Notebookcheck Logo

Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 Notebook Review: Multitasking monster with AMD Zen4, RTX 4090 & Mini-LED

Debut for the AMD Zen4 Ryzen 9 7945HX. Asus refreshes its ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 and uses the best components you can currently get. The new GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop is supported by AMD’s Ryzen 9 7945HX, the fastest mobile CPU right now. The manufacturer also replaces the 4K screen with a new WQHD Mini-LED panel with 240 Hz, which is supported by a secondary 4K screen. Update: sRGB profile is included

Asus continues the concept of the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 with its two screens in 2023 and uses the best technologies you can currently get for laptops. In addition to the brand-new mobile graphics cards from Nvidia, the GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop and GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop, Asus once again uses HX processor from AMD. It is actually one of the first laptops in our editorial office with the new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, which offers 16 Zen4 cores against Intel’s Raptor Lake HX CPUs. Asus also upgraded the display: The resolution drops from 4K to WQHD, but it is a matte Mini-LED panel with a refresh rate of 240 Hz and fast response times.

The classification of the laptop is actually not that simple, because the Zephyrus Duo could be a gaming laptop, a machine for content creator or even a mobile workstation. However, the concept with two screens is definitely not interesting for every user. There are currently four different configurations and our review unit with the RTX 4090 Laptop, 32 GB RAM and 2 TB SSD storage retails for 4999 Euros. The SKU with the smaller 1 TB SSD as well as the GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop will be available soon for 4299 Euros.

Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
Processor
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX 16 x 2.5 - 5.4 GHz, 130 W PL2 / Short Burst, 120 W PL1 / Sustained, Dragon Range-HX (Zen 4)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU - 16 GB VRAM, Core: 2090 MHz, Memory: 2275 MHz, 175 W TDP ( including 25 W Dynamic Boost), 531.18, Optimus
Memory
32 GB 
, DDR5-4800, Dual-Channel, max. 64 GB
Display
16.00 inch 16:10, 2560 x 1600 pixel 189 PPI, capacitive, NE160QDM-NM4, MiniLED, glossy: no, HDR, 240 Hz
Mainboard
AMD Promontory/Bixby FCH
Storage
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N, 2048 GB 
, 1900 GB free
Connections
4 USB 3.1 Gen2, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 2 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm, Card Reader: microSD
Networking
Realtek RTL8125 2.5GBe Family Ethernet Controller (10/100/1000/2500MBit/s), MediaTek RZ616 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz), Bluetooth 5.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 29.7 x 355 x 266 ( = 1.17 x 13.98 x 10.47 in)
Battery
90 Wh, 5675 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 11 Home
Camera
Webcam: 1080p
Primary Camera: 2 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: 6 Speakers, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 330W PSU, ROG Backpack, rubberized palmrest, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
2.666 kg ( = 94.04 oz / 5.88 pounds), Power Supply: 1.149 kg ( = 40.53 oz / 2.53 pounds)
Price
5000 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Potential Rivals

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Height
Size
Resolution
Best Price
88 %
04/2023
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
2.7 kg29.7 mm16.00"2560x1600
89 %
02/2023
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
3.5 kg23 mm17.30"3840x2160
02/2023
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
16.00"2560x1600
89.4 %
02/2023
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
2.7 kg26 mm16.00"2560x1600
91.2 %
02/2023
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
2.4 kg21.99 mm16.00"2560x1600
88.2 %
05/2022
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
R9 6900HX, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
2.6 kg20.5 mm16.00"3840x2400
93.7 %
03/2023
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max, M2 Max 38-Core GPU
2.2 kg16.8 mm16.20"3456x2234

Case - Asus with familiar metal chassis

The chassis design did not change compared to the previous model. The laptop is actually rather subtle when the lid is closed and only the ROG logo is colored compared to the otherwise matte black finish. There is no crazy chassis lighting, either. The quality of the laptop leaves a good impression, only the plastic bottom cover falls a bit short.

Once you open the lid, however, you will immediately see that this is not a regular laptop. Depending on the opening angle of the main screen, the secondary screen is slightly raised (to ~15 degrees) and shifted towards the back, which uncovers a transparent cover above the keyboard where you can even glimpse inside the chassis at the corners. The angle of the secondary screen cannot be changed, but it works well in practice. The lifting mechanism is also very sturdy and there are no movements. The stability is very good in general, only the maximum opening angle of the lid is a bit limited at ~130 degrees.

Our size comparison shows that the 17-inch MSI Titan GT77 has a much bigger footprint, but it also shows that the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is by far the thickest device in our little comparison group. This is obviously caused by the secondary screen, which requires additional space. It is also one of the heaviest 16-inch models at almost 2.7 kg and you also have to consider the bulky 330W power supply, which tips the scale at more than 1.1 kg.

Size Comparison

397 mm / 15.6 inch 330 mm / 13 inch 23 mm / 0.906 inch 3.5 kg7.65 lbs363 mm / 14.3 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 26 mm / 1.024 inch 2.7 kg5.89 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 266 mm / 10.5 inch 29.7 mm / 1.169 inch 2.7 kg5.88 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 244 mm / 9.61 inch 21.99 mm / 0.866 inch 2.4 kg5.34 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 266 mm / 10.5 inch 20.5 mm / 0.807 inch 2.6 kg5.64 lbs355.7 mm / 14 inch 248.1 mm / 9.77 inch 16.8 mm / 0.661 inch 2.2 kg4.76 lbs297 mm / 11.7 inch 210 mm / 8.27 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 5.7 g0.01257 lbs

Connectivity - Card reader, but no USB 4.0

The rear area of the base unit is almost completely occupied by the cooling, which is why there are only three ports (Ethernet, HDMI, USB-A) in the center of the rear. The majority of the remaining ports is located at the front of the left side, which is also the case for the angled power connector. The cable from the PSU is pretty short, so the power cable can block the USB-A port depending on the orientation. There is one more USB-C port at the left side.

In addition to the somewhat inconvenient port layout, we are surprised that Asus did not include USB 4 support. The AMD processor supports USB 4 in general, but requires an additional USB controller, and it seems Asus did not want to spend the money.

Left side: Power, USB-A 3.2 Gen.2, USB-C 3.2 Gen.2 (DisplayPort, Power Delivery, G-Sync), microSD reader, 3.5 mm stereo jack
Left side: Power, USB-A 3.2 Gen.2, USB-C 3.2 Gen.2 (DisplayPort, Power Delivery, G-Sync), microSD reader, 3.5 mm stereo jack
Right side: USB-C 3.2 Gen.2 (DisplayPort)
Right side: USB-C 3.2 Gen.2 (DisplayPort)
Rear: 2.5 Gbps Ethernet, USB-A 3.2 Gen.2, HDMI 2.1
Rear: 2.5 Gbps Ethernet, USB-A 3.2 Gen.2, HDMI 2.1

SD Card Reader

There is a microSD card reader at the left side and SD cards sit flush with the chassis. The transfer rates in combination with our reference card (Angelbird AV Pro V60 128 GB) are excellent and we measure up to 270 MB/s and more than 180 MB/s when we copy jpeg image files.

SD Card Reader
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
196 MB/s +8%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
182 MB/s
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (AV PRO microSD 128 GB V60)
155 MB/s -15%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX (AV PRO microSD 128 GB V60)
125 MB/s -31%
Average of class Gaming
  (19 - 202, n=103, last 2 years)
99 MB/s -46%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX (Angelibird AV Pro V60)
83.5 MB/s -54%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
269 MB/s
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max (Angelbird AV Pro V60)
222 MB/s -17%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX (AV PRO microSD 128 GB V60)
207.6 MB/s -23%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (AV PRO microSD 128 GB V60)
185 MB/s -31%
Average of class Gaming
  (26 - 269, n=94, last 2 years)
122.9 MB/s -54%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX (Angelibird AV Pro V60)
86.2 MB/s -68%

Communication

The Wi-Fi module is located underneath the M.2-SSD.
The Wi-Fi module is located underneath the M.2-SSD.

You get a 2.5 Gbps Ethernet jack at the rear and the Wi-Fi module (RZ616) also supports the modern Wi-Fi 6E standard for 6 GHz networks. We had no issues to use the corresponding 6 GHz Wi-Fi network with our reference router from Asus and the transfer rates were both very high and stable. Bluetooth 5.2 is supported as well.

Networking
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
MediaTek RZ616
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
1767 (min: 1634) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1738 (min: 1633) MBit/s ∼96%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Killer Wi-Fi 6E AX1690i 160MHz
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
1582 (min: 1517) MBit/s ∼93%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
1545 (min: 1508) MBit/s ∼91%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Killer Wi-Fi 6E AX1675i 160MHz Wireless Network Adapter
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
1579 (min: 848) MBit/s ∼93%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
1619 (min: 1537) MBit/s ∼96%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
1155 (min: 495) MBit/s ∼68%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
1328 (min: 1093) MBit/s ∼78%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
1371 (min: 1036) MBit/s ∼78%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1494 (min: 1283) MBit/s ∼83%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
MediaTek Wi-Fi 6E MT7922 160MHz Wireless LAN Card
iperf3 transmit AXE11000
1695 (min: 1556) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000
1692 (min: 1567) MBit/s ∼100%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Broadcom 0x14E4, 0x4388 WiFi 6E AirPort
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz
1730 (min: 1700) MBit/s ∼98%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz
1803 (min: 1749) MBit/s ∼100%
050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800850900950100010501100115012001250130013501400145015001550160016501700175018001850Tooltip
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz: Ø1767 (1634-1855)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz: Ø1738 (1633-1768)

Webcam

Asus upgraded the webcam and now uses a 1080p sensor. This has a positive effect on the sharpness of images compared to the previous model, but the color accuracy is still not very good. The ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 does not offer a mechanical shutter.

ColorChecker
19.9 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
21.2 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
18.1 ∆E
12.6 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
26 ∆E
18.4 ∆E
18.6 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
9.1 ∆E
22.3 ∆E
16.5 ∆E
21.6 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
17.5 ∆E
19.8 ∆E
2.3 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
12.5 ∆E
15.1 ∆E
14 ∆E
2.1 ∆E
ColorChecker Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W: 15.1 ∆E min: 2.09 - max: 26 ∆E

Accessories

Every version of the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is shipped with a rubberized palm rest as well a dark ROG backpack, which leaves a pretty good quality impression. The more expensive units with Windows 11 Pro, 64 GB RAM and 2 or 4 TB SSD storage also include the ROG Fusion II 300 headset as well as the gaming mouse ROG Gladius III Mouse P514. 

ROG backpack
ROG backpack
ROG backpack
ROG backpack
Rubberized palm rest
Rubberized palm rest

Maintenance

The bottom cover is secured by several Torx screws (TR6), but there is also an additional screw hidden in the center underneath a glued rubber pad, which makes it unnecessarily complicated to access the internals. Inside you get two SO-DIMM slots as well as two M.2-2280 slots for SSDs. It is also possible to replace the Wi-Fi module, but you will have to remove the SSD first.

One screw is hidden underneath a glued rubber pad.
One screw is hidden underneath a glued rubber pad.
Internal layout
Internal layout

Input Devices - Keyboard is not ergonomical

The additional screen requires a shift towards the front of the base unit for the keyboard, which is obviously not ideal for the ergonomics. Asus knows this as well and ships every unit with a rubberized palm rest. It works well on your desk at home, but it is no help when you are on the road. The keyboard itself offers a comfortable typing experience with a shallow, but also quiet key travel. The keyboard is illuminated and you can use the Armoury Crate software to set the color for every key individually (if you want).

The touchpad in portrait orientation is sitting right next to the keyboard and even standard cursor movements can be challenging and require multiple attempts due to the narrow form factor. You can also use the touchpad as a numeric keypad (activated by tap in the upper left corner), which works well.

Input Devices
Input Devices
Keyboard illumination
Keyboard illumination

Display - 240 Hz Mini-LED

Subpixel array
Subpixel array
Maximum HDR brightness
Maximum HDR brightness

The 16-inch Mini-LED panel is one major upgrade over the previous model. It offers the WQHD resolution (2560 x 2600 pixels, 16:10) and a refresh rate of 240 Hz. The matte panel offers an exceptional image quality with razor-sharp contents and rich colors. Asus advertises a brightness of up to 1100 nits, but you have to differentiate between SDR and HDR contents.

The test results are very good and while the Mini-LED panel of the MacBook Pro 16 only reaches 500 nits for SDR contents, wen can measure up to 700 nits for the review unit. It even manages almost 1400 nits with HDR contents, and it does not matter if you only have a small area or a full picture. The HDR implementation of Windows on the other hand is still cumbersome and requires a manual settings change.

The black value is extremely low and results in an excellent contrast ratio. Mini-LED panels also do not have any issues with clouding or backlight bleeding.

692
cd/m²
690
cd/m²
693
cd/m²
724
cd/m²
712
cd/m²
709
cd/m²
701
cd/m²
710
cd/m²
693
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
NE160QDM-NM4 tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 724 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 702.7 cd/m² Minimum: 85 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 713 cd/m²
Contrast: 10171:1 (Black: 0.07 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.7 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5, calibrated: 1.2
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
90.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.4% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.21
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NE160QDM-NM4, MiniLED, 2560x1600, 16.00
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
B173ZAN06.C, Mini-LED, 3840x2160, 17.30
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
2560x1600, 16.00
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
MNG007DA2-3 (CSO1628), IPS, 2560x1600, 16.00
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
CSOT T3 MNG007DA4-1, IPS, 2560x1600, 16.00
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
BOE NE160QAM-NX1, IPS-Level, 3840x2400, 16.00
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Mini-LED, 3456x2234, 16.20
Display
-1%
-20%
-17%
-1%
-2%
-1%
Display P3 Coverage
99.4
94.9
-5%
67.44
-32%
69.1
-30%
98.5
-1%
98
-1%
99
0%
sRGB Coverage
100
99.9
0%
96.89
-3%
99.7
0%
100
0%
99.9
0%
100
0%
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage
90.8
92.4
2%
68.93
-24%
71.2
-22%
89.7
-1%
86.3
-5%
88.5
-3%
Response Times
-91%
44%
47%
38%
-185%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
15.2 ?(11.2, 4)
38.4 ?(13.6, 24.8, n)
-153%
12.3 ?(5.7, 6.6)
19%
6.6 ?(3.4, 3.2)
57%
14.6 ?(6.7, 7.9)
4%
80.5 ?(38.5, 42)
-430%
Response Time Black / White *
19 ?(10.6, 8.4)
26.6 ?(9.2, 17.4, n)
-40%
5.9 ?(2.2, 3.7)
69%
12 ?(6.8, 5.2)
37%
5.6 ?(2, 3.6)
71%
47.2 ?(20.6, 26.6)
-148%
PWM Frequency
12000 ?(100)
2380 ?(100)
-80%
14880 ?(100, 500)
24%
Screen
6565%
-152%
-48%
-78%
-104%
618%
Brightness middle
712
606
-15%
377.62
-47%
511
-28%
456.8
-36%
459
-36%
504
-29%
Brightness
703
602
-14%
469
-33%
437
-38%
434
-38%
487
-31%
Brightness Distribution
95
93
-2%
86
-9%
83
-13%
88
-7%
94
-1%
Black Level *
0.07
0.0001
100%
0.47
-571%
0.4
-471%
0.35
-400%
0.44
-529%
0.001
99%
Contrast
10171
6060000
59481%
803
-92%
1278
-87%
1305
-87%
1043
-90%
504000
4855%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
1.7
4.8
-182%
3.2
-88%
0.95
44%
3.7
-118%
2.97
-75%
1.5
12%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
4
8.2
-105%
6.9
-73%
2.07
48%
6.42
-61%
8.13
-103%
3.3
17%
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated *
1.2
1.8
-50%
0.91
24%
0.66
45%
1.03
14%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
2.8
6.5
-132%
3.9
-39%
0.6
79%
2.6
7%
4.9
-75%
2.1
25%
Gamma
2.21 100%
2.63 84%
2.176 101%
2.3 96%
2.235 98%
2.25 98%
CCT
6978 93%
6596 99%
6545 99%
6108 106%
6775 96%
6882 94%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
2158% / 3920%
-86% / -108%
-7% / -28%
-11% / -44%
-23% / -62%
144% / 314%

* ... smaller is better

CalMAN Grayscale (target color space P3)
CalMAN Grayscale (target color space P3)
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps (target color space P3)
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps (target color space P3)
CalMAN ColorChecker (target color space P3)
CalMAN ColorChecker (target color space P3)
CalMAN Grayscale calibrated (target color space P3)
CalMAN Grayscale calibrated (target color space P3)
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps calibrated (target color space P3)
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps calibrated (target color space P3)
CalMAN ColorChecker calibrated (target color space P3)
CalMAN ColorChecker calibrated (target color space P3)

The picture quality is already very good out of the box. We analyzed the panel with the professional CalMAN software (X-Rite i1 Pro 2) and both the grayscale as well as color checker performance only show small deviations compared to the P3 reference color space. However, there is a minor blue cast and the color temperature is also a bit on the cool side. Our own calibration (profile can be downloaded for free in the box above) improves the performance even further, so the panel is also suited for picture/video editing. It is a bit unfortunate that Asus does not include an option to switch to the smaller sRGB gamut.

Update: There is a dedciated sRGB profile available in the Armoury Crate software.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. DCI-P3
vs. DCI-P3
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
19 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10.6 ms rise
↘ 8.4 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 36 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
15.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 11.2 ms rise
↘ 4 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 24 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.9 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 12000 Hz ≤ 100 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 12000 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 12000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18071 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

PWM (0 % brightness)
PWM (0 % brightness)
PWM (20 % brightness)
PWM (20 % brightness)
PWM (50 % brightness)
PWM (50 % brightness)
PWM (100 % brightness)
PWM (100 % brightness)

The panel used PWM at all brightness levels, but the frequency of 12 kHz is very high and should not cause any problems. However, the constant PWM flickering makes it very hard to measure response times accurately. Our results are pretty average, but Asus advertises a response time of 3 ms. We did not notice any ghosting in during our tests and the panel is great for gaming.

In the sun
In the sun
Outdoors (cloudy day)
Outdoors (cloudy day)

The matte Mini-LED panel also works great outdoors, which is confirmed by our outdoor pictures. You should obviously avoid reflections from direct light sources, but you can still see the contents very comfortable on sunny days, while you cannot see anything on the glossy secondary screen (~400 nits). The viewing angle stability does not cause any criticism, either.

Viewing angle stability
Viewing angle stability

ScreenPad Plus - 4K IPS Touchscreen

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

Like last year’s model, the secondary screen has a resolution of 3840 x 1100 pixels (14 inches) and is now glossy. Touch inputs are well executed and Asus avoids the problem of different horizontal resolutions by adjusting the scaling factor, which means the width of windows does not change when you switch them from one display to the other. This works reasonably well in practice, but there can be issues when the run apps in full-screen mode (like games), where apps or windows on the second screen can move around.

The brightness is almost 400 nits and the other measurements are also good, but the picture quality cannot keep up with the primary screen. The additional panel is also limited to the smaller sRGB gamut, but we did not detect any PWM flickering.

384
cd/m²
381
cd/m²
379
cd/m²
377
cd/m²
386
cd/m²
377
cd/m²
365
cd/m²
349
cd/m²
382
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 386 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 375.6 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 386 cd/m²
Contrast: 1838:1 (Black: 0.21 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.7 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
Gamma: 2.11
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps
CalMAN ColorChecker
CalMAN ColorChecker
vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. DCI-P3
vs. DCI-P3

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
17.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7.7 ms rise
↘ 9.5 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 33 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
32.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 15.4 ms rise
↘ 16.7 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 37 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (33.9 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18071 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Performance - Ryzen 9 and RTX 4090 Laptop

All models of the ROG Zephyrus Duo are equipped with the powerful AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, but Asus does not use fast RAM and still uses DDR5-4800. We also faced some bugs during our review and we even had some blue screens when we launched AIDA64 benchmarks, for example. You also have to know that the graphics are handled by the dedicated GeForce GPU when you use an external screen. This is caused by the secondary screen, and the GeForce GPU is also running even when both integrated screens are turned off, which will obviously increase the power consumption.

 
 

Review Settings

The preloaded Armoury Crate software offers several power profiles for the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16. It is also possible to adjust the GPU settings in addition to the basic profiles. We got the best overall results with the Turbo profile as well as the default GPU setting (MSHybrid). 

Armoury Crate Software
Armoury Crate Software

Processor

The new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (Dragon Range) uses 16 Zen4 cores (32 threads) and is manufactured in a 5 nm process. It is AMD’s new flagship mobile CPU and is a direct rival for Intel’s current Raptor Lake HX chips. AMD advertises a typical TDP of 55 Watts, but the processor in the ROH Zephyrus Duo 16 can consume up to 130 Watts and 120 Watts for sustained workloads. This means it is much more efficient than Intel’s latest models like the Core i9-13980HX, which can consume more than 200 Watts in peak load scenarios.

The multi-core performance in particular is very impressive and the Ryzen 9 7945HX can take the top spot in almost every benchmark. Intel’s current CPUs only have a slight advantage in single-core tests, but also consume more power in these scenarios. We will offer a detailed comparison of the performance and efficiency between the new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX and the Raptor Lake HX CPUs in a separate comparison article.

Cinebench R15 Multi Loop

02805608401120140016801960224025202800308033603640392042004480476050405320Tooltip
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX: Ø5385 (5255.55-5554.01)
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX: Ø4574 (4429.68-4819.28)
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX: Ø4366 (4298.3-4875.08)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX: Ø4980 (4889.98-5226.71)
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX: Ø4512 (4463.29-4528.99)
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX: Ø3311 (3259.45-3569.52)
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX: Ø2247 (2222.47-2257.72)
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max: Ø2074 (2068.47-2081.27)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX: Ø4987 (4917.63-5171.97)
CPU data Cinebench R15 Multi loop
CPU data Cinebench R15 Multi loop

The CPU performance is almost completely stable under sustained workloads, but you have to expect a performance deficit of around 50 % in multi-core tests running on battery (the single-core performance is not affected). Compared to the Ryzen 9 6900HX in the old Zephyrus Duo 16, the CPU performance has increased by 68 % across all CPU benchmarks. More benchmark results are available in our tech section.

CPU Performance Rating: Percent
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
CPU Performance Rating
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
83.4 pt
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
 
82.3 pt
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
81.6 pt
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
81.4 pt
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
79.3 pt
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
77.5 pt
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
71.2 pt
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
66.4 pt
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max -6!
Apple M2 Max
60.4 pt
Average of class Gaming
 
56.1 pt
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
47.9 pt
Cinebench R23 / Multi Core
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
34521 (32987.6min - 34521.3max) Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (32379 - 34613, n=5)
33960 Points -2%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
33277 Points -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
33052 Points -4%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
30162 Points -13%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
28707 (26191.7min - 28706.8max) Points -17%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
28010 (26406.1min - 28009.8max) Points -19%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
26703 Points -23%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
26736 (22394.1min - 26736.1max) Points -23%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
22982 Points -33%
Average of class Gaming
  (2435 - 34613, n=239, last 2 years)
19100 Points -45%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
14767 Points -57%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
14085 Points -59%
Cinebench R23 / Single Core
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
2169 Points +12%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
2100 Points +8%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
2055 Points +6%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
2043 Points +5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
2029 Points +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
1940 Points
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
1913 Points -1%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (1863 - 1948, n=5)
1912 Points -1%
Average of class Gaming
  (527 - 2235, n=237, last 2 years)
1799 Points -7%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
1625 Points -16%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
1566 Points -19%
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
13457 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (10025 - 13769, n=5)
12753 Points -5%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
12648 Points -6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
12437 Points -8%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
11500 Points -15%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
11289 Points -16%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
8697 Points -35%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
8667 Points -36%
Average of class Gaming
  (930 - 13769, n=237, last 2 years)
7255 Points -46%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
5489 Points -59%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
4044 Points -70%
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
825 Points +9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
803 Points +6%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
788 Points +4%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
756 Points 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
756 Points
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
742 Points -2%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
738 Points -2%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (712 - 756, n=5)
738 Points -2%
Average of class Gaming
  (169 - 855, n=237, last 2 years)
693 Points -8%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
595 Points -21%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
460 Points -39%
Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
5554 (5255.55min - 5554.01max) Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (5205 - 5663, n=6)
5490 Points -1%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
5227 (4889.98min - 5226.71max) Points -6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
5172 (4917.63min - 5171.97max) Points -7%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
4913 Points -12%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
4875 (4298.3min - 4875.08max) Points -12%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
4819 (4429.68min - 4819.28max) Points -13%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
4529 (4463.29min - 4528.99max) Points -18%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
3570 (3259.45min - 3569.52max) Points -36%
Average of class Gaming
  (400 - 5663, n=242, last 2 years)
3024 Points -46%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
2292 Points -59%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
2074 (2068.47min, 2068.57P1 - 2081.27max) Points -63%
Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
312 Points +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
307 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (294 - 309, n=6)
303 Points -1%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
301 Points -2%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
300 Points -2%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
295 Points -4%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
294 Points -4%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
278 Points -9%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
274 Points -11%
Average of class Gaming
  (79.2 - 318, n=241, last 2 years)
266 Points -13%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
249 Points -19%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
239 Points -22%
Blender / v2.79 BMW27 CPU
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
220 Seconds * -137%
Average of class Gaming
  (87 - 1259, n=235, last 2 years)
205 Seconds * -120%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
147 Seconds * -58%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
114 Seconds * -23%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
111 Seconds * -19%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
105 Seconds * -13%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
101 Seconds * -9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
100 Seconds * -8%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (87 - 100, n=5)
93.2 Seconds * -0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
93 Seconds *
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (123364 - 140932, n=5)
136237 MIPS 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
135927 MIPS
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
127295 MIPS -6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
125720 MIPS -8%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
122254 MIPS -10%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
118715 MIPS -13%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
109330 MIPS -20%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
86234 MIPS -37%
Average of class Gaming
  (11386 - 140932, n=236, last 2 years)
75363 MIPS -45%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
64457 MIPS -53%
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (7319 - 7581, n=5)
7398 MIPS +1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
7319 MIPS
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
7035 MIPS -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
7018 MIPS -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
6897 MIPS -6%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
6800 MIPS -7%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
6445 MIPS -12%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
6256 MIPS -15%
Average of class Gaming
  (2685 - 7581, n=236, last 2 years)
6062 MIPS -17%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
5727 MIPS -22%
Geekbench 5.5 / Multi-Core
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
21058 Points +8%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
20784 Points +6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
20634 Points +5%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
20329 Points +4%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
19583 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (18372 - 19954, n=5)
19407 Points -1%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
18152 Points -7%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
16250 Points -17%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
15348 Points -22%
Average of class Gaming
  (1946 - 22200, n=241, last 2 years)
13326 Points -32%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
10167 Points -48%
Geekbench 5.5 / Single-Core
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
2139 Points 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
2132 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (2047 - 2132, n=5)
2092 Points -2%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
2043 Points -4%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
2025 Points -5%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
2023 Points -5%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max
1978 Points -7%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
1923 Points -10%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
1805 Points -15%
Average of class Gaming
  (158 - 2193, n=241, last 2 years)
1795 Points -16%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
1594 Points -25%
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (33.8 - 37.6, n=4)
35.9 fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
34.8 fps
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
33.4 fps -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
32.7 fps -6%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
31.9 fps -8%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
30.9 fps -11%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
28.7 fps -18%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
25.6 fps -26%
Average of class Gaming
  (3 - 37.6, n=239, last 2 years)
20.8 fps -40%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
18 fps -48%
LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
60.4 s *
Average of class Gaming
  (32.8 - 332, n=233, last 2 years)
49.1 s * +19%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
47.5 s * +21%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
46.5 s * +23%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (36.8 - 60.4, n=4)
46.2 s * +24%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
46 s * +24%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
45 s * +25%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
44 s * +27%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
39 s * +35%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
36.7 s * +39%
R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
0.4799 sec * -21%
Average of class Gaming
  (0.3609 - 4.47, n=236, last 2 years)
0.4734 sec * -19%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX
0.4194 sec * -5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX
0.4121 sec * -3%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
  (0.3982 - 0.4159, n=4)
0.4086 sec * -3%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX
0.4033 sec * -1%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13980HX
0.4008 sec * -1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
0.3982 sec *
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX
0.3979 sec * -0%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX
0.3866 sec * +3%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
21698
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
71582
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
8481
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
3.65 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
64.29 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
182.2 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
307 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
283 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
5554 Points
Help

System Performance

Except for the previously mentioned blue screens, we also noticed some software bugs during our review period. There were issues with the Bluetooth connection (we occasionally had to open the Bluetooth menu before our mouse worked) and YouTube sometimes did not play any videos, which was solved by a restart. We are currently not sure whether these are software issues caused by Asus or initial issues with the new AMD platform.

If everything works as designed (which is the case most of the time), the performance is really good. There are no stutters and all inputs are executed without delays. The results in the synthetic benchmarks are also excellent and the AMD system can beat most Intel rivals.

PCMark 10 / Score
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
9151 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (8733 - 9151, n=2)
8942 Points -2%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
8884 Points -3%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
7888 Points -14%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
7830 Points -14%
Average of class Gaming
  (5235 - 9852, n=203, last 2 years)
7573 Points -17%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
6351 Points -31%
PCMark 10 / Essentials
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
12176 Points
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
11761 Points -3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
11703 Points -4%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (11165 - 12176, n=2)
11671 Points -4%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
11078 Points -9%
Average of class Gaming
  (8300 - 12334, n=202, last 2 years)
10701 Points -12%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
9374 Points -23%
PCMark 10 / Productivity
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
11833 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (10266 - 11833, n=2)
11050 Points -7%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
10788 Points -9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
9851 Points -17%
Average of class Gaming
  (7244 - 11833, n=202, last 2 years)
9729 Points -18%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
8271 Points -30%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
7704 Points -35%
PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
16424 Points +14%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (14432 - 15768, n=2)
15100 Points +5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
14535 Points +1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
14432 Points
Average of class Gaming
  (6462 - 18475, n=202, last 2 years)
11407 Points -21%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
10319 Points -28%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
9626 Points -33%
CrossMark / Overall
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
2139 Points +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
2078 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (1993 - 2078, n=2)
2036 Points -2%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX
1993 Points -4%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z
1910 Points -8%
Average of class Gaming
  (974 - 2334, n=173, last 2 years)
1870 Points -10%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
1711 Points -18%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
1592 Points -23%
CrossMark / Productivity
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
1977 Points +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
1946 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (1838 - 1946, n=2)
1892 Points -3%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX
1820 Points -6%
Average of class Gaming
  (907 - 2204, n=173, last 2 years)
1782 Points -8%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
1698 Points -13%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z
1618 Points -17%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
1509 Points -22%
CrossMark / Creativity
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z
2505 Points +5%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
2423 Points +2%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX
2384 Points 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
2377 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (2334 - 2377, n=2)
2356 Points -1%
Average of class Gaming
  (1027 - 2514, n=173, last 2 years)
2029 Points -15%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
1780 Points -25%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
1724 Points -27%
CrossMark / Responsiveness
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
1861 Points +10%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
1715 Points +2%
Average of class Gaming
  (1029 - 2327, n=173, last 2 years)
1703 Points +1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
1689 Points
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (1584 - 1689, n=2)
1637 Points -3%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX
1528 Points -10%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z
1395 Points -17%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
1342 Points -21%
PCMark 10 Score
9151 points
Help

DPC Latency

Our standardized Latency test (web browsing, YouTube 4K playback, CPU load) shows significant limitations for the test unit with the current BIOS version, so it is not suited for real-time audio applications. 

LatencyMon - Overview
LatencyMon - Overview
LatencyMon - Drivers
LatencyMon - Drivers
DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
5418.4 μs *
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
4710.9 μs * +13%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
2448.6 μs * +55%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
521.5 μs * +90%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
437.7 μs * +92%

* ... smaller is better

Storage Devices

Free M.2-2280 slot
Free M.2-2280 slot

Our review unit is equipped with a fast 2 TB SSD from SK Hynix (PC801), which is attached via PCIe 4.0. The performance of the NVMe drive is excellent and we transfer rates of more than 7 GB/s. The performance is also stable under sustained workloads, which is a problem for many high-end laptops right now. More SSD benchmarks are listed here.

SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 7107 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 6036 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 532 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 585 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 64.4 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 163.9 MB/s
CDM 6 Write 4K Q8T8: 486 MB/s
CDM 6 Read 4K Q8T8: 1278 MB/s
Drive Performance Rating - Percent
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
77.3 pt
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
74.4 pt
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
67.6 pt
Average of class Gaming
 
59.4 pt
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
57.6 pt
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
57.3 pt
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
 
56.7 pt
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake -11!
 
40.7 pt
DiskSpd
seq read
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
5598 (5462.22min - 5597.85max) MB/s +103%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
4903 MB/s +78%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
4525 (4498.41min - 4525.41max) MB/s +64%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
3844 (3257.93min - 3843.87max) MB/s +39%
Average of class Gaming
  (1291 - 7045, n=202, last 2 years)
3524 MB/s +28%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (2756 - 4427, n=3)
3402 MB/s +23%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
3180 (3109.94min - 3179.84max) MB/s +15%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
2756 (2741.19min - 2756.29max) MB/s
seq write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
7889 (6495.73min - 7888.81max) MB/s +86%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
7533 (7482.85min - 7532.79max) MB/s +77%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
4378 (4355.78min - 4378.43max) MB/s +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
4250 (4204.35min - 4249.88max) MB/s
Average of class Gaming
  (535 - 9307, n=202, last 2 years)
3796 MB/s -11%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (3152 - 4250, n=3)
3676 MB/s -14%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
3434 (3027.24min - 3434.35max) MB/s -19%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
3242 (1498min - 3241.78max) MB/s -24%
seq q8 t1 read
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
11242 (10740.3min - 11242.2max) MB/s +60%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
10557 (9742.97min - 10557.3max) MB/s +50%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
7048 (6068.56min - 7047.9max) MB/s
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (6899 - 7132, n=3)
7026 MB/s 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
6872 (4963.33min - 6872.25max) MB/s -2%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
6682 (5778.28min - 6681.95max) MB/s -5%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
6637 (5645.11min - 6636.65max) MB/s -6%
Average of class Gaming
  (1983 - 16089, n=202, last 2 years)
6335 MB/s -10%
seq q8 t1 write
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
9942 (9912.92min - 9941.76max) MB/s +66%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
9830 (9799.27min - 9829.82max) MB/s +64%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
6004 (5933.65min - 6004.3max) MB/s
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (5716 - 6004, n=3)
5904 MB/s -2%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
4985 (4706.66min - 4985.24max) MB/s -17%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
4943 (4923.06min - 4943.2max) MB/s -18%
Average of class Gaming
  (539 - 14571, n=202, last 2 years)
4758 MB/s -21%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
4244 (427.59min - 4244.22max) MB/s -29%
4k q1 t1 read
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
95.3 (93.25min - 95.25max) MB/s +48%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
83.1 (79.37min - 83.07max) MB/s +29%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
73.1 (72.79min - 73.06max) MB/s +14%
Average of class Gaming
  (30.6 - 95.9, n=202, last 2 years)
68.3 MB/s +6%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
64.3 (63.09min - 64.34max) MB/s
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (56.3 - 70.4, n=3)
63.7 MB/s -1%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
56.5 (49.8min - 56.49max) MB/s -12%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
46.6 (45.38min - 46.63max) MB/s -28%
4k q1 t1 write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
359 (324.09min - 358.58max) MB/s +119%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
255 (243.79min - 255.25max) MB/s +55%
Average of class Gaming
  (66.6 - 421, n=202, last 2 years)
227 MB/s +38%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
220 (56.84min - 219.56max) MB/s +34%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
213 (205.52min - 212.72max) MB/s +30%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
164.3 (163.26min - 164.34max) MB/s
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (127 - 175.8, n=3)
155.7 MB/s -5%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
108.4 (106.69min - 108.4max) MB/s -34%
4k q32 t16 read
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
4100 (4085.58min - 4100.1max) MB/s +254%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
3111 (2388.54min - 3111.42max) MB/s +169%
Average of class Gaming
  (313 - 6172, n=202, last 2 years)
2581 MB/s +123%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
2390 (2226.95min - 2390.15max) MB/s +106%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
1469 (1266.81min - 1469.47max) MB/s +27%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
1158 (1132.18min - 1157.71max) MB/s
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (932 - 1158, n=3)
1015 MB/s -12%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
973 (941.21min - 972.98max) MB/s -16%
4k q32 t16 write
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
3537 (3519.01min - 3536.66max) MB/s +635%
Average of class Gaming
  (162.3 - 4869, n=202, last 2 years)
2173 MB/s +352%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
1542 (1501.74min - 1541.63max) MB/s +221%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
1424 (1251.47min - 1423.75max) MB/s +196%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
1282 (960.6min - 1281.78max) MB/s +167%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (481 - 549, n=3)
510 MB/s +6%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
481 (462.66min - 481.19max) MB/s
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
 
460 (453.59min - 459.8max) MB/s -4%
AS SSD
Score Total
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
8224 Points +28%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
7311 Points +14%
Average of class Gaming
  (1923 - 13854, n=190, last 2 years)
6821 Points +6%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
6635 Points +3%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (6291 - 6766, n=3)
6497 Points +1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
6435 Points
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
4850 Points -25%
Score Read
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
3308 Points +113%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
3188 Points +105%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
2619 Points +69%
Average of class Gaming
  (528 - 4721, n=190, last 2 years)
2508 Points +61%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
2035 Points +31%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
1554 Points
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (1523 - 1564, n=3)
1547 Points 0%
Score Write
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (4064 - 4488, n=3)
4239 Points +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
4164 Points
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
3468 Points -17%
Average of class Gaming
  (515 - 7208, n=190, last 2 years)
3097 Points -26%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
2556 Points -39%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
2428 Points -42%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
1877 Points -55%
Seq Read
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
9511 MB/s +67%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
5689 MB/s
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (5479 - 5689, n=3)
5586 MB/s -2%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
5429.33 MB/s -5%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
5344.88 MB/s -6%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
5144.76 MB/s -10%
Average of class Gaming
  (1759 - 12763, n=190, last 2 years)
4916 MB/s -14%
Seq Write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
7663.27 MB/s +96%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
7181 MB/s +84%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
4064.76 MB/s +4%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
3904 MB/s
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (3438 - 3904, n=3)
3739 MB/s -4%
Average of class Gaming
  (495 - 11316, n=190, last 2 years)
3632 MB/s -7%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
3058.47 MB/s -22%
4K Read
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
85.9 MB/s +45%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
72.8 MB/s +23%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
68.93 MB/s +16%
Average of class Gaming
  (30.4 - 112.1, n=190, last 2 years)
67.6 MB/s +14%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (54.6 - 67.9, n=3)
60.6 MB/s +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
59.2 MB/s
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
49.65 MB/s -16%
4K Write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
328.69 MB/s +73%
Average of class Gaming
  (96.3 - 512, n=190, last 2 years)
212 MB/s +12%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
205.06 MB/s +8%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (177.9 - 230, n=3)
199.1 MB/s +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
189.7 MB/s
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
177.9 MB/s -6%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
144.8 MB/s -24%
4K-64 Read
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
2744.3 MB/s +197%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
2558.72 MB/s +177%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
2015.68 MB/s +118%
Average of class Gaming
  (312 - 3475, n=190, last 2 years)
1943 MB/s +110%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
1011 MB/s +9%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (910 - 948, n=3)
928 MB/s 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
925 MB/s
4K-64 Write
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (3499 - 3914, n=3)
3666 MB/s +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
3584 MB/s
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
2856.24 MB/s -20%
Average of class Gaming
  (277 - 5909, n=190, last 2 years)
2524 MB/s -30%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
1944.47 MB/s -46%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
1460.96 MB/s -59%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
981 MB/s -73%
Access Time Read
Average of class Gaming
  (0.02 - 0.379, n=188, last 2 years)
0.05335 ms * -84%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
0.053 ms * -83%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
0.036 ms * -24%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
0.029 ms *
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
0.028 ms * +3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
0.025 ms * +14%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (0.022 - 0.029, n=3)
0.02467 ms * +15%
Access Time Write
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
SSSTC CA6-8D1024
0.082 ms * -290%
Average of class Gaming
  (0.011 - 1.028, n=190, last 2 years)
0.04879 ms * -132%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
  (0.021 - 0.054, n=3)
0.043 ms * -105%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
0.023 ms * -10%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
0.021 ms *
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
0.019 ms * +10%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
0.013 ms * +38%

* ... smaller is better

Disk Throttling: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8

035571010651420177521302485284031953550390542604615497053255680603563906745Tooltip
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W: Ø7048 (6645.87-7075.48)

GPU Performance

GPU-Z Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop
GPU-Z Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop

Asus offers the new ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop or the GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop like on our review unit right now. In theory, it is the fastest version of the GPU, but the maximum TGP of 175 Watts (150W TGP + 25W Dynamic Boost) is reserved for the manual power profile. The Turbo profile, which was used for all the benchmarks, is limited to 155 Watts (140W TGP + 15W Dynamic Boost).

This means the RTX 4090 Laptop in the Zephyrus Duo 16 in Turbo mode cannot quite keep up with the fastest rivals like the Titan GT77 and is usually only a couple of percent points faster than the GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop. The RTX 3080 Ti in the previous Zephyrus Duo 16 is clearly beaten in all tests (55-78 % faster). The compute performance is also very good and the RTX 4090 Laptop can also rival professional mobile GPU in some SPECviewperf tests. Please see our comprehensive analysis of the RTX 4090 Laptop and RTX 4080 Laptop for more test results.

The GPU performance is stable under sustained workloads and the Time Spy stress test is passed at 97.8 %. However, the power consumption of the GPU is limited to 55W on battery power, which results in a performance deficit of more than 50 % (Time Spy Graphics: 9575 points).

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
71432 Points +15%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
69211 Points +11%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (56764 - 73027, n=34)
65137 Points +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
62240 Points
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
60038 Points -4%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
56565 Points -9%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX
44906 Points -28%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
40257 Points -35%
Average of class Gaming
  (1029 - 72070, n=241, last 2 years)
39928 Points -36%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
49247 Points +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
47798 Points
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (41210 - 53059, n=33)
46500 Points -3%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
46240 Points -3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
43525 Points -9%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
40570 Points -15%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX
34439 Points -28%
Average of class Gaming
  (781 - 53059, n=245, last 2 years)
29195 Points -39%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
27562 Points -42%
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
22254 Points +11%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
21786 Points +9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (17620 - 23292, n=34)
21016 Points +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
20033 Points
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
18441 Points -8%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
18417 Points -8%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX
13554 Points -32%
Average of class Gaming
  (224 - 22547, n=243, last 2 years)
11907 Points -41%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
11227 Points -44%
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
44487 Points +9%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
40668 Points
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (34519 - 44487, n=5)
40582 Points 0%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX
28879 Points -29%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU, Apple M2 Max
25103 Points -38%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
23085 Points -43%
Average of class Gaming
  (1891 - 44487, n=31, last 2 years)
22757 Points -44%
SPECviewperf 13
Solidworks (sw-04)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
159.12 fps +14%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (140.1 - 159.1, n=3)
151.7 fps +8%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
140.08 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
134.49 fps -4%
Average of class Gaming
  (87.4 - 179, n=21, last 2 years)
118.4 fps -15%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
108.6 fps -22%
Siemens NX (snx-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
34.38 fps +9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (31.5 - 34.4, n=3)
33 fps +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
31.45 fps
Average of class Gaming
  (16.2 - 99.6, n=21, last 2 years)
29.6 fps -6%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
28.76 fps -9%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
21.2 fps -33%
Showcase (showcase-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
281.1 fps +22%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (231 - 281, n=3)
256 fps +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
230.78 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
203.33 fps -12%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
148.9 fps -35%
Average of class Gaming
  (25.9 - 281, n=21, last 2 years)
148.4 fps -36%
Medical (medical-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
122.82 fps +2%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (119 - 122.8, n=3)
120.7 fps 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
120.28 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
107.84 fps -10%
Average of class Gaming
  (57.2 - 122.8, n=21, last 2 years)
78.8 fps -34%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
75.2 fps -37%
Maya (maya-05)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
600.78 fps +22%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (494 - 601, n=3)
557 fps +13%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
494.88 fps 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
494.02 fps
Average of class Gaming
  (83.7 - 601, n=21, last 2 years)
340 fps -31%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
308.1 fps -38%
Energy (energy-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
74.73 fps +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (70.6 - 74.7, n=3)
72.7 fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
70.56 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
61.32 fps -13%
Average of class Gaming
  (20.3 - 74.7, n=21, last 2 years)
35.4 fps -50%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
26.1 fps -63%
Creo (creo-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
461.26 fps +22%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (378 - 461, n=3)
423 fps +12%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
377.82 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
377.58 fps 0%
Average of class Gaming
  (70.4 - 461, n=21, last 2 years)
254 fps -33%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
239.7 fps -37%
Catia (catia-05)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
281.44 fps +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (266 - 281, n=3)
273 fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
266.33 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
233.27 fps -12%
Average of class Gaming
  (47.7 - 344, n=21, last 2 years)
177.5 fps -33%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
171.4 fps -36%
3ds Max (3dsmax-06)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
372.51 fps +10%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
346.23 fps +2%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (305 - 373, n=3)
339 fps 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
338.22 fps
Average of class Gaming
  (49.1 - 373, n=21, last 2 years)
229 fps -32%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
208.7 fps -38%
SPECviewperf 2020
1920x1080 Solidworks (solidworks-05)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
499.25 fps +17%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (426 - 515, n=5)
473 fps +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
426.16 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
420.83 fps -1%
Average of class Gaming
  (29.9 - 515, n=22, last 2 years)
293 fps -31%
1920x1080 Siemens NX (snx-04)
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (31.3 - 37.6, n=7)
34.6 fps +11%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
34.28 fps +10%
Average of class Gaming
  (2.93 - 231, n=35, last 2 years)
33 fps +6%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
31.26 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
30 fps -4%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
21.1 fps -33%
1920x1080 Medical (medical-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
56.7 fps +3%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (50 - 59.9, n=7)
55.3 fps 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
55.09 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
49.97 fps -9%
Average of class Gaming
  (23.5 - 59.9, n=35, last 2 years)
38.9 fps -29%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
38.7 fps -30%
1920x1080 Maya (maya-06)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
610.71 fps
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (529 - 687, n=6)
595 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
555.93 fps
Average of class Gaming
  (99.8 - 687, n=33, last 2 years)
397 fps
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
336 fps
1920x1080 Energy (energy-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
74.95 fps +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (70.6 - 76.5, n=7)
73.8 fps +4%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
70.65 fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
62.41 fps -12%
Average of class Gaming
  (20.6 - 76.5, n=35, last 2 years)
42.3 fps -40%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
26.2 fps -63%
1920x1080 Creo (creo-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
138.99 fps +23%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (113.3 - 141.9, n=7)
131.3 fps +16%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
130.27 fps +15%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
113.27 fps
Average of class Gaming
  (44 - 141.9, n=34, last 2 years)
103 fps -9%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
86.4 fps -24%
1920x1080 CATIA (catia-06)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
116.64 fps +554%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (17.8 - 117.2, n=7)
100.2 fps +462%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
98.79 fps +454%
Average of class Gaming
  (17.8 - 117.2, n=35, last 2 years)
70.6 fps +296%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
66.6 fps +273%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
17.84 fps
1920x1080 3ds Max (3dsmax-07)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
212.6 fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
206.67 fps
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (128 - 221, n=7)
197.4 fps -4%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
177.9 fps -14%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX
128.7 fps -38%
Average of class Gaming
  (25.7 - 221, n=35, last 2 years)
123.2 fps -40%
3DMark 11 Performance
46207 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
40149 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
18602 points
Help
Blender / v3.3 Classroom OPTIX/RTX
Average of class Gaming
  (9 - 142, n=173, last 2 years)
23.3 Seconds * -79%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX
22 Seconds * -69%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
15 Seconds * -15%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
15 Seconds * -15%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
13 Seconds *
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (9 - 19, n=32)
12 Seconds * +8%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
11 Seconds * +15%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
11 Seconds * +15%
Blender / v3.3 Classroom CUDA
Average of class Gaming
  (16 - 175, n=178, last 2 years)
39.7 Seconds * -99%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX
32 Seconds * -60%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
23 Seconds * -15%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
22 Seconds * -10%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
20 Seconds *
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (16 - 24, n=32)
18.4 Seconds * +8%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
18 Seconds * +10%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
17 Seconds * +15%
Blender / v3.3 Classroom CPU
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU, Apple M2 Max
326 Seconds * -122%
Average of class Gaming
  (138 - 962, n=191, last 2 years)
318 Seconds * -116%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX
263 Seconds * -79%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
207 Seconds * -41%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
200 Seconds * -36%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (144 - 287, n=33)
197.5 Seconds * -34%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX
192 Seconds * -31%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX
175 Seconds * -19%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX
147 Seconds *
Blender / v3.3 Classroom METAL
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU, Apple M2 Max
51.2 Seconds *

* ... smaller is better

Gaming Performance

The gaming performance of the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is excellent, but a bit lower compared to the fastest devices due to the slightly slower version of the RTX 4090 Laptop. The AMD processor leaves a good impression during gaming and does not have to hide behind its Intel HX counterparts. We did not notice any issues during our gaming benchmarks, either. Considering the native WQHD resolution, however, we recommend you save the money for the RTX 4090 Laptop SKU and get the RTX 4080 Laptop instead.

Performance Rating - Percent
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
97 pt
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
95.9 pt
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
91.5 pt
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
90.4 pt
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
88.8 pt
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
76.7 pt
Average of class Gaming
 
64.2 pt
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
57 pt
The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
216.4 (5.6P0.1, 144.3P1) fps +21%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
198.9 (190min, 191P1) fps +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
178.6 (172min, 173P1) fps
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
178 (151min) fps 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
176.8 (159min) fps -1%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
129.3 (110min, 111.14P1) fps -28%
Average of class Gaming
  (8.61 - 216, n=238, last 2 years)
115.1 fps -36%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
111.1 (30min, 41.5P0.1, 74.7P1) fps -38%
GTA V - 1920x1080 Highest Settings possible AA:4xMSAA + FX AF:16x
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
145.5 (3.79min, 100P1) fps +9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
140.9 (3.54min, 83.3P1) fps +5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
140.7 (3.02min, 100P1) fps +5%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
137.5 (3.4min, 100P1) fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
134 (7.27min, 90.9P1) fps
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
131.8 (6.21min, 90.9P1) fps -2%
Average of class Gaming
  (6.38 - 167.7, n=227, last 2 years)
106.3 fps -21%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
101.5 (21.1min, 71.4P1) fps -24%
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark - 1920x1080 High Quality
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
187.4 fps +10%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
180.7 (119min, 128.92P1) fps +7%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
169.6 fps
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
162.4 fps -4%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
157.8 fps -7%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
137.6 fps -19%
Average of class Gaming
  (9.13 - 194.9, n=237, last 2 years)
109.6 fps -35%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
108 fps -36%
Strange Brigade - 1920x1080 ultra AA:ultra AF:16
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
373 (29.9min, 272P1) fps +12%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
350 (32.1min, 230P1) fps +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
333 (38min, 227P1) fps
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
323 (61.7min, 222P1) fps -3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
318 (29.2min, 228P1) fps -5%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
219 (67.8min, 154.6P1) fps -34%
Average of class Gaming
  (14.6 - 421, n=235, last 2 years)
203 fps -39%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
182.4 (66.8min, 132.6P1) fps -45%
Dota 2 Reborn - 1920x1080 ultra (3/3) best looking
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
194.7 (160min) fps +8%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
185.9 (157.5min) fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
179.7 (153.7min) fps
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
179 (152.4min) fps 0%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
177.3 (150.3min) fps -1%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
170.5 (148.2min) fps -5%
Average of class Gaming
  (26.9 - 220, n=248, last 2 years)
141.2 fps -21%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
111.3 (96.1min) fps -38%
X-Plane 11.11 - 1920x1080 high (fps_test=3)
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
137 fps +16%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
137 fps +16%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
135.7 fps +15%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
135.5 fps +15%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
134.2 fps +14%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
134.1 fps +14%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
131.8 fps +12%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
123.8 fps +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
117.8 fps
Average of class Gaming
  (12.4 - 166.2, n=253, last 2 years)
100.8 fps -14%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
78.2 fps -34%
The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
216.4 (5.6P0.1, 144.3P1) fps +21%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
198.9 (190min, 191P1) fps +11%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (139.2 - 216, n=31)
197.5 fps +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
178.6 (172min, 173P1) fps
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
178 (151min) fps 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
176.8 (159min) fps -1%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
129.3 (110min, 111.14P1) fps -28%
Average of class Gaming
  (8.61 - 216, n=238, last 2 years)
115.1 fps -36%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
111.1 (30min, 41.5P0.1, 74.7P1) fps -38%
Cyberpunk 2077 1.6 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
135 fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
130.6 (34.83min) fps
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (91 - 159.7, n=20)
124 fps -5%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
122.8 (25.64min) fps -6%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
106.2 (47.5min) fps -19%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
99.4 (40.7min) fps -24%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
99.1 (29min) fps -24%
Average of class Gaming
  (16.7 - 159.7, n=108, last 2 years)
86.4 fps -34%
The Witcher 3 v4.00 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset / On AA:FX
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
150 fps +12%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
141.8 fps +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (120.4 - 150, n=6)
137.7 fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
133.9 fps
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
125.3 (35.5min, 57.7P0.1, 92.5P1) fps -6%
Average of class Gaming
  (25.9 - 150, n=15, last 2 years)
91.5 fps -32%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
214 fps +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
208 fps
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
207 (140min) fps 0%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (143.7 - 271, n=14)
197.2 fps -5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
176 (117min) fps -15%
Average of class Gaming
  (27 - 271, n=31, last 2 years)
160.3 fps -23%
F1 22 - 1920x1080 Ultra High Preset AA:T AF:16x
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
138.2 (118min, 84P1) fps +21%
SCHENKER XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
137.4 (118min, 92P1) fps +20%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
  (70.3 - 144.7, n=25)
125.3 fps +10%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
114.3 (92min, 71P1) fps
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
101 (90min) fps -12%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS
Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
79.8 (65min, 29P1) fps -30%
Average of class Gaming
  (13 - 144.7, n=108, last 2 years)
79.8 fps -30%

Witcher 3 FPS Chart

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180Tooltip
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU: Ø178.6 (172-188)
CPU/GPU data Witcher 3 Ultra settings
CPU/GPU data Witcher 3 Ultra settings
low med. high ultraQHD
GTA V (2015) 186.7 182.4 134 123.8
The Witcher 3 (2015) 361 178.6
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) 227 207 196.1 179.7
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) 210 169.6 142.1
X-Plane 11.11 (2018) 177.5 155.7 117.8
Strange Brigade (2018) 518 400 370 333 257
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) 208 175
Assassin´s Creed Valhalla (2020) 161 126
F1 2021 (2021) 476 391 312 182.4 159.7
Far Cry 6 (2021) 117 110
Cyberpunk 2077 1.6 (2022) 136 130.6 86
Tiny Tina's Wonderlands (2022) 171.5 120
F1 22 (2022) 303 286 265 114.3 80.3
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 2022 (2022) 170 125
The Witcher 3 v4.00 (2023) 174 158 133.9 88

Emissions - Duo 16 gets loud in Turbo mode

System Noise

Two comparatively small fans
Two comparatively small fans

The Zephyrus Duo is usually audible in everyday situations and you should use the Quiet power profile when you do not need the full performance. The Turbo mode usually results in more than 30 dB(A) even while idling. Gaming and high load scenarios quickly result in more than 50 dB(A) and up to 56 dB(A), which will be annoying for longer periods. You can also notice the comparatively small fans of the cooling solution. There is no way around the noise when you need the maximum performance, but we recommend you check the other power profiles of the Armoury Crate software when you play games. We tested it with three different games:

Title Quiet Performance Turbo
Witcher 3 40.2 dB(A) 48.6 dB(A) 51.2 dB(A)
Witcher 3 v4.00 40.2 dB(A) 48.6 dB(A) 56 dB(A)
Cyberpunkt 2077 v1.5 40.2 dB(A) 48.6 dB(A) 56 dB(A)

Modern titles will usually run well with the Performance mode, where the fps number is just a bit lower compared to the Turbo mode, but the fan noise is much more convenient at ~49 dB(A). The Quiet mode is mostly suitable for older titles, because the performance will drop noticeable. We also noticed some electronic sounds in some benchmarks/games.

Noise Level

Idle
23.9 / 32.9 / 36.5 dB(A)
Load
42.9 / 56 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Earthworks M23R, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 23.9 dB(A)
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2029.43730.82929.733.131.3253335.730.728.726.839.433.63128.237.427.62827.928.825.54031.533.430.831.230.13130.75024.729.729.127.324.425.825.76324.427.530.322.422.424.623.48023.233.730.321.720.12323.71002426.525.324.120.520.621.712526.12827.325.22117.723.216025.226.826.421.121.218.824.4200283025.92324.319.625.125028.933.325.321.722.616.424.931529.632.728.720.221.815.627.440034.135.527.720.523.212.326.85003341.228.224.62612.627.663034.440.330.624.427.112.429.380037.74332.924.828.410.930.9100039.945.535.225.129.110.232.6125040.245.73423.726.810.331.5160037.94532.321.72610.429.3200037.34431.220.424.510.728.5250037.143.730.818.223.11126.7315035.443.128.517.521.511.625400037.746.231.617.323.711.828.5500038.545.830.715.92011.825.3630033.344.12414.116.51220.1800028.841.820.413.11412.117.81000024.635.617.413.213.112.3161250021.232.217.413.312.912.417.51600017.927.718.413.612.912.319.1SPL48.95642.932.936.523.940.1N6.510.64.11.72.40.53.3median 33.3median 41.2median 28.2median 20.5median 22.6median 12.3median 25.3Delta6.36.13.84.142.13.5hearing rangehide median Fan NoiseAsus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z
Noise
-4%
-1%
13%
6%
19%
off / environment *
23.9
24.6
-3%
24
-0%
23
4%
26
-9%
23.9
-0%
Idle Minimum *
23.9
29.2
-22%
26
-9%
23
4%
26
-9%
23.9
-0%
Idle Average *
32.9
29.2
11%
28
15%
23
30%
27
18%
23.9
27%
Idle Maximum *
36.5
29.2
20%
34
7%
23.6
35%
29
21%
23.9
35%
Load Average *
42.9
50.7
-18%
47
-10%
39
9%
41
4%
36.6
15%
Witcher 3 ultra *
51.2
53.3
-4%
55
-7%
51.6
-1%
48
6%
35.1
31%
Load Maximum *
56
61
-9%
56
-0%
51.3
8%
50
11%
43.2
23%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

The chassis temperatures are very comfortable during light workloads. The position of the keyboard is beneficial for gaming/under load, because it only warms up in the upper region and the frequently used keys usually stay very cool. However, the area between the keyboard and the secondary is a hot spot. We measure up to 47 °C at the bottom, so you should not put the device on your lap under load. The overall temperature development is okay.

Our stress test favors the dedicated graphics card, The processor will level off at 50 Watts after a few minutes, while the GPU consumption rises from 130 to ~140 Watts (which is the specified value for the Turbo power profile) and stays on this level. This is a decent result and we did no see a performance drop immediately after the stress test. Combined CPU/GPU workloads on battery power result in a CPU consumption of ~43 Watts and ~33 Watts for the GPU. 

CPU/GPU data stress test
CPU/GPU data stress test
Max. Load
 29.7 °C
85 F
31 °C
88 F
29.9 °C
86 F
 
 42.5 °C
109 F
44.2 °C
112 F
42.2 °C
108 F
 
 35.6 °C
96 F
34.7 °C
94 F
34.8 °C
95 F
 
Maximum: 44.2 °C = 112 F
Average: 36.1 °C = 97 F
46.8 °C
116 F
46.7 °C
116 F
44.9 °C
113 F
41.7 °C
107 F
41.6 °C
107 F
40.9 °C
106 F
38.5 °C
101 F
38.6 °C
101 F
35.8 °C
96 F
Maximum: 46.8 °C = 116 F
Average: 41.7 °C = 107 F
Power Supply (max.)  50.8 °C = 123 F | Room Temperature 20.5 °C = 69 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-900
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.1 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 40.4 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 46.8 °C / 116 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 36.5 °C / 98 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (35.7 °C / 96.3 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-6.8 °C / -12.3 F).
Surface temperatures stress test (top)
Surface temperatures stress test (top)
Surface temperatures stress test (bottom)
Surface temperatures stress test (bottom)
Surface temperatures stress test (base unit underneath ScreenPad)
Surface temperatures stress test (base unit underneath ScreenPad)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Apple M2 Max, Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU
Heat
8%
-15%
4%
-8%
14%
Maximum Upper Side *
44.2
40.6
8%
48
-9%
40
10%
45
-2%
44.2
-0%
Maximum Bottom *
46.8
41.1
12%
49
-5%
37.6
20%
50
-7%
42.9
8%
Idle Upper Side *
29.2
26.2
10%
40
-37%
32.4
-11%
33
-13%
22.4
23%
Idle Bottom *
30.2
30.3
-0%
33
-9%
31.4
-4%
33
-9%
22.3
26%

* ... smaller is better

Speakers

Asus uses a speaker system consisting of 6 modules and the result is very good overall. The manufacturer also improved the sound performance compared to the previous model, only the bass performance could be better. The result is definitely sufficient for occasional video/movie playback, but the speakers are usually rivaled by the fan noise while gaming.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2033.1322539.435.43128.830.6403130.55025.828.66324.632.3802335.510020.645.812517.751.616018.855.220019.663.325016.466.131515.670.540012.372.850012.672.363012.476.380010.975.9100010.271.2125010.371.4160010.470.9200010.76925001169.2315011.670400011.867.1500011.865.763001263.7800012.163.21000012.362.11250012.4601600012.354SPL23.982.5N0.557.2median 12.3median 67.1Delta2.15.228.728.427.529.2242528.33625.935.521.750.218.554.123.664.11766.815.868.719.172.816.673.716.675.210.573.712.573.511.773.29.674.910.274.310.175.710.475.310.576.411.176.211.574.211.972.212.370.912.470.412.570.512.669.312.568.211.867.423.986.10.573.8median 12.3median 73.52.52.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006WApple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 9.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (12% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 86% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 6% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | bass is linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (1.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (4.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 0% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Energy Management - Zephyrus with limited stamina

Power Consumption

Bulky 330W PSU
Bulky 330W PSU

The ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is not a particularly efficient device with a minimal power consumption of 19 Watts and more than 30 Watts at the maximum brightness (secondary screen turned off). The secondary screen will increase the power consumption by 4-7 Watts depending on the brightness. We measure around 260 Watts while gaming and up to 330 Watts during our stress test, but the value quickly levels off at ~270 Watts. This means the 330W PSU is completely sufficient.

We once again want to mention that the dedicated GeForce GPU is handling all the graphics tasks when you use an external screen, which means the following CPU measurements with an external screen do not deliver comparable results.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.13 / 0.18 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 19.2 / 29.7 / 30.8 Watt
Load midlight 126 / 330 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N, MiniLED, 2560x1600, 16.00
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB, Mini-LED, 3840x2160, 17.30
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR, IPS, 2560x1600, 16.00
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, SSSTC CA6-8D1024, IPS, 2560x1600, 16.00
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
R9 6900HX, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0), IPS-Level, 3840x2400, 16.00
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max, M2 Max 38-Core GPU, Apple SSD AP2048Z, Mini-LED, 3456x2234, 16.20
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU
 
Average of class Gaming
 
Power Consumption
8%
3%
2%
14%
49%
4%
23%
Idle Minimum *
19.2
14
27%
18
6%
15.2
21%
19
1%
5.2
73%
16.8 ?(7 - 32.3, n=22)
12%
13.8 ?(2 - 64, n=185, last 2 years)
28%
Idle Average *
29.7
21.6
27%
24
19%
22.8
23%
24
19%
16.5
44%
23.2 ?(14.2 - 42.6, n=22)
22%
19.1 ?(8 - 67, n=185, last 2 years)
36%
Idle Maximum *
30.8
24.8
19%
32
-4%
49.8
-62%
31
-1%
16.8
45%
34.3 ?(14.5 - 57.9, n=22)
-11%
26.7 ?(9 - 101.1, n=185, last 2 years)
13%
Load Average *
126
122.5
3%
130
-3%
121.2
4%
104
17%
113
10%
130 ?(79 - 164.1, n=22)
-3%
111.2 ?(32.1 - 202, n=185, last 2 years)
12%
Witcher 3 ultra *
258
265
-3%
260
-1%
242
6%
186.5
28%
92
64%
Load Maximum *
330
418
-27%
320
3%
273.7
17%
256
22%
145
56%
326 ?(221 - 418, n=22)
1%
250 ?(64.5 - 418, n=184, last 2 years)
24%

* ... smaller is better

Power consumption Witcher 3 / Stress test

020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320Tooltip
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; Witcher 3 ultra: Ø258 (248-265)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; 1280x720 Prime95 28.10 and Furmark 1.25: Ø275 (255-330)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; Idle 150cd/m2: Ø24.1 (19.8-32.8)

Power consumption external screen

0153045607590105120135150165180195210225240Tooltip
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; Prime95 V2810 Stress (external Monitor): Ø172.7 (170.1-207)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; Cinebench R15 Multi (external Monitor): Ø186.3 (185.9-186.7)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; Cinebench R23 Single (external Monitor): Ø73.4 (69.8-99.9)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; Cinebench R23 Multi (external Monitor): Ø177.6 (166.7-187.3)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; 1280x720 FurMark 1.19 GPU Stress Test (external Monitor): Ø236 (219-250)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; 1920x1080 The Witcher 3 ultra (external Monitor): Ø244 (232-252)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W; Idle 1min (external Monitor): Ø50.5 (37.5-59.8)

Battery Runtime

The battery runtime is considerably worse compared to the previous model, despite the same 90 Wh battery. Right now, we are not sure whether this is only caused by the new Mini-LED panel or issues with the new AMD platform. Even at 150 nits and without the secondary screen, we only managed about 4 hours video playback and Wi-Fi runtime, which dropped to just 2.5 hours at the maximum panel brightness. These are poor results and the load runtime is less than one hour. A full recharge of battery takes 108 minutes when the laptop is turned on. 

Charging
Charging
90 Wh battery
90 Wh battery
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing (Edge 110)
3h 58min
WiFi Websurfing max. Brightness (Edge 110)
2h 36min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
3h 50min
Load (maximum brightness)
0h 57min
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, 90 Wh
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, 99.9 Wh
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, 99.9 Wh
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, 95.2 Wh
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
R9 6900HX, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, 90 Wh
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max, M2 Max 38-Core GPU, 99.6 Wh
Average of class Gaming
 
Battery Runtime
47%
73%
48%
83%
226%
58%
H.264
230
358
56%
559
143%
1124
389%
391 ?(56 - 747, n=95, last 2 years)
70%
WiFi v1.3
238
319
34%
303
27%
365
53%
469
97%
887
273%
364 ?(57 - 745, n=188, last 2 years)
53%
Load
57
86
51%
124
118%
81
42%
62
9%
66
16%
85.5 ?(36 - 173, n=150, last 2 years)
50%

Pros

+ sturdy metal chassis
+ fastest CPU/GPU combination
+ great system performance
+ excellent 240 Hz Mini-LED screen
+ numerous features like FreeSync, G-Sync & Wi-Fi 6E
+ 2x SO-DIMM & 2x M.2-2280 SSD
+ fast card reader

Cons

- no USB 4.0
- loud fans during gaming
- high idle consumption and short battery runtime
- some software bugs
- handling of the second screen not always ideal
- external screen is always handled by dGPU

Verdict - Interesting concept with drawbacks

In review: Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 2023. Test model courtesy of Asus Germany.
In review: Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 2023. Test model courtesy of Asus Germany.

The new ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is once again an interesting concept with its secondary screen, but it also requires compromises. The laptop is significantly thicker than the competition and even though the quality of the secondary screen is very good, it just cannot match the excellent image quality of the new 240 Hz Mini-LED screen. The dual-screen handling is also not always ideal in practice, but this is a general issue of Windows. The secondary screen is attached via iGPU, which means the Nvidia GPU takes care of all graphics calculations when you use an external screen (4K for example), which will increase the power consumption. The position of the keyboard at the front of the laptop is another issue, which can be solved with the included palm rest on your desk at home, but it is still an issue on the road. Does the secondary screen make much sense? Well, that depends on your usage scenario.

Asus improved the laptop in key areas, starting with the new matte 240 Hz Mini-LED screen and the WQHD resolution. The picture quality is amazing and it is already very bright for SDR contents at 700 nits (almost 1400 nits for HDR contents). The colors are already very accurate out of the box and we had no problems to calibrate the screen.

The new GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop is the most powerful GPU for notebooks right now and the performance advantage over the old RTX 3080 Ti is huge. However, it is only the fastest version (175W) in manual mode, but we recommend the RTX 4080 Laptop SKU nonetheless considering the native WQHD resolution. 

The new Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 convinces with the excellent Mini-LED screen as well as the powerful hardware combination consisting of the new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX and the GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop, which has no problems with the native WQHD resolution. There are still some bugs though and the fans are very noisy when you utilize the full performance potential.

AMD’s new Zen4 processor, the Ryzen 9 7945HX, is probably the most interesting upgrade right now. Thanks to 16 Zen4 cores, it steals the multi-core performance crown from the Intel Core i9-13980HX and even consumes less power. Due to the previously mentioned issues with the dedicated Nvidia GPU when external screens are attached, we cannot offer accurate efficiency numbers at this point, but we will cover that in a separate article. 

There are also some issues we need to talk about, and our test unit had some bugs. The idle power consumption is also very high, which obviously affects the battery runtime as well. Whether this is a software issue from Asus or an initial problem of the new AMD platform is not clear at this point. The high price is another problem, but this is the case for all RTX 4090 notebooks right now. Considering the price, we also have to criticize the lack of USB 4 as well as the use of DDR5-4800 RAM.

All in all, the new ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is good device with plenty of power and the secondary screen can be a real advantage for some users. If you do not need the second display (gamer or content creator) on your notebook, however, you are better off with a regular laptop, which also means less compromise in some areas.

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Price and Availability

The ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 2023 can only be pre-ordered right now and should be available in the next couple of weeks.

Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W - 03/14/2023 v7
Andreas Osthoff

Chassis
86 / 98 → 88%
Keyboard
81%
Pointing Device
83%
Connectivity
63 / 80 → 79%
Weight
59 / 10-66 → 87%
Battery
56 / 95 → 59%
Display
94%
Games Performance
99%
Application Performance
96%
Temperature
85 / 95 → 90%
Noise
68 / 90 → 76%
Audio
85%
Camera
45 / 85 → 53%
Average
77%
88%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Transparency

The present review sample was made available to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or a shop for the purposes of review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review.

Pricecompare

Read all 17 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 Notebook Review: Multitasking monster with AMD Zen4, RTX 4090 & Mini-LED
Andreas Osthoff, 2023-03-15 (Update: 2023-03-16)