Notebookcheck

Asus ZenBook 15 UX534F Laptop Review: Look Like an Ultrabook, Play Like a Gamer

Ultrabook-gaming hybrid. The Zenbook 15 is one of the very few laptops equipped with an Intel U-series CPU and a GTX 1650 Max-Q GPU for an impressive level of gaming performance relative to the compact chassis size. It strikes an excellent balance between the portability and long runtimes of a traditional Ultrabook while offering enough GPU power to play the latest games at 1080p. ScreenPad 2.0 looks crisper and feels smoother than before, but its associated price premium remains a tough sell.

The Asus ZenBook 15 UX534 is nearly the same as the ZenBook 15 UX533 in chassis design, ports, and even CPU options. The main differences are the GPU update (GTX 1050 Max-Q to GTX 1650 Max-Q) and the ScreenPad 2.0 integration in contrast to the standard clickpad on last year's model. ScreenPad 2.0 is a touchscreen from Asus that replaces the traditional clickpad to offer a dual screen experience on laptops. Models currently shipping with a ScreenPad include the Asus VivoBook S15, ZenBook Pro Duo, and ZenBook Pro 15 UX580. The smaller 14-inch ZenBook 14 UX434 and 13.3-inch ZenBook 13 UX334 are also available with many of the same features as the ZenBook 15 UX534.

We recommend checking out our existing review on the ZenBook 15 UX533 since the UX534 is nearly identical. For this review, we will be looking for any performance differences between the two models and how the ScreenPad impacts battery life.

The ZenBook 15 UX534 can be found on Xotic PC for $1400 or $200 more than the ZenBook 15 UX533 with no ScreenPad 2.0.

More Asus reviews:

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 (ZenBook 15 UX534 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q - 4096 MB, Core: 1020 MHz, Memory: 1751 MHz, GDDR5, 436.30, Optimus
Memory
16384 MB 
, 1200 MHz, 16-20-20-45
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, BOE NV156FHM-N63, IPS, BOE07D8, glossy: yes
Mainboard
Intel Cannon Lake-U PCH-LP Premium
Storage
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR, 1024 GB 
Soundcard
Intel Cannon Lake-LP - cAVS
Connections
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 2 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo, Card Reader: SD reader
Networking
Intel Wireless-AC 9560 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 18.9 x 354 x 220 ( = 0.74 x 13.94 x 8.66 in)
Battery
71 Wh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, My Asus, ICEPower, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
1.65 kg ( = 58.2 oz / 3.64 pounds), Power Supply: 418 g ( = 14.74 oz / 0.92 pounds)
Price
1400 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case - Classic ZenBook Look and Feel

All our chassis comments on the ZenBook 15 UX533 apply here on the ZenBook 15 UX534 since they are nearly identical. Keep in mind that the UX534 is actually slightly thicker (18.9 mm vs 18 mm) and heavier (1.7 kg vs. 1.6 kg) than the UX533 likely due to the integration of the ScreenPad, but everything else from the iconic spun-metal finish of the outer lid, metal chassis design, gold trims, and overall rigidity are the same between them.

MIL-STD 810G certified chassis exhibits only slight creaking and twisting
MIL-STD 810G certified chassis exhibits only slight creaking and twisting
Same brushed aluminum blue outer lid that has defined the ZenBook series
Same brushed aluminum blue outer lid that has defined the ZenBook series
When closed, the ErgoLift hinges are flat along the rear. Their curved nature omits any ports along the rear
When closed, the ErgoLift hinges are flat along the rear. Their curved nature omits any ports along the rear
When opened, the base rises by 3 degrees. Maximum display angle is only 145 degrees
When opened, the base rises by 3 degrees. Maximum display angle is only 145 degrees
The UX534 is actually thicker than the UX533 by about 1 mm and heavier by about 100 g
The UX534 is actually thicker than the UX533 by about 1 mm and heavier by about 100 g
The "chin" bezel appears narrower than most other laptops because Asus hides most of it behind the base
The "chin" bezel appears narrower than most other laptops because Asus hides most of it behind the base
359 mm / 14.1 inch 246 mm / 9.69 inch 24 mm / 0.945 inch 2.5 kg5.51 lbs361 mm / 14.2 inch 250 mm / 9.84 inch 19.3 mm / 0.76 inch 2.2 kg4.81 lbs360 mm / 14.2 inch 249 mm / 9.8 inch 17.2 mm / 0.677 inch 1.9 kg4.17 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 19.9 mm / 0.783 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs357 mm / 14.1 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 17 mm / 0.669 inch 2 kg4.41 lbs354 mm / 13.9 inch 220 mm / 8.66 inch 18.9 mm / 0.744 inch 1.7 kg3.64 lbs354 mm / 13.9 inch 220 mm / 8.66 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.6 kg3.53 lbs

Connectivity - Nope, Still no Thunderbolt 3

Port options remain identical to the ZenBook 15 UX533 and even the Dell XPS 15 7590. In Asus' case, however, its card reader is slower than the one on the Dell and its USB Type-C port does not support Thunderbolt 3 in contrast to the Dell or HP Spectre x360 15.

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Right: SD reader, USB Type-C 3.1 Gen. 2, USB Type-A 3.1 Gen. 2, HDMI, AC adapter
Right: SD reader, USB Type-C 3.1 Gen. 2, USB Type-A 3.1 Gen. 2, HDMI, AC adapter
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Left: USB 3.1 Type-A Gen. 1
Left: USB 3.1 Type-A Gen. 1

SD Card Reader

Fully inserted SD card
Fully inserted SD card

We appreciate the full-size SD card reader as this is a multimedia machine after all. Keep in mind that a fully inserted SD card will still protrude by over half its length to be unsafe when transporting. We would have preferred a full insertion instead.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
172.4 MB/s ∼100% +149%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB)
149.3 MB/s ∼87% +116%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
69.2 MB/s ∼40%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB)
193.8 MB/s ∼100% +136%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
192.1 MB/s ∼99% +134%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
82.2 MB/s ∼42%

Communication

The Intel 9560 comes standard for Wi-Fi 5 and Bluetooth 5 connectivity. The module is soldered and so Wi-Fi 6 options will be unlikely at least until the next iteration of the ZenBook 15 series.

Non-removable WLAN module on the rear of the system
Non-removable WLAN module on the rear of the system
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
696 MBit/s ∼100%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Killer Wi-Fi 6 AX1650x Wireless Network Adapter (200NGW)
674 MBit/s ∼97% -3%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
649 MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter
616 MBit/s ∼89% -11%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
596 (min: 521, max: 646) MBit/s ∼86% -14%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
659 MBit/s ∼100% +6%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter
650 MBit/s ∼99% +5%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Killer Wi-Fi 6 AX1650x Wireless Network Adapter (200NGW)
644 MBit/s ∼98% +4%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
633 (min: 482, max: 722) MBit/s ∼96% +2%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
621 MBit/s ∼94%

Maintenance

The bottom panel requires a T5 Torx wrench and it is sharp around the edges to deter tinkerers. Once inside, there is not much to upgrade aside from the single M.2 2280 slot and battery. RAM is soldered since the system utilizes LPDDR3.

Accessories and Warranty

Asus throws in a USB Type-A to RJ-45 adapter and a faux leather carrying case in each box. The standard one-year limited warranty applies.

Input Devices

Keyboard

The keyboard remains identical to the ZenBook 15 UX534.

Touchpad

The ScreenPad surface area is larger (13 x 6.7 cm) than the clickpad on the UX533. The matte surface feels just a regular clickpad for smooth and reliable cursor control, but this has its drawbacks in terms of pixel clarity that we will show in the next section. There is almost no sticking when gliding at slow speeds which can make accurate clicking or drag and dropping more difficult.

Applying pressure on the ScreenPad surface will activate the integrated mouse keys. Feedback is on the soft side even though the auditory click is somewhat loud. An external mouse is going to be a lot more comfortable in this regard.

Same keyboard layout as on the UX533
Same keyboard layout as on the UX533
Four-finger multi-touch matte ScreenPad 2.0 replaces the traditional clickpad of the UX533
Four-finger multi-touch matte ScreenPad 2.0 replaces the traditional clickpad of the UX533
Gold font contrasts well with the blue colors unlike on the silver, white, or gray HP EliteBook or Dell XPS series
Gold font contrasts well with the blue colors unlike on the silver, white, or gray HP EliteBook or Dell XPS series
Small NumPad and Arrow keys feel cramped
Small NumPad and Arrow keys feel cramped

Display - Narrow Bezels on all Four Sides

The ZenBook 15 UX534 utilizes the same BOE NV156FHM-N63 IPS panel and BOE07D8 controller as on the ZenBook 15 UX533. Thus, both models share similar response times, brightness levels, contrast ratios, and color spaces. Images appear sharp on the glossy screen even if response times are not as smooth as the 120 Hz or 144 Hz panels on Asus' ROG laptops. Users who want even deeper colors should consider the ZenBook Pro 15 or ZenBook Pro Duo which promise full AdobeRGB coverage.

Our test unit suffers from light-moderate uneven backlight bleeding along the top corners of the screen as shown by the image below. It's noticeable during video playback with black borders, but it's thankfully not severe enough to be distracting.

Don't let the edge-to-edge glass fool you - the glossy display is not a touchscreen
Don't let the edge-to-edge glass fool you - the glossy display is not a touchscreen
Narrow bezels on all four sides of the display
Narrow bezels on all four sides of the display
Moderate uneven backlight bleeding along top corners
Moderate uneven backlight bleeding along top corners
Crisp subpixel array
Crisp subpixel array
291.7
cd/m²
306.4
cd/m²
303.4
cd/m²
276.1
cd/m²
312.6
cd/m²
286.7
cd/m²
266.3
cd/m²
298.4
cd/m²
271.2
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
BOE NV156FHM-N63
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 312.6 cd/m² Average: 290.3 cd/m² Minimum: 16.68 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 312.6 cd/m²
Contrast: 1008:1 (Black: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.78 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 3.78
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
87.4% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 57.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.21
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
BOE NV156FHM-N63, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Samsung 156WR04, SDCA029, OLED, 15.6, 3840x2160
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
AU Optronics AUO30EB, IPS, 15.6, 3840x2160
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
BOE HF NV156QUM-N51, IPS, 15.6, 3840x2160
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
BOE NV156FHM-N4K, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
APPA040, IPS, 15.4, 2880x1800
Response Times
94%
-16%
21%
69%
1%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
41.2 (22, 19.2)
2.3 (1.1, 1.2)
94%
57 (26, 31)
-38%
34 (16, 18)
17%
13.6 (7.2, 6.4)
67%
43.2 (20.4, 22.8)
-5%
Response Time Black / White *
33.2 (19.6, 13.6)
2.4 (1.1, 1.3)
93%
31 (16, 15)
7%
25 (14, 11)
25%
10 (6, 4)
70%
31.2 (16.4, 14.8)
6%
PWM Frequency
59.52 (100)
961 (90)
200 (99)
117000 (75, 150)
Screen
19%
11%
5%
12%
47%
Brightness middle
312.6
421.2
35%
330
6%
309
-1%
312.7
0%
520
66%
Brightness
290
417
44%
310
7%
299
3%
305
5%
492
70%
Brightness Distribution
85
94
11%
87
2%
84
-1%
90
6%
88
4%
Black Level *
0.31
0.37
-19%
0.29
6%
0.27
13%
0.39
-26%
Contrast
1008
892
-12%
1066
6%
1158
15%
1333
32%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.78
6.06
-5%
4.03
30%
3.9
33%
4.57
21%
1.2
79%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.86
11.89
-34%
6.74
24%
7.5
15%
6.81
23%
2.3
74%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
3.78
1.96
48%
2.91
23%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.4
2.8
48%
4.49
17%
4.58
15%
4.3
20%
1.3
76%
Gamma
2.21 100%
2.15 102%
2.57 86%
2.43 91%
2.29 96%
2.18 101%
CCT
7864 83%
6235 104%
6744 96%
7344 89%
7098 92%
6738 96%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
57.1
81
42%
61
7%
39
-32%
59.4
4%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
87.4
99.6
14%
94
8%
90
3%
91.3
4%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
57% / 34%
-3% / 7%
13% / 7%
41% / 21%
24% / 38%

* ... smaller is better


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

Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter reveal an overly cool color temperature out of the box. Our calibration attempt improves both grayscale (DeltaE 5.4 to 1.6) and colors noticeably for a more accurate picture as shown by our Calman results below. We recommend applying our calibrated ICM profile above if you don't have the tools to calibrate the display yourself.

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
33.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19.6 ms rise
↘ 13.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 87 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
41.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22 ms rise
↘ 19.2 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. » 54 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (39.6 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9270 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

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

ScreenPad 2.0 - Smoother and Less Grainy than ScreenPad 1.0

The 5.65-inch IPS ScreenPad on this ZenBook appears to be very similar to the ScreenPad as found on the VivoBook S15 S532F. Properties like brightness, contrast ratio, response times, and even gamut are close in value. The biggest drawback to the ScreenPad continues to be its grainy picture and the far physical distance between it and the main screen. Shifting your eyes between the main screen and ScreenPad can be tiring when compared to the Apple Touch Bar or the HP Omen 2S X 15. Nonetheless, the extra screen real estate is invaluable for multi-tasking as any dual monitor desktop PC user would tell you.

One annoying aspect of the ScreenPad is that its brightness setting will reset to 50 percent every time the display is disabled or turned off. Automatically saving the previous brightness setting would avoid this issue.

See our page on the ScreenPad to read more about our thoughts on the technology. 

Maximum Brightness Contrast Ratio Minimum Brightness PWM Black-White Response Time Gray-Gray Response Time sRGB Coverage AdobeRGB Coverage 
 419.8874:1 13.54  No 11.2 ms 14.8 ms89.5 percent 57.6 percent


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
No PWM behavior
No PWM behavior
Gray-gray response times
Gray-gray response times
Black-white response times
Black-white response times
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under shade. The ScreenPad is not meant to be used outdoors
Outdoors under shade. The ScreenPad is not meant to be used outdoors
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Wide IPS viewing angles with only minor contrast changes
Wide IPS viewing angles with only minor contrast changes
vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
Thick matte overlay obscures the pixels for an overall grainy visual experience in contrast to the crisp and glossy main display
Thick matte overlay obscures the pixels for an overall grainy visual experience in contrast to the crisp and glossy main display
There will almost always be some glare present. We recommend setting the brightness to maximum for most conditions
There will almost always be some glare present. We recommend setting the brightness to maximum for most conditions

Performance - The Perfect Pairing of Processors

LatencyMon
LatencyMon

Whereas most other laptops pair Intel Core H-series CPUs with GeForce Max-Q GPUs, the ZenBook 15 uses an Intel Core U-series CPU instead. The smaller ZenBook 14 UX434 and ZenBook 13 UX334 do not have the same GTX 1650 Max-Q options as the UX534 as they are limited to the less demanding GeForce MX250.

LatencyMon shows DPC latency issues even if wireless is disabled.

 

Processor - Slightly Slower than the ZenBook 15 UX533

CPU performance is ever-so-slightly slower than the same Core i7-8565U processor on the ZenBook 15 UX533 after accounting for throttling. When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, the CPU in the UX534 is consistently slower by up to 5 percent. It's not enough to make a tangible difference during day-to-day loads, but it shows how finicky Turbo Boost clock rates can be even within the same laptop family.

See our dedicated page on the Core i7-8565U for more technical information and benchmarks.

CineBench R15
CineBench R15
CineBench R20
CineBench R20
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820Tooltip
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø669 (651.9-718.51)
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T GeForce MX150, 8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø570 (535-723)
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø658 (642.69-661.47)
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø502 (489.9-680.49)
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø704 (683.27-815.1)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
Intel Core i7-8565U
181 Points ∼83%
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
Intel Core i7-9750H
179 Points ∼82% -1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
Intel Core i7-8550U
172 Points ∼79% -5%
Lenovo Ideapad L340-17IRH 81LL001YGE
Intel Core i5-9300H
171 Points ∼78% -6%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U
  (73.1 - 193, n=48)
170 Points ∼78% -6%
Asus VivoBook 14 X412FJ-EB023T
Intel Core i5-8265U
155 Points ∼71% -14%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
150 Points ∼69% -17%
Asus VivoBook 15 X542UF-DM143T
Intel Core i5-8250U
146 Points ∼67% -19%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
144 Points ∼66% -20%
Asus ZenBook Flip 14 UM462DA-AI023T
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
142.24 Points ∼65% -21%
Asus ZenBook UX530UX-FY070T
Intel Core i7-7500U
141 Points ∼65% -22%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
Intel Core i7-9750H
1166 Points ∼27% +71%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
805 Points ∼18% +18%
Asus VivoBook 15 X542UF-DM143T
Intel Core i5-8250U
730 Points ∼17% +7%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
Intel Core i7-8550U
729 Points ∼17% +7%
Lenovo Ideapad L340-17IRH 81LL001YGE
Intel Core i5-9300H
717 Points ∼16% +5%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
Intel Core i7-8565U
683 Points ∼16%
Asus VivoBook 14 X412FJ-EB023T
Intel Core i5-8265U
666 Points ∼15% -2%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
661 Points ∼15% -3%
Asus ZenBook Flip 14 UM462DA-AI023T
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
651.58 Points ∼15% -5%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U
  (361 - 815, n=49)
586 Points ∼13% -14%
Asus ZenBook UX530UX-FY070T
Intel Core i7-7500U
307 Points ∼7% -55%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
181 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
683 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
107.11 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Help

System Performance

PCMark results are where we expect them to be when considering the CPU and GPU. The only other laptop in our database with the same CPU and GPU as our ZenBook is the MSI Prestige 14 and so both systems share similar PCMark data. However, be prepared for a deluge of annoying popups from Asus encouraging you to register for their cloud or app services upon startup.

PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10
Digital Content Creation
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
6880 Points ∼57% +47%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
6110 Points ∼51% +31%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
4884 Points ∼41% +4%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (4680 - 4947, n=3)
4848 Points ∼40% +4%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4680 Points ∼39%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Radeon Pro 560X, 8850H, Apple SSD AP0512
4473 Points ∼37% -4%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG)
4042 Points ∼34% -14%
Productivity
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Radeon Pro 560X, 8850H, Apple SSD AP0512
7569 Points ∼78% +5%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
7494 Points ∼77% +4%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
7485 Points ∼77% +4%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
7201 Points ∼74%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (7175 - 7201, n=3)
7184 Points ∼74% 0%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
6722 Points ∼69% -7%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG)
6678 Points ∼69% -7%
Essentials
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
9701 Points ∼88% +7%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
9524 Points ∼87% +5%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
9067 Points ∼82%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Radeon Pro 560X, 8850H, Apple SSD AP0512
8894 Points ∼81% -2%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (8709 - 9067, n=3)
8852 Points ∼80% -2%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG)
8258 Points ∼75% -9%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
8237 Points ∼75% -9%
Score
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5654 Points ∼73% +17%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
5469 Points ∼70% +13%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (4828 - 4851, n=3)
4842 Points ∼62% 0%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4828 Points ∼62%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Radeon Pro 560X, 8850H, Apple SSD AP0512
4805 Points ∼62% 0%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
4636 Points ∼60% -4%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG)
4347 Points ∼56% -10%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5279 Points ∼81% +3%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (5132 - 5145, n=2)
5139 Points ∼79% 0%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5132 Points ∼79%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
4762 Points ∼73% -7%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Radeon Pro 560X, 8850H, Apple SSD AP0512
4575 Points ∼70% -11%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG)
4382 Points ∼67% -15%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
4316 Points ∼66% -16%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4157 Points ∼68% +10%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
3799 Points ∼62% +1%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
3764 Points ∼62%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (3758 - 3764, n=2)
3761 Points ∼62% 0%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Radeon Pro 560X, 8850H, Apple SSD AP0512
3735 Points ∼61% -1%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG)
3505 Points ∼58% -7%
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
3494 Points ∼57% -7%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3764 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5132 points
Help

Storage Devices - One Slot Only

A single M.2 PCIe x4 2280 slot is available with no secondary options which can make storage expansion costly. The 1 TB Samsung SSD PM981 SSD in our unit is the same one as found on our ZenBook Pro Duo and so both systems share similar AS SSD and CDM results. Expect different drives depending on the retailer or online shop.

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

AS SSD
AS SSD
CDM 5.5
CDM 5.5
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng
Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG)
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
AS SSD
18%
-43%
-25%
7%
-14%
Copy Game MB/s
1287.32
1823.85
42%
700.4
-46%
574.39
-55%
1676.98
30%
1149.77
-11%
Copy Program MB/s
468.05
983.98
110%
328.55
-30%
390
-17%
874.26
87%
513.29
10%
Copy ISO MB/s
1375.25
3182.39
131%
1651.54
20%
1640.9
19%
2111.62
54%
1539.06
12%
Score Total
3483
3638
4%
2684
-23%
1951
-44%
3970
14%
3177
-9%
Score Write
1664
1693
2%
1127
-32%
677
-59%
2034
22%
1450
-13%
Score Read
1210
1294
7%
1071
-11%
884
-27%
1278
6%
1152
-5%
Access Time Write *
0.075
0.039
48%
0.057
24%
0.051
32%
0.118
-57%
0.104
-39%
Access Time Read *
0.034
0.05
-47%
0.147
-332%
0.044
-29%
0.041
-21%
0.063
-85%
4K-64 Write
1374.95
1456.13
6%
956.6
-30%
486.04
-65%
1809.77
32%
1212.2
-12%
4K-64 Read
969.22
1077.98
11%
845.02
-13%
623.05
-36%
1092.42
13%
917.46
-5%
4K Write
146.01
98.3
-33%
92.75
-36%
123.04
-16%
93.04
-36%
105.96
-27%
4K Read
52.32
43.25
-17%
24.62
-53%
44.74
-14%
44.99
-14%
51.32
-2%
Seq Write
1432.22
1386.27
-3%
773.05
-46%
679.56
-53%
1316.23
-8%
1315.15
-8%
Seq Read
1886.9
1723.09
-9%
2017.79
7%
2158.18
14%
1408.99
-25%
1828.99
-3%

* ... smaller is better

Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 3464 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 2393 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 391.4 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 458.6 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 2272 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 1975 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 45.28 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 141.6 MB/s

GPU Performance - Gaming Power in an Ultrabook Form Factor

The GTX 1650 Max-Q is performing where we expect it to be in relation to other laptops equipped with the same GPU. Users can expect almost 20 percent slower performance than the standard non-Max-Q GTX 1650 or almost 50 percent slower performance than the GTX 1660 Ti. Raw performance is actually quite similar to the last generation GTX 1050 Ti while being more power efficient in the process. As always, remember to enable DX12 if possible as Nvidia Turing has been optimized for the DX12 games.

Idling on Witcher 3 shows no sudden frame drops or interrupting background activity. The GPU is powerful enough to play even the latest titles at 1080p30 on Medium to High settings. 60 FPS is possible on lower settings but anything greater will begin to stress the ULV CPU.

See our dedicated page on the GTX 1650 Max-Q for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike Ultra
Time Spy
Time Spy
 
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H
6419 Points ∼44% +126%
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9750H
5913 Points ∼40% +108%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
5335 Points ∼36% +88%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
4708 Points ∼32% +66%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
3626 Points ∼25% +28%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-74G-50U5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
3510 Points ∼24% +24%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
3492 Points ∼24% +23%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (2836 - 3060, n=6)
2953 Points ∼20% +4%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U
2836 Points ∼19%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
2536 Points ∼17% -11%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U
1416 Points ∼10% -50%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
1138 Points ∼8% -60%
Asus VivoBook 15 X512FL-EJ205T
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
1000 Points ∼7% -65%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
862 Points ∼6% -70%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H
16483 Points ∼41% +117%
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9750H
15696 Points ∼39% +107%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
14753 Points ∼36% +94%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
14724 Points ∼36% +94%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
11332 Points ∼28% +49%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-74G-50U5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
9423 Points ∼23% +24%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
9195 Points ∼23% +21%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
7791 Points ∼19% +3%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (6985 - 8128, n=5)
7644 Points ∼19% +1%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U
7593 Points ∼19%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U
5965 Points ∼15% -21%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points ∼10% -46%
Asus VivoBook 15 X512FL-EJ205T
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
3321 Points ∼8% -56%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
2874 Points ∼7% -62%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H
106563 Points ∼58% +128%
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9750H
101481 Points ∼55% +117%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
101453 Points ∼55% +117%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
98452 Points ∼53% +111%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
80615 Points ∼44% +73%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-74G-50U5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
61286 Points ∼33% +31%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
50549 Points ∼27% +8%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
49314 Points ∼27% +6%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U
46686 Points ∼25%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (22113 - 49016, n=5)
38775 Points ∼21% -17%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U
26144 Points ∼14% -44%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
25986 Points ∼14% -44%
Asus VivoBook 15 X512FL-EJ205T
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
20961 Points ∼11% -55%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
18633 Points ∼10% -60%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H
12458 Points ∼55% +45%
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9750H
12260 Points ∼54% +43%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
12069 Points ∼53% +41%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
11707 Points ∼52% +37%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
11416 Points ∼50% +33%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-74G-50U5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
9140 Points ∼40% +7%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U
8563 Points ∼38%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
8540 Points ∼38% 0%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (6547 - 10350, n=6)
8324 Points ∼37% -3%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
6839 Points ∼30% -20%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points ∼20% -48%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U
4446 Points ∼20% -48%
Asus VivoBook 15 X512FL-EJ205T
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
4097 Points ∼18% -52%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
3707 Points ∼16% -57%
1280x720 Performance GPU
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9750H
20765 Points ∼41% +93%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
19329 Points ∼38% +80%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
19187 Points ∼38% +78%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H
18434 Points ∼36% +71%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
13759 Points ∼27% +28%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-74G-50U5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
13138 Points ∼26% +22%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
12620 Points ∼25% +17%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
  (10422 - 11764, n=7)
11095 Points ∼22% +3%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, 8565U
10761 Points ∼21%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
9466 Points ∼19% -12%
Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U
6935 Points ∼14% -36%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points ∼9% -55%
Asus VivoBook 15 X512FL-EJ205T
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
4274 Points ∼8% -60%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
3560 Points ∼7% -67%
3DMark 11 Performance
10217 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
21547 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
6698 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
2949 points
Help
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
83 fps ∼100% +144%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
71 fps ∼86% +109%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
67 fps ∼81% +97%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
61 fps ∼73% +79%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
49 fps ∼59% +44%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop)
44 fps ∼53% +29%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
43 fps ∼52% +26%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
34 fps ∼41% 0%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
34 fps ∼41%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
31 fps ∼37% -9%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
23 (min: 17, max: 39) fps ∼28% -32%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)
23 fps ∼28% -32%
1280x720 Lowest Preset
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop)
132 fps ∼100% +43%
HP Omen 15-dc0015ng
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
130 fps ∼98% +41%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
128 fps ∼97% +39%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
115 fps ∼87% +25%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
114 fps ∼86% +24%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
111 fps ∼84% +21%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
111 fps ∼84% +21%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
92 fps ∼70%
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X)
Intel Core i7-8850H, AMD Radeon Pro 560X
81 (min: 60, max: 147) fps ∼61% -12%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
63 fps ∼48% -32%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
62 fps ∼47% -33%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)
54 fps ∼41% -41%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX250
24 fps ∼18% -74%
0102030405060