Notebookcheck

Schenker Technologies XMG Core 15 (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1060, Full HD) Laptop Review

Christian Hintze (translated by Frank Xia), 11/13/2017

Fast, but hot and hungry. Schenker is using a new case for its Core 15 laptop and they have been keeping quiet about where they got it from. We will review whether the change was worth it and how well this 15-inch piece compares to similarly equipped gaming laptops.

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.

Following the A517, which we tested this July, Schenker is pushing out, with their Core 15, another XMG gaming laptop with a 15-inch display. The new device is designed to impress with its strong hardware, and simple design with a high degree of customizability; many specifications and features can be chopped and changed in the XMG Core 15. For a starting price of 999 Euros (~$1162), one receives a Core i5-7300HQ, a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, 8 GB of RAM and a 500 GB hard drive. However, we are testing the noticeably better equipped model with a Core i7-7700HQ, a GTX 1060, 16 GB of RAM and an SSD-HDD tag team. The device currently costs around 1590 Euros (~$1849).

Also new is the fact that the case is no longer the same Clevo chassis found in the A517. Schenker confirmed this to us upon our inquiry, but was either unwilling or unable to name their new case manufacturer.

Needless to say, the XMG Core 15 also has to compare itself to similarly priced competitors with similar hardware specifications. In this vein, we are putting it to the test against the Asus FX502VM-AS73, the Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE, the Gigabyte P55W v7, as well as the Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE. The latter is the only device equipped with 8 GB of RAM, although it was nonetheless able to scrape through with the highest review score of the lot (86%). But will it be a match for the new Schenker? In addition to the competitors listed above, we will also be comparing the Core 15 to the XMG A517 from the same manufacturer in order to find out the differences between the two models and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the newer chassis.

Schenker XMG Core 15
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop) - 6144 MB, Core: 1405 MHz, Memory: 8000 MHz, GDDR5, ForceWare 387.92, No Optimus
Memory
16384 MB 
, 2x 8 GB SO-DIMM DDR4-2400, Dual Channel, both slots occupied
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel 141 PPI, LG Philips LP156WF6 (LGD046F), IPS, Full-HD, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM175 (Skylake PCH-H)
Storage
Samsung SSD 960 Evo 250GB m.2 NVMe, 250 GB 
, plus Seagate ST1000LM048, 1 TB HDD @5400 rpm. Connections: 1x M.2 Type 2280 & 1x 2.5-inch
Soundcard
Realtek ALC255 @ Intel Sunrise Point PCH - High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
4 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: Combined (headphones and microphone), Card Reader: 6-in-1
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265 (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 25.1 x 386 x 262 ( = 0.99 x 15.2 x 10.31 in)
Battery
82 Wh, 7180 mAh Lithium-Polymer, 6 cell, non-removable
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Speakers: 2.1, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 200 Watt Power Supply, Control Center, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
2.566 kg ( = 90.51 oz / 5.66 pounds), Power Supply: 850 g ( = 29.98 oz / 1.87 pounds)
Price
1,588 Euro

 

Case

The case has a simple black design and has dispensed with almost all traces of color and form factor that can often be found on other gaming laptops. Instead of the XMG logo, there is a single unobtrusive grey square cut through by black diagonal lines on the lid of the laptop. It is only on the inside of the device that the XMG Core 15 reveals its gaming ambitions, with its triangular on/off button in the top center, the gently slanted borders around its edges, and thereto parallel-running top side of the touchpad, which itself is slightly trapezoidal instead of being a normal rectangle.

Elsewhere, the Core 15's new grip is immediately evident, as the top side has a sort of matte-rubber finish called "Grip Touch", which supposedly offers "significantly more grip than normal plastic or metal surfaces". This claim we can confirm, although we have to say that the finish is a magnet for grease and fingerprints.

Another change when compared alongside the A517 is the underside. The battery is unfortunately no longer removable, which, despite nowadays being the regrettable norm, is still less practical. On the underside, one can make out the subwoofer grill, which is ever so slightly misaligned on our model.

The case seems all in all to be rather sturdy, although it does continue to make soft, dull clicking sounds when weight is placed onto the underside or the hand rests. The laptop lid seems to be comparatively more stable than those found on some of its competitors, although the clicking sounds can still be heard here, especially when the corners are twisted or turned. The two hinges hold the screen firmly in position, and the lid will not fall until it reaches the very sharpest of angles.

On the whole, we can attest that the new chassis is sturdy and well manufactured, although it tends to make clicking sounds now and again.

In terms of weight, there is not much separating the competitors. The weights range from 2.4 kg (~5.3 lb/A517) to 2.6 kg (~5.7 lb). The only outlier here is the Lenovo, weighing in at 3.1 kg (~6.8 lb).

As for the physical size, the XMG Core 15 falls into the middle of the pack. The Asus and the Acer are somewhat slimmer; the remaining devices are somewhat thicker. In comparison to the XMG A517, the XMG Core 15 is 5 mm (~0.2 in) thinner, somewhat longer, but not quite as deep to compensate. However, the sister model is around 200 grams (~7.1 oz) lighter.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

Ports

There are ports on both sides of our test model and none on the front and back. This causes the right hand side of the device to be rather cramped; the ports are positioned very close together, and thicker cables or USB sticks could find themselves competing for space. Despite this, there is still plenty of space on the front end of the device left free. Furthermore, the concentration of ports on the right hand side could negatively affect mouse operation for a right handed user. It could just be a thick HDMI cable or a heavy Ethernet cable that sticks out and restricts normal mouse movements. The manufacturers have wasted the chance to optimize connections layout.

As for the connections themselves, the Core 15 offers the usual. We are happy to see that there are no more USB 2.0 ports; all Type A ports support USB 3.0. For external monitors, there is a mini DisplayPort available as well as an HDMI outlet, and even the USB Type-C connector supposedly supports video display. Unfortunately, there is no Thunderbolt 3 support.

For headphones and microphones, there is unfortunately only a single combined input.

Left:: Power, 2x USB-A 3.0, Headset/Microphone, Status LEDs
Left:: Power, 2x USB-A 3.0, Headset/Microphone, Status LEDs
Right: SD Card Reader, USB-C 3.1, miniDP, USB-A 3.0, HDMI, Ethernet, Kensington
Right: SD Card Reader, USB-C 3.1, miniDP, USB-A 3.0, HDMI, Ethernet, Kensington
Back: Air Vents
Back: Air Vents
Front: Nothing
Front: Nothing

SD Card Reader

We are testing the performance of the SD card reader with our Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64GB UHS-II reference storage card. In this test, we can hardly tell the competitors apart. Only the Acer falls noticeably behind, operating about 70% slower. Our test device and all other models are only separated by a performance difference of a few percentage points. Overall, the performance of the SD card reader is par for the course.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Schenker XMG Core 15
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
80 MB/s ∼100%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78.8 MB/s ∼99% -1%
Schenker XMG A517
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78 MB/s ∼98% -2%
Gigabyte P55W v7
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
76 MB/s ∼95% -5%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
22.7 MB/s ∼28% -72%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Gigabyte P55W v7
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
88 MB/s ∼100% +1%
Schenker XMG A517
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
87 MB/s ∼99% 0%
Schenker XMG Core 15
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
87 MB/s ∼99%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
(Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
86.9 MB/s ∼99% 0%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
27.2 MB/s ∼31% -69%

Communication

The XMG Core 15 does not hold up quite so well when it comes to data transfer speeds. It appears to be operating at two different standards; on one hand, the device manages to climb up to second place in our rankings with its download speeds. On the other hand, it drags its feet into last place in our upload test, a full 26% behind the next worse Gigabyte. The winner in our upload test, the Lenovo, is a full 77% faster. The cause of this defeat most probably lies in the drivers, and not a poor network adapter.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Schenker XMG A517
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
683 MBit/s ∼100% +3%
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
664 MBit/s ∼97%
Gigabyte P55W v7
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
663 MBit/s ∼97% 0%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
541 MBit/s ∼79% -19%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
Atheros/Qualcomm QCA6174
541 MBit/s ∼79% -19%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
511 MBit/s ∼75% -23%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
661 MBit/s ∼100% +77%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
Atheros/Qualcomm QCA6174
618 MBit/s ∼93% +66%
Schenker XMG A517
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
616 MBit/s ∼93% +65%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
513 MBit/s ∼78% +38%
Gigabyte P55W v7
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
470 MBit/s ∼71% +26%
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
373 MBit/s ∼56%

Safety

As to be expected for a device of this caliber, the Schenker laptop is equipped with a Kensington lock. In addition, it offers TPM version 2.0 from Intel PPT.

Accessories

The following accessories are included with the purchase of the Core 15 in the laptop packaging; power adapter, a stylish, green-black "XMG" sticker, a Windows recovery DVD, a driver DVD as well as a black USB stick with additional drivers. Additionally, Schenker offers a range of external accessories via their website. These are, however, not specific to any particular device, which is why we will not be going into details about them.

Maintenance

Internal View
Internal View

Neither the backplate nor the battery of the Core 15 is removable. Despite that, it is relatively easy to gain access to the device's built-in components. It is enough to remove the ten visible screws, after which the backplate can be removed. The easiest way to do this is by separating the back from the front of the laptop where you would normally rest your hands. After doing so, one has full access to the battery, the two RAM slots, SSD, hard drive, and the fan.

Warranty

As per usual, the manufacturer offers a standard 24-month warranty. It costs an additional 60 Euros (~$70) to include a device checkup with the warranty. The same service for 36 months costs a ludicrous 200 Euros (~$232) extra.

A quick turnaround time for repairs comes free with the laptop only for the first six months. We hope this does not mean that warranty claims outside of this timeframe entail extremely long waiting times. In any case, one can always pay the manufacturer for this service. 12 months of quick turnaround can be bought for 40 Euros (~$46), and having access to this "service" for the life of the warranty costs 60 Euros (~$70).

Input

Keyboard

The keyboard
The keyboard

The keys are, with the exception of the function keys, about 1.5 x 1.5 cm (~0.6 x 0.6 in) large and relatively quiet. The tactile feedback is generally good, although some strokes can sometimes feel a little spongy. The layout is also largely satisfactory, with only the arrow keys being packed a little too tightly between the letters and the number pad. Otherwise, the layout is clean and conservative. The on and off keys are located separately above the middle of the keyboard, so that one cannot mix them up with the other keys. The function keys are, as per usual, equipped with additional functions that control the playing of media files (play, stop, rewind, fast forward) as well as the volume.

The keyboard is uniformly lit with two levels of brightness. The lighting effects can be activated and the brightness can be changed by holding down Fn + spacebar.

Touchpad

The touchpad
The touchpad

The touchpad is slightly trapezoidal, as the edges run somewhat diagonally up the surface of the laptop. The bottom, longer side is 11.3 cm (~4.4 in) and the shorter, top side is 11 cm (~4.3 in). Consequently, the difference is small and hardly noticeable. However, the height, which comes in at 6.6 cm (~2.6 in) is far more noticeable, especially since there are no dedicated buttons on the touchpad. We occasionally caught our fingers in the search for the touchpad as the distance between the bottom edge of the laptop and the beginning of the pad is relatively large.

But in general, the touchpad is smooth, easy to use, and of a reasonable size. The click sounds are pleasantly quiet and precise. Gestures with multiple fingers work likewise without issue. The only issue seems to be caused by a normal tap with one finger; the reaction is not always consistent, which is a sign that the sensitivity has been set too low.

Display

Subpixel
Subpixel
Weak screen bleeding on the top edge
Weak screen bleeding on the top edge

For the display, the only option is a matte-finish, 15-inch IPS panel with full HD resolution. There is really no reason to want to choose something else, as the LG Philips IPS display offers a great viewing experience. It is only the brightness that could be improved a little to reach over 300 cd/m2; the Core 15 achieves a brightness of 276 cd/m2. This is somewhat puzzling, as its sister model with a nominally identical panel reaches 311 cd/m2 and in doing so slides into the top spot of our rankings. The other laptops measure at just under 300 cd/m2; only the Asus is noticeably weaker. At 87%, the light distribution on the panel is also acceptable, and the same can be said for all other competitors.

In really dark scenes, we were able to make out a slight backlight bleed. We investigated this further in a darkened room and discovered that the backlight bleed is most widespread, although fortunately rather weak, along the top edges of the screen. It is only really noticeable in very dark scenes.

268
cd/m²
278
cd/m²
263
cd/m²
299
cd/m²
297
cd/m²
282
cd/m²
269
cd/m²
263
cd/m²
261
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 299 cd/m² Average: 275.6 cd/m² Minimum: 46 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 297 cd/m²
Contrast: 990:1 (Black: 0.3 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.25 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 4.64 | - Ø
83% sRGB (Argyll) 54% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.39
Schenker XMG Core 15
LG Philips LP156WF6 (LGD046F), 1920x1080, 15.6
Schenker XMG A517
LG Philips LP156WF6 (LGD046F), 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus FX502VM-AS73
1920x1080, 15.6
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
LG Philips LGD0533 LP156WF6-SPK3, 1920x1080, 15.6
Gigabyte P55W v7
LG Philips LP156WF6 (LGD046F), 1920x1080, 15.6
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
LG Display LP156WF6-SPP1, 1920x1080, 15.6
Response Times
12%
28%
6%
14%
-6%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
40.8 (20.4, 20.4)
36 (18, 18)
12%
28.4 (11.2, 17.2)
30%
43 (22, 21)
-5%
37 (15, 22)
9%
41 (21, 20)
-0%
Response Time Black / White *
30.4 (16.4, 14)
24 (12.4, 11.6)
21%
22.4 (6, 16.4)
26%
24 (12, 12)
21%
25 (5, 20)
18%
34 (21, 13)
-12%
PWM Frequency
20490 (95)
21000 (95)
2%
21000 (90)
2%
Screen
1%
-27%
-13%
4%
8%
Brightness
276
311
13%
205
-26%
275
0%
289
5%
297
8%
Brightness Distribution
87
90
3%
92
6%
86
-1%
87
0%
86
-1%
Black Level *
0.3
0.36
-20%
0.69
-130%
0.36
-20%
0.29
3%
0.31
-3%
Contrast
990
889
-10%
304
-69%
800
-19%
990
0%
1039
5%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.25
5.08
3%
4.7
10%
5.29
-1%
4.92
6%
4.73
10%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.64
4.04
13%
1.8
61%
4.5
3%
3.66
21%
2.99
36%
Gamma
2.39 100%
2.34 103%
2.23 108%
2.39 100%
2.32 103%
2.32 103%
CCT
6600 98%
7029 92%
6975 93%
6839 95%
6482 100%
6905 94%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
54
56
4%
36.2
-33%
37
-31%
54
0%
56
4%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
83
85
2%
56.6
-32%
57
-31%
82
-1%
85
2%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
7% / 4%
1% / -16%
-4% / -7%
9% / 6%
1% / 5%

* ... smaller is better

A black value of 0.3 is good and the contrast of 990:1 is also more than acceptable. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the color variation and the levels of grey, which emerged the worst in a direct comparison. The Core 15 covers 83% of the sRGB and 54% of the AdobeRGB spectrum of colors, which is similar to most of its rivals. Only the Asus and the Lenovo trail measurably behind.

It is worth mentioning the monitor's noticeably slower response times that can cause blurriness and streaking in fast-paced games such as shooters. In this respect, the use of an external monitor is recommended. This is supported by the fact that the MiniDisplayPort connection supports G-Sync on capable monitors, whereas the built-in display has no such support.

The display seems to use PWM to control its brightness. Its very high frequency of 20490 should hardly be noticeable, even to the most sensitive eyes. However, flickering can quickly become a problem, namely, as soon as the brightness falls below 95%. It is therefore almost permanently there (at least when on balanced or energy saving profiles)

Subjectively, we find the display to be pretty good, particularly the contrast and the saturated blacks.

Overall, we judge the display to be adequate - good even, in some areas - without exceeding any expectations. There is no clear winner in our comparison. However, the sister model A517 comes out on top with a slight advantage; but above all, it offers a higher level of brightness.

CalMAN: Levels of grey
CalMAN: Levels of grey
CalMAN: Levels of grey (calibrated)
CalMAN: Levels of grey (calibrated)
CalMAN: Color Saturation
CalMAN: Color Saturation
CalMAN: Color Saturation (calibrated)
CalMAN: Color Saturation (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)
Schenker XMG Core 15 vs. sRGB (83%)
Schenker XMG Core 15 vs. sRGB (83%)
Schenker XMG Core 15 vs. AdobeRGB (54%)
Schenker XMG Core 15 vs. AdobeRGB (54%)
Outdoors under clouds
Outdoors under clouds

The brightness of 276 cd/m2 is sufficient for outdoor use. Direct exposure to the sun should obviously be avoided, but the acceptable brightness, the deep blacks and good contrast, the matte finish and the typical IPS field of view make the laptop a good candidate for use in fresh air. As we tested our device on a day with relatively little sunlight, we were able to capture a few photos that show how the display holds up in cloudy weather. The image on the screen is recognizable without any problem.

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
40.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 20.4 ms rise
↘ 20.4 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. » 46 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (42.5 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 20490 Hz95 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 20490 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 95 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 20490 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 55 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8536 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

We are used to seeing good viewing angles on an IPS panel, and the panel on the Core 15 is no exception. One does not need to worry about the loss of brightness or color streaking typically associated with TN displays when tilting the lid back and forth. The picture below shows the results of viewing the screen at different angles with a screen tilt of 45 degrees.

Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles

Performance

Latency and dropouts
Latency and dropouts

Many of the components in the new Schenker can be freely configured, leading to vast differences in the pricing and of course the performance. Firstly, there is a choice between one of two processors, either a Core i5-7300HQ without Hyperthreading (HT) or a faster Core i7-7700HQ with HT. As for the graphics card, one can choose between a GTX 1050 Ti or the faster GTX 1060. Even the RAM can be purchased piecemeal; between 8 GB and 32 GB can be fitted into the Core 15's two RAM slots. The device's configurability extends to its storage solutions and communications modules.

Our test device, with its Core i7-7700HQNvidia GTX 1060, 16 GB of RAM, SSD and HDD, represents one of the stronger variations and should be sufficient for most user requirements. The only people that may have complaints are hard-core gamers, and even then, only at QHD or 4k resolutions. For everyone else, the laptop is equipped to handle all their computing needs.

However, there could arguably be a few issues with the drivers; in any case, the tool LatencyMon reports a slight delay in the replay of real time audio with other tasks. The suggestion to disable the wireless network adaptor did not help, and it is something that Schenker will have to address with future updates.

Processor

The processor working in our Core 15 is an Intel Core i7-7700HQ, a very fast quad-core CPU, which can operate up to 8 threads simultaneously. The processor frequency ranges from 2.8 GHz to 3.8 GHz. The powerful CPU should be sufficient for any conceivable task, be that gaming or video editing, not to mention basic office use. More information on the Core i7-7700HQ can be found in our benchmark section.

A graphics unit is also integrated in the CPU, which, however, unfortunately, does not come into play in the GTX 1060 version.

Our Cinebench R15 loop, running for 30 minutes, is designed to reveal any possible throttling the processor may experience after a certain amount of time. In our test, signs of throttling have not yet emerged, with the processor running at between 3.1 GHz and 3.4 GHz throughout. However, a clock speed of 3.1 GHz is already well below the theoretical maximum, and therefore, we will have to keep an eye on the CPU frequency. The performance spikes are particularly interesting; perhaps the laptop is not always capable of drawing upon all of its power. In our single core test, the CPU ran at 3.8 GHz.

Single core Rendering
Single core Rendering
Multicore Rendering
Multicore Rendering
GPU Load
GPU Load
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit

Overall, the device performs as expected, but that can also be said for most of its competitors. At their greatest, the performance differences were about 2%, and only the Asus and the Acer tended to fall behind.

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Schenker XMG A517
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
161 Points ∼100% +1%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
160 Points ∼99% 0%
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
160 Points ∼99%
Gigabyte P55W v7
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
156 Points ∼97% -2%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
152 Points ∼94% -5%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
140 Points ∼87% -12%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
737 Points ∼100% +2%
Gigabyte P55W v7
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
733 Points ∼99% +2%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
725 Points ∼98% 0%
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
722 Points ∼98%
Schenker XMG A517
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
710 Points ∼96% -2%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
673 (min: 660) Points ∼91% -7%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.81 Points ∼100%
Schenker XMG A517
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.8 Points ∼99% -1%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.67 Points ∼92% -8%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.11 Points ∼100%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7.99 Points ∼99% -1%
Schenker XMG A517
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7.65 Points ∼94% -6%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7795 Points ∼100%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
Schenker XMG Core 15
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
29210 Points ∼100%
Cinebench R10 Shading 64Bit
6836 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
29210 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
7795 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
8.11 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
72.32 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.81 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
160 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
113.67 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
722 Points
Help

System Performance

In our PCMark 8 test, the gap between our competitors is somewhat larger, at least in terms of the Home Score. The XMG Core 15 comes in second place, trailing only 3 percentage points behind the first place Asus, which in our Work Score test came last, performing somehow 50% slower than the competition. Our test device came first in the Work Score test. Thus, in a direct comparison, the system performance is very good. Subjectively, we can say that the laptop performs its tasks smoothly, and without lag or stuttering. Along with the good CPU and GPU, the fast EVO 960-SSD must surely also contribute to the good results.

PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SSD 960 Evo 250GB m.2 NVMe
5332 Points ∼100%
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D256
5317 Points ∼100% 0%
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SSD 960 Evo 500GB m.2 NVMe
5198 Points ∼97% -3%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5083 Points ∼95% -5%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
2722 Points ∼51% -49%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
4765 Points ∼100% +3%
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SSD 960 Evo 250GB m.2 NVMe
4626 Points ∼97%
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung SSD 960 Evo 500GB m.2 NVMe
4187 Points ∼88% -9%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4115 Points ∼86% -11%
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D256
4013 Points ∼84% -13%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4626 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5332 points
Help

Storage Solutions

Our test configuration comes with two storage options. A 256 GB SSD from Samsung serves as its main storage drive for the operating system and other programs. An additional 1 TB hard drive from Seagate serves as our secondary storage.

The Samsung 960 EVO 250 GB is a fast M.2 SSD with an NVMe connection. In our benchmark section for SDs and HDDs, the 960 EVO comes in in 11th place and thus has a very fast data transfer rate. And the results from our tests confirm our expectations. Together with the Lenovo, the Core 15 has the fastest data transfer speeds among the competition. This also contributes to the device's good general operating speeds (see above).

The Seagate HDD is naturally slower, and compared with other HDDs, it is also rather average. However, it is quite suitable as a secondary storage.

SSD: Crystaldiskmark 3
SSD: Crystaldiskmark 3
SSD: Crystaldiskmark 5
SSD: Crystaldiskmark 5
HDD: HDTune
HDD: HDTune
Schenker XMG Core 15
Samsung SSD 960 Evo 250GB m.2 NVMe
Asus FX502VM-AS73
SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Gigabyte P55W v7
Liteonit CV3-8D256
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
-63%
3%
-61%
-96%
Write 4k QD32
481.9
99.74
-79%
396.3
-18%
240.1
-50%
0.274
-100%
Read 4k QD32
577.2
369.9
-36%
485.4
-16%
358.5
-38%
1.133
-100%
Write 4k
134
70.91
-47%
153.5
15%
54.98
-59%
0.313
-100%
Read 4k
58.35
29.36
-50%
60.07
3%
25.4
-56%
0.473
-99%
Write 512
1006
137.8
-86%
810
-19%
254.8
-75%
84.36
-92%
Read 512
779.8
343.5
-56%
746.5
-4%
252.5
-68%
37.83
-95%
Write Seq
1188
138.2
-88%
1144
-4%
261.9
-78%
101.8
-91%
Read Seq
1338
502.5
-62%
2196
64%
466.2
-65%
120.9
-91%
Samsung SSD 960 Evo 250GB m.2 NVMe
Sequential Read: 1338 MB/s
Sequential Write: 1188 MB/s
512K Read: 779.8 MB/s
512K Write: 1006 MB/s
4K Read: 58.35 MB/s
4K Write: 134 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 577.2 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 481.9 MB/s

Graphics Card

The included Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 is currently the third fastest laptop graphics card behind the 1080 and 1070 (and their Max Q variants), and it should thus be capable of overcoming practically every game on high, or even very high, graphics settings at full HD resolution. Naturally, the GTX 1060 also carries its weight in other 3D applications and video editing. All uses and benchmarks for this card can be found in our data bank.

All of our competitors were on the same metaphorical page in our 3DMark 2013 test, with insignificant differences between them. The same can be said of the results in our 3DMark 11 test.

When the device is operating on battery mode, the 3DMark 11 refuses to run. We are therefore running our test using the scrutinizing Cloud Gate from 3DMark 2013. While not plugged in, our test device can only achieve a graphics score of 6902 instead of the previous 80056 - that is a drop of over 90%! In both cases, the high performance profile was active. The graphics performance also dropped in Fire Strike, falling from 11322 points down to 3647. The device's performance is therefore heavily throttled while running on battery.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
3DMark 2013: Fire Strike
3DMark 2013: Fire Strike
3DMark 2013: Cloud Gate
3DMark 2013: Cloud Gate
3DMark - 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Asus FX502VM-AS73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11633 Points ∼100% +3%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11494 Points ∼99% +2%
Schenker XMG A517
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11439 Points ∼98% +1%
Gigabyte P55W v7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11426 Points ∼98% +1%
Schenker XMG Core 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11322 Points ∼97%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11134 Points ∼96% -2%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14942 Points ∼100% +3%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14732 Points ∼99% +2%
Gigabyte P55W v7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14693 Points ∼98% +2%
Schenker XMG Core 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14471 Points ∼97%
Schenker XMG A517
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14399 Points ∼96% 0%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14233 Points ∼95% -2%
3DMark 11 Performance
12840 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
26226 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
9660 points
Help

Gaming Performance

The Core 15 runs current games smoothly. However, the rather average refresh rate of 38 FPS on “The Witcher 3” running on ultra presets could lead one to believe that the GTX 1060 will soon be pushed to its limits by future top titles on their maximum graphics settings, as an average of 38 FPS in “The Witcher 3” already leaves precious little room for some of the game's more demanding scenes. On the other hand, the Core 15 has no problems with “Rise of the Tomb Raider” or “Doom”. And the same should hold true for most of the current games, even on the highest graphics settings. However, it is likely that high details on an external 4K monitor will push the graphics card beyond its limits.

low med. high ultra
The Witcher 3 (2015) 207.21131.9869.5738.2fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 181.07136.0571.0559.36fps
Doom (2016) 155.3146.44102.297.42fps

In our endurance test with “The Witcher 3” running for at least an hour, we will examine whether or not the performance of the laptop is throttled with extensive use, for example through cooling issues or simply with time. And this appears to indeed be the case, as seen in our graph below, although at the end of the day it seems to be only the automatic GPU Turbo speeds that are suffering.

0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra

Our practical gaming comparison brings with it neither positive nor negative surprises. All devices perform more or less equally. For example, the otherwise strong Lenovo falls behind by about 5% to 9% when running “The Witcher 3”. As all of our competing devices have the same combination of GPU and CPU, the differences in performance were minimal.

The Witcher 3
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
39.2 fps ∼100% +3%
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
38.4 fps ∼98% +1%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
38.3 fps ∼98% 0%
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
38.2 fps ∼97%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
35.5 fps ∼91% -7%
1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off)
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
70.9 fps ∼100% +2%
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
70.4 fps ∼99% +1%
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
69.57 fps ∼98%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
68 fps ∼96% -2%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
66 fps ∼93% -5%
Rise of the Tomb Raider
1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
61.8 fps ∼100% +4%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
61.3 fps ∼99% +3%
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
60.7 fps ∼98% +2%
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
59.36 fps ∼96%
1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX AF:4x
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
74.5 fps ∼100% +5%
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
72.6 fps ∼97% +2%
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
71.05 fps ∼95%
Doom
1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:SM
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
97.42 fps ∼100%
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
95.1 fps ∼98% -2%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
93 fps ∼95% -5%
1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
102.2 fps ∼100%
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
97 fps ∼95% -5%

Emissions

System Noise

Compared to the A517, the Core 15 remains consistently a little quieter. It also holds up well when put up against the rest of the competition. In particular, the noise emissions while playing “The Witcher 3” on ultra are comparatively low - very good. The Core 15 remains relatively quiet in all situations, and overall it slots in just in the upper midfield. The A517, the Asus and to some extent the Gigabyte are all louder under load. The Lenovo and the Acer are, however, slightly quieter depending on how hard they are being pushed, although they are all pretty similar overall.

The noise produced by the fans is reasonable, and we did not notice any revving in our tests. The same can be said for that annoying whining sound. In our test device, we were not able to detect any such noises.

Sound Levels When Idle
Sound Levels When Idle
Sound Levels When Under Load
Sound Levels When Under Load
Speaker Volume
Speaker Volume

Noise Level

Idle
31 / 32 / 34 dB(A)
Load
41 / 47 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: 29 dB(A)
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Noise
-7%
-2%
2%
-3%
-1%
off / environment *
29
30
-3%
28.7
1%
30.3
-4%
30
-3%
30.4
-5%
Idle Minimum *
31
30
3%
30.6
1%
31
-0%
33
-6%
30.9
-0%
Idle Average *
32
35
-9%
30.6
4%
30.9
3%
34
-6%
30.9
3%
Idle Maximum *
34
40
-18%
31
9%
31.5
7%
35
-3%
31.5
7%
Load Average *
41
43
-5%
46.2
-13%
38.7
6%
39
5%
40.7
1%
Witcher 3 ultra *
39
43
-10%
42
-8%
45.5
-17%
Load Maximum *
47
49
-4%
52.3
-11%
41.9
11%
50
-6%
43.9
7%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

The XMG Core 15 blows its good run so far with its surface temperatures - the Achilles heel of this gaming laptop. Compared with its direct competition, the XMG Core 15 is clearly the hottest device - and not in the good way! The bottom of the device in particular becomes noticeably hot, reaching temperatures of 39 degrees Celsius (~102 degrees Fahrenheit) while idling. Some of its competitors are 10 or even 15 degrees cooler!

Our tepid reception to the device's cooling solution gets worse as we put it to work. Under load, the bottom of the device reaches up to 61 degrees Celsius (~142 degrees Fahrenheit)! That is hot enough to cook the protein in our skin cells and kill them. Of course, we do not recommend that gaming laptops be used on bare legs anyway, but the XMG Core 15's competitors are often able to do it much better. Just to compare: The very cool Lenovo lands in first place in terms of temperature reaching just 37 instead of 61 degrees Celsius (~99 degrees Fahrenheit instead of ~142).

Although the top of the laptop is not quite as hot as the bottom, 53 degrees Celsius (~127 degrees Fahrenheit) is still pretty warm, whereas its competitors, with the exception of the well performing Lenovo, move closer together. Nonetheless, the area where you would normally rest your hands remains relatively cool.

Overall, there is room for improvement in terms of the device's heat dissipation. The cooling system that is currently implemented seems to either not be up to scratch or not working at its fullest potential. Perhaps Schenker has prioritized noise emissions over cooling. It is also possible that the new chassis is not good enough for proper air circulation. In any case, the poor heat dissipation is likely to limit the device's portability.

Stress test
Stress test
Full load above (Optris PI 640)
Full load above (Optris PI 640)
Full load below (Optris PI 640)
Full load below (Optris PI 640)
Max. Load
 50 °C50 °C53 °C 
 51 °C50 °C45 °C 
 35 °C32 °C33 °C 
Maximum: 53 °C
Average: 44.3 °C
54 °C59 °C43 °C
58 °C61 °C38 °C
27 °C29 °C25 °C
Maximum: 61 °C
Average: 43.8 °C
Power Supply (max.)  38 °C | Room Temperature 20 °C | Voltcraft IR-900
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Heat
12%
11%
32%
25%
14%
Maximum Upper Side *
53
53
-0%
53.2
-0%
41.6
22%
49.6
6%
51.9
2%
Maximum Bottom *
61
49
20%
56.8
7%
37
39%
47.7
22%
54.6
10%
Idle Upper Side *
35
33
6%
28.8
18%
24.9
29%
23.6
33%
29.1
17%
Idle Bottom *
39
30
23%
31.4
19%
24.3
38%
24.6
37%
29.3
25%

* ... smaller is better

Speakers

The Core 15 has a 2.1 sound system - two stereo speakers and a subwoofer, the latter of which is supposed to bring about deeper basses. Nonetheless, the sound system fails to impress. The bass is not particularly strong, and there is especially a lot to be desired in terms of maximum volume. However, these are problems that most of the Core 15's competitors do not address any better either.

External devices or headphones can be connected via the analogue jack. The sound-out port is simultaneously the same sound-in port for the microphone; unfortunately there is no additional or dedicated port.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs204345.42536.739.93129.431.84034.140.55027.2306324.829.58025.738.810025.439.812522.234.216021.644.220022.748.825022.452.531519.853.140018.350.850017.361.163017.269.580017.172.7100016.866.3125016.863.5160016.960.4200016.858.7250017.155.531501751.2400016.953500017.153.5630017.156.6800017.258.51000017.554.11250017.843.41600017.134.9SPL29.475.3N1.232.1median 17.2Schenker XMG Core 15median 53.5Delta1.95.23734.931.629.128.726.529.330.827.226.225.32625.32625.436.422.54923.547.522.457.319.963.620.566.218.868.618.266.818.369.617.67117.770.717.171.116.971.617.268.417.365.717.264.717.365.217.462.517.359.617.559.918.166.917.572.717.26829.780.21.349.2median 17.6HP Omen 15-ce002ngmedian 66.21.74.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Schenker XMG Core 15 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 10.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 66% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 50% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HP Omen 15-ce002ng audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (12% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 7% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequenzdiagramm im Vergleich (Checkboxen oben an-/abwählbar!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

We were not expecting great energy efficiency in light of the heat loss in our test model. And we were proven right. The XMG Core 15 is unfortunately in a direct comparison the most power hungry laptop, both while idling and under load. At 22 watts, the device uses in an average idle state about twice as much power as the remaining competitors, many of which benefit from Nvidia's Optimus technology and can save power when idle by turning off the dedicated graphics card. Only the Asus also lacks the Optimus, although even it uses less power than our test device.

Under extreme load, both Schenker models turn into power hungry monsters. The top power consumptions of 180 W (A517) and 175W (Core 15) are noticeably higher than the 150 W average of the competition. The higher temperatures and power consumption are probably the reason for the performance throttling that comes about now and again, particularly when the device is running on battery mode. Nevertheless, the 200-watt power supply is strong enough to charge the laptop even when it is operating under full load.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.4 / 0.8 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 18 / 22 / 26 Watt
Load midlight 93 / 175 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
Power Consumption
20%
18%
36%
33%
28%
Idle Minimum *
18
8
56%
14.9
17%
8
56%
8
56%
7.2
60%
Idle Average *
22
12
45%
15.1
31%
10.9
50%
13
41%
10.5
52%
Idle Maximum *
26
25
4%
15.2
42%
11.8
55%
18
31%
16
38%
Load Average *
93
85
9%
105.8
-14%
70
25%
76
18%
82
12%
Load Maximum *
175
180
-3%
148.8
15%
148
15%
143
18%
155
11%
Witcher 3 ultra *
119
110
8%
102
14%
124
-4%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

We will just say it up front: The battery life is the worst when compared to the competition, despite the fact that the XMG Core 15 has the largest battery (82 Wh instead of roughly 60 Wh)! Only the Asus puts in a similarly poor performance, but then it has a smaller battery. The laptop's sister model does not win any accolades for its battery life either, although it does last a fair bit longer than its newer sibling.

When idle - that is, not running any noteworthy programs - our test model was able to get through just five hours on one charge. The Lenovo and Gigabyte achieve a runtime of 12 hours, but the other devices are even somewhat better. This trend holds true in our further testing.

In our test to determine the minimum battery life, we simulate a heavy load using Battery Eater while activating all the power hungry services such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and the high performance profile. Under these conditions, the Core 15 lasted 1 hour and 20 minutes. Most of the competition performed similarly poorly in this test, even the Lenovo. Only the Acer managed to hold on for an extra hour.

For our practical use test, we use the laptop's balanced power profile, reduce the brightness down to 150 cd/m2 and surf through different websites using a script. The battery lasts for about 4.5 hours under this load.

Similarly, we reduced the brightness for our battery test, changed the battery profile to energy saving and deactivated the wireless modules. The device lasted 234 minutes in this test before its lights went out.

There are gaming laptops that perform even worse in battery tests, but the XMG Core 15's direct competitors offer significantly better battery life. These modest results, in combination with the extreme graphics throttling when not plugged in, greatly limit the portability of the 15-inch gaming device. Gaming while on the road is impossible, even on medium graphics settings. You can basically save yourself the trouble of carrying the device with you onto a train or similar scenarios.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
5h 00min
WiFi Surfing v1.3
4h 42min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
3h 54min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 20min
Schenker XMG Core 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, 82 Wh
Schenker XMG A517
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, 62 Wh
Asus FX502VM-AS73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, 64 Wh
Lenovo Lenovo Legion Y720 80VR002XGE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, 60 Wh
Gigabyte P55W v7
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, 63 Wh
Acer Aspire VN7-593G-73HP V15 Nitro BE
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, 69 Wh
Battery Runtime
28%
-0%
48%
70%
58%
Reader / Idle
300
447
49%
363
21%
707
136%
789
163%
501
67%
H.264
234
310
32%
312
33%
WiFi v1.3
282
301
7%
277
-2%
380
35%
346
23%
357
27%
Load
80
99
24%
64
-20%
71
-11%
98
23%
144
80%

Verdict

Pros

+ grippy, rubber finish
+ rear plate easily removable
+ good input devices
+ decent IPS Display
+ very good SSD
+ high system performance
+ remains relatively quiet

Cons

- no Thunderbolt 3
- too many adjacent connections on the right hand side
- latency/drop outs
- extreme throttling running on battery
- high temperatures
- high energy usage
- poor battery life
The Schenker XMG Core 15, provided by Schenker Technologies.
The Schenker XMG Core 15, provided by Schenker Technologies.

The actually quite good Schenker XMG Core 15 gaming laptop was running out of steam by our final tests.

The Core 15 scores points with its quite decent display, easy access to its components, good configurability and above all, very good performance.

On the flip side, the device suffers from poor heat dissipation, high energy use, a somewhat low battery life and it lacks driver optimization (keyword: latency). The new chassis seems to be a downgrade rather than an upgrade in terms of heat dissipation, although it is otherwise quite pleasant and above all quieter than the XMG A517. The lack of Thunderbolt 3 and second generation USB 3.1 ports is also somewhat annoying.

Schenker XMG Core 15 - 11/07/2017 v6
Christian Hintze

Chassis
74 / 98 → 75%
Keyboard
83%
Pointing Device
81%
Connectivity
60 / 81 → 73%
Weight
59 / 66 → 88%
Battery
76%
Display
85%
Games Performance
93%
Application Performance
96%
Temperature
78 / 95 → 82%
Noise
80 / 90 → 89%
Audio
60%
Average
77%
84%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Schenker Technologies XMG Core 15 (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1060, Full HD) Laptop Review
Christian Hintze, 2017-11-13 (Update: 2017-11-13)