Notebookcheck

Monster Tulpar T5 (Tongfang GK5CN6Z, i7-8750H, GTX 1060, FHD) Laptop Review

Florian Glaser, 👁 Florian Glaser, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Martin Jungowski), 09/13/2018

Small but powerful. In the same way you should not judge a book by its cover it would be premature to judge a notebook's powerfulness by its total height, and the Tulpar T5 V18.1 by the Turkish barebone reseller Monster is living proof thereof. The 15-inch gaming notebook features a super thin metal chassis that manages to house a six-core CPU paired with a high-end GPU. Let's find out whether the cooling system is up to the task.

Working For Notebookcheck

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

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Monster Tulpar T5

As expected of a barebone reseller, the Tulpar T5 V18.1’s chassis has not been designed and built by Monster but purchased from a third party and adapted to the reseller’s liking. Like Schenker’s XMG Neo 15 Monster selected the Tongfang GK5CN6Z barebone for its laptop, and save for a few details here and there (different keyboard and Turkish keyboard layout) the two are largely identical. Accordingly, we are going to skip the sections on case, connectivity, and input devices and go straight to the display.

Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1 (Tongfang GK5CN6Z)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) - 6144 MB, Core: 1405 MHz, Memory: 8000 MHz, GDDR5, ForceWare 388.73, Optimus
Memory
32768 MB 
, 2x 16 GB SO-DIMM DDR4-2666, dual-channel, all slots used, 32 GB max
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, LGD05C0, IPS, FHD, 144 Hz, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM370
Storage
ADATA XPG Gammix S11 480GB, 480 GB 
, NVMe-SSD + Seagate Barracuda Pro ST1000LM049, 1 TB HDD, 7,200 rpm. slots: 2x M.2 Typ 2280 & 1x 2.5-inch
Soundcard
Realtek ALC269 @ Intel Cannon Lake PCH
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 2 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 1x headphones, 1x microphone, Card Reader: SD, SDHC, SDXC
Networking
Realtek PCIe 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): 19.9 x 359 x 240 ( = 0.78 x 14.13 x 9.45 in)
Battery
46.74 Wh Lithium-Polymer, 3-cell
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Speakers: 2.0 (Sound Blaster Cinema 5), Keyboard: mechanical, RGB, Keyboard Light: yes, 150 W power supply, quick-start guide, thumb drive with drivers and tools, Control Center, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
2.076 kg ( = 73.23 oz / 4.58 pounds), Power Supply: 496 g ( = 17.5 oz / 1.09 pounds)
Price
1732 EUR
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Those of you interested in the Tulpar 15 should take a look at the configurator on Monster’s website. GPU (GeForce GTX 1060) and CPU (Intel Core i7-8750H) are soldered onto the motherboard and are not replaceable, but the RAM (2x DDR4 for up to 32 GB) and mass storage (2x M.2 plus 1x 2.5-inch) can be individually configured. At the time of writing our review unit, equipped with 32 GB of RAM, a 480 GB SSD, and a 1 TB HDD, sold for around $2,000.

Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5
Monster Tulpar T5

Size Comparison

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
191 MB/s ∼100% +664%
Average of class Gaming
  (11.7 - 202, n=203)
90.3 MB/s ∼47% +261%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
25 MB/s ∼13%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
242 MB/s ∼100% +633%
Average of class Gaming
  (13.4 - 257, n=201)
109 MB/s ∼45% +230%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
33 MB/s ∼14%
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
682 MBit/s ∼100% +1%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Intel Wireless-AC 9260
682 MBit/s ∼100% +1%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
674 MBit/s ∼99%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Cannon Lake-H/S CNVi: WiFi
666 MBit/s ∼98% -1%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Killer Wireless-AC 1550 Wireless Network Adapter
660 MBit/s ∼97% -2%
Average of class Gaming
  (141 - 702, n=175)
595 MBit/s ∼87% -12%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Killer Wireless-AC 1550 Wireless Network Adapter
662 MBit/s ∼100% 0%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
661 MBit/s ∼100%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Intel Wireless-AC 9260
642 MBit/s ∼97% -3%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Cannon Lake-H/S CNVi: WiFi
593 MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Average of class Gaming
  (213 - 697, n=175)
533 MBit/s ∼81% -19%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
379 MBit/s ∼57% -43%

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!

Display

In addition to a conventional 60 Hz FHD display Monster also offers a 144 Hz FHD panel (LGD05C0). This particular panel can be found in many currently available gaming notebooks, for example the Razer Blade 15 or the Gigabyte Aero 15X.

307
cd/m²
307
cd/m²
317
cd/m²
314
cd/m²
335
cd/m²
331
cd/m²
297
cd/m²
303
cd/m²
321
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 335 cd/m² Average: 314.7 cd/m² Minimum: 5 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 335 cd/m²
Contrast: 1015:1 (Black: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.66 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3, calibrated: 1.37
ΔE Greyscale 4.26 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
94% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 61% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.35
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
AU Optronics AUO45ED, IPS, 1920x1080
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
AU Optronics B156HAN08.0 (AUO80ED), IPS, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080
Response Times
-112%
8%
-9%
1%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
16 (8.4, 7.6)
30.8 (13.6, 17.2)
-93%
13.6 (7.6, 6)
15%
17.6 (9.2, 8.4)
-10%
16.8 (8.4, 8.4)
-5%
Response Time Black / White *
12 (6.8, 5.2)
27.6 (16, 11.6)
-130%
12 (7.6, 4.4)
-0%
12.8 (7.6, 5.2)
-7%
11.2 (6, 5.2)
7%
PWM Frequency
Screen
-7%
10%
9%
19%
Brightness middle
335
286.7
-14%
304.3
-9%
254
-24%
313
-7%
Brightness
315
281
-11%
293
-7%
262
-17%
300
-5%
Brightness Distribution
89
92
3%
80
-10%
89
0%
78
-12%
Black Level *
0.33
0.39
-18%
0.38
-15%
0.22
33%
0.33
-0%
Contrast
1015
735
-28%
801
-21%
1155
14%
948
-7%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.66
4.17
-14%
1.79
51%
2.37
35%
1.29
65%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.56
7.22
-10%
3.69
44%
4.71
28%
2.04
69%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
1.37
1.84
-34%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.26
2.5
41%
1.1
74%
1.58
63%
0.69
84%
Gamma
2.35 94%
2.274 97%
2.27 97%
2.48 89%
2.43 91%
CCT
6461 101%
6885 94%
6665 98%
6785 96%
6550 99%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
61
57
-7%
59.8
-2%
60
-2%
60
-2%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
94
87
-7%
92.8
-1%
92
-2%
94
0%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-60% / -24%
9% / 10%
0% / 6%
10% / 16%

* ... smaller is better

This choice is no surprise given the panel’s overall quality. Our review unit offered a respectable average brightness of 315 nits and a contrast ratio of 1,000:1 at a black level of 0.33 nits. At 94%, sRGB color-space coverage was very decent.

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)

Viewing angles were very wide and the panel did not suffer from color distortions at acute angles.

Monster Tulpar T5 vs. sRGB (94%)
Monster Tulpar T5 vs. sRGB (94%)
Subpixel geometry
Subpixel geometry
Monster Tulpar T5 vs. AdobeRGB (61%)
Monster Tulpar T5 vs. AdobeRGB (61%)

Even the response times were surprisingly low for an IPS panel. 12 ms black-to-white and 16 ms gray-to-gray are more common for TN panels. Our only gripe with the display was the brightness distribution as it suffered from visible halations around the edges.

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
12 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6.8 ms rise
↘ 5.2 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
16 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 8.4 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better 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 not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8773 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Performance

Like almost all modern gaming notebooks, the Tulpar T5 comes with its own set of tuning tools. The Control Center can be used to configure the keyboard backlight, the front-facing LED strip, the energy profile, and fan management. Our tests were performed with the fan profile set to “Gaming”. Keep in mind that the notebook might behave differently in the “Office” settings.

Control Center
Control Center
Control Center
Control Center

Despite being more akin to an office notebook in terms of size and weight the Tulpar T5 is a full-fledged 15-inch gaming powerhouse, especially when equipped with 16 or 32 GB of RAM and an NVMe PCIe SSD. Its hexa-core CPU and DirectX 12 GPU should offer plenty of oomph for years to come, at least when gaming in the panel’s native FHD resolution.

CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
HWiNFO
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
Latenzen
 

Processor

The notebook features a CPU from Intel’s current Coffee Lake generation. The Core i7-8750H has a total of six cores with support for Hyper-Threading (12 threads) and a turbo boost of up to 4.1 GHz (single-threaded load) or 3.9 GHz (multithreaded load).

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

Unfortunately, it oscillated quite heavily during our benchmarks. For example, when running the Cinebench R15 multi-core test core frequencies fluctuated between 2.6 and 3.9 GHz (3.2 GHz on average). Accordingly, it was not surprising to find the Tulpar T5 trailing behind its similarly equipped competitors slightly.

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Intel Core i7-8750H
176 Points ∼100% +1%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Intel Core i7-8750H
175 Points ∼99% 0%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Intel Core i7-8750H
175 Points ∼99% 0%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
Intel Core i7-8750H
175 Points ∼99%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Core i7-8750H
168 Points ∼95% -4%
Average of class Gaming
  (79 - 209, n=413)
151 Points ∼86% -14%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Intel Core i7-8750H
1133 Points ∼100% +4%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Core i7-8750H
1113 Points ∼98% +2%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
Intel Core i7-8750H
1093 Points ∼96%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Intel Core i7-8750H
1053 Points ∼93% -4%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Intel Core i7-8750H
915 Points ∼81% -16%
Average of class Gaming
  (196 - 1865, n=414)
744 Points ∼66% -32%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Intel Core i7-8750H
2 Points ∼100% +1%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Intel Core i7-8750H
1.98 Points ∼99% 0%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
Intel Core i7-8750H
1.98 Points ∼99%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Core i7-8750H
1.92 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Gaming
  (0.71 - 2.38, n=406)
1.679 Points ∼84% -15%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Intel Core i7-8750H
12.93 Points ∼100% +7%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Intel Core i7-8750H
12.55 Points ∼97% +4%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
Intel Core i7-8750H
12.08 Points ∼93%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Intel Core i7-8750H
11.82 Points ∼91% -2%
Average of class Gaming
  (1.13 - 21.2, n=507)
7.26 Points ∼56% -40%

We test long-term performance by running our Cinebench multi-core test in a loop. In this particular case we noticed a decline beginning with the second iteration, and scores settled at about 10% less than peak performance around the fourth run. Given the low initial base clock speed this result was somewhat disappointing. In the Tulpar T5’s defense we should add that almost all Coffee Lake laptops behave this way.

010203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024025026027028029030031032033034035036037038039040041042043044045046047048049050051052053054055056057058059060061062063064065066067068069070071072073074075076077078079080081082083084085086087088089090091092093094095096097098099010001010102010301040105010601070108010901100Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.98 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
12.08 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
175 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1093 Points
Help

System Performance

All competitors were at a similarly high level in regard to system performance. Whether we were looking at PCMark 10 or PCMark 8 the final scores only differed by a few percentage points here and there. Thanks to their fast PCIe SSDs all the competitors offered a very fast and smooth Windows experience.

PCMark 10 - Score
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5184 Points ∼100% +5%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5095 Points ∼98% +3%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
5092 Points ∼98% +3%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
5059 Points ∼98% +3%
Average of class Gaming
  (2603 - 6959, n=115)
4933 Points ∼95% 0%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, ADATA XPG Gammix S11 480GB
4931 Points ∼95%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5705 Points ∼100% +4%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
5676 Points ∼99% +3%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5621 Points ∼99% +2%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, ADATA XPG Gammix S11 480GB
5486 Points ∼96%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
5111 Points ∼90% -7%
Average of class Gaming
  (2484 - 6515, n=310)
4919 Points ∼86% -10%
Home Score Accelerated v2
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4665 Points ∼100% +2%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4650 Points ∼100% +2%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, ADATA XPG Gammix S11 480GB
4565 Points ∼98%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
4504 Points ∼97% -1%
Average of class Gaming
  (2554 - 6093, n=328)
4218 Points ∼90% -8%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
4119 Points ∼88% -10%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4565 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5486 points
Help

Storage Devices

As mentioned before Windows 10 was installed on an M.2 480 GB SSD made by ADATA (XPG Gammix S11). The drive performed very well overall but was unable to keep up with the Samsung SSD that the Razer Blade 15 and the MSI GS65 were equipped with.  It easily outperformed the Asus ROG GU501GM’s Kingston SSD though.

SSD
SSD
SSD
SSD
HDD
HDD
HDD
HDD

A second M.2 slot is available inside the Tulpar T5 as well, and in addition to the 2.5-inch SATA slot it can be used for additional storage. Our review unit was equipped with an extra 1 TB large Seagate Barracuda Pro HDD that operated at 7,200 RPM.

Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
ADATA XPG Gammix S11 480GB
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Kingston RBUSNS8154P3128GJ
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
AS SSD
-59%
28%
24%
-12%
Score Total
3101
900
-71%
4095
32%
4122
33%
2536
-18%
Score Write
996
345
-65%
1955
96%
2051
106%
939
-6%
Score Read
1397
377
-73%
1407
1%
1346
-4%
1092
-22%
4K Write
101.32
67.1
-34%
99.18
-2%
107.15
6%
80.44
-21%
4K Read
52.88
22.62
-57%
48.56
-8%
48.94
-7%
23.36
-56%
Seq Write
1214.87
404.73
-67%
1916.59
58%
1834.04
51%
1163.11
-4%
Seq Read
1570.64
840.77
-46%
1819.95
16%
1266.1
-19%
2212.97
41%
ADATA XPG Gammix S11 480GB
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1677 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 1643 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 363.8 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 307.3 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1671 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 1579 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 52.39 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 97.03 MB/s

GPU Performance

All things graphics-related were handled by the massively popular GeForce GTX 1060 high-end GPU based on Nvidia’s Pascal architecture. It comes with 1,280 shaders and has access to 6 GB of GDDR5 VRAM (192-bit interface).

3DMark - 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
15156 Points ∼100% +30%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
14780 Points ∼98% +27%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11733 Points ∼77% +1%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11621 Points ∼77%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
11315 Points ∼75% -3%
Average of class Gaming
  (385 - 40636, n=441)
10260 Points ∼68% -12%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
19162 Points ∼100% +32%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
18687 Points ∼98% +29%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14975 Points ∼78% +3%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14507 Points ∼76%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
14180 Points ∼74% -2%
Average of class Gaming
  (513 - 50983, n=515)
11872 Points ∼62% -18%

It performed exactly as expected in our benchmarks, and its 3DMark 13 (Fire Strike) and 3DMark 11 scores were right where we would have expected them to be. A GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q would have been around 30% faster while a GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q would have performed similarly.

3DMark 11 Performance
13166 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
31561 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
10195 points
Help

The automatic GPU overclocking worked flawlessly in our Tulpar T5 review unit. Even after 60 minutes of running The Witcher 3 in Ultra/FHD the GTX 1060 managed to run at almost 1,600 MHz (default: 1,405 MHz). However, it barely ever reached its theoretical peak of 1,911 MHz.

0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra

Gaming Performance

All current games run very smoothly with (very) high details when limited to FHD (1920x1080).

The Witcher 3
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
52.7 fps ∼100% +35%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
52.4 fps ∼99% +35%
Average of class Gaming
  (12.6 - 115, n=217)
44.8 fps ∼85% +15%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
39 fps ∼74% 0%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
38.9 fps ∼74%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
37 fps ∼70% -5%
1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off)
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
95.5 fps ∼100% +36%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
92.8 fps ∼97% +32%
Average of class Gaming
  (11.1 - 184, n=181)
75.3 fps ∼79% +7%
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
74.2 fps ∼78% +5%
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
70.4 fps ∼74%
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
66 fps ∼69% -6%

Relinquishing support for G-Sync makes perfect sense given the notebook’s comparatively high mobility, and it is offset by the fast 144 Hz panel. Movements on screen were often buttery smooth and much more so than on any 60 Hz panel.

low med. high ultra
The Witcher 3 (2015) 70.438.9fps
FIFA 18 (2017) 217213fps
Destiny 2 (2017) 94.278.4fps
Assassin´s Creed Origins (2017) 6554fps
Need for Speed Payback (2017) 82.177.1fps
Star Wars Battlefront 2 (2017) 74.862.3fps
The Crew 2 (2018) 59.458fps
F1 2018 (2018) 8460fps

Emissions

System Noise

The Tulpar T5’s biggest weakness was by far its high level of noise. When running 3D applications the fans produced a sound pressure level of between 49 and 58 dB(A) (52 dB(A) @ The Witcher 3). Not only was this massively annoying, but it was also the loudest notebook in our comparison group. Gaming without a headset was nigh on impossible due to the massively oscillating and pumping fan noise that easily managed to overpower the speakers.

However, the CPU and GPU temperatures were comparatively low and thus proof that this high level of noise was rather moot. When running The Witcher 3 the GPU reached just 72 °C, and the CPU remained at between 60 and 70 °C. In other words: Tongfang, the manufacturer of this particular barebone, needs to address this issue as soon as possible.

Sound pressure level idle
Sound pressure level idle
Sound pressure level load
Sound pressure level load
Sound pressure level speakers
Sound pressure level speakers

At least the 15-inch notebook did a lot better in idle and low-load scenarios where it remained mostly soundless save for the occasional revving up of the fans and the humming noise of the hard disk drive. Once the HDD powered down, the Tulpar T5 was completely silent.

Noise Level

Idle
29 / 33 / 39 dB(A)
HDD
33 dB(A)
Load
49 / 58 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)
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
Average of class Gaming
 
Noise
5%
10%
10%
3%
6%
off / environment *
29
28.6
1%
28.1
3%
30
-3%
29
-0%
29.4 (27.7 - 32, n=222)
-1%
Idle Minimum *
29
31.4
-8%
28.1
3%
30
-3%
30
-3%
31.6 (28 - 41.7, n=643)
-9%
Idle Average *
33
31.4
5%
33
-0%
31
6%
31
6%
32.8 (28 - 46.6, n=643)
1%
Idle Maximum *
39
34.2
12%
33.5
14%
34
13%
35
10%
34.7 (28 - 50.4, n=643)
11%
Load Average *
49
42.8
13%
42.2
14%
43
12%
49
-0%
40.4 (30.3 - 58, n=644)
18%
Witcher 3 ultra *
52
50.9
2%
45.3
13%
42
19%
51
2%
Load Maximum *
58
50.9
12%
45.7
21%
44
24%
54
7%
47.7 (38.9 - 64, n=644)
18%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

The temperatures left us with mixed feelings. On the one hand, surface temperatures reached up to 52 °C under load and even up to 65 °C near the metal grills at the bottom. Thus, gaming with the notebook on your lap will become quite toasty. Idle temperatures, on the other hand, remained fairly low and never exceeded 30 °C.

The Witcher 3
The Witcher 3
Stress test
Stress test
Heat-map top (load)
Heat-map top (load)
Heat-map bottom
Heat-map bottom

Cooling during our stress test was subpar, to say the least. When running FurMark and Prime95 both the CPU and GPU started to throttle, despite more than acceptable temperatures.

Max. Load
 51 °C
124 F
52 °C
126 F
43 °C
109 F
 
 43 °C
109 F
46 °C
115 F
39 °C
102 F
 
 41 °C
106 F
41 °C
106 F
38 °C
100 F
 
Maximum: 52 °C = 126 F
Average: 43.8 °C = 111 F
63 °C
145 F
65 °C
149 F
49 °C
120 F
64 °C
147 F
64 °C
147 F
44 °C
111 F
33 °C
91 F
34 °C
93 F
32 °C
90 F
Maximum: 65 °C = 149 F
Average: 49.8 °C = 122 F
Power Supply (max.)  56 °C = 133 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Voltcraft IR-900
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 43.8 °C / 111 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 52 °C / 126 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F, ranging from 21.6 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The maximum temperature on the bottom side is 65 °C / 149 F, compared to the average of 41.6 °C / 107 F, ranging from 21.1 to 78 °C for the class Gaming.
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.4 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(-) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 41.4 °C / 107 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 41 °C / 105.8 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.7 °C / 83.7 F (-12.3 °C / -22.1 F).
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
Average of class Gaming
 
Heat
9%
-1%
12%
3%
7%
Maximum Upper Side *
52
43
17%
51.2
2%
49
6%
53
-2%
45.5 (28 - 68.8, n=608)
12%
Maximum Bottom *
65
46.6
28%
55.2
15%
63
3%
65
-0%
49.1 (25.9 - 78, n=606)
24%
Idle Upper Side *
30
29.2
3%
31
-3%
24
20%
26
13%
30.8 (21.6 - 46.8, n=559)
-3%
Idle Bottom *
30
34
-13%
35.6
-19%
25
17%
30
-0%
31.6 (21.1 - 50.3, n=557)
-5%

* ... smaller is better

Speaker

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2041.142.62535.936.73127.932.64032.335.15026.227.7632626.78027.327.310027.730.912527.842.216022.624.92002530.425022.543.631522.452.440018.857.750017.457.963017.264.280018.269.3100018.667.5125017.565.7160016.863.6200017.161.9250017.257.5315017.160.8400017.456.1500017.263.5630017.264.5800017.160.11000017.250.81250017.349.61600017.255.7SPL29.975.3N1.435.1median 17.4median 57.7Delta1.89.538.637.53535.635.733.934.434.132.236.934.237.131.844.930.251.729.257.429.665.728.564.327.464.827.563.426.359.326.358.925.162.625.666.225.5662564.42564.524.26724.470.924.571.623.974.323.769.423.765.823.466.623.464.323.558.723.450.336.880.82.850.1median 25median 64.51.82.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseMonster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.2% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (24.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (12.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 79% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.27 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 3.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Thanks to Nvidia’s Optimus graphics-switching technology overall power consumption was comparatively low. With the Nvidia GPU disabled the 15-inch notebook even turned out to be one of the most efficient gaming notebooks in our comparison group (10-18 W when idle). Under load and with the dedicated GPU activated it was once again close to average and consumed between 93 and 152 W of power, which was very similar to the Asus ROG GU501GM (94-141 W). Interesting side note: While the Schenker XMG Neo’s peak power consumption was measured at 180 W the identical Tulpar T5 only managed to draw 150 W, which is borderline considering the device’s hardware.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.4 / 1.5 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 10 / 12 / 18 Watt
Load midlight 93 / 152 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
Average of class Gaming
 
Power Consumption
-25%
-19%
-3%
-26%
-62%
Idle Minimum *
10
12.35
-24%
14.9
-49%
7
30%
14
-40%
20.2 (3.9 - 113, n=603)
-102%
Idle Average *
12
19.98
-67%
17.5
-46%
11
8%
18
-50%
25.8 (6.8 - 119, n=603)
-115%
Idle Maximum *
18
25.44
-41%
19.2
-7%
20
-11%
22
-22%
30.9 (8.3 - 122, n=603)
-72%
Load Average *
93
94.28
-1%
103.2
-11%
98
-5%
91
2%
104 (14.1 - 319, n=594)
-12%
Load Maximum *
152
140.63
7%
132.7
13%
182
-20%
173
-14%
166 (21.9 - 590, n=593)
-9%
Witcher 3 ultra *
110
132.86
-21%
123.1
-12%
132
-20%
142
-29%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

In addition to a quieter mode of operation we would have also wished for a bigger battery. The notebook’s very high level of portability (thickness: 2 cm; weight: 2 kg) is completely foiled by the tiny 46.7 Wh battery. A notebook that is easy to transport and might be of interest to gamers who like to travel should be equipped with a much larger battery. We would have been more than happy to sacrifice the 2.5-inch drive bay for additional battery capacity. In our Wi-Fi test at brightness normalized to 150 nits the Tulpar T5 lasted just 4 hours and was dwarfed by the competition that lasted between 6 and 8.5 hours in the exact same test.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
5h 05min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
4h 03min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 41min
Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, 46.74 Wh
Asus ROG GU501GM-BI7N8
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, 55 Wh
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8750H, 80 Wh
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, 82 Wh
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, 94.24 Wh
Average of class Gaming
 
Battery Runtime
-22%
65%
32%
105%
-4%
Reader / Idle
305
271
-11%
507
66%
762
150%
329 (39 - 1174, n=592)
8%
WiFi v1.3
243
240
-1%
402
65%
362
49%
513
111%
250 (78 - 622, n=268)
3%
Load
101
45
-55%
81
-20%
156
54%
78.6 (18 - 202, n=560)
-22%
H.264
356
504
244 (88 - 506, n=122)

Verdict

Pros

+ light and compact chassis
+ 144 Hz panel (optional)
+ mechanical keyboard
+ RGB backlight
+ slim bezels
+ NVMe-SSD
+ fast Wi-Fi
+ Optimus

Cons

- no Thunderbolt 3 or USB 3.1 Gen2
- massively oscillating CPU turbo
- poor sound performance
- slow card reader
- poor fan control
- screen bleeding
- small battery
- coil whine
Monster Tulpar T5 (Tongfang GK5CN6Z). Review unit courtesy of Monster Notebook.
Monster Tulpar T5 (Tongfang GK5CN6Z). Review unit courtesy of Monster Notebook.

At the end of this review our verdict for the Tulpar T5 V18.1 is identical to the Schenker XMG Neo 15’s that is based on the same Tongfang GK5CN6Z barebone.

The very well-made 144 Hz IPS panel with considerably narrow display bezels and the RGB backlit mechanical keyboard certainly deserve praise. Other strengths include its low weight and low profile, which makes this 15-inch gaming notebook perfect for taking along trips.

However, the poor sound performance, the small battery, and the very poor fan control effectively prevented a better overall score. The device was extraordinarily loud when running 3D applications, which is certainly going to scare off a significant amount of potential buyers.

The Monster notebook would barely make our Slim & Light Top 10 list.

Monster Tulpar T5 V18.1.1 - 09/11/2018 v6
Florian Glaser

Chassis
84 / 98 → 86%
Keyboard
89%
Pointing Device
81%
Connectivity
62 / 81 → 77%
Weight
63 / 10-66 → 94%
Battery
75%
Display
88%
Games Performance
93%
Application Performance
97%
Temperature
75 / 95 → 79%
Noise
56 / 90 → 62%
Audio
58%
Average
77%
84%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 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 > Monster Tulpar T5 (Tongfang GK5CN6Z, i7-8750H, GTX 1060, FHD) Laptop Review
Florian Glaser, 2018-09-13 (Update: 2018-09-14)