Notebookcheck

HP Omen 15 (i5-8300H, GTX 1050 Ti, FHD) Laptop Review

Florian Glaser, 👁 Florian Glaser (translated by Martin Jungowski), 07/27/2018

Price-performance stunner. HP's Omen series of affordable gaming notebooks has been on the market for many years. We took a closer look at their current 15-inch Coffee Lake gaming notebook - is it good enough to enter our budget gaming notebook top 10 list?

Working For Notebookcheck

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

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

HP Omen 15

While the 2017 edition was still based on Intel’s Kaby Lake CPUs HP’s latest 15-inch Omen notebook is designed around the brand-new Coffee Lake platform with four or six cores. Depending on the SKU you either get a Core i5-8300H or a Core i7-8750H.

It is accompanied by between 8 and 32 GB of DDR4 RAM, a 128 to 512 GB SSD, and a 1 TB large hard disk drive. All things graphics-related are relegated to a recent DirectX 12 chip made by Nvidia - either the mid-range GeForce GTX 1050 Ti or the more powerful GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q or GTX 1070 Max-Q. The display is always an FHD IPS panel (1920x1080).

Our review unit was the base model equipped with a Core i5-8300H, a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, 8 GB of RAM, and a storage space combination consisting of a 128 GB SSD and a 1 TB HDD. Prices in Europe for this particular base model start at 999 Euros including tax (~$1164). US customers get a slightly different model equipped with 12 instead of 8 GB of RAM, and prices on this side of the Atlantic start at around $920 plus tax.

Its biggest competitors are other budget notebooks from our gaming notebooks top 10 list, including the Xiaomi Mi Gaming and Dell G5 (GeForce GTX 1060 (Max-Q)), the Acer Aspire 7 A715 and Asus GL503VD (GeForce GTX 1050), and the Medion Erazer X6603 (GeForce GTX 1050 Ti).

HP Omen 15-dc0001ng (Omen Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop) - 4096 MB, Core: 1493 MHz, Memory: 7000 MHz, GDDR5, ForceWare 389.12, Optimus
Memory
8192 MB 
, SO-DIMM DDR4-2666, single channel, 1 of 2 slots used, max. 32 GB
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, BOE07A1, IPS, FHD, 60 Hz, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM370
Storage
Toshiba KBG30ZMV128G, 128 GB 
, PCIe-SSD + Seagate BarraCuda Pro ST1000LM049, 1 TB HDD, 7200 rpm. slots: 1x M.2-2280 & 1x 2.5 inch
Soundcard
Realtek ALC295 @ Intel Cannon Lake PCH
Connections
4 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 0 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 1x headphones, 1x microphone, Card Reader: SD,SDHC,SDXC
Networking
Realtek Gaming GBE Family Controller (10/100/1000MBit), Intel Wireless-AC 9560 (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 25 x 360 x 263 ( = 0.98 x 14.17 x 10.35 in)
Battery
70 Wh Lithium-Ion, 4-cell
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Speakers: 2.0 Bang & Olufsen, Keyboard: Chiclet, RGB, Keyboard Light: yes, 150 W power supply, quick-start guide, various HP tools, McAfee LifeSafe trial, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
2.42 kg ( = 85.36 oz / 5.34 pounds), Power Supply: 343 g ( = 12.1 oz / 0.76 pounds)
Price
1000 EUR
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Despite the many similarities with its predecessor the case has been redesigned quite a bit. Most importantly, the display bezels have been reduced significantly and the overall footprint has been reduced to just 36 x 26.3 x 27.6 cm (14 x 10.4 x 10.9 inches). Many of the available ports have been relocated to the rear of the device, and instead of a continuous hinge the new model features two distinct separate hinges (probably because of the connectivity situation).

What impressed us most was the revised keyboard. Not only did HP remove the hard to read red lettering and replace it with conventional white letters instead, the engineers and designers also updated the formerly uniformly red backlight to several individually adjustable and configurable zones and changed the layout somewhat. More on that later.

HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15
HP Omen 15

Optics and haptics remained largely unchanged. The top case is made of brushed aluminum; the bottom and the display lid are made of textured plastic. Due to the many shape transitions and the ornamental use of colors the design is very distinct without being overly playful.

The overall build quality and structural rigidity matched the device’s price. While the lid was somewhat flexible - a problem found on many notebooks - the rest of the case was very sturdy and, at no more than 2.5 cm (1 inch), also fairly slim. Combined with its moderate weight of just 2.4 kg (5.3 lbs) it was even somewhat portable. Its competitors were all between 2.2 and 2.9 kg (4.9 - 6.4 lbs).

Size Comparison

Connectivity

Ports

Lefties will rejoice in regard to the port distribution. HP has decided to relocate several of the ports to the rear end of the notebook meaning that both sides have gained significant elbowroom with regards to external mice. Unfortunately, there are some unnecessary trade-offs to bemoan, most importantly the lack of Thunderbolt 3 that was still present on the predecessor. Instead, the new model’s single USB-C port supports no more than USB 3.1 Gen1, which constitutes a massive downgrade. However, Thunderbolt 3 is destined to return on the not yet available more expensive and more powerful SKUs.

The rest of the ports have remained unchanged. The 15-inch notebook thus still contains an SD card reader, three USB 3.0 Type-A ports, a fold-out RJ45 Ethernet port, two audio ports (audio-out, microphone-in), HDMI, DisplayPort, and last but not least a Kensington lock.

Rear: RF45 Ethernet, USB-A 3.1 Gen1, HDMI, Mini-DisplayPort, USB-C 3.1 Gen1, Kensington lock
Rear: RF45 Ethernet, USB-A 3.1 Gen1, HDMI, Mini-DisplayPort, USB-C 3.1 Gen1, Kensington lock
Left: USB-A 3.1 Gen1, headphones, microphone, card reader
Left: USB-A 3.1 Gen1, headphones, microphone, card reader
Right: USB-A 3.1 Gen1, power
Right: USB-A 3.1 Gen1, power

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

SD Card Reader

At 78-87 MB/s the card reader’s performance was similar to the previous model. In the global scheme of things it was mediocre at best, although we must add that not a single one of our competitors was capable of maxing out our 260 MB/s reference card. At the low end of the spectrum the Dell G5’s and the Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop’s card readers managed no more than USB 2.0 speeds.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78 MB/s ∼100%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
77 MB/s ∼99% -1%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
73.5 MB/s ∼94% -6%
Medion Erazer X6603
  (oshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
72 MB/s ∼92% -8%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
 
70.67 MB/s ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
27 MB/s ∼35% -65%
Dell G5 15 5587
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
20 MB/s ∼26% -74%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Asus GL503VD-DB74
 
87.37 MB/s ∼100% 0%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
87 MB/s ∼100% 0%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
87 MB/s ∼100%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
84.4 MB/s ∼97% -3%
Medion Erazer X6603
  (oshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78.2 MB/s ∼90% -10%
Dell G5 15 5587
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
35 MB/s ∼40% -60%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
28 MB/s ∼32% -68%

Communication

As expected of a modern notebook the Omen 15 comes with an up-to-date wireless modem: Intel’s Wireless-AC 9560. When connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router it managed more than 600 Mbps in both transmit and receive (1 m distance between the two devices). The predecessor’s Intel Wireless-AC 7265 was significantly slower when transmitting data.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
701 MBit/s ∼100% +2%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
690 MBit/s ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
659 MBit/s ∼94% -4%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
Qualcomm Atheros QCA61x4
637 MBit/s ∼91% -8%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
635 MBit/s ∼91% -8%
Medion Erazer X6603
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
517 MBit/s ∼74% -25%
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
485 MBit/s ∼69% -30%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Medion Erazer X6603
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
664 MBit/s ∼100% +3%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
643 MBit/s ∼97%
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
582 MBit/s ∼88% -9%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
Qualcomm Atheros QCA61x4
512 MBit/s ∼77% -20%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
426 MBit/s ∼64% -34%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
420 MBit/s ∼63% -35%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
363 MBit/s ∼55% -44%

Software

Nowadays, almost every gaming notebook comes with its own tuning and monitoring software, and the HP Omen 15 is no exception. The preinstalled software called Command Center shows CPU, GPU, and RAM load and temperatures as well as network traffic. It can be used to configure the keyboard backlight but lacks any form of overclocking capabilities.

Command Center
Command Center
Command Center
Command Center

Accessories

The only items we found in the box in addition to the notebook itself were a quick-start guide and the surprisingly compact (14 x 6.5 x 2 cm / 5.5 x 2.6 x 0.8 inches) and lightweight 150 W power supply.

Maintenance

Unfortunately, we were unable to assess the Omen 15’s maintainability. Even after removing every single Phillips screw at the bottom the cover was still firmly affixed to the case. Accordingly, we feared that we would damage the notebook if we continued trying to pry it open and eventually gave up. After all, we did not want to damage our shop unit provided by cyperport.de. That being said, we expect the internals to be largely identical to the predecessor. Please refer to the previous review for details and photos.

Warranty

As usual, US customers are deprived of the second year of warranty that European customers must have grown accustomed to at this point.

Input Devices

Keyboard

The keyboard turned out to be very decent. In addition to the single-stage multi-color backlight we were particularly fond of the new color for the labels, which had a massive impact on legibility. Typing was decent and will probably satisfy most users. Don’t expect top-class performance regarding accentuation point or feedback, though.

Despite the overall fairly narrow case HP has managed to fit a numpad next to the regular-sized chiclet-style keyboard. However, the layout was a bit of a challenge as it deviated significantly from the default German keyboard layout. Take a look at for example the single-row Return key, the relocated ><| key, or the missing right CTRL key. Basically, HP took the regular US QWERTY layout and simply remapped some keys instead of adjusting the layout accordingly. US customers will find a regular QWERTY keyboard layout with teeny-tiny cursor keys that are almost impossible to use for gaming.

Chiclet keyboard...
Chiclet keyboard...
...with several backlight zones.
...with several backlight zones.

Touchpad

The silver-framed and slightly recessed touchpad was inconspicuous by and large. In other words: It was neither particularly good nor particularly bad. That not only applied to precision but also to smoothness. Gestures generally worked very well, although we noticed a minor input lag when performing them.

At 10.2 x 5.7 cm (4 x 2.2 inches) the touchpad was adequately sized for a 15-inch notebook. Unlike many other manufacturers HP has opted against a ClickPad and for two dedicated mouse buttons below the touch surface, which improved overall precision noticeably.

Display

Our review unit’s FHD display left us with mixed feelings. On the bright side its contrast ratio was very decent (1,019:1) thanks to its low black level of just 0.27 nits.

253
cd/m²
248
cd/m²
247
cd/m²
257
cd/m²
275
cd/m²
250
cd/m²
249
cd/m²
260
cd/m²
247
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 275 cd/m² Average: 254 cd/m² Minimum: 14 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 275 cd/m²
Contrast: 1019:1 (Black: 0.27 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.62 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2, calibrated: 3.59
ΔE Greyscale 4.31 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
59% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 38% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.49
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
BOE07A1, IPS, 1920x1080
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
AUO42ED, IPS, 1920x1080
Dell G5 15 5587
LGD053F, 156WF6, IPS, 1920x1080
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
BOEhydis NV156FHM-N61 (BOE0747), IPS, 1920x1080
Medion Erazer X6603
LP156WF6-SPK3, AH-IPS, LED, 1920x1080
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
BOE NV156FHM-N42 , a-Si TFT-LCD, IPS, 1920x1080
Asus GL503VD-DB74
LG Philips LP156WF6, IPS, 1920x1080
Response Times
6%
28%
3545%
333%
3295%
3482%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
47.2 (23.6, 23.6)
43.2 (21.2, 22)
8%
33 (16, 17)
30%
53.2 (26.4, 26.8)
-13%
46 (36, 10)
3%
49 (25, 24)
-4%
36.4 (16.4, 20)
23%
Response Time Black / White *
32.4 (18, 14.4)
31.2 (16.4, 14.8)
4%
24 (14, 10)
26%
41.6 (23.6, 18)
-28%
29 (17, 12)
10%
36 (20, 16)
-11%
26.2 (14, 12.4)
19%
PWM Frequency
200 (99)
21550 (99)
10675%
2174 (90)
987%
20000 (90)
9900%
21010 (99)
10405%
Screen
22%
-23%
15%
-23%
-1%
5%
Brightness middle
275
304
11%
229
-17%
283
3%
252
-8%
267
-3%
315.9
15%
Brightness
254
289
14%
224
-12%
269
6%
246
-3%
250
-2%
304
20%
Brightness Distribution
90
86
-4%
87
-3%
87
-3%
94
4%
82
-9%
88
-2%
Black Level *
0.27
0.26
4%
0.28
-4%
0.23
15%
0.23
15%
0.31
-15%
0.37
-37%
Contrast
1019
1169
15%
818
-20%
1230
21%
1096
8%
861
-16%
854
-16%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.62
3.46
25%
6.1
-32%
4.68
-1%
7.83
-69%
4.65
-1%
4.9
-6%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.05
7.72
4%
12.2
-52%
8
1%
15.5
-93%
8.2
-2%
9.7
-20%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
3.59
6.12
-70%
2.5
30%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.31
2.46
43%
5.68
-32%
4.32
-0%
7.11
-65%
2.65
39%
3.8
12%
Gamma
2.49 88%
2.38 92%
2.4 92%
2.36 93%
2.19 100%
2.44 90%
2.24 98%
CCT
7000 93%
6915 94%
6989 93%
7612 85%
7930 82%
6820 95%
6847 95%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
38
59
55%
36
-5%
57
50%
35
-8%
38
0%
55
45%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
59
91
54%
57
-3%
87
47%
55
-7%
59
0%
84
42%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
14% / 19%
3% / -15%
1780% / 772%
155% / 60%
1647% / 760%
1744% / 808%

* ... smaller is better

Nevertheless, the display seemed very dull and pale, and we quickly found the culprit: Its color-space coverage was abysmal. 59% sRGB and 38% AdobeRGB are very poor results even for a gaming notebook. That being said, we should add that the Dell G5, the Medion Erazer X6603, and the Acer Aspire 7 did not do particularly well in this regard either. The notable exceptions were the Asus GL503VD and the Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop.

CalMAN: grayscale
CalMAN: grayscale
CalMAN: saturation
CalMAN: saturation
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: grayscale (calibrated)
CalMAN: grayscale (calibrated)
CalMAN: saturation (calibrated)
CalMAN: saturation (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)

Response times were also too high. 32 ms black-to-white and 47 ms gray-to-gray are quite poor for a gaming device. The Gigabyte Aero 15X, the Razer Blade 15, the MSI GS65, and the Schenker XMG Neo 15 have much faster IPS panels.

HP Omen 15 vs. sRGB (59%)
HP Omen 15 vs. sRGB (59%)
Subpixel geometry
Subpixel geometry
HP Omen 15 vs. AdobeRGB (38%)
HP Omen 15 vs. AdobeRGB (38%)

Last but not least let’s address the elephant in the room: display brightness. At just 254 nits on average the Omen 15’s display was too dark even for indoor usage and rendered completely useless outdoors by even the tiniest amount of sunshine. At least the 60 Hz panel featured decent viewing angles with just minor and mostly unnoticeable halations in the corners that were only visible in situations with dark and/or unicolored backgrounds.

Outdoors
Outdoors
Viewing angles
Viewing angles

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
32.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 18 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. » 84 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
47.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23.6 ms rise
↘ 23.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 77 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 200 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 200 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 200 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8931 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Performance

Based on our review unit’s hardware - Core i5-8300H CPU, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti GPU, 8 GB single-channel RAM - the Omen 15 would be considered an upper mid-range device. The CPU and GPU are soldered onto the motherboard but the RAM can be upgraded up to 32 GB (2x 16 GB). In theory, upgrading the storage devices (1x M.2, 1x 2.5-inch) is also possible.

CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
HWiNFO
LatencyMon
Software

Processor

Given the immense cooling requirements and the fact that most games are GPU instead of CPU bound it makes perfect sense that HP opted for the quad-core Core i5-8300H CPU instead of the hexa-core Core i5-8750H in the low-end SKU. After all, it is still more than powerful enough for everyday applications.

Single-core rendering
Single-core rendering
Multi-core rendering
Multi-core rendering
GPU load
GPU load

The Coffee Lake CPU has access to 8 MB of cache and can turbo-boost up to 4 GHz. In reality, the maximum turbo boost measured by us was 3.9 GHz during the first few seconds of our 30-minute long Cinebench R15 loop, after which it dropped to around 3.3 GHz.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
8.68 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.94 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
805 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
173 Points
Help

By and large, the scores remained fairly consistent. Laptops equipped with the more powerful yet also more demanding Core i7-8750H often have trouble keeping performance at a consistent level. Compared with the Core i7-7700HQ the new CPU was just 10% faster but was a whopping 50% faster when compared with its direct predecessor, the Core i5-7300HQ (which still lacked support for Hyper-Threading).

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
Intel Core i5-8300H
173 Points ∼100%
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Core i5-8300H
172 Points ∼99% -1%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
160 Points ∼92% -8%
Medion Erazer X6603
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
151 Points ∼87% -13%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
147 Points ∼85% -15%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
138 Points ∼80% -20%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
133 Points ∼77% -23%
CPU Multi 64Bit
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
Intel Core i5-8300H
805 Points ∼100%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
740 Points ∼92% -8%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
734 Points ∼91% -9%
Medion Erazer X6603
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
732 Points ∼91% -9%
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Core i5-8300H
731 Points ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
516 Points ∼64% -36%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
513 Points ∼64% -36%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Core i5-8300H
1.94 Points ∼100% 0%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
Intel Core i5-8300H
1.94 Points ∼100%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.83 Points ∼94% -6%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.81 Points ∼93% -7%
Medion Erazer X6603
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.72 Points ∼89% -11%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
1.68 Points ∼87% -13%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
1.56 Points ∼80% -20%
CPU Multi 64Bit
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
Intel Core i5-8300H
8.68 Points ∼100%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.18 Points ∼94% -6%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.17 Points ∼94% -6%
Medion Erazer X6603
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.13 Points ∼94% -6%
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Core i5-8300H
7.84 Points ∼90% -10%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
5.93 Points ∼68% -32%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
5.91 Points ∼68% -32%

System Performance

Thanks to our base model’s SSD the PCMark scores were at an acceptable level and good enough for overall third place in PCMark 10. The operating system booted very quickly and felt very snappy during everyday use.

PCMark 10 - Score
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H, SK hynix SC311 M.2
5483 Points ∼100% +16%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4861 Points ∼89% +3%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV128G
4707 Points ∼86%
Medion Erazer X6603
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4618 Points ∼84% -2%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, ADATA SX7000NP 256 GB
4250 Points ∼78% -10%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ
4197 Points ∼77% -11%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
4092 Points ∼75% -13%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV128G
5362 Points ∼100%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5348 Points ∼100% 0%
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H, SK hynix SC311 M.2
5339 Points ∼100% 0%
Medion Erazer X6603
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5129 Points ∼96% -4%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, ADATA SX7000NP 256 GB
4973 Points ∼93% -7%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ
4912 Points ∼92% -8%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
4908 Points ∼92% -8%
Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4858 Points ∼100% +18%
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H, SK hynix SC311 M.2
4331 Points ∼89% +5%
Medion Erazer X6603
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4119 Points ∼85% 0%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba KBG30ZMV128G
4109 Points ∼85%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
4055 Points ∼83% -1%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ
3910 Points ∼80% -5%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, ADATA SX7000NP 256 GB
3852 Points ∼79% -6%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4109 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5362 points
Help

Storage Devices

The Omen 15’s storage devices failed to meet our expectations. The 128 GB Toshiba M.2 PCIe SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) offered a very fast read performance on a par with its competitors but an incredibly poor write performance akin to a spinning disk drive. This poor write performance became very noticeable during everyday use, for example when installing software or Windows updates or when transferring data onto the drive. In AS SSD, 80% of its competitors were faster than the Omen 15.

SSD
SSD
SSD
SSD
HDD
HDD
HDD
HDD

A secondary Seagate Barracuda Pro ST1000LM049 was installed in our review unit’s 2.5-inch slot. This particular model offered 1 TB capacity and operated at 7,200 rpm.

HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
Toshiba KBG30ZMV128G
Dell G5 15 5587
SK hynix SC311 M.2
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ
Medion Erazer X6603
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
Asus GL503VD-DB74
ADATA SX7000NP 256 GB
AS SSD
-7%
48%
257%
51%
155%
Score Total
670
557
-17%
834
24%
2431
263%
1099
64%
1476
120%
Score Write
195
199
2%
302
55%
750
285%
395
103%
851
336%
Score Read
343
240
-30%
343
0%
1162
239%
460
34%
419
22%
4K Write
79.31
62.19
-22%
104.05
31%
129.25
63%
64.73
-18%
110.68
40%
4K Read
31.48
24.44
-22%
38.11
21%
46.58
48%
36.25
15%
31.4
0%
Seq Write
123.53
243.71
97%
450.12
264%
1080.63
775%
394.18
219%
825.04
568%
Seq Read
1237.74
511.34
-59%
501.5
-59%
2805.35
127%
488.37
-61%
1226.49
-1%
Toshiba KBG30ZMV128G
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1096 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 130.8 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 195.8 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 104.1 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 856.9 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 130.9 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 29.51 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 77.11 MB/s

GPU Performance

If you’re on a budget and willing to make sacrifices in regard to in-game details then the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the perfect card. The Pascal chip supports DirectX 12 and has access to 4 GB of GDDR5 VRAM. In other words: It is a perfect compromise between price and performance.

3DMark 11 Performance
8908 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
22454 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
6653 points
Help

Just like the CPU, the GPU was also capable of utilizing its turbo potential fairly well. In 3D applications it often ran much faster than its base clock speed of 1,493 MHz: For example a nigh perfect 1,709 MHz during our 60-minute The Witcher 3 loop (FHD/Ultra). The maximum was measured at 1,759 MHz according to GPU-Z’s render test.

0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra

Our benchmarks were completed very similar to the Medion Erazer X6603 that was equipped with the exact same GPU. The Omen 15 was around 20-30% faster than its GeForce GTX 1050 competitors and approximately 30-40% slower than a GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q device. In 3DMark 13’s Fire Strike a GeForce GTX 1060 performed up to 50% faster.

3DMark - 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11903 Points ∼100% +57%
Dell G5 15 5587
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
10970 Points ∼92% +45%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
10349 Points ∼87% +37%
Medion Erazer X6603
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
7694 Points ∼65% +2%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
7576 Points ∼64%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
6164 Points ∼52% -19%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
5952 Points ∼50% -21%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
15322 Points ∼100% +65%
Dell G5 15 5587
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
13871 Points ∼91% +50%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
13279 Points ∼87% +43%
Medion Erazer X6603
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
9518 Points ∼62% +3%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
9266 Points ∼60%
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
7917 Points ∼52% -15%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
7471 Points ∼49% -19%

Gaming Performance

As long as you restrict yourself to the Omen 15’s panel’s native FHD resolution of 1920x1080 and don’t try gaming on external WQHD or 4K displays most games will run very smoothly in high or maximum details. Only very demanding titles, such as The Witcher 3, might be somewhat problematic.

The Witcher 3
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ
40.3 fps ∼100% +67%
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H
34.9 (min: 29, max: 39) fps ∼87% +44%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ
34.6 fps ∼86% +43%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
24.2 fps ∼60%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
22 fps ∼55% -9%
1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off)
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ
72.8 fps ∼100% +65%
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ
63.2 fps ∼87% +43%
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H
58.3 fps ∼80% +32%
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
44.2 fps ∼61%

For reasons of pricing and in order to keep power consumption low the entry-level SKU lacks features such as G-Sync or 120/144 Hz displays. In return, our review unit supported Optimus-switching graphics, which means it dynamically switched between the internal UHD Graphics 630 and the external GeForce GPU on demand.

low med. high ultra
The Witcher 3 (2015) 44.224.2fps
Rainbow Six Siege (2015) 88.366.6fps
Overwatch (2016) 11771fps
Mirror's Edge Catalyst (2016) 47.543.3fps
Farming Simulator 17 (2016) 153114fps
Destiny 2 (2017) 62.851.2fps

Emissions

System Noise

One of the biggest challenges of the Omen 15’s slim design is proper cooling. Like almost all gaming notebooks our review unit got very loud under load, and at 47 dB(A) while running The Witcher 3 it was quieter than the Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop (50 dB(A)) but noticeably louder than the Dell G5 and its Max-Q GPU at just 43 dB(A).

System noise idle
System noise idle
System noise load
System noise load
Speaker
Speaker

The cooling solution was much better when idle, although the fans did rev up occasionally even then. Most of the time, however, they were either spinning very slowly or turned off completely. In these situations the only sound we could hear was the spinning hard disk drive.

Noise Level

Idle
29 / 33 / 41 dB(A)
HDD
33 dB(A)
Load
44 / 49 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 29 dB(A)
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ
Medion Erazer X6603
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Noise
3%
7%
-3%
7%
10%
4%
off / environment *
29
30
-3%
30.3
-4%
30
-3%
30.9
-7%
30.4
-5%
28.3
2%
Idle Minimum *
29
30
-3%
31.1
-7%
30
-3%
30.9
-7%
30.4
-5%
30.6
-6%
Idle Average *
33
33
-0%
31.1
6%
34
-3%
30.9
6%
30.8
7%
30.8
7%
Idle Maximum *
41
37
10%
34.2
17%
38
7%
31.6
23%
30.8
25%
32.8
20%
Load Average *
44
41
7%
34.9
21%
44
-0%
38.5
12%
33.6
24%
37.6
15%
Witcher 3 ultra *
47
42
11%
42.7
9%
50
-6%
47
-0%
Load Maximum *
49
50
-2%
44
10%
55
-12%
40.8
17%
43.4
11%
53.5
-9%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Surface temperatures remained almost identical to the previous model. When idle, the case reached a maximum of 28-35 °C (83 - 95 °F) due to the turned-off fans. Under 3D load the rear third of the case was the hottest part of the device and reached top and bottom maximums of 51 °C (124 F) and 58 °C (136 °F), respectively. Luckily the palm rests remained comparatively cool at just 42 °C (108 °F). The Dell G5 was very similar under 3D load while the Medion Erazer X6603 and the Acer Aspire 7 remained noticeably cooler.

The Witcher 3
The Witcher 3
Stress test
Stress test
Full load top (Optris PI 640)
Full load top (Optris PI 640)
Full load bottom (Optris PI 640)
Full load bottom (Optris PI 640)

As always, we ran our usual stress test of at least one full hour of Prime95 and FurMark simultaneously. After one hour, the GPU had reached a maximum of 83 °C (182 °F) - a more than acceptable temperature that was achieved by throttling the GPU. The Core i5-8300H, on the other hand, recorded a very high maximum of 99 °C (210 °F) while running at a turbo boost clock speed of 3.3 GHz. Nevertheless, the cooling solution seemed to have reached its limits with the quad-core already and we strongly suspect that the i7-8750H will be too much for the Omen 15’s coolers and fans.

Max. Load
 49 °C
120 F
50 °C
122 F
48 °C
118 F
 
 48 °C
118 F
51 °C
124 F
48 °C
118 F
 
 39 °C
102 F
42 °C
108 F
40 °C
104 F
 
Maximum: 51 °C = 124 F
Average: 46.1 °C = 115 F
57 °C
135 F
53 °C
127 F
58 °C
136 F
56 °C
133 F
55 °C
131 F
50 °C
122 F
36 °C
97 F
38 °C
100 F
30 °C
86 F
Maximum: 58 °C = 136 F
Average: 48.1 °C = 119 F
Power Supply (max.)  54 °C = 129 F | Room Temperature 24 °C = 75 F | Voltcraft IR-900
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 46.1 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 51 °C / 124 F, compared to the average of 39.3 °C / 103 F, ranging from 21.6 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 58 °C / 136 F, compared to the average of 41.7 °C / 107 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 42 °C / 108 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(-) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 42 °C / 107.6 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.7 °C / 83.7 F (-13.3 °C / -23.9 F).
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ
Medion Erazer X6603
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Heat
-1%
10%
10%
26%
19%
-2%
Maximum Upper Side *
51
47
8%
50.2
2%
46
10%
44.3
13%
41.6
18%
60.4
-18%
Maximum Bottom *
58
54
7%
57
2%
52
10%
39.5
32%
42.5
27%
55.2
5%
Idle Upper Side *
35
36
-3%
28.6
18%
32
9%
24.8
29%
29.7
15%
32.4
7%
Idle Bottom *
35
40
-14%
28.9
17%
32
9%
24.6
30%
29.4
16%
36
-3%

* ... smaller is better

Speakers

Even though on paper our review unit’s sound performance was slightly worse than its predecessor’s we would still consider the 2.0 system to be acceptable and decent. As is almost always the case with notebook speakers they lack volume, dynamic range, and precision. Accordingly, we would still suggest using a headset or external speakers for an improved audio experience. As an interim solution the internal speakers will do, however.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2038.541.92532.633.4313030.24029.5355026.427.66324.526.48024.226.410024.231.312523.937.41602137.920021.351.525020.862.331519.567.540018.569.850018.271.963017.775.98001872.8100017.873.112501772160017.174.6200017.471250017.569.2315017.567.9400017.468.5500017.369.1630017.464.3800017.562.51000017.467.31250019.272.91600018.765.9SPL29.883N1.358.2median 17.8median 68.5Delta1.673734.931.629.128.726.529.330.827.226.225.32625.32625.436.422.54923.547.522.457.319.963.620.566.218.868.618.266.818.369.617.67117.770.717.171.116.971.617.268.417.365.717.264.717.365.217.462.517.359.617.559.918.166.917.572.717.26829.780.21.349.2median 17.6median 66.21.74.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseHP Omen 15-dc0001ngHP Omen 15-ce002ng
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 39% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 57% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 16% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HP Omen 15-ce002ng audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (12% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 7% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Idle power consumption was very low thanks to Nvidia Optimus, and at just 12-18 W it was much lower than notebooks with G-Sync (such as, for example, the Omen 15’s predecessor) that were usually more in the realm of 18-30 W. Under load, the Omen 15 consumed between 92 and 142 W, which was above average for a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti device. The Medion Erazer X6603 only consumed 81-112 W of power.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.3 / 1.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 12 / 14 / 18 Watt
Load midlight 92 / 142 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ
Medion Erazer X6603
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Power Consumption
-30%
23%
6%
38%
40%
20%
Idle Minimum *
12
18
-50%
4.9
59%
10
17%
4.7
61%
4
67%
8.2
32%
Idle Average *
14
23
-64%
8.5
39%
13
7%
7.6
46%
6.9
51%
11.1
21%
Idle Maximum *
18
30
-67%
9.1
49%
19
-6%
9.2
49%
9.4
48%
11.8
34%
Load Average *
92
85
8%
90.7
1%
68
26%
81
12%
72.6
21%
81
12%
Load Maximum *
142
158
-11%
144
-1%
136
4%
112
21%
122
14%
123.3
13%
Witcher 3 ultra *
100
96
4%
110
-10%
110
-10%
95.11
5%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Despite its high power consumption under load the Omen 15 still lasted longer than most other notebooks. Almost 8.5 hours in our video playback or Wi-Fi test at a normalized brightness is exceptional for a gaming notebook. Even the long-running Dell G5 only lasted for 5.5-6.5 hours and was thus unable to keep up while the rest of the competition ran out of power even sooner. When idle and at minimum brightness the Omen 15 lasted for up to 10.5 hours. Under load and at maximum display brightness it ran out of juice after 1-2 hours. 3D performance was reduced by around 20 % on battery (The Witcher 3 @ FHD/Ultra).

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
10h 26min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
8h 34min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
8h 26min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 46min
HP Omen 15-dc0001ng
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, 70 Wh
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, 70 Wh
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H, 56 Wh
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7300HQ, 55 Wh
Medion Erazer X6603
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, 45 Wh
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-53TU
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, 48 Wh
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, 64 Wh
Battery Runtime
-50%
-6%
-39%
-52%
-23%
-20%
Reader / Idle
626
256
-59%
705
13%
386
-38%
340
-46%
592
-5%
647
3%
H.264
506
224
-56%
325
-36%
265
-48%
227
-55%
306
-40%
WiFi v1.3
514
198
-61%
391
-24%
275
-46%
257
-50%
336
-35%
348
-32%
Load
106
80
-25%
133
25%
80
-25%
46
-57%
94
-11%
73
-31%

Verdict

Pros

+ great price-performance ratio
+ decent connectivity distribution
+ thin display bezels
+ compact power supply
+ long battery life

Cons

- mediocre display (PWM, response times, brightness, color-space coverage)
- high temperature and noise emissions under load
- poor SSD write performance
- no Thunderbolt 3
HP Omen 15. Review unit courtesy of Cyberport.
HP Omen 15. Review unit courtesy of Cyberport.

The entry-level Omen 15 turned out to be one of the best gaming notebooks in the sub $1,000 price range.

True, the combination of Core i5-8300HGeForce GTX 1050 Ti, and 8 GB of DDR4 RAM might not be particularly future-proof. However, as we speak the 15-inch Omen 15 can run almost all games at high to maximum settings and is thus ideal for gamers on a budget.

HP obviously had to cut corners to get the price below the $1,000 threshold, for example the poor color-space coverage and low display brightness, the SSD’s poor write performance, or the lack of Thunderbolt 3.

If you don’t mind these drawbacks you get a very well balanced gaming notebook with a stylish case, decent input devices, plenty of ports, and a decent sound performance. The narrow display bezels and the long battery life were most certainly the two highlights of this device.

Given that its competitors are cooler and quieter at the same time HP should address the Omen 15’s cooling solution. Especially considering that a Core i7-8750H model will be made available shortly.

HP Omen 15-dc0001ng - 07/26/2018 v6
Florian Glaser

Chassis
79 / 98 → 81%
Keyboard
81%
Pointing Device
78%
Connectivity
66 / 81 → 82%
Weight
60 / 10-66 → 90%
Battery
90%
Display
80%
Games Performance
90%
Application Performance
95%
Temperature
78 / 95 → 82%
Noise
72 / 90 → 79%
Audio
74%
Average
79%
84%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 13 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > HP Omen 15 (i5-8300H, GTX 1050 Ti, FHD) Laptop Review
Florian Glaser, 2018-07-27 (Update: 2018-07-28)