Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarAsus ROG Strix G GL531GV Laptop Review: Like a Zephyrus, but Cheaper
Much like how the 17.3-inch Asus ROG Strix G GL731 is the less expensive version of the higher-end 17.3-inch Asus ROG Strix III G731, the 15.6-inch Asus ROG Strix G GL531 is the less expensive version of the higher-end 15.6-inch Asus ROG Strix III G531. The GL531 sits in between the budget TUF FX505 and flagship GX531 or G531 in Asus' expansive lineup of gaming laptops.
The GL531 is identical to the G531 sans a few minor features that we will go over below. We therefore recommend checking out our existing reviews on the G531 and GL731 for more details on the design, keyboard feedback, port options, speakers, and other physical properties since almost all our comments will apply here on the GL531. For this review, we'll instead be focusing on the performance differences between the GL531, GX531, and G531.
Unveiled at April of this year, the GL531 series is available in at least 5 different SKUs with GTX 1050, GTX 1650, GTX 1660 Ti, RTX 2060, and RTX 2070 graphics. In comparison, the minimum GPU option for the G531 is the GTX 1660 Ti. The complete specifications list for the 15.6-inch GL531 and 17.3-inch GL731 series can be found on the official Asus page here. Our test unit today is the upper mid-range SKU with the Core i7-9750H CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, and 1080p 120 Hz display for $1600 USD on Xotic PC.
Direct competitors include other mid-range to upper mid-range 15.6-inch gaming laptops like the Lenovo Legion Y740, HP Omen 15, Aorus 15, Acer Predator Helios, MSI GP series, or the Dell G7 15.
More Asus reviews:
Case
As mentioned above, the chassis of the GL531 is identical to the G531 save for these notable differences:
- The proprietary Asus keystone security feature has been omitted on the GL531
- The brushed aluminum outer lid and palm rests of the G531/G731 are now plastic
- Some SKUs will have single-zone RGB keyboard lighting only while higher-end SKUs like our GL531GV have quad-zone RGB lighting
- AC adapter sizes and ratings will be different depending on the SKU. Core i5/GTX 1050 SKUs come with a 150 W adapter while Core i9/RTX 2070 SKUs come with a 280 W adapter. Our mid-range Core i7/RTX 2060 SKU comes with a 230 W adapter.
Top 10 Laptops
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks
under 300 USD/Euros, under 500 USD/Euros, 1.000 USD/Euros
Best Displays, for University Students
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤5-inch, Camera SmartphonesNotebookcheck's Top 10 Smartphones under 160 Euros
Connectivity
Communication
| Networking | |
| iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 | |
| iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
Maintenance
Accessories and Warranty
There are no extras in the box other than the usual AC adapter and quick start guide. Warranty is the standard one-year limited protection with optional accidental damage protection at no additional charge for owners who register their laptops with Asus within 60 days of purchase.
Input Devices
Display
The GL531GV uses the same Panda LM156LF IPS panel as found on Asus' cheaper TUF FX505 series for a very similar visual experience between them. This 120 Hz panel is a budget offering as it doesn't quite match the 144 Hz panel on the pricier GX502GW in terms of response times, color coverage, and contrast ratio. Nonetheless, the silky smooth 120 Hz refresh rate is a tangible improvement over the typical 60 Hz panels on most entry-level gaming laptops like the MSI GF75.
Graininess is noticeable but minimal as is common on matte panels. Similarly, the uneven backlight bleeding along the bottom edge of the display on our test unit is also minor enough to be easy to ignore. Laptops with glossy displays like the Dell XPS 15 offer comparatively sharper texts and images.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 290.1 cd/m²
Contrast: 537:1 (Black: 0.54 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.16 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8, calibrated: 4.35
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6
60% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 38.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.1
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 Panda LM156LF-GL02, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 Panda LM156LF-GL, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | Dell G7 15-7588 LG Philips LGD053F, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg LP156WFG-SPB2, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | Aorus 15-SA LG Philips LP156WFG-SPB2 (LGD05E8), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | MSI GF63 8RC AU Optronics B156HAN02.1, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | -13% | 69% | -27% | 38% | 45% | -17% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 26 (13.6, 12.4) | 30.4 (14, 16.4) -17% | 7.2 (3.8, 3.4) 72% | 38.8 (16, 22.8) -49% | 18.8 (11.6, 7.2) 28% | 15.6 (8, 7.6) 40% | 33.2 (15.2, 18) -28% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 25.6 (14.8, 10.8) | 27.6 (17.6, 10) -8% | 8.8 (4.4, 4.4) 66% | 26.8 (14.4, 12.4) -5% | 13.2 (8, 5.2) 48% | 12.8 (8.4, 4.4) 50% | 27.2 (15.6, 11.6) -6% |
| PWM Frequency | |||||||
| Screen | 6% | 38% | -11% | 33% | 38% | 6% | |
| Brightness middle | 290.1 | 286.2 -1% | 286 -1% | 250.9 -14% | 320.4 10% | 266 -8% | 266.6 -8% |
| Brightness | 274 | 267 -3% | 275 0% | 246 -10% | 298 9% | 254 -7% | 257 -6% |
| Brightness Distribution | 86 | 84 -2% | 90 5% | 89 3% | 85 -1% | 90 5% | 89 3% |
| Black Level * | 0.54 | 0.33 39% | 0.37 31% | 0.34 37% | 0.42 22% | 0.28 48% | 0.29 46% |
| Contrast | 537 | 867 61% | 773 44% | 738 37% | 763 42% | 950 77% | 919 71% |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 5.16 | 5.45 -6% | 2.19 58% | 7.34 -42% | 3.21 38% | 3.11 40% | 5.93 -15% |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 18.09 | 18.08 -0% | 4.4 76% | 28.66 -58% | 5.54 69% | 5.84 68% | 16.28 10% |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated * | 4.35 | 4.47 -3% | 2.27 48% | 4.42 -2% | 2.36 46% | 1.37 69% | 3.6 17% |
| Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 4.4 | 5.3 -20% | 2.2 50% | 6.8 -55% | 3.6 18% | 3.94 10% | 6.8 -55% |
| Gamma | 2.1 105% | 2.1 105% | 2.41 91% | 2.164 102% | 2.27 97% | 2.53 87% | 2.43 91% |
| CCT | 7362 88% | 7679 85% | 6405 101% | 6780 96% | 6503 100% | 6210 105% | 7192 90% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 38.1 | 37.6 -1% | 59 55% | 36 -6% | 59 55% | 60 57% | 37.6 -1% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 60 | 59.1 -1% | 91 52% | 56 -7% | 92 53% | 93 55% | 59.3 -1% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -4% /
3% | 54% /
43% | -19% /
-13% | 36% /
34% | 42% /
39% | -6% /
2% |
* ... smaller is better
Colors and grayscale are fairly inaccurate out of the box with average DeltaE values of 6.44 and 4.4, respectively. Color temperature is also on the cool side for a bluish hue that is typical of budget panels. While our calibration addresses many of these issues, color accuracy remains relatively poor due to the narrow gamut of the panel. Blue, magenta, and cyan in particular are represented less accurately than other tested colors especially at higher saturation levels.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 25.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 10.8 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 46 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12.4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.7 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17553 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured. | |||
Outdoor visibility is average at best since the backlight is not nearly as bright as what you'd find on a MacBook Pro 15 or Dell XPS 15. We recommend working under shade if possible to avoid squinting and washed out colors. Viewing angles are wide with noticeable color and grayscale shifting only if viewing from extreme and unrealistic angles.
Performance
The wide range of CPU and GPU options means the GL531 can perform as slow as a $1000 gaming laptop if configured with the Core i5-9300H and GTX 1050 GPU or as fast as a $2000 gaming laptop if configured with the Core i9-9880H and RTX 2070 GPU. There are no RTX 2080 options as Asus is reserving this for its higher-end Zephyrus or mainline G703 series instead. Latencymon shows no DPC issues even when wireless is enabled.
Nvidia Optimus comes standard meaning that there are no G-Sync options.
Processor
The Core i7-9750H is only a minor leap over the Core i7-8750H in terms of raw performance. Nonetheless, it performs about where we expect it to be on the Asus when compared to other laptops in our database sporting the same processor. Users can expect a 40 to 50 percent boost if jumping from the Core i5-8300H, Core i5-9300H, or Core i7-7700HQ. The Core i9-9880H option will be about 15 to 40 percent faster than the Core i7-9750H.
CPU performance sustainability is decent. When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, the initial score of 1223 points drop to about 1100 points by the third loop to represent a performance dip of about 10 percent. Some competing laptops like the Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICH are able to maintain faster clock rates for longer for slightly faster CPU performance overall.
See our dedicated page on the Core i7-9750H for more technical information and benchmarks.
| Cinebench R15 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG | |
| Medion Erazer X15805 | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Average Intel Core i7-9750H (170 - 194, n=80) | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| MSI GF63 8RC-040XPL | |
| Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Medion Erazer X15805 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-9750H (952 - 1306, n=83) | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| MSI GF63 8RC-040XPL | |
| Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| Cinebench R11.5 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Average Intel Core i7-9750H (1.96 - 2.19, n=10) | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-9750H (11.3 - 14.1, n=10) | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| Cinebench R10 | |
| Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Medion Erazer X15805 | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-9750H (28251 - 36304, n=13) | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| Rendering Single 32Bit | |
| Medion Erazer X15805 | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Average Intel Core i7-9750H (6659 - 7214, n=13) | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| wPrime 2.10 - 1024m | |
| MSI GF63 8RC-040XPL | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-9750H | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
* ... smaller is better
System Performance
PCMark results are comparable to other mid-range laptops including the Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICH and Asus' own higher-end Zephyrus S GX502GW. We didn't experience any software or hardware issues during our time with the unit save for the annoying Asus pop-ups when first connecting to the Internet. Note that the power profiles on Armoury Crate can be counter intuitive as detailed here.
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4251 points | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5419 points | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 5528 points | |
Help | ||
Storage Devices
Two internal storage bays are available (1x M.2 2280 PCIe + 1x 2.5-inch SATA III). Our specific test unit comes equipped with the same 512 GB Intel SSD 660p as on the less expensive Asus TUF FX505 and more expenive Zephyrus S GX531. AS SSD results between these systems are unsurprisingly very similar with sequential read and write rates of about 1300 MB/s and 900 MB/s, respectively. It's difficult to know if costlier SKUs come equipped with the faster Samsung PM981 instead as this would depend on the reseller. The Razer Blade 15 and Blade Pro 17 almost always come with Samsung SSDs.
See our table of HDDs and SSDs for more benchmark comparisons.
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 | Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 | Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0) | Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | Aorus 15-SA Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW512G8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | -8% | 48% | 41% | 47% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 943.02 | 866.7 -8% | 1164.53 23% | 1020.79 8% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 749.45 | 444.49 -41% | 478.19 -36% | 387.69 -48% | |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 1518.69 | 942.16 -38% | 1872.47 23% | 2103.58 39% | |
| Score Total | 1711 | 1717 0% | 2896 69% | 3230 89% | 2938 72% |
| Score Write | 958 | 992 4% | 1528 59% | 1752 83% | 1175 23% |
| Score Read | 498 | 472 -5% | 923 85% | 985 98% | 1193 140% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.046 | 0.047 -2% | 0.04 13% | 0.043 7% | 0.034 26% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.058 | 0.065 -12% | 0.08 -38% | 0.077 -33% | 0.05 14% |
| 4K-64 Write | 760.81 | 787.44 4% | 1253 65% | 1500.92 97% | 914.36 20% |
| 4K-64 Read | 321.15 | 321.49 0% | 623.93 94% | 756.72 136% | 876.55 173% |
| 4K Write | 107.03 | 115.48 8% | 103.6 -3% | 88.05 -18% | 110.3 3% |
| 4K Read | 48.73 | 48.22 -1% | 48.32 -1% | 33.2 -32% | 56.27 15% |
| Seq Write | 904.89 | 888.5 -2% | 1711.53 89% | 1629.24 80% | 1506.85 67% |
| Seq Read | 1280.44 | 1019.04 -20% | 2505.83 96% | 1952.51 52% | 2600.57 103% |
* ... smaller is better
GPU Performance
The mobile GeForce RTX 2060 is a mixed bag. While it offers a 40 percent boost and 70 percent boost over the GTX 1060 in DX11 and DX12 titles, respectively, it's still about 20 percent slower than a proper desktop RTX 2060. In contrast, the mobile GTX 1660 Ti performs nearly identically to its desktop GTX 1660 Ti counterpart. It's worth noting that 3DMark benchmark rank the RTX 2060 within just a few percentage points of the often more expensive RTX 2070 Max-Q.
| 3DMark | |
| 2560x1440 Port Royal Graphics | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Medion Erazer X15805 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile (3020 - 3859, n=25) | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Aorus 15-SA | |
| HP Gaming Pavilion 15-dk0009ng | |
| 2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Medion Erazer X15805 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile (5660 - 6910, n=36) | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Aorus 15-SA | |
| HP Gaming Pavilion 15-dk0009ng | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 | |
| MSI GT72S-6QEG16SR421BW | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Eurocom Tornado F5 | |
| Medion Erazer X15805 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile (14768 - 18358, n=38) | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Aorus 15-SA | |
| HP Gaming Pavilion 15-dk0009ng | |
| Asus FX503VM-EH73 | |
| Dell G7 15-7588 | |
| MSI GT72S-6QEG16SR421BW | |
| Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 | |
| MSI GF63 8RC-040XPL | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 17903 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 36566 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 14439 points | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 6154 points | |
Help | ||
Gaming Performance
The mobile GeForce RTX 2060 is still powerful enough to play the latest titles at 1080p on maximum settings even if it's not quite as fast as its desktop counterpart. The performance difference between the mobile RTX 2060 and lesser GTX 1660 Ti is surprisingly small unless if you value RTX-exclusive features like DLSS or ray-tracing. If you want to reach a stable 120 FPS to fully exploit the 120 Hz panel, however, be prepared to reduce the graphics settings substantially.
See our dedicated page on the GeForce RTX 2060 for more technical information and benchmarks.
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T | |
| MSI GE75 9SG | |
| MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G | |
| Alienware m15 P79F | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile (54 - 86, n=19) | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW | |
| Asus Strix GL531GV-PB74 | |
| Asus ROG Strix G GL731GU-RB74 | |
| HP Pavilion Gaming 17-cd0085cl | |
| Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 | |