Notebookcheck

Asus ROG Strix GL504GM Hero II (i7-8750H, GTX 1060, FHD) Laptop Review

A hero for the masses. Excellent performance sustainability and a beautiful 144 Hz IPS display make the GL504 one of the more impressive 15-inch gaming notebooks in the market. A couple of missing features prevent the system from being a "must have" for the mainstream gamer.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Do you find the Asus ROG G700 series too big and the ROG Zephyrus GX series too small? Luckily for you, Asus has a middle-ground solution that also happens to retail for hundreds of dollars less. Called the ROG GL504 series, the new models directly succeed the last generation GL503 series by incorporating a brand new narrow-bezel chassis design inspired by the pricier Zephyrus series.

The GL504 is currently available in two major SKUs: the GL504GM Hero II with the GTX 1060 and the GL504GS Scar II with the GTX 1070. Both configurations otherwise share the same chassis design with very similar internals. We recommend checking out our existing review on the GL504GS for more details on case quality, connectivity features, keyboard, and more. Our review on the GL504GM will instead focus on performance and how much it differs from the more powerful GL504GS.

As a mid-range 15-inch gaming laptop, competition is fierce with many available examples including the Lenovo Legion Y530, HP Omen 15, MSI GL series, Gigabyte Aero 15x, Acer Aspire V15, and the Dell Gaming G7 series.

Asus Strix GL504GM (GL504 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) - 6144 MB, Core: 1455 MHz, Memory: 8008 MHz, GDDR5, 398.2, Optimus
Memory
16384 MB 
, SK Hynix, DDR4-2666, PC4-21300, 19-19-19-43, Single-Channel
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, Full-HD, 144 Hz, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM370
Storage
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7, 256 GB 
, Secondary: 1 TB WDC WD10SPZX-80Z10T1 HDD
Soundcard
Intel Cannon Lake-H/S - cAVS (Audio, Voice, Speech)
Connections
2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 2 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo, Card Reader: SD, SDHC, SDXC
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Intel Wireless-AC 9560 (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 26 x 361 x 262 ( = 1.02 x 14.21 x 10.31 in)
Battery
66 Wh, 4210 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Speakers: 2x 3.5 Watt, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, McAfee LiveSafe, , 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.456 kg ( = 86.63 oz / 5.41 pounds), Power Supply: 590 g ( = 20.81 oz / 1.3 pounds)
Price
1700 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

An easy way to tell the GL504GM apart from the GL504GS is its translucent QWER keys whereas the latter has translucent WASD keys. The GL504GM is geared towards MOBA players where the QWER keys are often used for abilities and so they are highlighted on the design. In contrast, the more powerful GL504GS caters to FPS players where the WASD keys are traditionally used for movement. Both SKUs share the same chassis aside from this visual distinction.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Eurocom Sky X4C
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
193.6 MB/s ∼100% +148%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
191 MB/s ∼99% +145%
Asus Strix GL504GM
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78 MB/s ∼40%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
75 MB/s ∼39% -4%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
242 MB/s ∼100% +203%
Eurocom Sky X4C
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
206.3 MB/s ∼85% +158%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
85 MB/s ∼35% +6%
Asus Strix GL504GM
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
80 MB/s ∼33%
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus Zephyrus M GM501
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
683 MBit/s ∼100% +4%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Intel Wireless-AC 9260
682 MBit/s ∼100% +4%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
677 MBit/s ∼99% +3%
Asus Strix GL504GM
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
657 MBit/s ∼96%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus Strix GL504GM
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
675 MBit/s ∼100%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Intel Wireless-AC 9260
642 MBit/s ∼95% -5%
Asus Zephyrus M GM501
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
585 MBit/s ∼87% -13%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
507 MBit/s ∼75% -25%

Maintenance

Serviceability is easy if not a bit cumbersome as the bottom panel is help in place by a dozen Philips screws. Internals are otherwise similar to the GL504GS albeit with one less heat pipe. This means that the same hardware is used to cool the processors even though there is a wide TDP gap between the GTX 1060 and GTX 1070. The effects of this can be seen in our Stress Test section below.

Asus GL504GM
Asus GL504GM
Asus GL504GS
Asus GL504GS

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Display

Unsurprisingly, the GL504GM utilizes the same AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 IPS panel as on the GL504GS while the competing MSI GS65 utilizes a variant from the same provider. The displays on both GL504 configurations share similar characteristics as a result including the very fast response times, relatively wide gamut, and respectable contrast ratio. The difference in display quality is night and day when compared to the LG Philips panel on last year's GL503 series as the newer AUO panel offers a faster native 144 Hz refresh rate with significantly less ghosting. 

Graininess is minimal and the lack of any major reflections from the matte panel is a boon for videos and gaming. Minor backlight bleeding is present but largely unnoticeable and pulse-width modulation is now completely absent on all brightness levels.

Interestingly, our GL504GM has a brighter backlight than our GL504GS unit. We're unsure if this was intentional on Asus' part or if the pre-installed GameVisual color profile software is responsible for the differences. Either way, the screen is sufficiently bright for indoor environments.

Light-moderate uneven backlight bleeding near bottom corners
Light-moderate uneven backlight bleeding near bottom corners
Subpixel array (141 PPI)
Subpixel array (141 PPI)
Asus ROG GameVisual
Asus ROG GameVisual
315.9
cd/m²
343.6
cd/m²
317.8
cd/m²
343.6
cd/m²
350
cd/m²
342.7
cd/m²
334.4
cd/m²
349
cd/m²
341.5
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 350 cd/m² Average: 337.6 cd/m² Minimum: 18.11 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 350 cd/m²
Contrast: 1061:1 (Black: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.3 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3, calibrated: 2.83
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
92.5% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.26
Asus Strix GL504GM
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus GL504GS
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
AU Optronics B156HAN08.0 (AUO80ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
LGD05C0, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus Zephyrus M GM501
AUO B156HAN07.1 (AUO71ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus GL503VD-DB74
LG Philips LP156WF6, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
12%
-75%
-45%
8%
-260%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
7.8 (4.4, 3.4)
7.2 (3.8, 3.4)
8%
17.6 (9.2, 8.4)
-126%
13.6 (7.6, 6)
-74%
6.6 (3.4, 3.2)
15%
36.4 (16.4, 20)
-367%
Response Time Black / White *
10.4 (5.2, 5.2)
8.8 (4.4, 4.4)
15%
12.8 (7.6, 5.2)
-23%
12 (7.6, 4.4)
-15%
10.4 (5.2, 5.2)
-0%
26.2 (14, 12.4)
-152%
PWM Frequency
21010 (99)
Screen
7%
16%
11%
-7%
-10%
Brightness middle
350
271
-23%
254
-27%
304.3
-13%
307
-12%
315.9
-10%
Brightness
338
261
-23%
262
-22%
293
-13%
296
-12%
304
-10%
Brightness Distribution
90
86
-4%
89
-1%
80
-11%
89
-1%
88
-2%
Black Level *
0.33
0.32
3%
0.22
33%
0.38
-15%
0.25
24%
0.37
-12%
Contrast
1061
847
-20%
1155
9%
801
-25%
1228
16%
854
-20%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.3
2.61
39%
2.37
45%
1.79
58%
5.74
-33%
4.9
-14%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.78
4.93
37%
4.71
39%
3.69
53%
11.32
-46%
9.7
-25%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
2.83
2.33
18%
1.84
35%
1.94
31%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.4
1.97
55%
1.58
64%
1.1
75%
6.44
-46%
3.8
14%
Gamma
2.26 97%
2.4 92%
2.48 89%
2.27 97%
2.48 89%
2.24 98%
CCT
7517 86%
6398 102%
6785 96%
6665 98%
8395 77%
6847 95%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
60
59
-2%
60
0%
59.8
0%
60
0%
55
-8%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
92.5
90
-3%
92
-1%
92.8
0%
93
1%
84
-9%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
10% / 8%
-30% / 2%
-17% / 2%
1% / -5%
-135% / -51%

* ... smaller is better

Color space is approximately 93 percent and 60 percent of the sRGB and AdobeRGB standards, respectively. Competing gaming notebooks like the Razer Blade 15 and MSI GS65 offer very similar color spaces to the GL504 series. Gamut is more than sufficient for gaming purposes as larger color spaces typically lead to slower response times for IPS panels.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB

Further measurements with a X-Rite spectrophotometer reveal average grayscale and a slightly cool color temperature. Our calibration efforts improve both grayscale and RGB balance and so we recommend an end-user calibration to get the most out of the display.

Grayscale before calibration
Grayscale before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration

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
10.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5.2 ms rise
↘ 5.2 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
7.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 4.4 ms rise
↘ 3.4 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 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: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8773 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is average under shade and too dim when standing in sunlight. Though the bezels are thin, the GL504 was definitely not designed for extended use outdoors.

Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Wide IPS viewing angles
Wide IPS viewing angles

Performance

The GL504 series can be configured with the Core i5-8300H, Core i7-8750H, GTX 1060, or GTX 1070 at the time of writing. A standard 60 Hz panel is also an option for the GL504GM. Asus is clearly aiming for the mid-to-high gaming audience based on these specifications and the kind of gaming performance we can expect. Users who want even more power should consider the enthusiast Zephyrus GX series or 17.3-inch G7xx series where unlocked HK-class CPUs and the GTX 1080 are common options.

 

Processor

CineBench R15
CineBench R15

CPU performance is where we expect it to be with no surprises. The Core i7-8750H in our Asus is roughly 70 percent faster in multi-threaded workloads than the Core i7-7700HQ as found on the last generation Asus GL703VM and nearly 100 percent faster than the i5-8300H in the less expensive Asus FX504GD. More impressively, however, the GL504GM is able to maintain a high level of CPU performance even when subjected to extreme CPU stress for extended periods. By running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, we are able to record a performance dip of just 9 percent over time. Results are actually slightly better than the same CPU in the GL504GS.

The Core i7-8750H should be more than enough for the target mainstream gaming audience. See our dedicated page on the i7-8750H for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

01020304050607080901001101201301401501601701801902002102202302402502602702802903003103203303403503603703803904004104204304404504604704804905005105205305405505605705805906006106206306406506606706806907007107207307407507607707807908008108208308408508608708808909009109209309409509609709809901000101010201030104010501060107010801090110011101120113011401150116011701180119012001210Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus Chimera G703GI
Intel Core i9-8950HK
206 Points ∼97% +18%
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
192 Points ∼90% +10%
Asus Strix GL504GM
Intel Core i7-8750H
174 Points ∼82%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (163 - 177, n=47)
173 Points ∼81% -1%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
Intel Core i7-8550U
172 Points ∼81% -1%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
170 Points ∼80% -2%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
148 Points ∼69% -15%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
144 Points ∼68% -17%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
142 Points ∼67% -18%
Asus ZenBook UX530UX-FY070T
Intel Core i7-7500U
141 Points ∼66% -19%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
1408 Points ∼45% +17%
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
1359 Points ∼44% +13%
Asus Chimera G703GI
Intel Core i9-8950HK
1312 Points ∼42% +9%
Asus Strix GL504GM
Intel Core i7-8750H
1203 Points ∼39%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (863 - 1251, n=50)
1103 Points ∼35% -8%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
710 Points ∼23% -41%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
680 Points ∼22% -43%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
Intel Core i7-8550U
663 Points ∼21% -45%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
604 Points ∼19% -50%
Asus ZenBook UX530UX-FY070T
Intel Core i7-7500U
307 Points ∼10% -74%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus Chimera G703GI
Intel Core i9-8950HK
2.34 Points ∼96%
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
2.16 Points ∼89%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (1.89 - 2, n=32)
1.966 Points ∼81%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
1.72 Points ∼70%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
1.68 Points ∼69%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
1.63 Points ∼67%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.61 Points ∼66%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
15.76 Points ∼58%
Asus Chimera G703GI
Intel Core i9-8950HK
15.14 Points ∼56%
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
14.98 Points ∼55%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (9.54 - 13.5, n=33)
12.3 Points ∼45%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
7.5 Points ∼28%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7.13 Points ∼26%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
6.2 Points ∼23%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
7243 Points ∼67%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
6482 Points ∼60%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (6292 - 6643, n=11)
6480 Points ∼60%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
5463 Points ∼50%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
5426 Points ∼50%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
4286 Points ∼40%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
38810 Points ∼78%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (29952 - 35307, n=11)
33348 Points ∼67%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
29330 Points ∼59%
Asus Strix GL502VM-FY039T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
20528 Points ∼41%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
20061 Points ∼40%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
19801 Points ∼40%
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
252.12 s * ∼3%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
247 s * ∼3%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (125 - 181, n=6)
158 s * ∼2%
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
120.923 s * ∼1%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - ---
Average Intel Core i7-8750H
  (1 - 10645, n=37)
2538 Seconds * ∼11%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
677.2 Seconds * ∼3%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
638.9 Seconds * ∼3%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
547.965 Seconds * ∼2%
Eurocom Sky X4C
Intel Core i7-8700K
465.128 Seconds * ∼2%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
103.98 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1203 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
174 Points
Help

System Performance

PCMark scores are not unlike on the GL504GS with some benchmarks even returning slightly higher scores. Regardless, the results are about where we expect them to be considering the hardware.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10
PCMark 10
PCMark 10 - Score
Eurocom Sky X7C
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8086K, 2x Samsung SSD 970 Pro 512GB (RAID 0)
6369 Points ∼82% +17%
Aorus X5 v8
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8850H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
6154 Points ∼79% +13%
Asus Strix GL504GM
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7
5463 Points ∼70%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5184 Points ∼67% -5%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (4646 - 5525, n=11)
5125 Points ∼66% -6%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5095 Points ∼66% -7%
Asus GL504GS
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4854 Points ∼63% -11%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Aorus X5 v8
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8850H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
5953 Points ∼91% +9%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5705 Points ∼88% +4%
Asus GL504GS
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5673 Points ∼87% +4%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5621 Points ∼86% +3%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (5111 - 5731, n=12)
5513 Points ∼85% +1%
Asus Strix GL504GM
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7
5474 Points ∼84%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Aorus X5 v8
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8850H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
5773 Points ∼95% +32%
Asus GL504GS
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5390 Points ∼88% +24%
Eurocom Sky X7C
GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8086K, 2x Samsung SSD 970 Pro 512GB (RAID 0)
4908 Points ∼81% +13%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4665 Points ∼77% +7%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4650 Points ∼76% +7%
Average Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (4119 - 5371, n=12)
4522 Points ∼74% +4%
Asus Strix GL504GM
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7
4362 Points ∼72%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4362 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5474 points
Help

Storage Devices

Internal drive options include M.2 2280 NVMe and a standard 2.5-inch SATA III bay. Our specific test unit is equipped with a 256 GB Toshiba THNSN5256GPU7 NVMe SSD and a secondary 1 TB WD Blue WD10SPZX HDD, but resellers like CUKUSA may offer different SSD options. We recommend using a primary SSD and sticking to 7 mm HDDs if more capacity is required.

The Toshiba SSD in our GL504GM is fast but merely average for a NVMe drive. Samsung SSDs continue to offer faster transfer rates across the board.

See our table of HDDs and SSDs for more benchmark comparisons.

AS SSD
AS SSD
CDM 6
CDM 6
Asus Strix GL504GM
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7
Asus GL504GS
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Asus Zephyrus M GM501
Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
AS SSD
75%
66%
53%
50%
Copy Game MB/s
1087.7
882.4
-19%
Copy Program MB/s
752.17
370.7
-51%
Copy ISO MB/s
1006.21
1452.41
44%
Score Total
2233
4318
93%
4122
85%
4095
83%
3649
63%
Score Write
724
1983
174%
2051
183%
1955
170%
1446
100%
Score Read
1007
1542
53%
1346
34%
1407
40%
1471
46%
Access Time Write *
0.045
0.035
22%
0.035
22%
0.037
18%
0.041
9%
Access Time Read *
0.072
0.049
32%
0.073
-1%
0.05
31%
0.046
36%
4K-64 Write
520.16
1704.11
228%
1760.16
238%
1663.95
220%
1198.18
130%
4K-64 Read
832.2
1305.47
57%
1170.26
41%
1176.71
41%
1218.4
46%
4K Write
96.46
105.67
10%
107.15
11%
99.18
3%
90.23
-6%
4K Read
32
53.26
66%
48.94
53%
48.56
52%
43.42
36%
Seq Write
1071.18
1729.74
61%
1834.04
71%
1916.59
79%
1580.23
48%
Seq Read
1432.81
1836.5
28%
1266.1
-12%
1819.95
27%
2090.99
46%

* ... smaller is better

Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 2391.9 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 1154.2 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 897.5 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 637.5 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 521.8 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 384.3 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 40.13 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 110.3 MB/s

GPU Performance

The GTX 1060 in the GL504GM is within 2 to 3 percentage points of the average GTX 1060 in our database taken from a sample of 62 other GTX 1060 laptops. In other words, Asus hasn't throttled or overclocked the GPU in any way for this particular configuration. The desktop GTX 1060 and the GTX 1070 in the GL504GS are about 10 percent and 40 percent faster, respectively, than the GL504GM.

The gaming prowess of the GTX 1060 has been well documented. Expect to be able to play the latest titles on maximum settings at native 1080p. In order to make the most of the 144 Hz display, however, most settings will have to be tuned down significantly to boost frame rates and this is where the GL504GS can flex its bigger muscles. It's unfortunate that G-Sync is not an option as such a feature would have paired very well with the GTX 1060.

See our dedicated page on the GeForce GTX 1060 for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
Eurocom Sky X7C
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8086K
14228 Points ∼78% +52%
Asus GL504GS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
11267 Points ∼62% +20%
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition 6 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop), 6700K
11160 Points ∼62% +19%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
10663 Points ∼59% +14%
Asus Strix GL504GM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
9352 Points ∼52%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
8935 Points ∼49% -4%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (5655 - 12930, n=72)
8364 Points ∼46% -11%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
8343 Points ∼46% -11%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points ∼25% -52%
Asus Zenbook UX3430UN-GV174T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8250U
3787 Points ∼21% -60%
1280x720 Performance GPU
Eurocom Sky X7C
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop), 8086K
27275 Points ∼53% +88%
Asus GL504GS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
21058 Points ∼41% +45%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
18687 Points ∼37% +29%
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition 6 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop), 6700K
17401 Points ∼34% +20%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (12731 - 15607, n=73)
14725 Points ∼29% +2%
Asus Strix GL504GM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
14476 Points ∼28%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
14180 Points ∼28% -2%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
12472 Points ∼24% -14%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points ∼9% -67%
Asus Zenbook UX3430UN-GV174T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8250U
4191 Points ∼8% -71%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Combined
Asus GL504GS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
6893 Points ∼56% +56%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
5956 Points ∼49% +35%
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition 6 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop), 6700K
4630 Points ∼38% +5%
Asus Strix GL504GM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
4421 Points ∼36%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (4098 - 4602, n=66)
4312 Points ∼35% -2%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
4207 Points ∼34% -5%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
3663 Points ∼30% -17%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
1652 Points ∼13% -63%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Physics
Asus GL504GS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
16525 Points ∼61% +4%
Asus Strix GL504GM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
15897 Points ∼59%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
13636 Points ∼50% -14%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
13212 Points ∼49% -17%
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition 6 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop), 6700K
12873 Points ∼47% -19%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (5822 - 17458, n=73)
10938 Points ∼40% -31%
Asus Zenbook UX3430UN-GV174T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8250U
9758 Points ∼36% -39%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
9756 Points ∼36% -39%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4710 Points ∼17% -70%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Asus GL504GS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
16345 Points ∼40% +38%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
14780 Points ∼36% +25%
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition 6 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop), 6700K
12984 Points ∼32% +10%
Asus Strix GL504GM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
11829 Points ∼29%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
  (10708 - 12298, n=73)
11545 Points ∼28% -2%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
11315 Points ∼28% -4%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
9608 Points ∼24% -19%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points ∼10% -65%
Asus Zenbook UX3430UN-GV174T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8250U
3389 Points ∼8% -71%
3DMark 11 Performance
12841 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
30707 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
10475 points
Help
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 242.2211198104.7fps
The Witcher 3 (2015) 192133.480.637.5fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 145.9121.68266.9fps

Stress Test

We stress the notebook with synthetic loads to identify for any potential throttling or stability issues. When running Prime95, the system can be observed holding a steady clock rate of 3.9 GHz which is the maximum rated multi-core Turbo Boost for the i7-8750H. The results match our CineBench loop test above where CPU performance is shown to be very consistent even after half an hour of constant stress. Core temperature remains steady at a respectable 77 C. If running both Prime95 and FurMark simultaneously, core temperature rises slightly to 81 C.

Running Witcher 3 is more representative of real-world load. When under such conditions, the CPU and GPU in the GL504GM will run at relatively cool temperatures of 65 C and 68 C, respectively. In comparison, the CPU and GPU in the more powerful GL504GS will be around 80 C and 85 C, respectively, when subjected to the same Witcher 3 load. It's clear that the less demanding GTX 1060 in the GL504GM has a noticeable effect on operating temperatures relative to the GTX 1070-equipped GL504GS.

Running on batteries will limit both CPU and GPU performance even when on the High Performance profile. A 3DMark 11 run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores of 7408 and 7267 points, respectively, compared to 9760 and 14476 points when on mains.

Note that the GPU-Z window in the screenshots below are showing data on the integrated HD Graphics 630 and not the GTX 1060 GPU.

Prime95 stress
Prime95 stress
FurMark stress
FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Witcher 3 stress
Witcher 3 stress
0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C) Average GPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress 3.9 -- 77 --
FurMark Stress - 1304 -- 69
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 3.4 1113 - 1392 81 ~66
Witcher 3 Stress 3.9 1696 66 68

Emissions

System Noise

Fan noise
Fan noise

As we suspected, the GL504GM runs much quieter than the GL504GS. Its fans are less likely to pulsate during low loads and it is noticeably quieter when running Witcher 3 as well. The system is still loud when gaming even when compared to other thin laptops like the Blade 15, but at least it is more bearable than on the GL504GS.

Our unit exhibited slight electronic noise or high-pitch humming when idling on desktop. It's essentially unnoticeable during regular use, though we suggest users check for it regardless.

Same cooling solution as on the GL504GS
Same cooling solution as on the GL504GS
Twin 50 mm fans
Twin 50 mm fans

Noise Level

Idle
30 / 30 / 30 dB(A)
Load
41.8 / 50 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 28.5 dB(A)
Asus Strix GL504GM
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7
Asus GL504GS
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Asus Zephyrus M GM501
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
Aorus X5 v8
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8850H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
Noise
-12%
0%
-0%
-6%
-13%
off / environment *
28.5
29
-2%
30
-5%
28.1
1%
29
-2%
30
-5%
Idle Minimum *
30
32
-7%
30
-0%
28.1
6%
30
-0%
33
-10%
Idle Average *
30
33
-10%
31
-3%
33
-10%
31
-3%
35
-17%
Idle Maximum *
30
40
-33%
34
-13%
33.5
-12%
33
-10%
40
-33%
Load Average *
41.8
49
-17%
43
-3%
42.2
-1%
49
-17%
45
-8%
Witcher 3 ultra *
47.6
51
-7%
42
12%
45.3
5%
50
-5%
50
-5%
Load Maximum *
50
53
-6%
44
12%
45.7
9%
52
-4%
55
-10%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Three sets of exhaust grilles
Three sets of exhaust grilles

Surface temperatures are much cooler than what we recorded on the more powerful GL504GS. While the hot spot when running demanding loads is still in the low 50 C range, the hot spot itself is much smaller as shown by the temperature maps below. This means that more of the notebook surface is cooler for a more comfortable typing or gaming experience. For example, the WASD keys on the GL504GM are only about 32 C when gaming compared to over 40 C on the GL504GS. The warmest areas are thankfully above the first row of keys away from users' hands.

When idling, surface temperatures are flat on both sides of the notebook as one would expect. Note that the right palm rest will always be a few degrees warmer than the left if a 2.5-inch SSD or HDD is installed.

System idle (top)
System idle (top)
System idle (bottom)
System idle (bottom)
Witcher 3 load (top)
Witcher 3 load (top)
Witcher 3 load (bottom)
Witcher 3 load (bottom)
Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (bottom)
Maximum load (bottom)
Max. Load
 41.4 °C
107 F
36.8 °C
98 F
40.8 °C
105 F
 
 32.6 °C
91 F
37 °C
99 F
33.8 °C
93 F
 
 24.4 °C
76 F
24.2 °C
76 F
26 °C
79 F
 
Maximum: 41.4 °C = 107 F
Average: 33 °C = 91 F
39.6 °C
103 F
51.2 °C
124 F
38 °C
100 F
37 °C
99 F
37 °C
99 F
30.2 °C
86 F
29.4 °C
85 F
27.2 °C
81 F
27.6 °C
82 F
Maximum: 51.2 °C = 124 F
Average: 35.2 °C = 95 F
Power Supply (max.)  50.4 °C = 123 F | Room Temperature 22.4 °C = 72 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.4 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F, ranging from 21.6 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The maximum temperature on the bottom side is 51.2 °C / 124 F, compared to the average of 41.6 °C / 107 F, ranging from 21.1 to 78 °C for the class Gaming.
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(+) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 29.2 °C / 84.6 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.7 °C / 83.7 F (-0.5 °C / -0.9 F).

Speakers

Sound quality is great for the size with better-than-expected bass. The chassis will reverberate from the bass rather noticeably, however, even when set to just 50 percent volume. Luckily, there is no audible rattling.

Corner speaker adjacent to the two storage bays
Corner speaker adjacent to the two storage bays
Pink noise
Pink noise
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs203837.52534.2363133.134.34031.734.55031.934.26330.439.28030.247.510030.453.612529.859.716027.465.520028.664.825026.964.131526.464.140025.660.550024.662.163024.462.88002464.8100024.364.3125023.762.6160023.659.9200023.657.8250023.657.4315023.455.1400023.453.7500023.552.5630023.355.3800023.251.91000023.353.5125002347.91600023.138.6SPL35.971.9N2.632.2median 23.7median 59.7Delta1.64.635.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus Strix GL504GMApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Asus Strix GL504GM audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (65.45 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 4.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | reduced highs - on average 5.5% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 35% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 8%, average was 19%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 2% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Prime95 activated at the 20s mark. Consumption is steady throughout to reflect our CineBench loop test results
Prime95 activated at the 20s mark. Consumption is steady throughout to reflect our CineBench loop test results

Power consumption when idling is significantly less than on the GL504GS SKU possibly due to Optimus being exclusive to the GL504GM. Medium load (as represented by 3DMark 06) is otherwise very similar to other gaming laptops with GTX 1060 or GTX 1070 graphics at around 112 W.

The power gap between the GL504GM and GL504GS widens further when running higher loads like gaming. Witcher 3, for example, draws 136 W compared to 170 W on the GL504GS. Maximum load draws an average of 157 W over a 90 second period from a medium-sized (~16 x 7.5 x 2.6 cm) 180 W AC adapter. The GL504GS carries a more capable 230 W AC adapter in order to accommodate its more demanding GPU. Overall consumption is very similar to the 15-inch Asus GU501GM since the system carries the same i7-8750H CPU and GTX 1060 GPU.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.13 / 2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 10 / 16.9 / 21.1 Watt
Load midlight 112.4 / 157.3 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus Strix GL504GM
8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), Toshiba NVMe THNSN5256GPU7, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus GL504GS
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus Zephyrus M GM501
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Power Consumption
-69%
12%
-2%
-25%
-6%
Idle Minimum *
10
29
-190%
7
30%
14.9
-49%
16
-60%
12.35
-24%
Idle Average *
16.9
32
-89%
11
35%
17.5
-4%
19
-12%
19.98
-18%
Idle Maximum *
21.1
38
-80%
20
5%
19.2
9%
26
-23%
25.44
-21%
Load Average *
112.4
100
11%
98
13%
103.2
8%
103
8%
94.28
16%
Load Maximum *
157.3
217
-38%
182
-16%
132.7
16%
223
-42%
140.63
11%
Witcher 3 ultra *
135.5
170
-25%
132
3%
123.1
9%
164
-21%
132.86
2%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

We were expecting battery life on the GL504GM to be longer than on the GL504GS since the latter includes no Optimus, but we weren't expecting this huge of a lead. The lesser-equipped GL504GM can run for over twice as long as its more powerful sibling when both are subjected to similar WLAN loads. Users can expect almost 6 hours of real-world browsing whereas the GL504GS can barely make it past 2.5 hours.

Charging from near empty to full capacity takes about 2 hours.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
5h 55min
Asus Strix GL504GM
8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 66 Wh
Asus GL504GS
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 66 Wh
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 82 Wh
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 80 Wh
Asus Zephyrus M GM501
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 55 Wh
Aorus X5 v8
8850H, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 92.24 Wh
Battery Runtime
-59%
2%
13%
-54%
Reader / Idle
176
507
237
294
WiFi v1.3
355
146
-59%
362
2%
402
13%
164
-54%
Load
71
81
70
87

Pros

+ 144 Hz narrow bezel display with minimal ghosting
+ quieter and cooler than the GL504GS
+ longer battery life than the GL504GS
+ brighter backlight than the GL504GS
+ dual internal storage bays
+ great internal speakers
+ easy serviceability

Cons

- suboptimal webcam placement
- no per-key RGB lighting
- still loud when gaming
- no Thunderbolt 3

Verdict

In review: Asus Republic of Gamers GL504GM Hero II. Test models provided by Asus and CUKUSA.com
In review: Asus Republic of Gamers GL504GM Hero II. Test models provided by Asus and CUKUSA.com

Similar to how the Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060 runs cooler, longer, and quieter than the Blade 15 GTX 1070, the GL504GM also runs cooler, longer, and quieter than the GL504GS. There are thus several reasons why would one would prefer the less expensive GL504GM over the GL504GS other than cost as the GL504GS could have benefited from a stronger cooling solution. After all, there is a reason why other 15-inch laptops with the same GTX 1070 GPU option, such as the MSI GT63, can have twice as many heat pipes.

The best part of the GL504 series is still the 144 Hz matte screen. The narrower bezels and vastly improved display refresh rate and response times make the last generation GL503 models look very dated in comparison. To make the most of the high refresh rate, however, the GL504GS is still the best option as the GTX 1070 is needed for pushing those extra frames on most titles. It's an upgrade worth considering based on the display and design alone especially for those still gaming on Maxwell GPUs.

The lack of G-Sync is a bummer, but the GL504GM makes up for it with Optimus for longer battery life and quieter fans than on the GL504GS. It's one of the stronger narrow-bezel 15-inch chassis designs currently available and certainly more rigid than what the MSI GS65 has to offer.

Asus Strix GL504GM - 08/31/2018 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
82 / 98 → 83%
Keyboard
85%
Pointing Device
81%
Connectivity
64 / 81 → 79%
Weight
60 / 10-66 → 89%
Battery
88%
Display
88%
Games Performance
93%
Application Performance
96%
Temperature
88 / 95 → 93%
Noise
81 / 90 → 90%
Audio
86%
Camera
47 / 85 → 56%
Average
80%
87%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 7 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Asus ROG Strix GL504GM Hero II (i7-8750H, GTX 1060, FHD) Laptop Review
Allen Ngo, 2018-08-31 (Update: 2018-09-19)
Allen Ngo
Allen Ngo - US Editor in Chief
After graduating with a B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics from the University of California, I studied reactor physics to become licensed by the U.S. NRC to operate nuclear reactors. There's a striking level of appreciation you gain for everyday consumer electronics after working with modern nuclear reactivity systems astonishingly powered by computers from the 80s. When I'm not managing day-to-day activities and US review articles on Notebookcheck, you can catch me following the eSports scene and the latest gaming news.