Notebookcheck

Asus Zephyrus G14 Ryzen 9 GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q Laptop Review: Kicking Core i9 to the Curb

Faster than the Intel Core i9-9880H. The octa-core Ryzen 9 4900HS would be impressive on any 15.6-inch or 17.3-inch gaming laptop, but to see it work so well in such a small 14-inch form factor is extraordinary. There are, however, one or two caveats preventing it from being the ultimate gaming laptop.

If you ever wanted a gaming laptop and thought 15.6-inch solutions would be too big, then this latest Asus system might be for you. The Zephyrus G14 is one of the very few 14-inch gaming laptops in the market which will definitely help it stand out from the crowded 15.6-inch and 17.3-inch space. Other 14-inch laptops with dedicated GeForce graphics exist, but they have either been discontinued (MSI GS43VR) or are not "true" gaming laptops (MSI Prestige 14, ZenBook 14) in the traditional sense.

Aside from its uncommon screen size for the category, the Zephyrus G14 also carries the distinction of being the first laptop to ship with a next generation 7 nm AMD Renoir H-series CPU. Our particular test unit has been configured with the octa-core Ryzen 9 4900HS designed to compete directly with the octa-core Intel Core i9-9880H or Core i9-9980HK. The CPU comes paired with the new GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q which we didn't expect to come to fruition.

Lesser SKUs with the Ryzen 7 4800HS CPU and GTX 1660 Ti GPU are expected to be made available at a future date and there are even plans for a WQHD (2560 x 1440) display option. Prices will range from $1049 to $1999 USD.

Direct competitors in the 14-inch gaming space are far and few between and so we will instead compare the Zephyrus G14 to upper mid-range and high-end ultrathin gaming laptops like the Razer Blade 15, MSI GS65, Aorus 15, Alienware m15 R2, and other Asus Zephyrus laptops.

A more traditional 15.6-inch Zephyrus G15 will also be coming for fans who want something larger than our 14-inch Zephyrus G14.

More Asus Zephyrus reviews:

Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV (Zephyrus G14 GA401 Series)
Processor
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS 8 x 3 - 4.3 GHz, Renoir (Zen 2)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q - 6144 MB, Core: 975 MHz, Memory: 1375 MHz, GDDR6, 442.59, Optimus
Memory
16384 MB 
, 8 GB soldered + 8 GB DDR4-3200 (1x SODIMM), 22-22-22-52
Display
14 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 157 PPI, CEC PA LM140LF-1F01, IPS, NCP0050, glossy: no, 120 Hz
Mainboard
AMD Promontory/Bixby FCH
Storage
Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8, 1024 GB 
Soundcard
AMD Rave/Renoir - Audio Processor - HD Audio Controller
Connections
4 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 4 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo
Networking
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX200 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 17.9 x 324 x 222 ( = 0.7 x 12.76 x 8.74 in)
Battery
76 Wh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Additional features
Speakers: 2x 2.5 W stereo + 2x 0.7 W tweeters, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, Armoury Crate, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
1.6 kg ( = 56.44 oz / 3.53 pounds), Power Supply: 509 g ( = 17.95 oz / 1.12 pounds)
Price
1900 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Height
Size
Resolution
Best Price
84 %
03/2020
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
R9 4900HS, GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
1.6 kg17.9 mm14"1920x1080
83 %
10/2019
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2 kg18.9 mm15.6"1920x1080
84 %
09/2019
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2.1 kg19.9 mm15.6"1920x1080
84 %
06/2019
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
2 kg18 mm15.6"1920x1080
83 %
09/2019
Alienware m15 R2 P87F
i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
2.2 kg18.3 mm15.6"1920x1080
84 %
02/2020
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
i7-10710U, GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
1.3 kg16 mm14"3840x2160

Case: A Miniature Zephyrus

The visual design is an upgrade from existing Zephyrus laptops while incorporating the ErgoLift hinges from the consumer-centric ZenBook series. The chassis consists mostly of magnesium-aluminum with a smooth but slightly roughened texture that hides fingerprints very well. The perforations on the outer lid define the G14 as these can be illuminated with 1215 individual and customizable white Micro-LEDs. If successful with gamers, we suspect that Asus will expand the series to include RGB Micro-LEDs.

As for rigidity, the base is stronger than even some larger Zephyrus laptops like the Zephyrus GX501 with no twisting or creaking when attempting to bend its corners. The keyboard center yields only slightly with applied pressure and the hinges are satisfactory with no creaking as well. Unfortunately, the outer lid is more flexible than we would like as it bends more easily than the displays of other subnotebooks like the XPS 13, MateBook X Pro, MacBook Pro 13, or the Razer Blade Stealth. The lid is more similar to the MSI GS65, Lenovo Legion Y740, or the Zephyrus GX501 in that regard.

The small size and light weight are key selling points of the Zephyrus G14. It's not quite the size of a ZenBook 14, but it's very close. The system is just slightly larger than the 14-inch MSI Prestige 14 while housing significantly faster processors for an insane level of performance considering the size. The MSI GS65, which is one of the lightest 15.6-inch gaming laptops currently available, still weighs about 400 g more than our Asus even though both are almost identical in thickness.

Note that configurations with the Micro-LED-enabled outer lid will have a slightly thicker lid than the configurations without it by 0.2 cm. Our test unit does not have the Micro-LED feature.

Stereo 0.7 W tweeter speaker grilles on the palm rests
Stereo 0.7 W tweeter speaker grilles on the palm rests
The rear of the bottom panel no longer opens up unlike on the original Zephyrus GX501
The rear of the bottom panel no longer opens up unlike on the original Zephyrus GX501
Perforations for optional white micro-LED lighting
Perforations for optional white micro-LED lighting
There is no grip along the edges or corners which makes opening the lid harder than it needs to be
There is no grip along the edges or corners which makes opening the lid harder than it needs to be
ErgoLift hinges lift the base slightly to improve airflow and typing ergonomics
ErgoLift hinges lift the base slightly to improve airflow and typing ergonomics
Lid opened to maximum angle (~145 degrees)
Lid opened to maximum angle (~145 degrees)
360 mm / 14.2 inch 252 mm / 9.92 inch 18.9 mm / 0.744 inch 2 kg4.39 lbs360.5 mm / 14.2 inch 276 mm / 10.9 inch 18.3 mm / 0.72 inch 2.2 kg4.76 lbs358 mm / 14.1 inch 248 mm / 9.76 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 2 kg4.35 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 19.9 mm / 0.783 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs324 mm / 12.8 inch 222 mm / 8.74 inch 17.9 mm / 0.705 inch 1.6 kg3.53 lbs319 mm / 12.6 inch 215 mm / 8.46 inch 16 mm / 0.63 inch 1.3 kg2.84 lbs

Connectivity: Charging with USB Type-C is Possible

Owners get dual USB Type-A ports, dual USB Type-C ports, and HDMI 2.0b. Users who want RJ-45, Thunderbolt 3, or an SD card reader will have to look elsewhere. The positioning of the ports here are a mixed bag because the ventilation grilles take up so much space along the rear and sides. While each port is easy to reach, they are also very close up front where cables can get in the way of table space.

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Right: USB Type-C Gen. 2 3.2, 2x USB 3.2 Gen. 1 Type-A, Kensington Lock
Right: USB Type-C Gen. 2 3.2, 2x USB 3.2 Gen. 1 Type-A, Kensington Lock
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Left: AC adapter, HDMI 2.0b, USB Type-C Gen. 2 3.2 w/ DisplayPort 1.4 and Power Delivery, 3.5 mm combo audio
Left: AC adapter, HDMI 2.0b, USB Type-C Gen. 2 3.2 w/ DisplayPort 1.4 and Power Delivery, 3.5 mm combo audio

Communication

The Intel AX200 comes standard for 802.11ax (or Wi-Fi 6) and Bluetooth 5 connectivity. We're able to record a real-world average transfer rate of 1.2 to 1.7 Gbps when standing one meter away from our Wi-Fi 6-enabled Netgear RAX200 router and 2.5 Gbps server line. We experienced no connectivity issues during our time with the test unit.

Removable M.2 2230 WLAN module is housed underneath the M.2 SSD likely to save on space
Removable M.2 2230 WLAN module is housed underneath the M.2 SSD likely to save on space
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Lenovo ThinkPad T490 20RY0002US
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201
1378 (693min - 1402max) MBit/s ∼100% +11%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX200
1242 (1133min - 1283max) MBit/s ∼90%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-15IIL
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
1128 (1037min - 1164max) MBit/s ∼82% -9%
Lenovo Yoga C740-14IML
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
1096 (1062min - 1130max) MBit/s ∼80% -12%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Lenovo ThinkPad T490 20RY0002US
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201
1666 (841min - 1700max) MBit/s ∼100% +1%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX200
1645 (1401min - 1773max) MBit/s ∼99%
Lenovo Yoga C740-14IML
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
1203 (1102min - 1276max) MBit/s ∼72% -27%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-15IIL
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
1195 (922min - 1315max) MBit/s ∼72% -27%

Maintenance

The bottom panel is easy to remove once the 14 Philips screws are loosened. Users will have direct access to the SODIMM slot, M.2 SSD, battery, and the WLAN module underneath the SSD.

Accessories and Warranty

There are no extras in the box other than the AC adapter and usual paperwork. The standard one-year limited warranty applies.

Input Devices: Firmer Key Feedback than an Ultrabook

Keyboard

The visual style of the keyboard is in line with the larger Zephyrus laptops including the directional keys and the row of four auxiliary keys along the top. Travel and feedback actually feel deeper and stronger, respectively, than the keyboards on the slimmer ZenBook S series. Even feedback from the Function keys and directional keys feel just as strong as the main QWERTY keys whereas these are typically spongier on most other laptops. One complaint, however, is that clatter from the Space, Enter, and Backspace keys is louder than the main QWERTY keys for an overall louder typing experience than the XPS 13 or ThinkPad T or X series.

Another complaint relates to the poor contrast between the silver key caps and the gray key font. Similar to the white HP Spectre laptops, the font here can be difficult to see and this only becomes worse when the white backlight is on. The black color option for the Zephyrus G14 will not have this same problem. Per-key RGB lighting options like on the Razer Blade Stealth would have alleviated this somewhat.

Touchpad

The Precision-enabled clickpad (10.5 x 6 cm) is slightly smaller then the clickpad on the 15.6-inch Zephyrus M (10.5 x 7.5 cm) and almost the same size as the clickpad on the ZenBook 14 (10.5 x 6.2 cm). Glide is very smooth with almost no sticking even when moving at slow speeds and the fast 120 Hz display makes cursor control feel more responsive when compared to Ultrabooks. The integrated mouse clicks, however, are too soft and far too shallow with unsatisfying feedback when pressed. Actions like dragging and dropping are more difficult as a result.

Similar visual style and layout as the Zephyrus M
Similar visual style and layout as the Zephyrus M
Clickpad works well for simple cursor movement, but clicking feels spongy
Clickpad works well for simple cursor movement, but clicking feels spongy
Gray and silver do not contrast well when compared to black and white on most other laptops
Gray and silver do not contrast well when compared to black and white on most other laptops
Small arrow keys are actually comfortable with decent feedback
Small arrow keys are actually comfortable with decent feedback

Display: 120 Hz with FreeSync Support

The CEC LM140LF-1F01 IPS panel on the Zephyrus G14 can be found on no other laptop in our database. Nonetheless, Asus uses a very similar CEC LM140LF-3L03 panel for its other 14-inch laptop: the ZenBook 14 UM431. These two panels share similar gamuts and contrast ratios as a result albeit with some important differences. The Zephyrus G14 panel, for example, is brighter with support for both 120 Hz and FreeSync to reduce screen tearing when gaming. Its main drawback is the slower black-white and gray-gray response times which don't come close to the 3 ms or 5 ms panels available on most 15.6-inch gaming laptops like the MSI GS65 or Asus Zephyrus S.

Subjectively, the 1080p display is slightly grainier than a glossy alternative as expected from most matte panels. It's an upper mid-range display that doesn't quite reach the colors or response times you'd get on other flagship ultra-thin gaming laptops.

No 4K UHD, touchscreen, glossy, or OLED options. WQHD, however, is in the works
No 4K UHD, touchscreen, glossy, or OLED options. WQHD, however, is in the works
The bottom "chin" bezel is quite thick
The bottom "chin" bezel is quite thick
Narrow bezels on three of the four sides
Narrow bezels on three of the four sides
Keep in mind that there is no webcam on the Zephyrus G14
Keep in mind that there is no webcam on the Zephyrus G14
Slight uneven backlight bleeding
Slight uneven backlight bleeding
Matte subpixel array
Matte subpixel array
302.9
cd/m²
310.6
cd/m²
292.2
cd/m²
297
cd/m²
322.2
cd/m²
297.8
cd/m²
281.8
cd/m²
318.2
cd/m²
298.4
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
CEC PA LM140LF-1F01
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 322.2 cd/m² Average: 302.3 cd/m² Minimum: 15.57 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 192.3 cd/m²
Contrast: 1239:1 (Black: 0.26 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.43 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8, calibrated: 2.29
ΔE Greyscale 3.3 | 0.64-98 Ø6
91.9% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.22
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
CEC PA LM140LF-1F01, IPS, 14, 1920x1080
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
BOE NV156FHM-N4K, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
Sharp LQ156M1JW03 (SHP14C5), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Alienware m15 R2 P87F
Sharp LQ156M1, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
IPS, 14, 3840x2160
Response Times
80%
70%
68%
69%
-15%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
43.6 (21.2, 22.4)
6.4 (3.4, 3)
85%
13.6 (7.2, 6.4)
69%
13.6 (8, 5.6)
69%
16.4 (7.6, 6.8)
62%
55 (27, 28)
-26%
Response Time Black / White *
34.8 (20.4, 14.4)
8.8 (4.4, 4.4)
75%
10 (6, 4)
71%
12 (7.6, 4.4)
66%
8.8 (4.4, 4.4)
75%
36 (22, 14)
-3%
PWM Frequency
200 (99)
23260 (19)
23810 (24)
Screen
-17%
-17%
13%
-39%
24%
Brightness middle
322.2
297.7
-8%
312.7
-3%
282.3
-12%
324.2
1%
567
76%
Brightness
302
280
-7%
305
1%
269
-11%
304
1%
516
71%
Brightness Distribution
87
84
-3%
90
3%
90
3%
90
3%
86
-1%
Black Level *
0.26
0.43
-65%
0.27
-4%
0.32
-23%
0.38
-46%
0.445
-71%
Contrast
1239
692
-44%
1158
-7%
882
-29%
853
-31%
1274
3%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.43
3.13
-29%
4.57
-88%
1.17
52%
5.01
-106%
1.55
36%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
5.07
7.1
-40%
6.81
-34%
3.29
35%
12.7
-150%
5.14
-1%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
2.29
3.06
-34%
2.91
-27%
1.06
54%
1.64
28%
1.24
46%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.3
1.9
42%
4.3
-30%
1.3
61%
7.9
-139%
1.48
55%
Gamma
2.22 99%
2.23 99%
2.29 96%
2.2 100%
2.35 94%
2.19 100%
CCT
6902 94%
6325 103%
7098 92%
6643 98%
8455 77%
6741 96%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
60
59.2
-1%
59.4
-1%
63.8
6%
60.8
1%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
91.9
90.5
-2%
91.3
-1%
97.5
6%
95.5
4%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
32% / -2%
27% / -4%
41% / 21%
15% / -23%
5% / 17%

* ... smaller is better

Color space covers approximately 60 percent and 92 percent of AdobeRGB and sRGB, respectively, to be in line with most every Zephyrus laptop currently available. You'll have to look at the Asus ZenBook Pro or ProArt series instead if you want deeper and more accurate colors fit for professional graphics work.

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

Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter reveal a decently calibrated display out of the box. It could be a little better, however, as our own calibration would improve the display even further from an average grayscale DeltaE of 3.3 to 0.8 and an average color DeltaE from 2.51 to 1.56. Colors become slightly more inaccurate the higher the saturation level since sRGB coverage is not perfect.

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
34.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 20.4 ms rise
↘ 14.4 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. » 90 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
43.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21.2 ms rise
↘ 22.4 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 636 (maximum) ms. » 63 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (38.7 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 17531 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is poorer than most high-end Ultrabooks like the XPS 13, MacBook Pro, or Samsung NP900 which all have brighter displays. When compared to other Zephyrus laptops and gaming laptops in general, however, this is about normal. It's important to disable AMD Vari-Bright when using the laptop outdoors or else the maximum brightness will be artificially reduced from 322 nits to just 192 nits.

Viewing angles are typical of an IPS panel. Colors and contrast will degrade only if viewing from extreme and unrealistic angles.

Outdoors on a cloudy day
Outdoors on a cloudy day
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors on a cloudy day
Outdoors on a cloudy day
Wide IPS viewing angles
Wide IPS viewing angles

Performance: More CPU Power than Most 17.3-inch Gaming Laptops

Subnotebooks capable of playing games are not uncommon. Models exist with Intel Core U-series CPUs and either GeForce MX or GeForce GTX Max-Q graphics at best due to the obvious size restrictions. The Zephyrus G14 is special in this regard as it packs an octa-core AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS CPU and a GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q GPU both in a 14-inch form factor. It's an insane level of performance assuming that the cooling solution will be up to the task.

Users shouldn't confuse the Ryzen 9 4900HS and GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q with the more demanding Ryzen 9 4900H and GeForce RTX 2060, respectively. It's likely that Asus couldn't use these higher-power versions due to the target small form factor. The Ryzen 9 4800H will probably debut on a 15.6-inch laptop or larger at a future date. Even so, AMD has claimed that the 35 W Ryzen 9 4900HS would only be about 10 percent slower than the full-fledged 45 W Ryzen 9 4900H.

As for RAM, 8 GB comes soldered with one SODIMM slot available for up to 24 GB total. This setup is similar to other Zephyrus laptops including on the Zephyrus M or and Zephyrus G.

Nvidia Optimus comes standard for switching between the integrated Radeon GPU and the discrete GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q GPU.

LatencyMon shows DPC latency issues when opening multiple tabs, playing 4K video, and running Prime95 in sequence.

Processor

Both the Dell XPS 15 and Apple MacBook Pro 15 have left a sour taste in our mouth when it comes to packing octa-core H-series CPUs in super-thin designs. As such, we were half-expecting throttling issues from the Ryzen 9 4900HS when subjecting the Asus to extreme processing loads. To our surprise, however, the CPU holds up much better than anticipated. When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, the initial score of 1850 points would dip and stabilize to 1630 points for a performance deficit of about 12 percent over time. In comparison, the Core i9 in the XPS 15 and MSI GE75 9SG would drop by about 18 percent and 8 percent, respectively, when subjected to the same loop test.

Average multi-thread performance is also measurably faster on the Ryzen 9 4900HS when compared to the competing Core i9-9880H. CineBench benchmarks rank it 15 to 45 percent faster depending on which Core i9-9880H laptop is in question. Only the Alienware m15 R2 with its unlocked Core i9-9980HK can come close to our Ryzen 9 4900HS, but that particular system must run significantly warmer and louder to do so. Combine this with the decent performance sustainability mentioned above and the efficiency advantages of 7 nm Ryzen become obvious.

Laptops closer in size to the Zephyrus G14 like the Razer Blade 15, MSI GS65, or Prestige 14 tend to come with hexa-core Core i7-9750H or i7-10710U options only. In this scenario, the Asus is clearly a class above in raw multi-thread performance by significant margins as shown by our graphs below. Razer, MSI, and others are set to respond with ultra-thin Comet Lake-H laptops in the coming months.

See our dedicated page on the Ryzen 9 4900HS for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R15
CineBench R15
CineBench R20
CineBench R20
010203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024025026027028029030031032033034035036037038039040041042043044045046047048049050051052053054055056057058059060061062063064065066067068069070071072073074075076077078079080081082083084085086087088089090091092093094095096097098099010001010102010301040105010601070108010901100111011201130114011501160117011801190120012101220123012401250126012701280129013001310132013301340135013601370138013901400141014201430144014501460147014801490150015101520153015401550156015701580159016001610162016301640165016601670168016901700171017201730174017501760177017801790180018101820183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000201020202030Tooltip
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS, Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1655 (1591.98-1850.91)
MSI GE65 Raider 9SF-049US GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile, i9-9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1496 (1486.55-1622.78)
MSI GT76 Titan DT 9SG GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, i9-9900K, 2x Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP (RAID 0); CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1998 (1943.92-2022.14)
MSI GT75 8RG-090 Titan GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile, i9-8950HK, 2x Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP (RAID 0); CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1353 (1323.32-1378.12)
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2080 Max-Q GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1056 (1046.13-1175)
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1110 (975.73-1185.01)
Cinebench R20
CPU (Single Core)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
506 Points ∼85% +2%
Medion Erazer X15805
Intel Core i9-8950HK
498 Points ∼84% +1%
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
495 Points ∼83% 0%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
495 Points ∼83%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK
478 Points ∼81% -3%
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng
Intel Core i9-9880H
467 Points ∼79% -6%
MSI Prestige 15 A10SC
Intel Core i7-10710U
460 Points ∼78% -7%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
441 Points ∼74% -11%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Core i7-9750H
419 Points ∼71% -15%
MSI GF63 Thin 9SC
Intel Core i5-9300H
418 Points ∼70% -16%
MSI GE63 Raider 8SG
Intel Core i7-8750H
409 Points ∼69% -17%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
361 Points ∼61% -27%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
352 Points ∼59% -29%
CPU (Multi Core)
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
4816 Points ∼48% +12%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
4782 Points ∼48% +12%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
4288 Points ∼43%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK
4136 Points ∼41% -4%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
3712 Points ∼37% -13%
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng
Intel Core i9-9880H
2953 Points ∼30% -31%
Medion Erazer X15805
Intel Core i9-8950HK
2924 Points ∼29% -32%
MSI Prestige 15 A10SC
Intel Core i7-10710U
2598 Points ∼26% -39%
MSI GE63 Raider 8SG
Intel Core i7-8750H
2142 Points ∼21% -50%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Core i7-9750H
2074 Points ∼21% -52%
MSI GF63 Thin 9SC
Intel Core i5-9300H
1737 Points ∼17% -59%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
1659 Points ∼17% -61%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
1633 Points ∼16% -62%
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
204 Points ∼89% +6%
Medion Erazer X15805
Intel Core i9-8950HK
203 Points ∼88% +5%
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
203 Points ∼88% +5%
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng
Intel Core i9-9880H
197 Points ∼86% +2%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK
195 Points ∼85% +1%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
193 Points ∼84%
MSI Prestige 15 A10SC
Intel Core i7-10710U
191 Points ∼83% -1%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
189 Points ∼82% -2%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
Intel Core i7-9750H
174 Points ∼76% -10%
MSI GF63 Thin 9SC
Intel Core i5-9300H
173 Points ∼75% -10%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Core i7-9750H
170 Points ∼74% -12%
MSI GE63 Raider 8SG
Intel Core i7-8750H
167 Points ∼73% -13%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
144 Points ∼63% -25%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
143 Points ∼62% -26%
CPU Multi 64Bit
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
2092 Points ∼48% +12%
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
1987 Points ∼45% +7%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
1863 Points ∼43%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK
1754 Points ∼40% -6%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
1721 Points ∼39% -8%
HP Omen 17-cb0020ng
Intel Core i9-9880H
1450 Points ∼33% -22%
Medion Erazer X15805
Intel Core i9-8950HK
1217 Points ∼28% -35%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
Intel Core i7-9750H
1185 Points ∼27% -36%
MSI Prestige 15 A10SC
Intel Core i7-10710U
1103 Points ∼25% -41%
MSI GE63 Raider 8SG
Intel Core i7-8750H
1016 Points ∼23% -45%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
Intel Core i7-9750H
964 Points ∼22% -48%
MSI GF63 Thin 9SC
Intel Core i5-9300H
797 Points ∼18% -57%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
742 Points ∼17% -60%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
734 Points ∼17% -61%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
2.33 Points ∼91% +4%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
2.3 Points ∼90% +3%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
2.23 Points ∼87%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
2.11 Points ∼82% -5%
CPU Multi 64Bit
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
23.19 Points ∼53% +27%
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
21.76 Points ∼49% +19%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
18.94 Points ∼43% +4%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
18.21 Points ∼41%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
49142 Points ∼75% +30%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
42456 Points ∼65% +12%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
40439 Points ∼62% +7%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
37938 Points ∼58%
Medion Erazer X15805
Intel Core i9-8950HK
36591 Points ∼56% -4%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
19290 Points ∼30% -49%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
19002 Points ∼29% -50%
Rendering Single 32Bit
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
7786 Points ∼72% +33%
Medion Erazer X15805
Intel Core i9-8950HK
7735 Points ∼71% +32%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
6967 Points ∼64% +19%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
5866 Points ∼54%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
5839 Points ∼54% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
4606 Points ∼43% -21%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
4527 Points ∼42% -23%
wPrime 2.10 - 1024m
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
118.733 s * ∼1% -35%
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
91.284 s * ∼1% -3%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS
88.237 s * ∼1%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
86.728 s * ∼1% +2%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
11800
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
37938
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
5866
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
76.34 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
18.21 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
2.23 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
104.14 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1863 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
193 Points
Help

System Performance

PCMark benchmarks rank our AMD-Nvidia Zephyrus system in line with other Intel-Nvidia powered gaming laptops and well ahead of the all-AMD MSI Alpha 15. The Digital Content Creation scores remain questionable since UL has yet to incorporate discrete GPUs in this particular benchmark.

We experienced no software or hardware issues during our time with the test unit. Nonetheless, the constantly shifting power profiles between Windows and Armoury Crate can be annoying to work with as explained here.

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
MSI GE75 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, i9-9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
8419 Points ∼65% +23%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
7090 Points ∼55% +4%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS, Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
6843 Points ∼53%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
6248 Points ∼48% -9%
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
6062 Points ∼47% -11%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G
5330 Points ∼41% -22%
Productivity
MSI GE75 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, i9-9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
8416 Points ∼81% +11%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
7657 Points ∼73% +1%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS, Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
7606 Points ∼73%
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
7339 Points ∼70% -4%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
6754 Points ∼65% -11%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G
6059 Points ∼58% -20%
Essentials
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS, Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
9920 Points ∼87%
MSI GE75 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, i9-9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
9608 Points ∼84% -3%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
9380 Points ∼82% -5%
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
8946 Points ∼78% -10%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G
8913 Points ∼78% -10%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
8785 Points ∼77% -11%
Score
MSI GE75 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, i9-9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
6306 Points ∼78% +10%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS, Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
5751 Points ∼71%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5725 Points ∼71% 0%
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
5273 Points ∼65% -8%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5150 Points ∼63% -10%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G
4733 Points ∼58% -18%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G
4663 Points ∼57% -19%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
MSI GE75 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, i9-9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
6004 Points ∼88% +5%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5751 Points ∼84% 0%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS, Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
5738 Points ∼84%
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
5610 Points ∼82% -2%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G
5167 Points ∼76% -10%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4422 Points ∼65% -23%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS, Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
4815 Points ∼79%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV256G
4800 Points ∼79% 0%
MSI GE75 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile, i9-9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4550 Points ∼75% -6%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4454 Points ∼73% -7%
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4094 Points ∼67% -15%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
3511 Points ∼58% -27%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4815 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5738 points
PCMark 10 Score
5751 points
Help

Storage Devices: Just One M.2 2280 Slot

Unsurprisingly, there are no secondary internal options due to size constraints. Our test unit comes with an Intel 660p SSD which Asus also uses for its Zephyrus M. Transfer rates are much faster than the SK Hynix BC501 while being behind the Samsing PM981 as found on almost all Razer Blade systems. The Intel 660p will still be more than sufficient for the target audience. We recommend investing in a higher capacity drive instead of a faster drive if budget is tight.

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

AS SSD
AS SSD
CDM 5.5
CDM 5.5
Accessible NVMe drive with aluminum plate
Accessible NVMe drive with aluminum plate
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
Asus Zephyrus M GU502GU-XB74
Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Alienware m15 R2 P87F
2x Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV512G (RAID 0)
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
AS SSD
-30%
47%
23%
60%
Copy Game MB/s
1162.09
951.96
-18%
1554.28
34%
1426.35
23%
Copy Program MB/s
443.52
486.6
10%
712.72
61%
576.02
30%
Copy ISO MB/s
1660.01
906.19
-45%
3024.87
82%
2073.16
25%
Score Total
2372
1681
-29%
4230
78%
3633
53%
4831
104%
Score Write
1174
934
-20%
1991
70%
1481
26%
2079
77%
Score Read
768
492
-36%
1490
94%
1407
83%
1828
138%
Access Time Write *
0.112
0.139
-24%
0.036
68%
0.108
4%
0.045
60%
Access Time Read *
0.036
0.071
-97%
0.054
-50%
0.065
-81%
0.049
-36%
4K-64 Write
849.01
744.16
-12%
1729.71
104%
1135.27
34%
1788.99
111%
4K-64 Read
581.92
321.36
-45%
1240.56
113%
1177.33
102%
1551.81
167%
4K Write
163.01
99.21
-39%
103.79
-36%
108.86
-33%
84.63
-48%
4K Read
57.77
48.24
-16%
49.33
-15%
37.2
-36%
46.23
-20%
Seq Write
1624.46
910.86
-44%
1579.5
-3%
2371.22
46%
2051.42
26%
Seq Read
1278.25
1220.6
-5%
2004.98
57%
1924.95
51%
2299.87
80%
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6
-19%
-3%
20%
7%
Write 4K
189.5


156
-18%
91.32
-52%
108.8
-43%
163.8
-14%
Read 4K
62.7


60.7
-3%
40.73
-35%
45.41
-28%
48.6
-22%
Write Seq
1735


967.7
-44%
1915
10%
2467
42%
2269
31%
Read Seq
1608


1619
1%
2051
28%
2456
53%
1963
22%
Write 4K Q32T1
475.5


485
2%
308.3
-35%
532.3
12%
289.8
-39%
Read 4K Q32T1
554.7


337.3
-39%
417.4
-25%
589.8
6%
373.6
-33%
Write Seq Q32T1
1802


968.7
-46%
1922
7%
2801
55%
2395
33%
Read Seq Q32T1
1929


1825
-5%
3395
76%
3172
64%
3479
80%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-25% / -26%
22% / 29%
22% / 22%
34% / 38%

* ... smaller is better

Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 0 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 0 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 0 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 0 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 0 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 0 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 0 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 0 MB/s

GPU Performance: GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q Debut

The GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q is finally a reality after being over a year late to the party. As one would expect from a Max-Q GPU, raw performance is about 10 to 15 percent behind the non-Max-Q counterpart. Performance is only about 5 to 10 percent faster than the mobile GTX 1660 Ti or approximately 20 to 25 percent slower performance than a "proper" desktop RTX 2060.

The biggest reason to own an RTX 2060 Max-Q over the GTX 1660 Ti would be for its hardware-accelerated ray-tracing capabilities or Tensor cores since these two GPUs perform very closely otherwise.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Ice Storm Extreme
Ice Storm Extreme
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Time Spy
Time Spy
Port Royal
Port Royal
3DMark
2560x1440 Port Royal Graphics
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti EX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), R9 3900X
8537 Points ∼70% +158%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i9-9980HK
5092 Points ∼42% +54%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H
4275 Points ∼35% +29%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H
3742 Points ∼31% +13%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 XNE15M19
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-9750H
3738 Points ∼31% +13%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS
3307 Points ∼27%
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti EX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), R9 3900X
13744 Points ∼73% +135%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i9-9980HK
8479 Points ∼45% +45%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), R7 2700X
7732 Points ∼41% +32%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H
7266 Points ∼39% +24%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H
6910 Points ∼37% +18%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 XNE15M19
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-9750H
6387 Points ∼34% +9%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS
5850 Points ∼31%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H
5335 Points ∼28% -9%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H
3626 Points ∼19% -38%
Razer Blade Stealth 13, Core i7-1065G7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-1065G7
2840 Points ∼15% -51%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H
2536 Points ∼13% -57%
2560x1440 Time Spy Score
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti EX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), R9 3900X
13424 Points ∼77% +118%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i9-9980HK
8604 Points ∼49% +39%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), R7 2700X
7878 Points ∼45% +28%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H
7099 Points ∼41% +15%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H
6911 Points ∼39% +12%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 XNE15M19
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-9750H
6358 Points ∼36% +3%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS
6171 Points ∼35%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H
5406 Points ∼31% -12%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H
3795 Points ∼22% -39%
Razer Blade Stealth 13, Core i7-1065G7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-1065G7
2859 Points ∼16% -54%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H
2571 Points ∼15% -58%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti EX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), R9 3900X
32081 Points ∼74% +105%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i9-9980HK
22391 Points ∼52% +43%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), R7 2700X
19338 Points ∼45% +24%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H
18962 Points ∼44% +21%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H
18055 Points ∼42% +15%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 XNE15M19
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-9750H
17419 Points ∼40% +11%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS
15650 Points ∼36%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H
14753 Points ∼34% -6%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H
11332 Points ∼26% -28%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H
7791 Points ∼18% -50%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U
7305 Points ∼17% -53%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti EX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), R9 3900X
18340 Points ∼81% +36%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i9-9980HK
14894 Points ∼66% +10%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), R7 2700X
13742 Points ∼61% +2%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS
13533 Points ∼60%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H
12732 Points ∼56% -6%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H
12450 Points ∼55% -8%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 XNE15M19
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-9750H
12064 Points ∼53% -11%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H
11416 Points ∼50% -16%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U
9514 Points ∼42% -30%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H
8540 Points ∼38% -37%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H
6839 Points ∼30% -49%
Razer Blade Stealth 13, Core i7-1065G7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-1065G7
6547 Points ∼29% -52%
1280x720 Performance GPU
KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti EX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), R9 3900X
45050 Points ∼77% +113%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i9-9980HK
29220 Points ∼50% +38%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), R7 2700X
26413 Points ∼45% +25%
MSI GS65 Stealth 9SG
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, i7-9750H
24926 Points ∼42% +18%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H
23734 Points ∼40% +12%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 XNE15M19
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, i7-9750H
21861 Points ∼37% +4%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q, R9 4900HS
21105 Points ∼36%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H
19329 Points ∼33% -8%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H
12620 Points ∼21% -40%
Razer Blade Stealth 13, Core i7-1065G7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-1065G7
10699 Points ∼18% -49%
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC-009
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, i7-10710U
10248 Points ∼17% -51%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H
9466 Points ∼16% -55%
3DMark 06 Standard
37332 points
3DMark Vantage P Result
50957 points
3DMark 11 Performance
18937 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
85539 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
38287 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
14649 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
6171 points
Help

Gaming Performance

3DMark results translate well to real-world gaming performance as the RTX 2060 Max-Q sits comfortably in between the GTX 1660 Ti and mobile RTX 2060 on High or Ultra settings. On lower settings, however, frame rates are slightly slower than expected although they are nowhere near as bad as on the last generation Zephyrus G GA502 with the Ryzen 7 3750H. Shadow of the Tomb Raider on low settings, for example, runs 90 percent faster than the aforementioned GA502 even though our RTX 2060 Max-Q should only be about 10 to 15 percent faster than the GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q.

FreeSync pairs very well with this particular GPU since the RTX 2060 tends to hover between 40 to 60 FPS at 1080p which is where adaptive refresh rates work best.

Ghosting will be more prevalent and noticeable because of the ~20 ms black-white response time. It's not an issue on most games like LoL or Shadow of the Tomb Raider except for fast-paced ones with lots of quick turning like CS:GO, Rocket League, or Overwatch.

Users shouldn't expect frame rates to outstrip a Core i7-9750H or Core i9-9880H gaming laptop anytime soon despite the obvious multi-thread performance advantages of the Ryzen 9 4900HS since most games are GPU bound.

See our dedicated page on the GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider
1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T
Eurocom Sky X4C i9-9900KS
Intel Core i9-9900KS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
124 fps ∼100% +68%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
99 fps ∼80% +34%
MSI GE65 Raider 9SF-049US
Intel Core i9-9880H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile
95 fps ∼77% +28%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
90 fps ∼73% +22%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
83 fps ∼67% +12%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
83 fps ∼67% +12%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
74 fps ∼60%
MSI GF65 9SD
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
64 fps ∼52% -14%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
49 fps ∼40% -34%
Asus TUF FX705GM
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
47 fps ∼38% -36%
Lenovo Yoga C940-15IRH
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
45 fps ∼36% -39%
1920x1080 High Preset AA:SM
Eurocom Sky X4C i9-9900KS
Intel Core i9-9900KS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
134 fps ∼100% +60%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
105 fps ∼78% +25%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
101 fps ∼75% +20%
MSI GE65 Raider 9SF-049US
Intel Core i9-9880H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile
101 fps ∼75% +20%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
94 fps ∼70% +12%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
91 fps ∼68% +8%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
84 (79min - 138max) fps ∼63%
MSI GF65 9SD
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
72 fps ∼54% -14%
Asus TUF FX705GM
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
53 fps ∼40% -37%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
53 fps ∼40% -37%
Lenovo Yoga C940-15IRH
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
51 fps ∼38% -39%
1280x720 Lowest Preset
Eurocom Sky X4C i9-9900KS
Intel Core i9-9900KS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
178 fps ∼100% +51%
MSI GE65 Raider 9SF-049US
Intel Core i9-9880H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile
143 fps ∼80% +21%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
142 fps ∼80% +20%
MSI GF65 9SD
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
135 fps ∼76% +14%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
133 fps ∼75% +13%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
133 fps ∼75% +13%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
128 fps ∼72% +8%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
118 (85min - 177max) fps ∼66%
Lenovo Yoga C940-15IRH
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
105 fps ∼59% -11%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
62 fps ∼35% -47%
The Witcher 3
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Eurocom Sky X4C i9-9900KS
Intel Core i9-9900KS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
95.5 fps ∼100% +64%
MSI GE65 Raider 9SF-049US
Intel Core i9-9880H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile
78.4 fps ∼82% +34%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
78 fps ∼82% +34%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
72.7 (61min - 82max) fps ∼76% +24%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
69 fps ∼72% +18%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
68.9 fps ∼72% +18%
MSI GF65 9SD
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
60.6 fps ∼63% +4%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
58.4 fps ∼61%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
48.8 fps ∼51% -16%
Asus TUF FX705GM
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
36.5 fps ∼38% -37%
Lenovo Yoga C940-15IRH
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
36.5 fps ∼38% -37%
1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing
Eurocom Sky X4C i9-9900KS
Intel Core i9-9900KS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
414.3 fps ∼100% +78%
Alienware m17 R2 P41E
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
326.6 fps ∼79% +41%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
295.3 fps ∼71% +27%
Walmart EVOO Gaming 17
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
295.3 fps ∼71% +27%
MSI GE65 Raider 9SF-049US
Intel Core i9-9880H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile
290.1 fps ∼70% +25%
MSI GF65 9SD
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
287.9 fps ∼69% +24%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
286.7 (265min - 336max) fps ∼69% +23%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
232.2 fps ∼56%
Lenovo Yoga C940-15IRH
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
196 fps ∼47% -16%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
138.4 fps ∼33% -40%
Rocket League
1920x1080 High Quality AA:High FX
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
221 (183min - 251max) fps ∼100% +1%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
219.3 fps ∼99%
Lenovo Yoga C940-15IRH
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
145.6 fps ∼66% -34%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
141.7 fps ∼64% -35%
1280x720 Performance
Lenovo Yoga C940-15IRH
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
247.2 fps ∼100% 0%
Asus Zephyrus G14 GA401IV
AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q
246.9 fps ∼100%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
246 (225min - 252max) fps ∼100% 0%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
206.7 fps ∼84% -16%
0102030405060708090100110