Notebookcheck

Asus ROG Zephyrus G GA502DU (Ryzen 7 3750H, GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q) Laptop Review

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be. The Zephyrus G GA502DU wants to redefine what a budget gaming laptop should be. Its rare pairing of an AMD H-series CPU with an Nvidia GeForce Max-Q GPU is something we wish could have happened years ago. It offers a superbly balanced gaming experience at 1080p30 or 1080p60 in a chassis the size of a flashy flagship all at an affordable price.

Not something you see everyday on a laptop
Not something you see everyday on a laptop

The Zephyrus series is Asus' flagship family of ultra-thin gaming laptops followed by the mid-range Strix/Hero series and the entry-level budget TUF series. The Zephyrus lineup itself has since expanded into additional subcategories including the super-slim Zephyrus S series, mid-range Zephyrus M series, and the more affordable Zephyrus G series. Our test unit today is the Zephyrus G GA502DU equipped with the uncommon AMD Ryzen 7 3750H CPU and Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GPU targeted at gamers on a budget who don't want to sacrifice the attractive designs of the latest ultra-thin laptops.

The most notable qualities of the GA502GU are its aforementioned Ryzen CPU and Nvidia GTX 16 Max-Q GPU as this is the first laptop to pair both of these specific processors together. No other CPU or GPU options are available for the GA502 series at the time of writing. Other features like the 1080p display (60 Hz or 120 Hz), RAM (8 GB single-channel to 32 GB dual-channel), and storage (256 GB to 512 GB) are fairly standard and configurable. Our specific test unit is a lower-end configuration retailing for about $1100 or $950 when on sale.

As a budget quad-core gaming laptop, direct competitors to the GA502GU can be any gaming laptop powered by a quad-core Intel Core i5-8300H or Core i5-9300H CPU with GTX 1050, 1050 Ti, 1650, or 1660 Ti graphics. Examples include the Acer Aspire Nitro 5, Lenovo Legion Y740, HP Omen 15, Gigabyte Sabre 15, Aorus 5, Acer Predator Helios 300, MSI GP63, or the Dell G7 series. The even cheaper Asus TUF FX505DY is also an alternative.

More Asus Zephyrus reviews:

Working For Notebookcheck

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

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Asus ROG GA502DU (GA502 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q - 6144 MB, Core: 1240 MHz, Memory: 1538 MHz, GDDR6, 430.64, Optimus
Memory
8192 MB 
, 8 GB soldered, 1199.1 MHz, 17-17-17-39, Single-Channel. 1x SODIMM free
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, Panda LM156LF-CL03, IPS, glossy: no
Mainboard
AMD CZ FCH
Storage
Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8, 512 GB 
Soundcard
AMD Raven - Audio Processor - HD Audio Controller
Connections
3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000/2500/5000MBit/s), Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 20.4 x 360 x 252 ( = 0.8 x 14.17 x 9.92 in)
Battery
76 Wh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: No webcam
Additional features
Speakers: 2 x 1W speakers with Smart AMP technology Array Microphones, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, Asus Armoury Crate, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.1 kg ( = 74.08 oz / 4.63 pounds), Power Supply: 560 g ( = 19.75 oz / 1.23 pounds)
Price
950 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The Zephyrus G chassis is closely related to the Zephyrus S GX502. In fact, the chassis are essentially identical between them save for two key distinctions: the GA502 lacks the ErgoLift-style rear ventilation that was all the rage on the original Zephyrus design and it lacks the rubber-coated palm rest of the GX502. We suspect that the decision to omit these exotic features on the GA502 was likely down to cost and, in truth, we don't even miss the features at all. The bottom panel is now stiffer because of it while the rest of the plastic chassis feels and looks nearly the same as on the GX502. The cross-cut brushed aluminum outer lid, super-narrow three-sided bezels, and ultra-thin profile have all returned. You're essentially getting a flagship-like chassis for a laptop targeted at gamers on a budget.

Base rigidity is very good with only minimal creaking and warping when attempting to bend its edges or depress the center of the keyboard. We find it to be just slightly weaker than the Alienware m15 but definitely stronger and less rickety than what the MSI GS65 has to offer. The flexible lid continues to be the weakest link much like on the other Zephyrus laptops and its super-small hinges and narrow 130-degree lid angle haven't improved at all. Laptops with stiffer lids like the Razer Blade 15, XPS 15, and even Asus' own ROG Strix II GL504 all prove that the Zephyrus can do better in this regard.

Build quality is excellent on our unit with no noticeable gaps or crevices between materials including the edges of the inner display bezels. Nonetheless, be prepared for instant fingerprints especially around the outer lid, keyboard keys, and trackpad.

Note that the GA502 is one of the only laptops in its category with no integrated webcam. According to Asus, the target audience will rarely use the webcam and if they do, they tend to already have an external higher-quality webcam. Fortunately, the unit still integrates a microphone.

The Zephyrus G GA502 is slightly thicker than both the Zephyrus M GU501 and Zephyrus S GX531 while having a smaller footprint than the former and weighing about the same as the latter as illustrated by our size comparison below. To put simply, the GA502 is almost as small and compact as the pricier GX531 while costing significantly less. Other gaming laptops retailing for under $1000 like the Dell G7, MSI GF63, Acer Nitro 5, or even Asus' own TUF FX series are all thicker, larger, or heavier than the similarly priced GA502. It's definitely a highlight and major selling point of the GA502.

When compared to the GX502, both systems share the same footprint while the GA502 is about 1.5 mm thicker since the underside of the base lacks the ErgoLift feature.

Plastic base is slightly roughened for more luxurious feel. Zephyrus S SKUs may use aluminum for the base
Plastic base is slightly roughened for more luxurious feel. Zephyrus S SKUs may use aluminum for the base
Though the hinges are sufficiently rigid, maximum angle is only 130 degrees
Though the hinges are sufficiently rigid, maximum angle is only 130 degrees
Outer lid is the same brushed aluminum material and design as found on the pricier Zephyrus S series
Outer lid is the same brushed aluminum material and design as found on the pricier Zephyrus S series
The "chin" bezel is quite large relative to the narrow side and top bezels
The "chin" bezel is quite large relative to the narrow side and top bezels
384 mm / 15.1 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 17.8 mm / 0.701 inch 2.5 kg5.51 lbs362 mm / 14.3 inch 265 mm / 10.4 inch 25 mm / 0.984 inch 2.3 kg4.97 lbs359 mm / 14.1 inch 254 mm / 10 inch 21.7 mm / 0.854 inch 1.9 kg4.1 lbs360 mm / 14.2 inch 252 mm / 9.92 inch 20.4 mm / 0.803 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs360 mm / 14.2 inch 268 mm / 10.6 inch 15.75 mm / 0.62 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 17.8 mm / 0.701 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs

Connectivity

Available ports are identical to the Zephyrus GX502 albeit without the dedicated 3.5 mm microphone port and with slightly rearranged positioning. Even so, port positioning is still a mixed bag because the ports are very close up front instead of towards the rear. Cables will take up valuable desk space especially for left-handed users where the majority of ports are located.

Both Thunderbolt 3 and an SD card reader are not available. Users who must have these features can instead consider the costlier MSI GS65 or Lenovo Legion Y740.

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Right: 2x USB 3.1 Gen. 1 Type-A, Kensington Lock
Right: 2x USB 3.1 Gen. 1 Type-A, Kensington Lock
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit RJ-45, HDMI 2.0b, USB 3.1 Gen. 1 Type-A, USB 3.1 Gen. 2 Type-C with DisplayPort 1.4, 3.5 mm combo audio
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit RJ-45, HDMI 2.0b, USB 3.1 Gen. 1 Type-A, USB 3.1 Gen. 2 Type-C with DisplayPort 1.4, 3.5 mm combo audio

Communication

Wireless is provided by a 1x1 Realtek 8821CE WLAN module with integrated Bluetooth 5.0. Maximum transfer rates are just a fraction of the higher-end Intel 9560 as found on the pricier Zephyrus S GX531 and the module carries no gaming-centric features as found on the Killer 1550 or 1535. It's a cut corner that casual gamers will likely not mind so long as connectivity is stable and reliable. We experienced no connectivity issues during our time with the test unit.

Removable M.2 WLAN module sits next to the primary SSD
Removable M.2 WLAN module sits next to the primary SSD
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
684 MBit/s ∼100% +106%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Cannon Lake-H/S CNVi: WiFi
666 MBit/s ∼97% +101%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
661 MBit/s ∼97% +99%
Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg
Killer Wireless-AC 1550i Wireless Network Adapter (9560NGW)
596 MBit/s ∼87% +80%
Asus ROG GA502DU
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
332 MBit/s ∼49%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
655 MBit/s ∼100% +160%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
644 MBit/s ∼98% +156%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Cannon Lake-H/S CNVi: WiFi
593 MBit/s ∼91% +135%
Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg
Killer Wireless-AC 1550i Wireless Network Adapter (9560NGW)
588 MBit/s ∼90% +133%
Asus ROG GA502DU
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
252 MBit/s ∼38%

Maintenance

Since the GA series is lacking the ErgoLift feature of the GX series, the bottom panel is much easier to remove with just a Philips screwdriver for better serviceability. In other words, Asus' cheaper GA502 is easier to repair than its more expensive GX502. Users can upgrade the M.2 2242 WLAN, 2x M.2 2280 SSD, or single SODIMM slot. With 15 screws to remove, however, the process definitely takes a bit of patience.

It's worth noting that the bottom panel can be removed without needing to tear any anti-tamper stickers unlike on most MSI laptops.

The cheaper GA502 has better serviceability than its pricier GX502 sibling
The cheaper GA502 has better serviceability than its pricier GX502 sibling

Accessories and Warranty

There are no extras in the box other than the AC adapter and Quick Start guide which is understandable for a relatively inexpensive gaming laptop.

The standard one-year limited warranty applies. Owners can register their purchases to make the most of the manufacturer warranty.

Input Devices

Keyboard

Take the GX501 keyboard, move it back to the more traditional position, and you have the GA501 keyboard. Everything from key feedback to layout and sizes are nearly identical between the GA501 and GX502 and so many of our existing comments still apply here for better or worse. Key feedback remains shallower and softer than what you will find on most other 15.6-inch laptops including the HP Spectre x360 15, MSI GS65, Alienware 15, and Asus' own TUF FX505 or Zephyrus G GU501. It takes some getting used to if you're a desktop gamer.

RGB lighting has been replaced by a single-zone white light likely to keep costs under control.

Touchpad

The medium-sized clickpad (10.5 x 7.5 cm) is slightly smaller than the trackpad on the XPS 15 (10.5 x 8.5 cm) while being much larger than the non-traditional trackpad on the older GX501 (6.0 x 7.8 cm). Glide is very smooth with no cursor jumping and only minimal sticking when moving at very slow speeds. Meanwhile, the integrated mouse keys are shallow in travel with soft and quiet feedback. We would have preferred a firmer feel or even dedicated mouse keys for more accurate clicks.

Perhaps the most irksome aspect of the clickpad is its tendency to attract and collect grease very quickly even after just a few minutes of use. Much like the keyboard keys above, we expect the trackpad to look old and unsightly much sooner than on most other laptops.

Similar keyboard layout as the GX501 with dedicated volume, mic, and Armoury Crate keys along the top. The small Directional keys feel cramped
Similar keyboard layout as the GX501 with dedicated volume, mic, and Armoury Crate keys along the top. The small Directional keys feel cramped
Key feedback feels softer and shallower than on most other gaming laptops. Single-zone two-level white backlight comes standard
Key feedback feels softer and shallower than on most other gaming laptops. Single-zone two-level white backlight comes standard

Display

Two "IPS-level" panel options are available: 1080p at 60 Hz or 1080p at 120 Hz. Our test unit is configured with the former and so all our measurements below reflect only the 1080p60 panel. We cannot speak for the 120 Hz option.

Asus uses the same Panda LM156LF-CL03 panel for both the ROG GA502GU and the less expensive TUF FX505DY. Thus, both of these laptops share similar characteristics including the good contrast ratio, average response times, and limited color space. It's somewhat disappointing to not see any 3 ms or 5 ms panel options to reduce ghosting as even the similarly-priced Lenovo Legion Y740 has this option. Display brightness could be brighter as well when compared to other gaming laptops or Ultrabooks where 300+ nits is commonplace.

Graininess and uneven backlight bleeding are both non-issues which is impressive for a budget-midrange gaming laptop. The picture is just slightly less sharp than what you would get from a glossy panel.

Matte panel with no touchscreen options available
Matte panel with no touchscreen options available
Narrow bezels on all three sides with no integrated webcam
Narrow bezels on all three sides with no integrated webcam
Almost no uneven backlight bleeding
Almost no uneven backlight bleeding
Matte subpixel array (141 PPI)
Matte subpixel array (141 PPI)
235.8
cd/m²
228
cd/m²
226
cd/m²
221.5
cd/m²
240.1
cd/m²
217.1
cd/m²
224
cd/m²
254
cd/m²
234.2
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
Panda LM156LF-CL03
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 254 cd/m² Average: 231.2 cd/m² Minimum: 12.32 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 240.1 cd/m²
Contrast: 706:1 (Black: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.2 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 4.09
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
60.4% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 38.4% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.2
Asus ROG GA502DU
Panda LM156LF-CL03, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
LG Philips LGD05C0, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
AU Optronics AUO45ED, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg
LP156WFG-SPB2, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Aero 15 Classic-XA
Sharp LQ156M1JW03 (SHP14C5), IGZO, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
55%
73%
5%
49%
42%
74%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
34 (17.2, 16.8)
16.8 (9.2, 7.6)
51%
7 (3.6, 3.4)
79%
30.8 (13.6, 17.2)
9%
18.8 (11.6, 7.2)
45%
15.2 (7.6, 7.6)
55%
7.2 (3.8, 3.4)
79%
Response Time Black / White *
28 (17.2, 10.8)
11.6 (7.2, 4.4)
59%
9.6 (4.4, 5.2)
66%
27.6 (16, 11.6)
1%
13.2 (8, 5.2)
53%
11.2 (6.8, 4.4)
60%
8.8 (4.4, 4.4)
69%
PWM Frequency
21280 (34)
23580 (24)
11%
Screen
31%
34%
20%
23%
30%
31%
Brightness middle
240.1
314.7
31%
323.6
35%
286.7
19%
320.4
33%
266
11%
286
19%
Brightness
231
312
35%
315
36%
281
22%
298
29%
248
7%
275
19%
Brightness Distribution
85
90
6%
91
7%
92
8%
85
0%
89
5%
90
6%
Black Level *
0.34
0.38
-12%
0.29
15%
0.39
-15%
0.42
-24%
0.31
9%
0.37
-9%
Contrast
706
828
17%
1116
58%
735
4%
763
8%
858
22%
773
9%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.2
2.56
39%
3.31
21%
4.17
1%
3.21
24%
2.78
34%
2.19
48%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
17.8
4.89
73%
5.74
68%
7.22
59%
5.54
69%
5.96
67%
4.4
75%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.09
1.71
58%
2.73
33%
2.36
42%
0.91
78%
2.27
44%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.8
3.4
-21%
2.9
-4%
2.5
11%
3.6
-29%
3.58
-28%
2.2
21%
Gamma
2.2 100%
2.3 96%
2.29 96%
2.274 97%
2.27 97%
2.46 89%
2.41 91%
CCT
6925 94%
6435 101%
6765 96%
6885 94%
6503 100%
7186 90%
6405 101%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
38.4
60.7
58%
59.7
55%
57
48%
59
54%
62
61%
59
54%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
60.4
94.6
57%
91.8
52%
87
44%
92
52%
96
59%
91
51%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
43% / 35%
54% / 40%
13% / 18%
36% / 27%
36% / 32%
53% / 37%

* ... smaller is better

Color space is limited to just 60 percent of sRGB to suggest a budget panel. Most mid-range to flagship Ultrabooks, for example, have >90 percent sRGB coverage for deeper and potentially more accurate colors including Asus' own ZenBook series. The AU Optronics panels on the Zephyrus S GX531 and GX501 each have a wider gamut than the Panda panel on this GA502.

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

Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter reveal good grayscale, mediocre colors, and a cool color temperature. Our calibration attempts improve all aspects of the display especially in regard to grayscale. Unfortunately, colors still become increasingly inaccurate when at higher saturation levels due to the limited color space of the panel. Blue in particular is much more inaccurate than the other tested colors. While the average color reproduction doesn't detract from the gaming experience, graphic artists may want to consider the Zephyrus GX531 and GX501 instead where more of sRGB is represented.

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
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17.2 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. » 60 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17.2 ms rise
↘ 16.8 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 25 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.8 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 21280 Hz ≤ 34 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 21280 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 34 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 21280 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9394 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is poor despite the excellent portability, narrow bezels, and long battery life of the GA502. It all comes down to the dim display which is nowhere near bright enough to overcome ambient lighting on a cloudy day or worse. The wide IPS viewing angles help, but this can only go so far. Expect glare, washed out colors, and lots of squinting.

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

Performance

The quad-core AMD Ryzen 7 3750H CPU is designed to be an alternative to the quad-core Coffee Lake Intel 8th gen Core i7-8300H and 9th gen Core i7-9300H. It's manufactured on a smaller node compared to Intel (12 nm vs. 14 nm) and with a lower nominal TDP (35 W vs. 45 W) for improved efficiency on paper. The slightly slower Ryzen 5 3550H is currently not available on the GA502 series but can be found on the Asus TUF series.

The Turing-based GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GPU is a direct replacement of the uncommon Pascal-based GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q. It's one step down from the enthusiast RTX 2060 and it therefore lacks the AI acceleration and dedicated ray-tracing capabilities of the RTX series. Users who want RTX options may want to look at the Zephyrus M or Zephrus S instead.

8 GB to 16 GB of single-channel DDR4 RAM at 1200 MHz is soldered onto the motherboard depending on the SKU. Users can add 16 GB more for a total of 32 GB in dual-channel configuration since there is one free SODIMM slot. Our test unit ships with the base 8 GB of single-channel RAM and so all our benchmarks below reflect this setup.

Nvidia Optimus comes standard for switching to the integrated RX Vega 10. There is no G-Sync option as a result.

Processor

We called the Ryzen 7 3750H an excellent alternative to the Core i5-8300H and Core i5-9300H and this remains true here. CineBench R15 Multi-Thread ranks the AMD processor within 5 percent of both the i5-8300H and i5-9300H as found on the Lenovo Legion Y730 and Acer Nitro 5, respectively. Raw performance is merely 8 percent faster than the lower-end Ryzen 5 3550H which is smaller than we were expecting between the two SKUs. Pricier higher-end gaming laptops equipped with the hexa-core Core i7-8750H or i7-9750H will offer 40 to 50 percent faster CPU performance than our affordable Ryzen.

Single-thread performance is somewhat disappointing as it offers no significant boost over the ULV 15 W Ryzen 5 2500U or Ryzen 7 2700U. The aforementioned i5-8300H or i5-9300H are each about 15 percent faster than the Ryzen 7 3750H in this regard and so most applications will launch a bit faster on an Intel Core i5 system as a result.

Performance sustainability is excellent. When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, results remain consistent throughout the stress test to suggest no major throttling issues.

See our dedicated page on the Ryzen 7 3750H for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R15
CineBench R15
CineBench R20
CineBench R20
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830Tooltip
Asus ROG GA502DU GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø790 (787.28-796.5)
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2 GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø707 (700.72-757)
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø823 (815.58-828.24)
Asus TUF FX505DY Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø725 (718.93-754.96)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
189 Points ∼87% +31%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
Intel Core i7-8565U
180 Points ∼83% +25%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
Intel Core i7-9750H
177 Points ∼81% +23%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Core i5-9300H
176 Points ∼81% +22%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Core i7-8750H
168 Points ∼77% +17%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
Intel Core i5-8300H
166 Points ∼76% +15%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
150 Points ∼69% +4%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
144 Points ∼66%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
142 Points ∼65% -1%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
142 Points ∼65% -1%
CPU Multi 64Bit
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
1721 Points ∼39% +114%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
Intel Core i7-9750H
1182 Points ∼27% +47%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Core i7-8750H
1113 Points ∼25% +38%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
Intel Core i5-8300H
818 Points ∼19% +2%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
805 Points ∼18%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Core i5-9300H
757 Points ∼17% -6%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
742 Points ∼17% -8%
Asus Strix GL703VM-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
710 Points ∼16% -12%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
661 Points ∼15% -18%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
Intel Core i7-8565U
564 Points ∼13% -30%
Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
9042
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
20687
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
4770
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
9.21 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.64 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
49.83 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
805 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
144 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
82.88 fps
Help

System Performance

PCMark benchmarks rank our GA502 slightly lower than where we were expecting it to be: in between Intel Core i5-powered gaming laptops equipped with the GTX 1050 and GTX 1060. Results are very similar to the cheaper Asus TUF FX505DY that's also equipped with a Ryzen H-series CPU.

We experienced no software or hardware issues during our time with the test unit. The system is just a tad slower than the Intel Core i5 when launching or installing applications since the Ryzen H-series has a slower Turbo clock rate.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10
PCMark 10
PCMark 10
Digital Content Creation
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
6690 Points ∼56% +43%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
6596 Points ∼55% +41%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5178 Points ∼43% +11%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4682 Points ∼39%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4528 Points ∼38% -3%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
4134 Points ∼34% -12%
Productivity
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
7434 Points ∼77% +18%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
7310 Points ∼75% +16%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
7177 Points ∼74% +14%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
6446 Points ∼67% +2%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
6305 Points ∼65%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
6097 Points ∼63% -3%
Essentials
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
9042 Points ∼82% +22%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
8819 Points ∼80% +19%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
7949 Points ∼72% +7%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
7567 Points ∼69% +2%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
7424 Points ∼68%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
6449 Points ∼59% -13%
Score
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
5492 Points ∼71% +27%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
5092 Points ∼66% +18%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4973 Points ∼64% +15%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4405 Points ∼57% +2%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4322 Points ∼56%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
3912 Points ∼50% -9%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
5289 Points ∼81% +7%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
5270 Points ∼81% +6%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
5223 Points ∼80% +5%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
5111 Points ∼78% +3%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4956 Points ∼76%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4560 Points ∼75% +25%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
4119 Points ∼68% +13%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
3979 Points ∼65% +9%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
3927 Points ∼64% +8%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
3642 Points ∼60%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3642 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4956 points
Help

Storage Devices

Two internal storage options are available as M.2 2280 PCIe x2 slots. While PCIe x4 SSDs are supported, they may not be able to perform at their full potential due to the halved lanes. It's an understandable cut corner for a budget-midrange gaming laptop.

Our test unit comes equipped with a 512 GB Intel SSD 660p PCIe x4 NVMe SSD which advertises sequential read and write rates of up to 1500 MB/s and 1000 MB/s, respectively. We're able to reach close to these theoretical numbers with CrystalDiskMark while results are slightly slower on AS SSD. Asus ships this same SSD with its Zephyrus S GX531 series as well. The pricier Samsung PM981 series is able to outperform our budget Intel SSD by over two times.

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

CDM 5.5
CDM 5.5
AS SSD
AS SSD
Empty secondary M.2 2280 slot sits adjacent to the free DDR4 SODIMM slot
Empty secondary M.2 2280 slot sits adjacent to the free DDR4 SODIMM slot
Asus ROG GA502DU
Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GX
Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
Lenovo Legion Y740-15ICHg
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
Gigabyte Aero 15 Classic-XA
Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW512G8
AS SSD
92%
7%
-59%
59%
60%
Copy Game MB/s
818.54
1200.14
47%
811.76
-1%
419.25
-49%
1164.53
42%
1140.57
39%
Copy Program MB/s
496.94
525.53
6%
702.66
41%
269.19
-46%
478.19
-4%
454.24
-9%
Copy ISO MB/s
905.3
1974.98
118%
1236.22
37%
772.67
-15%
1872.47
107%
2085.95
130%
Score Total
1641
4079
149%
1654
1%
900
-45%
3230
97%
2870
75%
Score Write
927
2010
117%
910
-2%
345
-63%
1752
89%
1141
23%
Score Read
459
1362
197%
492
7%
377
-18%
985
115%
1186
158%
Access Time Write *
0.045
0.033
27%
0.047
-4%
0.058
-29%
0.043
4%
0.065
-44%
Access Time Read *
0.064
0.047
27%
0.073
-14%
0.278
-334%
0.077
-20%
0.042
34%
4K-64 Write
735.67
1717.43
133%
721.96
-2%
237.04
-68%
1500.92
104%
921.88
25%
4K-64 Read
321.47
1125.76
250%
322.05
0%
270.32
-16%
756.72
135%
875.61
172%
4K Write
98.74
110.72
12%
95.65
-3%
67.1
-32%
88.05
-11%
126.51
28%
4K Read
47.26
52.31
11%
45.74
-3%
22.62
-52%
33.2
-30%
59.11
25%
Seq Write
926.26
1822.26
97%
920.07
-1%
404.73
-56%
1629.24
76%
923.81
0%
Seq Read
906.87
1839.67
103%
1238.57
37%
840.77
-7%
1952.51
115%
2516.94
178%

* ... smaller is better

Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1416 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 986.6 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 315.5 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 220.3 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1318 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 986.2 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 55.5 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 132.2 MB/s

GPU Performance

Nvidia Max-Q GPUs will always be slower than their equivalent non-Max-Q alternatives and the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q is no different. GPU performance is about 6 to 10 percent slower than the standard GTX 1660 Ti for laptops and 15 to 21 percent slower than the GTX 1660 Ti for desktops. When compared to the Asus ROG GX531GM with the last generation GTX 1060, the new Turing card is about 18 to 34 percent faster. Running DX12 titles on Turing will generally see a larger boost in performance when compared to running DX11 on a Pascal card. In general, graphics performance sits comfortably between the GTX 1060 and GTX 1070.

For maximum GPU performance, be sure to set the laptop to Turbo Mode through the Armoury Crate system application. Running Fire Strike and Time Spy on Turbo Mode returns Graphics scores of 13355 and 5068 points, respectively, compared to 12621 and 4867 points when on mains. These modes are annoyingly independent of the Windows power profiles.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Time Spy
Time Spy
Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike (Turbo Mode)
Fire Strike (Turbo Mode)
Fire Strike (Balanced Mode)
Fire Strike (Balanced Mode)
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
MSI GE75 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 9880H
9754 Points ∼68% +100%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H
7277 Points ∼51% +50%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
6728 Points ∼47% +38%
Alienware 17 R5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
5689 Points ∼40% +17%
Schenker Compact 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
5408 Points ∼38% +11%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
4867 Points ∼34%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
3626 Points ∼25% -25%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
3433 Points ∼24% -29%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
2536 Points ∼18% -48%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
1789 Points ∼13% -63%
3840x2160 Fire Strike Ultra Graphics
MSI GE75 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 9880H
5674 Points ∼56% +111%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
4124 Points ∼41% +53%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
2687 Points ∼27%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
2553 Points ∼25% -5%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
1822 Points ∼18% -32%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
1388 Points ∼14% -48%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
MSI GE75 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 9880H
24623 Points ∼61% +84%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H
19123 Points ∼47% +43%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
18153 Points ∼45% +36%
Alienware 17 R5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
17792 Points ∼44% +33%
Schenker Compact 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
14193 Points ∼35% +6%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
13355 Points ∼33%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
11332 Points ∼28% -15%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
9235 Points ∼23% -31%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
7791 Points ∼19% -42%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
6331 Points ∼16% -53%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
2977 Points ∼7% -78%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Score
MSI GE75 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 9880H
18947 Points ∼71% +76%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H
16290 Points ∼61% +51%
Alienware 17 R5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
15457 Points ∼58% +43%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
15428 Points ∼58% +43%
Schenker Compact 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
12729 Points ∼48% +18%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
10792 Points ∼40%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
10131 Points ∼38% -6%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
8037 Points ∼30% -26%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
6989 Points ∼26% -35%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
5513 Points ∼21% -49%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
2762 Points ∼10% -74%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
MSI GE75 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 9880H
16523 Points ∼73% +149%
Schenker Compact 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
12916 Points ∼57% +94%
Alienware 17 R5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
11288 Points ∼50% +70%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H
10866 Points ∼48% +64%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
10749 Points ∼48% +62%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
9626 Points ∼43% +45%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
8540 Points ∼38% +29%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
6839 Points ∼30% +3%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
6644 Points ∼29%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
6399 Points ∼28% -4%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
3902 Points ∼17% -41%
1280x720 Performance GPU
MSI GE75 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 9880H
34050 Points ∼67% +98%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H
24267 Points ∼48% +41%
Alienware 17 R5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 8750H
23414 Points ∼46% +36%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
22723 Points ∼45% +32%
Schenker Compact 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
18750 Points ∼37% +9%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
17170 Points ∼34%
Acer Nitro 5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
13004 Points ∼26% -24%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
12620 Points ∼25% -26%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
9466 Points ∼19% -45%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
8220 Points ∼16% -52%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
3593 Points ∼7% -79%
3DMark 06 Standard
24029 points
3DMark Vantage P Result
31845 points
3DMark 11 Performance
12279 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
56479 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
17712 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
10792 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
4547 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Real-world performance is slightly slower than expected. Average frame rates in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, for exampleare about 25 percent slower than our Schenker laptop with standard GTX 1660 Ti graphics compared to only 10 percent as suggested by the synthetic Time Spy results above. Furthermore, running Assassin's Creed Odyssey on Low settings is similar to an old GTX 950M laptop while running the same game on Ultra settings is similar to a GTX 1060 laptop. This suggests a bottleneck related to the CPU and/or 8 GB of single-channel RAM.

Regardless of the above, however, all tested games run well at 1080p with the more demanding games averaging in the 40 FPS range. G-Sync would have been a perfect option in this regard. 1366 x 768 is an unsupported resolution on the system despite updating to the latest drivers and so our benchmark results for this setting are not included below.

See our dedicated page on the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition
Intel Core i7-7740X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)
88 (min: 70, max: 147) fps ∼100% +80%
Alienware m15 P79F
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
84 fps ∼95% +71%
Zotac GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Desktop)
76.7 fps ∼87% +57%
MSI GL73 8SE-010US
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
65 fps ∼74% +33%
Schenker Compact 15
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
65 (min: 43) fps ∼74% +33%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
61 fps ∼69% +24%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
49 fps ∼56%
Acer Nitro 5
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
46 (min: 18) fps ∼52% -6%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
43 fps ∼49% -12%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
31 fps ∼35% -37%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme-20MF000XGE
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
29 fps ∼33% -41%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX250
10 fps ∼11% -80%
01020304050