Asus G501JW (FHD) Notebook Review

Let's cover the apparent changes in the configuration first. The manufacturer incorporated a matte Full HD display with a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. While the resolution is lower, manufacturer and IPS technology remained the same. Due to a matte surface, gloss reflections are not disturbing. The average brightness increased by 20 cd/m² to a quite good 337 cd/m². The contrast is significantly better, too and it is now an excellent 1110:1. The black value is lower and black even deeper. The brightness distribution improved, too. It is 95% now, which is 18% higher than the predecessor's. Overall, the cheaper display with lower resolution performs better in all aspects and saves money.

The similarly priced competition hardly performs better. The Schenker A505 is almost 300 Euros (~$336) more expensive and only contrast and black value are marginally better. The recently reviewed MSI GE60 performs worse than our test model, too.

Asus also incorporated an Intel Core i7-4720HQ in the cheaper model. This processor clocks at 2.6 GHz and can reach clock rates of up to 3.6 GHz thanks to Turbo Boost. Our test model achieved a significantly better result than the already reviewed G501JW in Cinebench R15. During Cinebench the CPU clock is about 300-500 MHz higher than the base clock. After multiple runs, the clock rate falls since the case temperature increases. In the other Cinebench results, our gaming device is on par with its more expensive sibling again.

According to Cinebench R11.5, the performance falls massively on battery. The test model only reaches just above one-third of the points in the multi-core test.

We liked the combination from fast processor, powerful GPU and useful HDD-SSD combination. The performance was not only subjectively convincing. With about 5800 points, PCMark 7 confirms our subjective impression. The Asus G501JW model with 16 GB of RAM and PCI-e SSD even achieved about 400 points more. Nevertheless, the achieved rating is on a very high level.

We already said extremely positive things about the previously tested Asus G501JW. Unfortunately, our test model does not perform that well by far. The sequential write and read rates are still in the 500 MB/s range. The important 4K values are decent, too. But, the G501JW with other components surprised us with sequential read rates of about 1400 MB/s and sequential write rates of 1100 MB/s, which is due to the PCIe connection. The storage capacities are different, too. For 600 Euros (~$672) less, the test model only features an SSD with 128 GB instead of 512 GB. However, it has an additional 1 TB HDD.

Even though you could say that the result is good according to the benchmarks, you should note that a 128 GB SSD hardly has space for current games. These have to be installed on the HDD in any case. So, there is no performance advantage when loading game data. This also affects games when huge amounts of data (textures) are loaded.

Alike the CPU, the graphics unit remained the same. It is a new Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M of the Maxwell series. In our test model it comes with the biggest possible video RAM of 4 GB. This dedicated graphics card replaces Nvidia's GeForce GTX 860M and is about 10% faster in our benchmarks. In the 3DMark 11 benchmark, our test model reaches a slightly higher rating than its more expensive sibling with almost 5300 points. However, this is due to the variance of these tests. We had to update all drives because the benchmarks ends with a blue screen otherwise.

In addition, full performance is only available in mains operation. The 3DMark 11 rating is only 1756 points on battery.

In order to compare our test model to the test model with more powerful components, we chose a previously tested game: Metro: Last Light, published in 2014, is a good representative for the used graphics card. Unfortunately, the display frequently turned black during the test. We do not know why and a driver update did not change things. We do not know whether this has an impact on performance. At least the test ran constantly to the end.

Compared to other devices with GTX 960M graphics chip, both Asus G501 models perform significantly worse. For example the Schenker XMG A505 achieves a relevant 7 fps more at maximum settings. These ensure that the game runs smoother than on our test model. The G501 is about 20 to 25% worse than what is expected for comparable components.

Further tests of current games with the GTX 960M are available in our gaming list.

Unfortunately, the fans of our test model are quite erratic and so, always audible. While idle, the noise level is between 31 and 34 dB(A). The fans were never completely off when the notebook was in use. Under load, the maximum noise is about 44 dB(A). It is advantageous that both fans decrease their speed again once they did their work. Subjectively, the generated frequency range is high, but it is not too disturbing. To summarize, our test model performs, for example better, than the MSI GE60, which is overall louder.

One of the biggest problems of slim gaming notebooks is dissipation of waste heat. The manufacturer solves this challenge skillfully in our test model. While idle the notebook remains comfortably cool. It first reaches the maximum temperature of 47.4 °C under extreme load and mainly on the underside. Similarly equipped notebooks like the MSI GE60 get significantly warmer on average. The Schenker XMG A505 is an extreme example with maximum temperatures of almost 62 °C.

With our stress test we want to analyze how the clock rates behave inside the notebook. We use Prime95 and FurMark for this. The CPU clock already falls below its base clock to 2.2 GHz at the beginning. After only 3 minutes, the clock rate is between 1.8 and 2.1 GHz. A few minutes later, the clock rate hovers around 2.2 GHz. A bigger problem came up in further course. The display turned inadvertently black, which could only be fixed by rebooting the laptop. Our tries to solve this problem remained unsuccessful. Therefore, we do not have a screenshot of the stress test. We suspect a technical problem of our test model.

Our all-rounder already requires much energy while idle with 13.6 to 40.7 Watt. In comparison, the MSI GE60 needs between 8.5 W to 22.9 W. This might be caused by the switch between integrated and dedicated graphics card. We cannot precisely explain these surprising values. During load, the power consumption is quite constant at 81.6 Watt. This value is very low for the used hardware and is caused by throttling under extreme load. Notebooks with similar components usually exceed 120 Watt.

Unfortunately, powerful hardware usually has a negative impact on battery life. The manufacturer only uses a 4-cell battery with a capacity of 60 Wh in this model. The US model with 512GB-SSD features a bigger 96 Wh battery.

In a realistic scenario, we simulate web surfing at a brightness of about 135 cd/m² with the energy profile "balanced." After only just above three hours, the test model shuts down. The competitors last about one hour longer. The G501JW with bigger battery ran about 1.5 hours longer. The poor results are caused by the high power consumption and the smaller battery.