HP Omen 17 (2024) review: RTX 4070 and Ryzen 7 show their size in the gaming laptop
Well-equipped for all the current games at a high level with an RTX 4070 and AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, the HP Omen 17 (2024) is at the starting blocks into the elevated midrange. In addition, there is a QHD display with a suitable resolution that also offers a 240 Hertz refresh rate. With this, all the basics for a good gaming laptop are covered.
With so much space, particularly inside, we can also expect some stable performance values that should turn out better compared to those of smaller laptops. We evaluate this in numerous benchmarks and gaming tests.
The fact that our test unit remains below the 2,000 Euro (~$2,172) price mark despite its elevated equipment level is not a given anymore at this point. To achieve that, you also have to accept several compromises, some of which are unnecessary. Our test will show whether it is still sufficient to stay ahead of the competitors such as the Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 with an Intel processor or the Asus TUF Gaming A17 with the previous generation of the AMD Ryzen 9.
Possible Competitors in Comparison
Rating | Version | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
80.4 % | v8 | 07/2024 | HP Omen 17-db0079ng R7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | 2.8 kg | 30.1 mm | 17.30" | 2560x1440 | |
80.3 % | v8 | 07/2024 | Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV R9 8945H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU | 2.1 kg | 22.4 mm | 15.60" | 1920x1080 | |
90.2 % | v7 (old) | 03/2024 | Alienware m16 R2 Ultra 7 155H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | 2.5 kg | 23.5 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1600 | |
87.6 % | v7 (old) | 04/2024 | Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR i9-14900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU | 2.7 kg | 30.4 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1600 | |
86.8 % | v7 (old) | 05/2024 | Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) i7-14700HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | 2.6 kg | 25.95 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1600 | |
85.6 % | v7 (old) | 01/2024 | Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 R9 7940HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | 2.5 kg | 25.4 mm | 17.30" | 1920x1080 |
Note that we recently updated our rating system and that the results of version 8 are not comparable anymore with those of version 7. You can find additional information on this here.
Case - A large and heavy gamer
The case looks almost nondescript. Black plastic, which also feels like it, dominates all around. There are no visual highlights, small details, or even light effects to admire.
But once you try to lift the laptop - or when you take it directly out of the box in our case - it becomes clear that HP definitely didn't save on using massive components inside. The weight isn't far from the 3-kg mark (~6.6 lb), although the base remains unaffected if you lift it on only a single front corner. Everything remains stiff and tight.
The display hinges offer a similar impression, but the display lid could have used a little more stability, remaining fairly bendable without any additional metal frame.
In terms of overall size, there only few models that are even larger. A 40-cm (~15.7 in) width and 3-cm (~1.2 in) height even without the feet really don't sound like a lot of mobility. On the other hand, this ensures plenty of space for hardware and cooling, although it might turn out too large for some laptop bags or backpacks.
Connection Equipment - Omen 17 with few areas to shine
Even though there would have been plenty of space, the connection ports are limited. And not only that, but they are also the slower versions. All the USB connections in the back only reach 10 Gbit/s and the one on the side even only 5 Gbit/s. USB4 or TB4 would have been four or eight times as fast. But at least the ports in the back should still allow you to play many games from an external SSD.
Likewise, the LAN port also only reaches 1 Gbit/s, while the better equipped competitors such as the Acer Predator Helios Neo go more with the times offering 2.5 Gbit/s. The position of the port on the left side is also less than optimal and would have been better in the back. In addition, there is neither a third video port nor a card reader.
At least, the HDMI and USB-C video outputs support displaying 4K@120Hz, allowing those who have a suitable TV to make good use of it.
Communication
The WLAN module works fine to the extent of its capabilities. At almost 1 Gbit/s under ideal conditions, it is almost as good as a wired connection. There were no drops worth mention during our test.
While the Wi-Fi 6 module ensures a stable and reliable connection, it is hardly suited for the transfer of larger amounts of data.
Webcam
A decent Full-HD resolution results in detailed images. But this only goes for sufficiently bright light in the room. Even a ceiling light that isn't very bright results in a drop of the image quality. The camera is hardly able to handle weak light conditions. Details get lost and the color reproduction suffers considerably. The color accuracy is only convincing for a camera housed in the display frame if the surrounding light is bright. So we cannot recommend using the camera for more than a few video calls.
This is unfortunate, because the microphone does have some potential. Although its recordings sound slightly tinny, they are always recorded at the same volume and sound very clear. You can even easily hear the voices from outside the room.
Maintenance
The HP Omen 17 collects a few positive points with its ease of opening the case bottom. Once you have removed the eight regular Philips screws, the case cover doesn't offer any resistance and can be easily removed without any use of force.
This gives you access to clean the fans and replace all the important components. Two RAM slots, a WLAN module with easily accessible antenna plugs, two SSD slots, and a battery that can be easily removed are not things that many of the more compact laptops are able to offer, at least not in this complete combination.
In addition, there are copper covers for the M.2 SSD slots that apparently also have an effect, as we will find out later in the test. One of the slots is still available, making a later addition of storage space easily accomplishable.
Sustainability
The packaging consists mostly of cardboard and paper. Even the protective cover of the laptop and keyboard are made of paper. Only charger is wrapped in a protective plastic foil. In addition, there is also the easy maintenance of the laptop, which will surely benefit the longevity of the Omen 17. From the working memory up to the battery, everything can be replaced.
Then there is the moderate power consumption with everyday tasks that is mostly ranging below 10 watts. A typical desktop PC clearly has a disadvantage here.
And finally, HP publishes a yearly sustainability report that shows the initiatives by the manufacturer, which start from power generation from renewable sources and go up to the goal of equal treatment of all employees across all levels of the company structure. You can find out about the details here.
Warranty
While HP grants a two-year warranty, it doesn't offer any extras such as onsite repair. Depending on the vendor, you might also be able to book some additional warranty options there.
Input Devices - HP Omen 17 only offers standard fare
The keyboard doesn't look quite fitting for a gaming laptop. There is short key stroke, and the key resistance is hardly noticeable. In addition, the keyboard lacks the individually adjustable illumination. Even though you can select almost any color with fine adjustments of the brightness, all the keys are then illuminated in the same color. At least, the arrow keys should have been full-sized.
The touchpad shows a similar picture. Even though at 13 x 8 cm (5.1 x 3.15 in), it is comfortably sized and also responds very accurately, the key press appears less well-adjusted. More powerful pressure results in some noticeable clattering. While it is sufficient overall for everyday tasks - the keyboard also offers a tight frame and good typing experience - those who want to get into some more intense gaming are almost forced to use additional input devices.
Display - Well adjusted to the offered gaming performance
If you think about what a good gaming display in a laptop has to be able to do, you would get the QHD display of the HP Omen 17 fairly accurately. Combined with a 17-inch diagonal, the resolution ensures a sharp and detailed image.
In addition to gaming, the 16:9 format is also well-suited for streaming. The colors on the IPS panel look fairly natural, and the matte surface also prevents annoying reflections.
The 240 Hertz refresh rate and sufficiently large color space ensure that the various game genres are displayed as desired. The response times in our measurements are also able to keep up with those of the better models, reaching a considerably higher level than those of the Asus TUF Gaming 17, for example.
What is less impressive is the contrast and black value. Even for an IPS panel, where we don't expect a perfect black anyways, the image looks too bright with absolute darkness. On the other hand, we are unable to detect any screen bleeding with our bare eyes at all, or only very little with long exposure. We also don't see any flickering from Pulse Width Modulation in our test.
In addition, HP also offers a Full-HD version with 144 Hertz, which might be a sensible option in combination with an RTX 4060.
|
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 363 cd/m²
Contrast: 955:1 (Black: 0.38 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.74 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.95, calibrated: 1.43
ΔE Greyscale 1.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
68.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
95.5% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
66.2% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.235
HP Omen 17-db0079ng BOE0B67, IPS, 2560x1440, 17.3" | Alienware m16 R2 BOE NE16NYH, IPS, 2560x1600, 16" | Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR BOE NE160QDM-NM7, Mini LED, 2560x1600, 16" | Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) Chi Mei N160GME-GTB, LED, 2560x1600, 16" | Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 AU Optronics B173HAN04.9, IPS, 1920x1080, 17.3" | Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV AU Optronics B156HAN15.H, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | 6% | 30% | 26% | -39% | 5% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 66.2 | 71 7% | 99.8 51% | 95.9 45% | 39.7 -40% | 70.5 6% |
sRGB Coverage | 95.5 | 100 5% | 100 5% | 99.8 5% | 59.1 -38% | 98.5 3% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 68.1 | 71.4 5% | 90.8 33% | 86.4 27% | 41 -40% | 72.7 7% |
Response Times | 28% | 20% | 30% | -198% | -148% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 14.4 ? | 5.7 ? 60% | 5 ? 65% | 5 ? 65% | 39 ? -171% | 31.7 ? -120% |
Response Time Black / White * | 8.3 ? | 8.7 ? -5% | 10.4 ? -25% | 8.8 ? -6% | 26.9 ? -224% | 22.9 ? -176% |
PWM Frequency | 2040 ? | |||||
Screen | 6% | 29% | 7% | -66% | -22% | |
Brightness middle | 363 | 345.8 -5% | 490 35% | 521 44% | 255.9 -30% | 315 -13% |
Brightness | 341 | 337 -1% | 487 43% | 506 48% | 248 -27% | 303 -11% |
Brightness Distribution | 84 | 87 4% | 94 12% | 85 1% | 91 8% | 90 7% |
Black Level * | 0.38 | 0.3 21% | 0.4 -5% | 0.44 -16% | 0.21 45% | 0.25 34% |
Contrast | 955 | 1153 21% | 1225 28% | 1184 24% | 1219 28% | 1260 32% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.74 | 1.99 -14% | 1.08 38% | 1.74 -0% | 4.51 -159% | 2.26 -30% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.39 | 3.52 35% | 2.38 56% | 3.88 28% | 20.77 -285% | 7.37 -37% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.43 | 0.62 57% | 0.9 37% | 0.52 64% | 1.82 -27% | 1.03 28% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.3 | 2.1 -62% | 1.1 15% | 3 -131% | 3.2 -146% | 4 -208% |
Gamma | 2.235 98% | 2.32 95% | 2.13 103% | 2.164 102% | 2.08 106% | 2.116 104% |
CCT | 6346 102% | 6369 102% | 6724 97% | 6816 95% | 6054 107% | 7570 86% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | 13% /
9% | 26% /
28% | 21% /
14% | -101% /
-79% | -55% /
-34% |
* ... smaller is better
The color reproduction is okay even without an additional calibration. We only measure a higher deviation with blue color that could also be noticeable with the bare eye. In the other color areas including the grayscale, the color reproduction is almost perfect in the state of delivery.
After the calibration, there are no outliers anymore and the color accuracy is at a high level throughout.
The sRGB color space, which is recommended for gaming, isn't covered completely. But that should hardly be noticeable in practice, and simpler displays show a third less colors. However, some competitors such as the Alienware m16 R2 are able to reach a full 100% with the same panel technology. If you want to do image and video processing on the side, such a display would be the better choice.
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
8.3 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3.5 ms rise | |
↘ 4.8 ms fall | ||
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 19 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.1 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
14.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6.8 ms rise | |
↘ 7.6 ms fall | ||
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 24 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.2 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17348 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. |
Outdoors, you should definitely sit in the shade if you still want to recognize anything on the screen. The limited brightness of the Omen 17 means that even the brightness of a slightly overcast sky can limit your ability to see anything on the display.
But the image looks pale even so. The colors have no vibrancy outdoors and are covered by a gray veil. If you want to enjoy gaming in colorful splendor, you have to play indoors.
In contrast to what we usually see in an IPS panel, the HP Omen with QHD resolution shows some clearly noticeable color changes starting from viewing angles of about 45 degrees. Until then, the image remains easily recognizable, and we also don't notice any decrease in brightness before that point. Beyond 45 degrees all the colors show a slight yellow tint.
Performance - The Omen 17 is a balanced gaming laptop
In terms of performance capabilities, our test unit with the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS and Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 places in the middle of the field of our comparison devices. However, both the CPU and GPU perform slightly below their maximum potential.
The Ryzen 7 runs constantly at 65 watts instead of 70 or even 80 watts as in the Schenker XMG Core 15, for example. The GPU is also slightly throttled and is only able to use 120 instead of the maximum possible 140 watts. Comparable gaming laptops such as the Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707 are able to get a slightly higher performance from the graphics card, although that not only has advantages and won't necessarily lead to noticeably higher framerates.
With 32 Gigabytes of DDR5-5600, the RAM equipment is also solid. Since the memory can be replaced easily, it is also possible to expand it later. At this level, we don't expect a limiting effect from the fact that it is only 5,600 MHz.
A smaller version of the HP Omen 17 with the RTX 4060 is also available.
Test Conditions
Three power profiles allow you to adjust the Omen 17 to most of the typical scenarios. You can find out the exact effect on the power consumption, fan behavior, and gaming performance from the table below.
We use the "Performance" profile for our benchmarks. In addition, you can make numerous adjustments that have a strong influence on the fan behavior. For example, the fan levels can be adjusted to be more powerful, or they could be reduced significantly even at the highest performance level, which would have an effect on the maximum performance.
Power Profile | CPU load | GPU load (including 15 Watt boost) | Steel Nomad | Cyberpunk 2077 QHD Ultra | max. fan noise |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eco | 65->35 Watt | 40 Watt | 24.37 FPS | 60 FPS (Lock) | 41 dB(A) |
Balanced | 65->35 Watt | 90 Watt | 25.23 FPS | 75 FPS | 43 dB(A) |
Performance | 100->65 Watt | 120 Watt | 27.43 FPS | 80 FPS | 48 dB(A) |
Processor
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is a fast processor from the Hawk Point series that uses the Zen 4 architecture and almost reaches the performance of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS of the previous generation. It also performs at about eye level with the Intel Core i7-13700H.
However, the eight identical cores in the Ryzen 7 are repeatedly able to gain a small advantage ahead of the six performance cores in the i7-13700H, particularly while gaming.
While we can almost always observe a slight drop in the constant performance with the competitors, the CPU is able to perform constantly at a good level here.
You can find additional measurements and test results of various processors in our CPU benchmark list.
Cinebench R15 Multi Constant Load Test
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 6.2: Multi-Core | Single-Core
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
CPU Performance Rating | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Alienware m16 R2 -1! | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng |
Cinebench R23 / Multi Core | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (5668 - 36249, n=203, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (15889 - 18037, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng |
Cinebench R23 / Single Core | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Average of class Gaming (1136 - 2235, n=201, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (1623 - 1783, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (2179 - 13832, n=201, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (6231 - 7026, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Average of class Gaming (439 - 855, n=201, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (677 - 698, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (905 - 5663, n=207, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (2537 - 2908, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (269 - 283, n=6) | |
Average of class Gaming (191.9 - 318, n=204, last 2 years) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 |
Blender / v2.79 BMW27 CPU | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (179 - 216, n=6) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average of class Gaming (87 - 555, n=196, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (23795 - 140932, n=200, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (64759 - 74664, n=6) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (5197 - 6714, n=6) | |
Average of class Gaming (4199 - 7581, n=200, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 |
Geekbench 6.2 / Multi-Core | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (5340 - 19665, n=105, last 2 years) | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (11073 - 14014, n=10) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
Geekbench 6.2 / Single-Core | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average of class Gaming (1490 - 3129, n=105, last 2 years) | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (2540 - 2698, n=8) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 |
Geekbench 5.5 / Multi-Core | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (4557 - 23194, n=202, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (11754 - 12726, n=7) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
Geekbench 5.5 / Single-Core | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (1765 - 2004, n=7) | |
Average of class Gaming (986 - 2210, n=202, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 |
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (6.72 - 38.9, n=200, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (18.6 - 22.7, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (44.5 - 77, n=6) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Average of class Gaming (31.4 - 96.6, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) |
R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.4336 - 0.4935, n=6) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Average of class Gaming (0.3609 - 0.759, n=201, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR |
* ... smaller is better
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx
Performance Rating | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS | |
Average of class Gaming | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / FP32 Ray-Trace | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (25916 - 29544, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (4986 - 60169, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / FPU Julia | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (107613 - 125873, n=6) | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (25360 - 252486, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / CPU SHA3 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (4627 - 5180, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average of class Gaming (1339 - 10389, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / CPU Queen | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (114899 - 124695, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average of class Gaming (50699 - 200651, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Alienware m16 R2 |
AIDA64 / FPU SinJulia | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (14876 - 15519, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (4800 - 32988, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Alienware m16 R2 |
AIDA64 / FPU Mandel | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (57671 - 67367, n=6) | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (12321 - 134044, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / CPU AES | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Average of class Gaming (19065 - 328679, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (67393 - 172642, n=6) | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / CPU ZLib | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average of class Gaming (373 - 2409, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (627 - 1080, n=6) |
AIDA64 / FP64 Ray-Trace | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (13875 - 15911, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Average of class Gaming (2540 - 31796, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / CPU PhotoWorxx | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (38580 - 41668, n=6) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average of class Gaming (10805 - 60161, n=198, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
System Performance
During everyday tasks that we evaluated with PCMark 10 and some other similar benchmarks, there is basically no noticeable difference to comparable systems. The values are at the level of a more powerfully configured Ryzen 7 8845HS and in the middle of the field of competitors, although there is just barely a 10% difference between the highest and lowest value in the table.
The laptop is responsive at all times and doesn't show any wait times during installation processes or when numerous programs are open simultaneously. Even while playing a demanding game, it continues to be possible to switch to another application, although this is rarely recommended.
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
WebXPRT 3: Overall
WebXPRT 4: Overall
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: Total
PCMark 10 / Score | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average of class Gaming (5776 - 9852, n=176, last 2 years) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
PCMark 10 / Essentials | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average of class Gaming (9057 - 12334, n=175, last 2 years) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () | |
Alienware m16 R2 |
PCMark 10 / Productivity | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () | |
Average of class Gaming (6662 - 14612, n=175, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR |
PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () | |
Average of class Gaming (6703 - 18475, n=175, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
CrossMark / Overall | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Average of class Gaming (1247 - 2344, n=159, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () |
CrossMark / Productivity | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Average of class Gaming (1299 - 2204, n=159, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () |
CrossMark / Creativity | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Average of class Gaming (1275 - 2660, n=159, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () |
CrossMark / Responsiveness | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Average of class Gaming (1030 - 2330, n=159, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () |
WebXPRT 3 / Overall | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Average of class Gaming (215 - 480, n=177, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 / Total | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU () | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average of class Gaming (421 - 674, n=189, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR |
* ... smaller is better
PCMark 10 Score | 7800 points | |
Help |
AIDA64 / Memory Copy | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (67615 - 69523, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average of class Gaming (21842 - 94222, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / Memory Read | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average of class Gaming (23681 - 99713, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (49866 - 61976, n=6) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / Memory Write | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (85464 - 93239, n=6) | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
Average of class Gaming (22986 - 108954, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 |
AIDA64 / Memory Latency | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Average AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS (85.6 - 107.1, n=6) | |
Average of class Gaming (59.5 - 259, n=197, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Tulpar T7 V20.6 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR |
* ... smaller is better
DPC Latencies
Our test unit in its current configuration isn't necessarily suited for real-time audio and video processing, since you have to expect some small stutters. The network drivers and DirectX graphics kernel prevent a better result. With some changed drivers or a later software update, this situation might improve or even get worse.
What stands out is the high utilization of the iGPU while playing a 4K video. While a 60% utilization is still defendable, this is almost twice that of the integrated graphics solution from Intel. And 13 dropped frames within a timespan of one minute are not an optimal result either.
DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 G634JZR | |
Alienware m16 R2 | |
HP Omen 17-db0079ng | |
Asus TUF Gaming A17 FA707XI-NS94 | |
Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 (2024) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A15 FA507UV |
* ... smaller is better
Storage Solution
The SSD used here definitely doesn't reach absolute top speeds. For example, the storage solution in the Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 is able to perform 30% better in terms of sequential access. But this only rarely contributes to an increase in the frame rates while gaming. We might only observe a minimal, if any, improvement during intense multitasking with many parallel access tasks.
On the other hand, the Omen 17 shows how good cooling of the SSD should look like. In contrast to many similarly constructed competitors including the ROG Strix Scar, the constant performance remains permanently at a good, even if not outstanding, level.
The second slot for an M.2-NVMe SSD also has a cooler that is already preinstalled. So if you like, you can add a faster or at least larger drive here.