Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarAsus ZenBook Pro Duo 15 OLED Laptop Review: Perfect for Content Creators?
We are already familiar with the principle of two displays from Asus for a couple of years now and the new ZenBook Pro Duo 15 improves many details. We review the model UX582 LR with a 4K OLED display, Core i7 processor, 32 GB RAM, a 1 TB SSD, and the fast graphics card GeForce RTX 3070. Thanks to the secondary screen, the laptop is obviously very interesting for editing pictures/videos because you can use tools or folders on the lower screen. However, you could also classify it as a mobile workstation if you do not need a professional GPU with certified drivers. Some major manufacturers like HP also started offering their workstations with regular GeForce GPUs in case yo do not need a more expensive Quadro model.
If you do not need the high performance and prefer a more compact laptop with a secondary screen instead, you should have a look at the 14-inch ZenBook Duo 14 UX482.
Possible competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85.4 % | 06/2021 | Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 i7-10870H, GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU | 2.4 kg | 21.5 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 90.6 % | 03/2021 | HP ZBook Studio G7 i9-10885H, Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q | 2 kg | 18 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 90.2 % | 01/2021 | HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 W-10885M, Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q | 2.4 kg | 25.9 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 85.6 % | 03/2021 | Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC i7-10870H, GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU | 2.2 kg | 20 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
| 85.4 % | 04/2021 | Alienware m15 R4 i9-10980HK, GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU | 2.3 kg | 20 mm | 15.60" | 1920x1080 |
Case - Asus implements an additional hinge
Looking at it from the outside, the new model of the ZenBook Pro Duo has not changed lot. The design with the angles, colors and materials is pretty much identical to the predecessor. We like the look of the laptop and it also appears to be thinner than it really is thanks to the tapered base unit. The lid with the characteristic concentric circles is once again very prone to fingerprints.
Top 10 Laptops
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks
under 300 USD/Euros, under 500 USD/Euros, 1,000 USD/Euros, for University Students, Best Displays
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤6-inch, Camera Smartphones
The biggest new feature is the additional hinge mechanism for the secondary display, so it is now slightly tilted towards the user. This happen automatically; at a certain opening angle of the lid (around 70 degrees), the secondary display is slightly raised (9.5 degrees). The mechanism looks a bit fragile on pictures, but it turns out to be very solid and sturdy. The overall stability of the chassis is very good in general and there are no creaking noises.
The position of the fan opening changed a bit. There are still two large openings at the sides, but instead of the upper edge of the secondary screen, there are now fan exhausts at the rear of the base unit itself. A maintenance hatch is not included, but the bottom panel can be removed quite easily (more on that later).
Compared to the old model, the chassis dimensions changed slightly; the new UX582 is a bit deeper, but also a bit thinner in return. Its weight of 2.4 kg is comparable to full-fledged workstations like the HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 or the gaming laptop Alienware m15 R4, but the footprint is comparatively compact.
Connectivity - Asus with 2x Thunderbolt 3
All the ports are distributed across the sides, but there is not that much space due to the large fan exhausts. Compared to the old model, Asus removed the regular USB-A port on the left and added a second USB-C connector on the right side. This means all the USB ports are on the right side and the position is not ideal, either. All in all, there are not that many ports considering the size of the chassis. Charging via USB-C is not supported and the repeated lack of a card reader surprises us (the smaller ZenBook Duo 14 has a card reader).
Communication
Asus replaced the Intel AX200 module from the previous model with the newer AX201 module and it is now soldered to the mainboard, so it is no longer replaceable. The transfer rates in our standardized test with the router Netgear Nighthawk RAX 120 are very good and we did not notice any connection issues, neither with the router from Netgear, nor the Fritz!Box 7590.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Average Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201 (49.8 - 1775, n=270) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average of class Multimedia (52 - 1563, n=80, last 2 years) | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201 (136 - 1743, n=270) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (119 - 1548, n=80, last 2 years) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
Webcam
Maintenance
The bottom panel is secured by multiple Philips screws, but the three screws in the center are covered with a small glued pad. There is not much to do once you are inside, because almost all components (including RAM) are soldered onto the mainboard and you can only clean the fan or replace the M.2-SSD.
Input Devices - ZenBook with 1,4 mm key travel
In addition to the touchscreens, you can obviously also use the keyboard and the touchpad for inputs, and they are identical to the predecessor. The typing experience is very comfortable and the key travel is not too shallow at 1.4 mm. The keyboard is illuminated and easy to use in darker environments. Due to the lack of a palm rest, you will need more space on the desk to type comfortable. This might be an issue when room is limited (on the train, for example), but the ZenBook Pro Duo 15 is not the most portable device in the first place.
The touchpad on the right side is easy to use and inputs are executed reliably, but it is very narrow, so you have to lift and reposition your fingers quite often. You can also use the touchpad as a numpad.
Display - 4K OLED Touchscreen from Samsung
The 4K touchscreen is once again provided by Samsung, but the panel ID has changed. As per usual for OLEDs, we can detect PWM at 60 Hz when the brightness is at 81% or lower. If you have problems with PWM flickering (probably also on smartphones) you have to expect limitations.
The subjective picture quality is very good thanks to the excellent contrast ratio and images look very crisp. The fast response times are another advantage of the OLED screen and there is no backlight bleeding, either.
Asus implements a tool called OLED Care with several to ensure that static images are not shown to long and do not burn in into display. In addition to shifting pixels, it can also automatically fade out the Windows task bar.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 345 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.3 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.5, calibrated: 2.6
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.64-98 Ø5.7
100% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
89.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
99.65% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.91% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.01
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 SDC4143, OLED + IPS, 3840x2160, 15.60 | HP ZBook Studio G7 LGD0661, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.60 | HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 LG Philips LGD0661, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC SDCA029, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Alienware m15 R4 LG Philips LGD066E, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60 | Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV Samsung SDCA029, OLED, 3840x2160, 15.60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -5% | -6% | -0% | -20% | -29% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 99.91 | 98.21 -2% | 95.55 -4% | 99.92 0% | 69.38 -31% | 63.52 -36% |
| sRGB Coverage | 100 | 99.92 0% | 99.79 0% | 100 0% | 99 -1% | 81.03 -19% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 99.65 | 86.51 -13% | 84.47 -15% | 98.53 -1% | 70.5 -29% | 67.3 -32% |
| Response Times | -1859% | -1817% | 109% | -263% | 101% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 2.4 ? | 56.4 ? -2250% | 56 ? -2233% | 2.4 ? -0% | 7.4 ? -208% | 2.2 ? 8% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 2.4 ? | 37.6 ? -1467% | 36 ? -1400% | 1.8 ? 25% | 10 ? -317% | 2.6 ? -8% |
| PWM Frequency | 59.52 ? | 240 ? 303% | 240.4 ? 304% | |||
| Screen | 46% | 8% | 16% | 12% | -16% | |
| Brightness middle | 345 | 723 110% | 672.8 95% | 442 28% | 333 -3% | 359.7 4% |
| Brightness | 332 | 707 113% | 674 103% | 452 36% | 303 -9% | 366 10% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 92 6% | 89 2% | 95 9% | 86 -1% | 94 8% |
| Black Level * | 0.35 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.29 | ||
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 3.3 | 1.4 58% | 3.48 -5% | 2.69 18% | 1.8 45% | 5.14 -56% |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 7.2 | 2.9 60% | 9.44 -31% | 8.27 -15% | 4.49 38% | 7.77 -8% |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated * | 2.6 | 0.5 81% | 3.03 -17% | 2.59 -0% | 1.13 57% | |
| Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 2 | 2 -0% | 3.1 -55% | 0.9 55% | 1.9 5% | 2.7 -35% |
| Gamma | 2.01 109% | 2.14 103% | 2.04 108% | 2.172 101% | 2.265 97% | 2 110% |
| CCT | 6566 99% | 6484 100% | 6380 102% | 6434 101% | 6840 95% | 6220 105% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 89.2 | 77.3 -13% | 75.2 -16% | 99 11% | 71 -20% | 61.8 -31% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 100 | 99.9 0% | 100 0% | 100 0% | 93 -7% | 81.3 -19% |
| Contrast | 2066 | 1346 | 8840 | 1148 | ||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -606% /
-237% | -605% /
-255% | 42% /
31% | -90% /
-34% | 19% /
6% |
* ... smaller is better
Asus advertises a brightness of 440 cd/m², but our test unit only manages a maximum brightness of 348 cd/m². The picture impression is still very good, which is mainly a result of the extremely high contrast ratio since the black value is 0. The brightness is not reduced on battery power if you disable the adaptive brightness in Intel’s graphics drivers.
The calibration out of the box is not bad and there is no color cast, but some colors deviate from the target value (<3), and we cannot completely correct this with our own calibration (CalMAN & X-Rite i1 Pro 2), either. This means the panel is not perfect for picture or video editing, even though the P3 color space is covered completely. We would have also liked to see an additional color profile if you want to edit sRGB images. Mobile workstations with 4K panels usually have an advantage in this respect.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (23.8 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (37.7 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 59.52 Hz | ≤ 81 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 59.52 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 81 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 59.52 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17043 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured. | |||
The OLED touchscreen is very glossy, and you should avoid reflections from light sources or bright surfaces both indoors and outdoors. You can still see the display contents pretty comfortably on bright days thanks to the high contrast ratio. The viewing angle stability is very good, but we can once again notice color shifts from extreme angles, which are typical for OLED panels. However, we do not think this will be an issue in practice.
ScreenPad Plus - Matte IPS Touchscreen
Asus calls the additional display ScreenPad Plus. The horizontal resolution is, similar to the main display, 3840 pixels, but only 1100 pixels vertically. It is an IPS screen, but the subjective picture quality is noticeably worse compared to the OLED screen. This is mainly caused by the thick matte layer, which results in a very grainy picture. It is fine for tool bars, Windows folders or checking mails, but the panel is hardly suited for media playback.
If you can really utilize the additional display obviously depends on your usage scenarios, but Asus certainly did a good job in terms of implementation. You can move folders or apps manually to the lower screen, but there is also a button above the touchpad where you can comfortable switch the active window between the screens. There is another button to quickly activate/deactivate the ScreenPad.
There is a tool bar at the left side of the ScreenPad with settings for the brightness and additional apps like a numeric keypad, hand-writing recognition (including pen support) or Spotify, for example.
Performance - ZenBook Pro Duo with additional Performance mode Leistungsmodus
The ZenBook Pro Duo offers two different performance settings, which can be selected via Asus app or comfortably with a button on the keyboard. The Asus app also includes a diagram that illustrates the differences, but we noticed that the graphics performance is also affected.
We performed all the following measurements and benchmarks with the performance mode, but we will also have a look at the differences in some sections. We included the TDP values for the components in the following table.
| Standard | Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| CPU | 80/46 Watts | 107/70 Watts |
| GPU | 85 Watts | 110 Watts |
| combined load | 40W CPU & 80W GPU | 68W CPU & 90W GPU |
Processor - Core i7-10870H
The processor is a fats Core i7-10870H from Intel (Comet lake) with 8 cores and a maximum clock of 5 GHz for one core or up to 4.2 GHz for eight active cores, respectively. Please see our tech section for more information on this particular CPU. The performance utilization is very good thanks to the increased TDP limits, and the i7 can even keep up with the Core i9 models from the competition.
The analysis of the CPU data during the Cinebench R15 Multi loop illustrates that the TDP values stabilize at the intended values (70 or 46W) after a short while and are sometimes even higher. This is a great result and you can just use the standard mode in everyday situations because the performance is not that much lower. We notice a performance deficit of roughly 20% on battery power (TDP is limited to 49W in both performance modes).
Cinebench R20: CPU (Single Core) | CPU (Multi Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Single 64Bit | CPU Multi 64Bit
Blender 2.79: BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 -mmt1 | 7z b 4
Geekbench 5.3: 64 Bit Single-Core Score | 64 Bit Multi-Core Score
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
| Cinebench R23 / CPU (Single Core) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (980 - 1556, n=48, last 2 years) | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (1177 - 1253, n=12) | |
| Cinebench R23 / CPU (Multi Core) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (8250 - 10450, n=12) | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (2725 - 13205, n=54, last 2 years) | |
| Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core) | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (311 - 601, n=93, last 2 years) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (460 - 484, n=12) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core) | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (3027 - 4020, n=12) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average of class Multimedia (727 - 5128, n=93, last 2 years) | |
| Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (196 - 204, n=11) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (126 - 240, n=91, last 2 years) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (1336 - 1740, n=14) | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (334 - 2154, n=104, last 2 years) | |
| Blender 2.79 / BMW27 CPU | |
| Average of class Multimedia (233 - 1439, n=80, last 2 years) | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (272 - 333, n=12) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| 7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (5145 - 5429, n=12) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (3406 - 5777, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| 7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (39581 - 46708, n=12) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (8984 - 59653, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Geekbench 5.3 / 64 Bit Single-Core Score | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (813 - 1645, n=76, last 2 years) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (1191 - 1295, n=12) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Geekbench 5.3 / 64 Bit Multi-Core Score | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (6403 - 7882, n=12) | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (1604 - 9050, n=76, last 2 years) | |
| HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (10.7 - 13.5, n=12) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (1.39 - 15.9, n=77, last 2 years) | |
| LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (16.5 - 99.2, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (46 - 64.4, n=12) | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean | |
| Average of class Multimedia (0.4998 - 1.002, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-10870H (0.573 - 0.614, n=12) | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
* ... smaller is better
System Performance
As expected, the system performance of the ZenBook Pro Duo is very high and it is just a very responsive device, which is confirmed by the high scores in the synthetic benchmark tests.
| PCMark 10 Score | 5660 points | |
Help | ||
DPC Latency
Our standardized latency test (web browsing, 4K video, CPU load) shows no limitations for test device, which means it has an advantage over the other competitors. We only noticed a couple of dropped frames during the playback of a 4K YouTube video (10 out of 3683).
| DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
* ... smaller is better
Storage Devices
The M.2-2280-SSD is attached via PCIe-3.0 x4 and not the latest (and faster) PCIe 4.0 interface. Our test unit is equipped with a 1 TB (890 GB usable space) NVMe-SSD from Samsung (PM981a) that manages good transfer rates and there is no reason to change the drive. More SSD benchmarks are available here.
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 Samsung PM981a MZVLB1T0HBLR | HP ZBook Studio G7 Micron 2300 1TB MTFDHBA1T0TDV | HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 Samsung PM981a MZVLB1T0HBLR | Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC WDC PC SN730 SDBPNTY-1T00 | Alienware m15 R4 Micron 2300 1TB MTFDHBA1T0TDV | Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | Average Samsung PM981a MZVLB1T0HBLR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 18% | 34% | 35% | 41% | 9% | 32% | |
| Write 4K | 102.85 | 95.54 -7% | 114.1 11% | 126.04 23% | 93.68 -9% | 104 1% | 140 ? 36% |
| Read 4K | 51.89 | 48.99 -6% | 57.18 10% | 44.94 -13% | 48.1 -7% | 41.12 -21% | 49.9 ? -4% |
| Write Seq | 1625.29 | 2001.28 23% | 2580 59% | 2763.28 70% | 2785 71% | 1898 17% | 2011 ? 24% |
| Read Seq | 1719.75 | 1600.15 -7% | 2527 47% | 1671.41 -3% | 2598 51% | 1618 -6% | 1999 ? 16% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 313.35 | 410.24 31% | 480.2 53% | 451.63 44% | 481.9 54% | 408.7 30% | 462 ? 47% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 329.41 | 394.7 20% | 387.6 18% | 551.91 68% | 520.9 58% | 358.5 9% | 497 ? 51% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 1603.6 | 3147.8 96% | 2996 87% | 3059.7 91% | 3362 110% | 2397 49% | 2900 ? 81% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 3321 | 3226.8 -3% | 2853 -14% | 3191.5 -4% | 3200 -4% | 3158 -5% | 3477 ? 5% |
| AS SSD | -16% | -10% | 16% | 2% | -12% | 13% | |
| Seq Read | 1938 | 2548 31% | 2127.46 10% | 2331 20% | 2658.01 37% | 1408.99 -27% | 2529 ? 30% |
| Seq Write | 1248 | 1312 5% | 1295.71 4% | 2312 85% | 2768.84 122% | 1316.23 5% | 2051 ? 64% |
| 4K Read | 47.35 | 45.38 -4% | 54.84 16% | 39.13 -17% | 46.07 -3% | 44.99 -5% | 53.2 ? 12% |
| 4K Write | 93.7 | 83.04 -11% | 110.83 18% | 98.12 5% | 87.16 -7% | 93.04 -1% | 131 ? 40% |
| 4K-64 Read | 1059.8 | 934.65 -12% | 1419.72 34% | 1662.54 57% | 1372.43 29% | 1092.42 3% | 1458 ? 38% |
| 4K-64 Write | 1932.35 | 2314.13 20% | 2012.49 4% | 2138.19 11% | 1247.32 -35% | 1809.77 -6% | 1797 ? -7% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.061 | 0.057 7% | 0.046 25% | 0.099 -62% | 0.052 15% | 0.041 33% | 0.0491 ? 20% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.04 | 0.098 -145% | 0.099 -148% | 0.038 5% | 0.098 -145% | 0.118 -195% | 0.0431 ? -8% |
| Score Read | 1301 | 1235 -5% | 1687 30% | 1935 49% | 1684 29% | 1278 -2% | 1764 ? 36% |
| Score Write | 2151 | 2528 18% | 2253 5% | 2468 15% | 1611 -25% | 2034 -5% | 2133 ? -1% |
| Score Total | 4092 | 4342 6% | 4770 17% | 5388 32% | 4166 2% | 3970 -3% | 4782 ? 17% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 2840.81 | 3141.98 11% | 2779.26 -2% | 2903 2% | 2111.62 -26% | 2090 ? -26% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 613.22 | 126.06 -79% | 123.31 -80% | 686 12% | 874.26 43% | 508 ? -17% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 1390.76 | 477.36 -66% | 440.8 -68% | 1594 15% | 1676.98 21% | 1141 ? -18% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 1% /
-4% | 12% /
6% | 26% /
23% | 22% /
18% | -2% /
-4% | 23% /
20% |
* ... smaller is better
Disk Throttling: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8
GPU Performance - RTX 3070 with 110W Dynamic Boost
Simple workloads are handled by the efficient UHD Graphics of the processor, but the dedicated Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 will automatically take over when you need more power. The standard mode has a TGP of 85W and 110W (up to 1463 MHz) in performance mode. The graphics performance of the previous model with the RTX 2060 is easily surpassed (+40-60% depending on the test) and the performance is stable during longer workloads. Running on battery will limit the TGP to 55W, so the graphics performance drops by around 50%.
The RTX 3070 also performs well in professional benchmarks. Quadro GPUs with special drivers still have advantages in some areas, but the RTX 3070 can even beat the Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q of the HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 in some scenarios.
| Standard | Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| TGP | 85 Watts | 110 Watts |
| GPU clock | up to 1155 MHz | up to 1463 MHz |
| Time Spy GPU | 7518 points | 9060 points |
| Time Spy Stress Test | 96.3% | 98.4% |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (20039 - 38275, n=32) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (1365 - 31866, n=83, last 2 years) | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (16628 - 29128, n=31) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (920 - 23674, n=91, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (6059 - 11019, n=32) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (300 - 9323, n=80, last 2 years) | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 25359 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 18568 points | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 8963 points | |
Help | ||
Gaming Performance
The ZenBook Pro Duo 15 with the RTX 3070 and the fast OLED screen is also a great choice for gaming. Many titles can be played at the maximum settings in the native 4K resolution, only very demanding titles will require reduced details or resolutions. The performance will drop a bit if you do not use the Performance Mode, but the fan noise will be a bit quieter in return. As you can see in the chart below, the gaming performance is stable in both performance modes.
| Cyberpunk 2077 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU (52.9 - 84.3, n=8) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (50 - 70.5, n=11) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU (48.9 - 58, n=6) | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (4.1 - 61.8, n=6, last 2 years) | |
| Dota 2 Reborn | |
| 1920x1080 ultra (3/3) best looking | |
| Alienware m15 R4 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU (103 - 156, n=33) | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (103 - 140, n=33) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU (90.7 - 144, n=20) | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (13.4 - 144, n=83, last 2 years) | |
| 3840x2160 ultra (3/3) best looking | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU (99.9 - 128, n=7) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (79.3 - 114, n=8) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| HP ZBook Fury 15 G7 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU (91.4 - 94.9, n=2) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| HP ZBook Studio G7 | |
| Average of class Multimedia (20.1 - 102, n=19, last 2 years) | |
| Strange Brigade | |
| 1920x1080 ultra AA:ultra AF:16 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU (151 - 219, n=25) | |
| Gigabyte Aero 15 OLED XC | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (105 - 194, n=24) | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX582 LR-1BH2 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop GPU (113 - 144, n=16) | |
| Average of class Multimedia (7 - 161, n=22, last 2 years) | |
| 3840x2160 ultra AA:ultra AF:16 | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Laptop GPU (72.1 - 91.7, n=6) | |