Notebookcheck

HP Omen 17 (7700HQ, GTX 1070, Full-HD) Laptop Review

Christian Hintze (translated by Martin Jungowski), 08/11/2017

The Omen's New Clothes HP has redesigned it's Omen 17 gaming series' case. Does the new chassis address our criticism from last year's device? What are the full-time gamer's improvements?

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a loyal reader of notebookcheck? Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Especially wanted: 
German-English-Translator - Details here
Review Editor - 
Details here
News Editor - Details here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the original German review, see here.

Last October, we’ve reviewed the HP Omen 17-w110ng gaming notebook powered by a Skylake CPU and a GTX 1070, and while we liked the overall package we did voice some concern regarding the device’s connectivity, the lack of maintenance options, and the touchpad.

Recently, HP has given its entire Omen series an overhaul and designed an entirely new case with a fresh new and more aggressive look, powerful hardware, and a price tag of less than $2,000. Our extensive review is going to reveal whether or not the new Omen has managed to impress us, and whether HP has addressed the issues we had with the old model.

Equipped with an Intel Core i7-7700HQ, a GeForce GTX 1070, and 16 GB of RAM the gaming powerhouse is now more potent than ever. For the sake of comparison, we chose similarly equipped competitors: the Asus ROG G752VS, the Gigabyte P57X v7the Nexoc G734IV, and the MSI GT72VR 7RE Dominator Pro, all of which are equipped with the exact same combination of CPU and GPU and only differ in RAM size (from 16 to 32 GB). In addition, we’ve also included the Omen’s own 2016 predecessor but have decided to leave out the Acer Predator for this review because a) five competitors are more than plenty, and b) the Predator is significantly more expensive.

Another $300-400 more will get you the Omen 17-an015ng with 4K UHD display and 512 GB SSD.

Übersicht der Vergleichsgeräte

HP Omen 17-w110ng Nexoc G734IV MSI GT72VR 7RE Gigabyte P57X v7 Asus G752VS-BA338T
CPU Core i7-6700HQ Core i7-7700HQ Core i7-7700HQ Core i7-7700HQ Core i7-7700HQ
GPU GeForce GTX 1070 GeForce GTX 1070 GeForce GTX 1070 GeForce GTX 1070 GeForce GTX 1070
RAM 8 GB DDR4-2400 32 GB DDR4-2400 16 GB DDR4-2400 32 GB DDR4-2400 16 GB DDR4-2400
Price 1.650 Euro 2.400 Euro 2.300 USD 1.900 USD 2.450 Euro
HP Omen 17-an014ng (Omen Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop) - 8192 MB, Core: 1443 MHz, Memory: 8000 MHz, GDDR5, ForceWare 381.89, No Optimus
Memory
16384 MB 
, 2x 8 GB DDR4-2400 SO-DIMM, both slots used
Display
17.3 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel 127 PPI, AUO149D, IPS, Full-HD, G-Sync, 120 Hz, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM175
Storage
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, 256 GB 
, M.2-SSD + HGST HTS721010A9E630, 1 TB HDD, 7200 RPM
Soundcard
Realtek ALC295 @ Intel Sunrise Point-LP PCH - High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 Thunderbolt, 1 HDMI, 2 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: microphone + headphones, Card Reader: SD,SDHC,SDXC, Sensors: accelerometer
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265 (a/b/g/h/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2
Optical drive
HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GUE1N
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 33 x 423 x 304 ( = 1.3 x 16.65 x 11.97 in)
Battery
86 Wh Lithium-Ion, 8-cell, supports fast charging, around 90 % in 90 minutes
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HP wide vision HD camera with integrated digital dual-array microphone
Primary Camera: 1 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: 2.0 Bang & Olufsen (HP Audio Boost), Keyboard: chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 230 W charger, HP Apps: HP Audio Switch, HP CoolSense, HP JumpStart, HP Lounge , 24 Months Warranty, 2-year limited warranty on parts, pick-up and bring-in, extensions up to 3 years available
Weight
3.786 kg ( = 133.55 oz / 8.35 pounds), Power Supply: 815 g ( = 28.75 oz / 1.8 pounds)
Price
2000 Euro

 

Case

The new case is classy yet bulky at the same time. The times of Max-Q seem to have passed unnoticed, and the Omen doesn’t even attempt to hide its gaming prowess in a thin case. Instead, it exudes its powerful hardware right from the start. The case is massive and heavy, and further reinforces its bulkiness by very pronounced fan vents, a rough and slip-proof surface, and visually aggressive red color accents forming a giant X on the lid. The thin “O M E N” label seems oh so classy and precious in comparison.

firm hinge and fan vents
firm hinge and fan vents

Given that the space on the left and right side has already been taken up by the van vents, the case features a single centered hinge design. It is decently firm and holds the display in place just fine. Watch out though: it’s quite easy to get your fingers caught in that centered hinge when opening the device.

Thanks to the base’s massive weight, the lid can easily be opened one-handed. The lid itself is made of plastic, not as bulky as the base, and warps quite easily. Even the slightest torsional forces applied to the display result in distorted colors.

The DVD burner’s cover is also fairly flimsy: it clatters when running your fingers across its surface.

The keyboard, on the other hand, is very rigid and seems to be reinforced by metal underneath. Accordingly, it doesn’t flex even under intense pressure. The notebook’s bottom cover follows the lid’s X-design and is partly covered by a very rough non-slip coating. In addition, the rear houses additional openings for extra circulation of air. The laptop itself rests on thin rubber strips.

HP promises foolproof maintenance capabilities thanks to a single maintenance opening at the bottom. What they mean, however, is that the entire bottom cover has to be removed in order to access the internals. The battery is not user-replaceable.

Compared to its predecessor, the Omen 17 has become quite a bit bulkier. An extra 5 mm in width, 7 mm in depth, and 500 g in weight. Only its thickness has remained unchanged. That said, its competitors aren’t exactly petite either: the Gigabyte is comparable to the new Omen, the MSI is 1.5 cm thicker, and the Asus is the largest device by far. Thus, despite its bulky design, the new Omen is not really that big when compared to its competitors. Together with the MSI, it is also only the second heaviest.

Größenvergleich

Connectivity

Ports

The ports available are aplenty outshining the device’s own predecessor by a longshot. USB 2.0 is gone for good, and the new Omen 17 features three USB 3.1 Gen. 1 Type-A ports, a USB 3.1 Gen. 2 Type-C port with Thunderbolt 3, DisplayPort 1.2, and HP Sleep and Charge, dedicated microphone and headphone jacks, HDMI, and a Mini DisplayPort.

The port arrangement was also modified. On the previous model, we criticized the fact that too many of the available ports where on the right side thereby penalizing righties. On the new model, the ports are arranged more evenly on both sides with a heavy focus on the left-hand side. USB ports are available on both sides but the two USB ports on the left side are very close to each other. Generally speaking spacing and arrangement have been improved, and smaller ports are more frequently found next to larger ports.

left: Kensington lock, Mini DisplayPort, HDMI, LAN, USB Type-A, USB Type-C, headphones, microphone, SD card reader
left: Kensington lock, Mini DisplayPort, HDMI, LAN, USB Type-A, USB Type-C, headphones, microphone, SD card reader
right: DVD burner, 2x USB Type-A, power
right: DVD burner, 2x USB Type-A, power
rear: fan vents
rear: fan vents
front: 2 downward-facing speakers
front: 2 downward-facing speakers

SD Card Reader

We test integrated SD card readers with our 64 GB Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC UHS-II reference card. Aside from the MSI, all card readers were unimpressive, and the difference between them were minute. Only the card reader on the MSI notebook was between 60-136 % faster.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
125 MB/s ∼100% +64%
Gigabyte P57X v7
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78.2 MB/s ∼63% +3%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78 MB/s ∼62% +3%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
76 MB/s ∼61% 0%
Nexoc G734IV
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
76 MB/s ∼61% 0%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
76 MB/s ∼61%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
205 MB/s ∼100% +136%
Gigabyte P57X v7
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
90.4 MB/s ∼44% +4%
Nexoc G734IV
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
88 MB/s ∼43% +1%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
88 MB/s ∼43% +1%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
87 MB/s ∼42% 0%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
87 MB/s ∼42%

Communication

In addition to the full-sized Ethernet port, the Omen 17 features an Intel 802.11b/g/n/ac 2x2 Wi-Fi modem with Miracast-compatible Bluetooth 4.2. Receiving data, the device outperformed its competition with a slight lead of up to 4 %; transmitting data it scored last and fell behind between 16 (Asus) and 40 (MSI) percent.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HP Omen 17-an014ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
702 MBit/s ∼100%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
681 MBit/s ∼97% -3%
Nexoc G734IV
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
678 MBit/s ∼97% -3%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
676 MBit/s ∼96% -4%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1435 Wireless Network Adapter
672 MBit/s ∼96% -4%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1435 Wireless Network Adapter
618 MBit/s ∼100% +40%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
529 MBit/s ∼86% +19%
Nexoc G734IV
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
522 MBit/s ∼84% +18%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
512 MBit/s ∼83% +16%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
443 MBit/s ∼72%

Security

As is quite common for gaming notebooks, the Omen 17 does not include any dedicated security features besides a Kensington lock.

Accessories

Included in the box are only the notebook itself and a 230 W charger. A 32-inch HP monitor is listed on HP's website as optional accessory for the Omen.

Maintenance

bottom cover removed
bottom cover removed

According to the product information sheet, upgrading the existing or installing new hardware is supposed to be a breeze, thanks to the single maintenance opening. Unfortunately, we were unable to locate said maintenance flap at the bottom of the notebook and therefore have to assume that HP is referring to the bottom cover as maintenance opening instead.

HP’s definition of a breeze differs significantly from ours, though. Even after removing the ten screws securing the bottom cover it was still held firmly in place by very sturdy and rather stubborn plastic clips. Only after very carefully wiggling the cover loose were we able to remove it altogether but we were very close to giving up fearing we might damage the device irrevocably. Once removed, you have access to all internal components, but the process can be quite a handful for inexperienced and cautious users.

Warranty

Unlike European models, devices in the US are sold with a 1-year limited warranty. Extensions of up to two additional years can be purchased separately.

Input Devices

Keyboard

keyboard
keyboard
WASD- & macro keys
WASD- & macro keys

The backlit chiclet keyboard with dedicated numpad is a much-required leap forward compared to the old keyboard. For one, the layout has been modified and the arrow keys are now full-sized instead of the tiny squished in-between keys they were before. The negligible downside is that they are now somewhat lowered and sit beneath the bottom row of keys. The space bar has also been enlarged quite a bit and is now much easier to hit.

The F-keys are not as tiny anymore either, and the Omen 17 now features programmable macro keys aligned vertically left of the main keyboard. This might lead to some confusion and an occasional mix-up between the left CTRL-key and the P6-key but it shouldn’t be that big of a deal thanks to the large gap between the leftmost row of standard keys and the macro keys. On some layouts, such as the German one we had in review, the Return key was smaller than usual, and the functions “Print” and “End” had to share a single key requiring the additional Fn-modifier for screenshots. All things considered the new layout is a big progress though.

The WASD keys are highlighted orange with white labels specifically for gamers, and a special backlight mode only lighting up these four keys is available. While highlighting them might make sense for gamers we found ourselves thrown off by it occasionally while typing.

The other labels are red, which renders the keys barely readable when combined with the red backlight. Feedback is very hard and firm, and like the background clatter requires some getting used to. The keyboard itself was very solid and rigid.

Touchpad 

touchpad
touchpad

On the old Omen, the substandard and small touchpad was one of our biggest gripes. The new touchpad is even smaller than the old one but features two dedicated buttons in return, which renders the actual touchpad itself very sturdy and solid. The gap between the two buttons is pretty large, and ideal for storing breadcrumbs and other dirt.

The surface is very smooth but not as slippery as on some of its competitors. Multitouch gestures are supported, and we had no trouble using gestures with up to four fingers simultaneously.

Display

subpixel
subpixel

The 17.3-inch matte 120 Hz IPS panel supports Nvidia G-Sync. Since G-Sync and Optimus are mutually exclusive, the Omen 17 lacks support for the latter.

The FHD panel turned out to be very sensitive, and even slight touches or minor warping immediately resulted in distorted colors.

slight screen bleeding (especially at the top)
slight screen bleeding (especially at the top)

Unfortunately, we found evidence of slight screen bleeding which was only noticeable in dark environments with almost no ambient light whatsoever.

And while brightness distribution remained at a decent 88 %, maximum brightness dropped from 342 to 309 nits compared to its own predecessor. Not bad per se but still only 4th place in our test group.

On the bright side, we found absolutely no evidence of PWM flickering.

326
cd/m²
329
cd/m²
330
cd/m²
291
cd/m²
314
cd/m²
294
cd/m²
307
cd/m²
289
cd/m²
304
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 330 cd/m² Average: 309.3 cd/m² Minimum: 15 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 314 cd/m²
Contrast: 924:1 (Black: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.19 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 3.49 | - Ø
93% sRGB (Argyll) 60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.34
HP Omen 17-an014ng
AUO149D, 1920x1080, 17.3
HP Omen 17-w110ng
LG Philips LGD046E, 1920x1080, 17.3
Nexoc G734IV
LG Philips LP173WF4-SPD1 (LGD046C), 1920x1080, 17.3
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
Chi Mei N173HHE-G32 (CMN1747), 1920x1080, 17.3
Gigabyte P57X v7
SHP145E, 3840x2160, 17.3
Asus G752VS-BA338T
AU Optronics B173HAN01.1 (AUO119D), 1920x1080, 17.3
Response Times
20%
8%
57%
-39%
17%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
45.2 (20.8, 24.4)
37 (13, 24)
18%
42 (15, 27)
7%
29 (13, 16)
36%
55.6 (18.4, 37.2)
-23%
36 (18, 18)
20%
Response Time Black / White *
30.4 (16.4, 14)
24 (4, 20)
21%
28 (6, 22)
8%
7 (4, 3)
77%
46.8 (10.4, 36.4)
-54%
26 (14.4, 11.6)
14%
PWM Frequency
1000 (29)
Screen
-2%
-2%
-40%
-3%
-22%
Brightness
309
342
11%
336
9%
277
-10%
408
32%
300
-3%
Brightness Distribution
88
87
-1%
91
3%
87
-1%
86
-2%
88
0%
Black Level *
0.34
0.31
9%
0.32
6%
0.27
21%
0.44
-29%
0.32
6%
Contrast
924
1168
26%
1088
18%
1107
20%
1003
9%
959
4%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.19
4.5
-41%
4.13
-29%
9.65
-203%
5.1
-60%
5.53
-73%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.49
3.48
-0%
3.52
-1%
9.68
-177%
4.3
-23%
7
-101%
Gamma
2.34 103%
2.23 108%
2.32 103%
1.89 127%
2.08 115%
2.48 97%
CCT
7261 90%
6144 106%
6228 104%
11652 56%
7345 88%
8103 80%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
60
55
-8%
55
-8%
75
25%
87
45%
58
-3%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
93
84
-10%
84
-10%
100
8%
100
8%
90
-3%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
9% / 3%
3% / 0%
9% / -20%
-21% / -10%
-3% / -14%

* ... smaller is better

A black level of 0.34 is decent and only slightly worse than on last year’s model (0.32). Contrast on the other hand is much worse, and instead of 1.168:1 we only measured a meager 924:1 on the new panel. In this category, the display came in last.

In return, color coverage and accuracy have been improved and are now at 93 % sRGB and 60 % AdobeRGB. The Gigabyte and MSI notebooks were better in this regard as well, with 100/87 and 100/75, respectively. A definite improvement is the panel’s 120 Hz mode.

Overall, the display was mediocre at best but at least decently bright with even distribution, a 120 Hz mode, and pretty decent color coverage.

CalMAN: gray scales
CalMAN: gray scales
CalMAN: gray scales (calibrated)
CalMAN: gray scales (calibrated)
CalMAN: saturation
CalMAN: saturation
CalMAN: saturation (calibrated)
CalMAN: saturation (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)
HP Omen 17 vs. sRGB (93 %)
HP Omen 17 vs. sRGB (93 %)
HP Omen 17 vs. AdobeRGB (60 %)
HP Omen 17 vs. AdobeRGB (60 %)

Despite the lower maximum brightness of only a tad over 300 nits, the display was still bright enough for outdoor use. That is assuming you are even willing to carry this bulky piece of technology outside in the first place. Brightness was not reduced on battery. When overcast, readability was decent thanks to the matte panel. Indirect sunlight was also not a big problem, although the display became noticeably dimmer. Direct sunlight is a deal-breaker, and just like almost any other device the Omen 17 became unusable.

indirect sunlight
indirect sunlight
direct sunlight
direct sunlight

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
30.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 16.4 ms rise
↘ 14 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. » 76 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (26.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
45.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 20.8 ms rise
↘ 24.4 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 69 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (42.6 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 56 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8105 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Gamers who like to play fast shooters will be turned off by the panel’s high response times resulting in smears and visible ghosting. At least the 120 Hz mode renders them very smooth.

As expected of an IPS panel, viewing angles were very good. Naturally, brightness was somewhat lower at acute angles but colors never distorted and the panel remained readable overall.

viewing angles
viewing angles

Performance

Our review unit is a true gamer. Powered by an Intel Core i7-7700HQ processor, Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1070, 16 GB of RAM, a 256 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD it is amply equipped for gaming enthusiasts. Another roughly $300 will get you an SKU with 4K UHD display (no 120 Hz though) and a 512 GB SSD instead.

Office users will most likely avoid the full-blooded energy hog anyway but gamers looking for a desktop alternative will be highly satisfied by the Omen 17. Obviously, it is also well-suited for video editing and multimedia projects, but be warned: LatencyMon uncovered dpc latencies, which can result in noticeable drop-outs in real-time audio processing.

Processor

The Omen 17 is powered by a Core i7-7700HQ quad-core processor from Intel’s current 7. Generation Kaby Lake line-up. Its cores run at 2.8 GHz, turbo boost up to 3.8 GHz, and support HyperThreading with up to 8 threads simultaneously. More details can be found here.

In theory, the CPU offers an integrated HD Graphics 630 GPU, which however remains deactivated due to the lack of Optimus.

The powerful CPU is made for gaming and multimedia. The following graph shows our 30-minute CineBench loop during which the CPU did not throttle at all.

single-thread
single-thread
multi-thread
multi-thread
GPU load
GPU load
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit

All competitors performed very similarly in CineBench’s multi-thread test. Only in the single-thread test did the MSI and Asus notebooks outperform the competition by 10 and 12 %, respectively. This can possibly be traced back to higher clock rates – the Omen 17 ran at 3.4-3.5 GHz and landed in last place in the single-thread test. All things considered, performance was at an expected level.

Unfortunately, it is somewhat reduced on battery and clock speeds are not as uniform as they were on mains, variating between 2.6 and 3.6 GHz with an average of 3.1 GHz. Accordingly, the CineBench scores on battery were lower than on mains, with 588 to 735 points in the multi-thread test (80 %).

Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15 on battery
Cinebench R15 on battery
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus G752VS-BA338T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
161 Points ∼100% +12%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
159 Points ∼99% +10%
Gigabyte P57X v7
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
152 Points ∼94% +6%
Nexoc G734IV
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
150 Points ∼93% +4%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
148 Points ∼92% +3%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
144 Points ∼89%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus G752VS-BA338T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
742 Points ∼100% +1%
Nexoc G734IV
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
739 Points ∼100% +1%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
736 Points ∼99% 0%
Gigabyte P57X v7
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
736 Points ∼99% 0%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
735 Points ∼99%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
Intel Core i7-6700HQ
679 Points ∼92% -8%

System Performance

System performance is measured with PCMark 8. In the Work Score, all competitors except for the 20 % slower Gigabyte performed similarly. In the Home Score, the Nexoc and Gigabyte notebooks fell behind by 13 and 28 %, respectively. The Omen 17 performed as expected. Further details can be found in our benchmark database, which lists the Core i7-7700HQ on 49. place.

Everyday use was snappy and smooth. Boot and application launch times were short, and the Omen 17 remained inconspicuous at large.

PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
5410 Points ∼100% +2%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Kingston RBU-SNS8152S3256GG5
5404 Points ∼100% +2%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
5394 Points ∼100% +2%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5289 Points ∼98%
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
5288 Points ∼98% 0%
Gigabyte P57X v7
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Transcend MTS800 256GB M.2 (TS256GMTS800)
4218 Points ∼78% -20%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
5103 Points ∼100% +2%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Kingston RBU-SNS8152S3256GG5
5009 Points ∼98% 0%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4989 Points ∼98%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
4833 Points ∼95% -3%
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
4330 Points ∼85% -13%
Gigabyte P57X v7
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Transcend MTS800 256GB M.2 (TS256GMTS800)
3569 Points ∼70% -28%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4989 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5289 points
Help

Storage Devices

Our review unit came equipped with a 1 TB large 7.200 rpm hard disk drive in addition to the 256 GB NVMe Samsung SSD.

The latter fared very well in CrystalDiskMark 3, and the Omen 17 outperformed the Gigabyte and MSI as well as its own predecessor. The Asus and Nexoc SSDs were similarly fast. In our SSD- & HDD database, the Samsung SSD is in first place.

The secondary 1 TB 7.200 rpm HGST Travelstar hard disk drive can be found in place 547 on that list. For a hard disk drive, it is certainly one of the faster models available and it performed as expected in HDTune.

HP Omen 17-an014ng
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
HP Omen 17-w110ng
Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
Nexoc G734IV
Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
Kingston RBU-SNS8152S3256GG5
Gigabyte P57X v7
Transcend MTS800 256GB M.2 (TS256GMTS800)
Asus G752VS-BA338T
Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
-35%
5%
-52%
-59%
16%
Write 4k QD32
523.4
295.3
-44%
508.9
-3%
318.3
-39%
296
-43%
527.2
1%
Read 4k QD32
582.1
600.2
3%
634
9%
331.1
-43%
281.3
-52%
606.9
4%
Write 4k
144.9
153.3
6%
154.9
7%
111.1
-23%
82.25
-43%
163.8
13%
Read 4k
59.06
42.7
-28%
54.04
-8%
33.35
-44%
26.04
-56%
55.08
-7%
Write 512
853.5
294.7
-65%
1167
37%
332.3
-61%
306.1
-64%
1606
88%
Read 512
1044
616.2
-41%
413.8
-60%
403.1
-61%
315
-70%
400.8
-62%
Write Seq
1212
294.9
-76%
1559
29%
311.8
-74%
305.7
-75%
1596
32%
Read Seq
1736
1156
-33%
2268
31%
521.2
-70%
516.8
-70%
2791
61%
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Sequential Read: 1736 MB/s
Sequential Write: 1212 MB/s
512K Read: 1044 MB/s
512K Write: 853.5 MB/s
4K Read: 59.06 MB/s
4K Write: 144.9 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 582.1 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 523.4 MB/s

Graphics Card

The Omen 17 is equipped with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 GPU, which is currently the second fastest mobile GPU after the GTX 1080. And while actual performance varies and depends on a device’s cooling solution, it is generally speaking not really any slower than its desktop counterpart. The obvious downsides are power consumption and temperatures.

Consequently, the GPU can most often be found in large gaming notebooks that offer plenty of capacity and volume to dissipate the GPU’s heat. Additional details can be found here.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11

In 3DMark 11, the Omen 17 and the Nexoc performed identically, the Omen’s predecessor was 6 % slower, the MSI and Gigabyte 6 % faster, and the Asus was up to 11 % faster.

In 3DMark 13, the order was a bit different. The Asus was only 6 % faster in Fire Strike while the Omen’s predecessor was 9 % slower. In Cloud Gate, the Omen even managed to outperform the entire competition and beat the Asus by 7 % and the Gigabyte by a whopping 31 %.

Unfortunately, our review unit was incapable of maintaining this high level of performance on battery as well. 3DMark 2013 Fire Strike scores dropped from 17,289 to 10,389 points, which means that the GPU throttled extensively. Consequently, gaming performance on battery might not be good enough for more demanding games and might therefore require reduced details.

3DMark 2013: Cloud Gate
3DMark 2013: Cloud Gate
3DMark 2013: Fire Strike
3DMark 2013: Fire Strike
3DMark 2013: Fire Strike on battery
3DMark 2013: Fire Strike on battery
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
24349 Points ∼100% +11%
Gigabyte P57X v7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
23243 Points ∼95% +6%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
23170 Points ∼95% +6%
Nexoc G734IV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
22210 Points ∼91% +1%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
21918 Points ∼90%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
20656 Points ∼85% -6%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
18346 Points ∼100% +6%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
17625 Points ∼96% +2%
Nexoc G734IV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
17298 Points ∼94% 0%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
17289 Points ∼94%
Gigabyte P57X v7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
17170 Points ∼94% -1%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
15806 Points ∼86% -9%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
HP Omen 17-an014ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
108657 Points ∼100%
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
108027 Points ∼99% -1%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
101587 Points ∼93% -7%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
86780 Points ∼80% -20%
Nexoc G734IV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
76321 Points ∼70% -30%
Gigabyte P57X v7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
75190 Points ∼69% -31%
3DMark 11 Performance
16190 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
28209 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
13658 points
Help

Gaming Performance

The powerful Asus was up to 9 % faster in Witcher 3, depending on resolution and details. The Omen’s own predecessor was 10 % slower. Further data is not available.

Rise of the Tomb Raider presented us with similar results. The Asus was up to 9 % faster while last year’s Omen was up to 23 % slower. The lower the settings the higher was the difference between the respective notebooks, and in maximum settings and on FHD resolution the gap between the old and new Omen 17 was a mere 1 %. The Nexoc performed about as well as last year’s Omen.

Doom 2016 was rendered smoothly at more than 100 fps with maximum details.

The following graph depicts our Witcher 3 loop. It shows that the Omen lost a little bit of performance in the beginning but remained mostly consistent after that. Thus, throttling did not occur.

0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra

All things considered, the Omen 17 is a venerable gaming notebook capable of running almost all current games smoothly on FHD resolution with maximum details. At least on mains, that is, given the massive GPU throttling on battery. The Omen 17 came very close to the reference scores that can be found on our GTX 1070 site. 4K gaming on an external display or the internal 4k panel might require minor adjustments and reduction of details. Additional details regarding 4k gaming can be found on aforementioned GTX 1070 site.

The Witcher 3
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
59.6 fps ∼100% +3%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
58 fps ∼97%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
50.8 (min: 41) fps ∼85% -12%
1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off)
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
117 fps ∼100% +8%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
108.78 fps ∼93%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
94.8 (min: 69) fps ∼81% -13%
1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
184.4 fps ∼100% +9%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
168.68 fps ∼91%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
150 (min: 113) fps ∼81% -11%
1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
228.1 fps ∼100% +9%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
209.61 fps ∼92%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
196.3 (min: 132) fps ∼86% -6%
Rise of the Tomb Raider
1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
99 fps ∼100% +9%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
90.93 fps ∼92%
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
90.3 fps ∼91% -1%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
89.7 (min: 80) fps ∼91% -1%
1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX AF:4x
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
117.7 fps ∼100% +9%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
107.89 fps ∼92%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
105.6 (min: 96) fps ∼90% -2%
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
104.6 fps ∼89% -3%
1366x768 Medium Preset AF:2x
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
180.1 fps ∼100% +6%
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
170.21 fps ∼95%
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
163.5 fps ∼91% -4%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
151.7 (min: 134) fps ∼84% -11%
1024x768 Lowest Preset
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
225.26 fps ∼100%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
219.7 fps ∼98% -2%
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SM961 MZVKW512HMJP m.2 PCI-e
179.7 fps ∼80% -20%
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ, Samsung PM951 NVMe MZVLV256
173 (min: 49) fps ∼77% -23%
low med. high ultra
The Witcher 3 (2015) 209.61168.68108.7858fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 225.26170.21107.8990.93fps
Doom (2016) 165.35156.26140.21135.76fps

Emissions

System Noise

Despite the lack of Optimus, the fans behaved largely identical to last year’s model. From our group of competitors, the Asus notebook remained the quietest of the bunch, but the Omen 17 was capable of keeping up with the Asus up to medium load scenarios. It got significantly louder running demanding games, though. The MSI remained slightly quieter as well, the Nexoc was significantly louder on the other hand. Overall loudness was mediocre.

In real world usage, we found the notebook’s actual behavior to reflect these lab results by and large. It remained decently quiet when idle and under low load and got somewhat louder running games like Witcher 3. In these cases, we strongly recommend headphones. We found no evidence of high-pitched whining or other noises.

noise level (idle)
noise level (idle)
noise level (load)
noise level (load)

Noise Level

Idle
30 / 37 / 39 dB(A)
HDD
34 dB(A)
DVD
40 / dB(A)
Load
44 / 55 dB(A)
 
 
 
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: 30 dB(A)
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Gigabyte P57X v7
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Noise
2%
-7%
5%
6%
6%
off / environment *
30
30
-0%
30
-0%
31
-3%
29
3%
30
-0%
Idle Minimum *
30
33
-10%
34
-13%
34
-13%
30.4
-1%
30
-0%
Idle Average *
37
34
8%
35
5%
35
5%
32.1
13%
32
14%
Idle Maximum *
39
35
10%
46
-18%
37
5%
32.1
18%
36
8%
Load Average *
44
45
-2%
49
-11%
37
16%
45.6
-4%
43
2%
Witcher 3 ultra *
47
43
9%
Load Maximum *
55
52
5%
56
-2%
44
20%
51.5
6%
49
11%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

In regards to surface temperatures, the Omen 17 was one of the hotter devices, especially when idle (due to the always-on 1070). It reached 35 °C when idle already, and was between 5-10 °C warmer than its competitors.

Under load, the tables had turned and it wasn’t the hottest anymore: the Nexoc and the Gigabyte got just as warm. Both, the Asus and the MSI remained noticeably cooler, and last year’s Omen 17 performed similarly under load but remained much cooler when idle thanks to Optimus. The new Omen’s hot spots can reach upwards of 50 °C, particularly at the bottom.

Heatmap top (load), Optris PI 640
Heatmap top (load), Optris PI 640
Heatmap bottom (load), Optris PI 640
Heatmap bottom (load), Optris PI 640

At least the palm rests remained comparatively cool, and the hot spots were located towards the middle in the rear and the two fan vents on both sides. Unfortunately, the keyboard is affected by these and got fairly warm, and due to the hot bottom cover using the notebook on your lap is not recommended. That said it might get uncomfortable because of its high weight long before it gets uncomfortably warm.

stress test
stress test

During our stress test, CPU core temperatures were around 90 °C (maximum specified core temperature: 100 °C). The CPU throttled from 3.8 to 3.1 GHz. The GPU reached around 70 °C and throttled as well (around 1.2 GHz).

HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Gigabyte P57X v7
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Heat
11%
10%
19%
7%
22%
Maximum Upper Side *
48
45
6%
48.1
-0%
41.5
14%
51.2
-7%
41
15%
Maximum Bottom *
54
54.3
-1%
59.3
-10%
50.6
6%
56.8
-5%
39.3
27%
Idle Upper Side *
35
29.6
15%
28.2
19%
26.4
25%
29.2
17%
28.8
18%
Idle Bottom *
37
28.6
23%
26
30%
25.4
31%
29.2
21%
27.3
26%

* ... smaller is better

Max. Load
 45 °C46 °C48 °C 
 46 °C46 °C43 °C 
 35 °C36 °C33 °C 
Maximum: 48 °C
Average: 42 °C
54 °C44 °C50 °C
40 °C45 °C37 °C
33 °C35 °C31 °C
Maximum: 54 °C
Average: 41 °C
Power Supply (max.)  45 °C | Room Temperature 23 °C | Voltcraft IR-900

Speakers

As is very common for notebooks, the Omen’s speakers lack bass and suffer from overpronounced mids and highs. The Omen seems to favor mids in particular, and at least managed to produce traces of detectable bass thanks to its large chassis. Maximum volume is okay. Nevertheless, we recommend headphones or external speakers that can be hooked up to the dedicated headphone jack.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2038.441.92533.836.23128.5304032.233.35028.8306325.727.98027.331.210025.630.81252334.516022.44320022.856.725023.562.531520.762.940019.270.150018.672.763018.273.980017.676.410001977.7125017.377.7160017.278.5200017.378.6250017.377.8315017.475.9400017.476.6500017.373.9630017.672.7800017.571.6100001866.61250017.968.21600017.363.3SPL3088.1N1.475.3median 17.9HP Omen 17-an014ngmedian 72.7Delta1.78.937.942.234.836.927.730.132.740.628.630.426.427.629.530.826.131.424.627.922.336.523.755.322.662.320.563.219.562.519.262.91967.818.668.91868.418.363.91970.518.171.118.268.818.470.618.374.718.474.518.577.818.67518.678.818.57618.665.730.8851.562.2median 18.6HP Omen 17-w110ngmedian 68.41.66.633.633.539.942.833.63728.530.62828.825.225.325.837.325.441.32433.424.143.423502351.72157.419.860.919.460.918.660.119.164.41866.21867.817.767.217.866.417.968.717.866.218.161.718.26218641860.71856.31857.217.856.830.577.11.439.4median 18.1Nexoc G734IVmedian 60.926.3hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
HP Omen 17-an014ng audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HP Omen 17-w110ng audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 55% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Nexoc G734IV audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 35% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 18% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 78% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

 frequency diagram (checkboxes selectable/deselectable!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

According to the product information sheet, the Omen 17 has been awarded an Energy Star and an EPEAT silver certification. Nevertheless, power consumption was around 9 % higher than on last year’s similarly equipped model. Truth be told the new Omen required more energy when idle than the entire competition. It wasn’t as bad under load where the Gigabyte was the least efficient notebook.

This higher power consumption can be traced back to the lack of Optimus, which means the dedicated GTX 1070 is always on. Naturally, it requires much more energy than a more efficient integrated GPU would.

The 230 W charger is amply dimensioned and should be capable of powering and charging the notebook simultaneously even under high load.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.3 / 0.7 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 22 / 28 / 35 Watt
Load midlight 93 / 208 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
HP Omen 17-an014ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
HP Omen 17-w110ng
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 6700HQ
Nexoc G734IV
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Gigabyte P57X v7
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Asus G752VS-BA338T
GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Power Consumption
9%
24%
9%
-6%
4%
Idle Minimum *
22
19
14%
12
45%
20
9%
15.7
29%
21
5%
Idle Average *
28
25
11%
17
39%
27
4%
23.4
16%
27
4%
Idle Maximum *
35
31
11%
22
37%
31
11%
23.5
33%
32
9%
Load Average *
93
90
3%
86
8%
86
8%
184.6
-98%
86
8%
Load Maximum *
208
193
7%
224
-8%
184
12%
233.1
-12%
206
1%
Witcher 3 ultra *
157
165
-5%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

HP’s claim of up to 12 hours of battery life is miles away from what we were able to determine. Even in Energy Saver at minimum brightness and disabled communication devices the Omen only lasted a meager 5:49 hours in our Reader’s test. We have absolutely no idea how HP managed to squeeze out 12:45 hours out of this battery. In our test group, the HP came in fourth in this test.

In the Classic test with all communication devices enabled, our review unit only lasted for 84 minutes, and scored second to last place accordingly.

In our Wi-Fi test with normalized brightness and HP’s own energy profile the Omen 17 lasted for roundabout 4.5 hours.

Similar results were achieved during video playback. Our 1080p h.264 test video ran for 4:15 hours. The Wi-Fi and video playback results were pretty decent overall, and the Omen 17 landed in second place only bested by the Asus with much better battery life in general.

The Omen 17 supports rapid charging. Translated into real world experience this means 90 % charge in 90 minutes. While we did find this to be accurate we also have to note that the remaining 10 % will take at least another 30 minutes.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
5h 49min
WiFi Surfing v1.3
4h 27min
Blu-ray
0h 00min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
4h 15min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 24min
HP Omen 17-an014ng
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 86 Wh
HP Omen 17-w110ng
6700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 95 Wh
Nexoc G734IV
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 60 Wh
MSI GT72VR 7RE-433
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 83 Wh
Gigabyte P57X v7
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 75.81 Wh
Asus G752VS-BA338T
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 90 Wh
Battery Runtime
11%
-7%
-7%
-17%
13%
Reader / Idle
349
432
24%
463
33%
316
-9%
256
-27%
445
28%
H.264
255
233
-9%
195
-24%
228
-11%
257
1%
WiFi v1.3
267
247
-7%
205
-23%
230
-14%
155
-42%
293
10%
Load
84
115
37%
71
-15%
91
8%
98
17%
96
14%

Verdict

Pros

+ powerful hardware
+ all games smooth at 1080p and max details
+ G-Sync
+ Thunderbolt 3
+ programmable macro keys
+ decent 120 Hz display
+ decent SSD + HDD

Cons

- comparatively heavy
- no Optimus
- high idle power consumption
- DPC latencies
- throttling on battery
- loud under load
The Omen 17-an014ng. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de
The Omen 17-an014ng. Review unit courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

The new Omen is capable of breaking away from its own Skylake predecessor in more categories than just looks. HP has managed to improve on last year’s model and all but eliminated most of our gripes, such as connectivity, maintenance, and touchpad. In addition, the new model features a 120 Hz G-Sync-compatible panel, a fast SSD, Thunderbolt 3, and programmable macro keys to boot. And last but not least its overall performance was increased by roughly 10 %.

Unfortunately, the notebook’s virtue of G-Sync support is also its biggest weakness because it means inherent incompatibility with Nvidia Optimus. Accordingly, the GTX 1070 is always on, requiring much more energy resulting in much higher temperatures and a higher noise level. Generally speaking, the Omen 7 got comparatively loud and hot under load. In addition, we found dpc latencies and also disliked the device’s high weight. In return, CPU/GPU throttling on battery is not uncommon for powerful gaming notebooks such as this.

The Omen 17 is a decent desktop gaming replacement. Its focus is clearly on gaming enthusiasts with an emphasis on high performance who don’t mind high weight and a lack of Optimus support.

The new Omen can be had for less than $2,000, which makes it one of the more affordable gaming notebooks in its class available today.

Alternatives

Among its competitors, the Asus ROG G752VS-BA338T was the most notable one. It scored 86 % in our extensive review and bested the new Omen 17 in most comparisons.

Particularly intriguing are the Asus’s low temperatures and its fairly quiet soundscape despite the fact that it also lacks support for Optimus. It was slightly faster than the new Omen 17, and had a superior battery life to boot.

In return, it was the largest and heaviest device in our test group, and therefore even less portable than the Omen 17. It also suffered from screen bleeding (although that depends highly on the display) and is more expensive as well.

HP Omen 17-an014ng - 08/04/2017 v6
Christian Hintze

Chassis
80 / 98 → 82%
Keyboard
83%
Pointing Device
78%
Connectivity
71 / 81 → 87%
Weight
51 / 66 → 74%
Battery
77%
Display
88%
Games Performance
94%
Application Performance
95%
Temperature
83 / 95 → 87%
Noise
62 / 90 → 69%
Audio
69%
Camera
50 / 85 → 59%
Average
75%
85%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > HP Omen 17 (7700HQ, GTX 1070, Full-HD) Laptop Review
Christian Hintze, 2017-08-11 (Update: 2017-08-11)