenovo Yoga 6 Gen 7 I reviewed a few weeks ago.
Google’s been in the audio game for quite a while now, and the Pixel Buds Pro is the latest addition to the company’s portfolio. We’ve had Pixel Buds before, and the company has launched the Buds-A series in the past as a complement of sorts to the likes of the Google Pixel 6a. The Pixel Buds Pro is the first all-out attempt from Google, and while it’s an admirable effort, the company is really just playing catch up.
The Google Pixel Buds Pro has a few neat features that put them above the rest, though there are some confusing omissions. It features a comfortable design that stays put in your ears, has great touch controls, decent active noise canceling, multipoint support, and long battery life. There are some things it doesn’t have that you’ll notice though, such as no higher-quality codecs like AAC and no built-in EQ (yet). The tuning out-of-the-box is terrible, so you either need to not care, or know what you need to change.
In short, the Google Pixel Buds Pro do a great job at being good earphones, but they’re costly and merely represent the company playing catch-up rather than innovating the space. If these earphones were released a year or two ago, they’d still merely feel on par with the rest of the competition. They do everything else so well, and the sound quality is great (with some tweaks), but it’s the out-of-the-box tuning that makes these earphones sound a lot worse than they should. If you’re not an audio snob then you probably won’t notice it, but otherwise, you’ll likely need to use an app like Wavelet.
Earbuds (each): 22.33 x 22.03 x 23.72 mm with the medium (default) eartip attached, 6.2 g (with medium eartip)
Wireless charging case: 25 x 50 x 63.2 mm, 62.4 g (with earbuds)
Speaker drivers
11mm dynamic drivers
Microphone(s)
Triple microphone array per earbud
Wind blocking mesh covers
Connectivity
Bluetooth 5.0
Battery & Charging
Earbuds only:
ANC on: Up to 7 hours
ANC off: Up to 11 hours
Earbuds+Case:
ANC off: Up to 31 hours
USB-C charging
Wireless charging
Five-minute charge for one hour of playback
15-minute charge for three hours of playback
Other Features
Active noise cancellation support (48dB peak)
Touch controls
IPX4 (IPX2 case)
Colors
Charcoal
Fog
Coral
Lemongrass
About this review: I received the Google Pixel Buds Pro for review for IrishTech on the 28th July, 2022. While Google sent us these earphones for review, it had no input into the contents of this review.
Google Pixel Buds Pro: Price & Availability
The Pixel Buds Pro comes in four colorways — Charcoal, Fog, Coral, and Lemongrass — at a price of $199/£199/€219. They are available for purchase now on Google’s own store and on Amazon in a wide range of regions, including the United States and across Europe.
Google Pixel Buds Pro: Design
The Google Pixel Buds Pro has a rather unique design, especially for earbuds. Ignoring the fact that the company launched funky colors like the lovely “Coral” pair that we received, these are a design that we haven’t really seen anywhere else. The orange top functions as a touch panel for inputs, whereas the earphones themselves are longer, designed to be twisted into the ear rather than placed in it.
The touch controls on the Pixel Buds Pro are excellent
The touch controls are excellent too, and that’s largely thanks to the large, even surface area of the earbuds. It’s a simple flat circular surface, and the gestures make sense. Swipe up or down for volume, double tap to skip, single tap to pause/play, and hold down to either toggle ANC, or call the Google Assistant. All of these can be modified in the Pixel Buds app (or in your Google Pixel’s settings) to give you a bit of control over what controls are enabled.
The Pixel Buds Pro are the most comfortable pair of earphones I have ever used
However, the best part of these earphones is comfort. These are the most comfortable pair of earphones I have ever used, and I’ve left them in my ears until they’ve died several times now. Google says that there’s technology that helps remove the “plugged ear” feeling that most earphones give, and with ANC enabled, it’s definitely noticeable. I’m not sure how the tech works, but it feels like magic. They’re very comfortable to wear for long stretches of time and stay in my ears when I’m working out, which is a major plus. I can yawn and eat with these in my ears and they still remain comfortable.
I didn’t have to downsize or upsize to the other tips provided in the box, but there are other sizes if you need them. There’s never going to be a “one size fits all” solution to earphones, but that’s fine so long as there are additional options in the box. Transparency mode is also fine, though I tend to find that feature subpar on practically any pair of earphones that I’ve used.
Google Pixel Buds Pro: Sound quality
When I first used these earphones, I had come off previously using the Huawei FreeBuds Pro 2. They support the LDAC codec, which is a high-bitrate codec that supports up to 990Kbps of audio. The highest bitrate of MP3 that you’ll get is 320Kbps, which leaves room for a lot of overhead but ensures that you’ll get the full quality of your audio transmitted to your ears. Prior to that, I had used the Honor Earbuds 3 Pro, which supports the AAC codec at 264 Kbps.
Having used both of those earphones recently, I expected that the Google Pixel Buds Pro would sound completely fine. When I set them up for the first time, I listened to music and assumed they had defaulted to SBC, as it sounded as if I was listening to low-bitrate MP3 files. That turned out to not be the case, and I couldn’t figure out why they sounded the way they did.
I compared these earphones to the Huawei FreeBuds Pro 2, with a FreeBuds Pro 2 in one ear and a Pixel Buds Pro in the other. I listened to hand crushed by a mallet by 100 gecs which is a song that has a fantastic dynamic range. I noticed that a hi-hat I could clearly hear on the FreeBuds Pro 2 was barely audible on the Pixel Buds Pro. I also noticed a much stronger bassline on the Pixel Buds Pro, one that seemed to drown out the kick drum. That’s when it clicked with me: these earphones have a terrible out-of-the-box tuning. The highest frequencies drop off terribly, the mid-range is a bit too high, and the bass overpowers the mix.
For context, compressed MP3 files are compressed by removing frequencies above a certain frequency range. A 320Kbps MP3 removes frequencies from roughly above 19.5kHz, which doesn’t hugely matter as human hearing generally only maxes out at 25kHz, anyway. However, compressing audio down to 192Kbps removes frequencies above 18KHz, and 128Kbps removes frequencies above 16KHz. Both of these tend to be noticeable. There is an element of subjectivity when referring to frequency ranges, but the low-end refers to bass, and the high-end refers to treble. Treble is where the likes of cymbals, high-hats, and other high-frequency instrumentation can be heard the most, though the removal of some of the highest frequencies in the 10kHz-20kHz range may not be immediately apparent.
I found that I could use Wavelet to boost the 19.2kHz frequency band significantly, reduce the 9.6kHz band, and reduce the low-end significantly, and these earphones became a whole lot more tolerable. Boosting 19.2kHz alone won’t do a whole lot for the audio, but because it’s a frequency band that encompasses a wide range of frequencies from above 9.6kHz, it also boosts frequencies going back to there, too. After doing that, they sound nearly on par with any other pair of earphones that I use now when previously it felt like I was listening to a radio directly in my ears.
It’s crazy just how much tuning matters when it comes to earphones, and it’s disappointing that Google shipped these earphones with this tuning. Google has promised to add a full five-band EQ to the Pixel Buds app, but until then, you’re going to have to resort to the likes of Wavelet to make these changes. Previously, the bass very much overpowered the audio experience, and the rest of the audio experience felt hollow.
Once I applied my changes, however, these earphones sound really, really good. They’re loud, they’re clear, and they’re comfortable. They’re great for listening to all kinds of music, and the great audio hardware combined with proper tuning makes these an excellent pair of earphones. It is disappointing to not have many codecs supported out of the box, but AAC is a universal one that will work on pretty much anything.
The hardware on the Google Pixel Buds Pro is amazing, but the tuning out of the box is terrible
Nevertheless, a lot of this experience is still inexcusable. The hardware is amazing, but it needs some work on its tuning.
On the bright side, the call quality is decent. I can be understood completely fine pretty much anywhere when using these earphones on my phone, and haven’t had any problems with having conversations when using them.
Google Pixel Buds Pro: Software, settings, and battery life
On the software front, the Google Pixel Buds Pro benefit from both simplicity and direct Android integration. The setup process is easy thanks to Google’s Fast Pair (with fast switching, by the way), and the software controls for these earphones will be built into your phone — if you use a Pixel, anyway. If you don’t, then you can install the Google Pixel Buds app from the Google Play Store, and it will provide you with the same interface as you’ll get on a Pixel phone.
As you can see, there are quite a lot of features and controls to choose from. The biggest addition here that you’ll find that other earphones don’t have is the Google Assistant. Simply saying “Hey Google” will activate it, and you can ask any questions that you would normally of the Google Assistant. It’s a great way to check things when you’re out and about if you need to, and you can enable reading your notifications out to you if you want. That way then you won’t have to take your phone out if you’re walking down a busy street or carrying something.
The other major addition is “Multipoint”, which makes use of Google’s Fast Pair quick switching technology. Essentially, you can connect to up to two devices at a time, and seamlessly transition between the two. If you’re playing media on one device, you can stop playing media on that device and then switch over to the other and start playing, too. However, if you get a phone call on one device while watching a video on the other, your earphones will intelligently decide to switch over to the device receiving the call, because it’s assumed that you’d want to take the phone call.
In terms of battery life, these earphones are excellent. I can keep them in my ears all day and they just go, and go, and go. The case honestly feels like it needs a slightly bigger battery, though that’s probably because I get so much life out of the earphones.
Should you buy the Google Pixel Buds Pro?
The Google Pixel Buds Pro is an excellent pair of earphones that cost a lot of money, in the same price range as the best wireless earphones. Coming in at $199 puts these well above the likes of the OnePlus Buds Pro, on-par with the Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro (at launch), and a little bit below the AirPods Pro. Google is making a statement by selling these earphones at what is essentially a flagship earphone price.
For what it’s worth, I love the Google Pixel Buds Pro after making my equalization changes. The tuning on these earphones out of the box is extremely bass-heavy with a massively reduced treble, and it ends up creating an effect that sounds like it’s a low bitrate. You can remedy it with the use of third-party software, but generally speaking, that’s not merit you should ever buy a product on. There is a five-band EQ said to be coming to the Google Pixel Buds later this year, and that’ll be the way that you should make those modifications from then on.
If you don’t consider yourself an audiophile, then you’ll love the Google Pixel Buds Pro. I’m a bit of a snob when it comes to audio as I have a musical background, but that also meant I knew what I was able to change to make these earphones sound good. If you don’t think you’ll care, then these are definitely a great pair of earphones to pick up. Alternatively, you can copy my settings and they might fix them for you as well.
