Notebookcheck

Schenker XMG Neo 15 (i7-8750H, RTX 2070 Max-Q) Tongfang GK5CQ7Z Laptop Review

Sascha Mölck, 👁 Florian Glaser (translated by Finn D. Boerne), 03/27/2019

Compact gamer. Thanks to its Core i7-8750H CPU and its GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q GPU all games should run smoothly on the Neo's matte 15.6-inch display. Other highlights include a mechanical keyboard, a fast SSD, and a 144 Hz panel. In return, the notebook lacks modern connectivity features such as Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3.1 Gen 2.

Thin and compact 15.6-inch gaming notebooks are growing increasingly popular, and accordingly there are plenty of devices available from various manufacturers. Schenker’s 15.6-inch gamer is called XMG Neo 15, and it is based on a Tongfang barebone. We have already had its predecessor in review in 2018.

As it was only updated internally the current XMG Neo 15’s case remained identical to its predecessor. This latest reincarnation features either a GeForce RTX 2060 or GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q Turing GPU. Our review unit was equipped with the latter. Its competitors are the Gigabyte Aero 15-X9, MSI GS65 8RF Stealth Thin, Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS, Acer Predator Triton 500, and Razer Blade 15.

Given the similarities with its predecessor we are not going to cover case, connectivity, input devices, and speakers in detail in this review. Instead, we would like to refer you to last year’s Neo 15 review.

Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing (XMG Neo 15 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q - 8192 MB, Core: 885 MHz, Memory: 1500 MHz, 256-bit GDDR6, ForceWare 419.35, Optimus
Memory
16384 MB 
, DDR4-2666, Dual-Channel, two slots (both populated), 64 GB max
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, BOEhydis NV156FHM-N4G (BOE07AF), IPS, FHD, 144 Hz, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM370
Storage
Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB, 1024 GB 
, 2x M.2-2280 (RAID 0/1 capable)
Soundcard
Realtek ALC269 @ Intel Cannon Point PCH
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 2 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: headphones, microphone, Card Reader: SD, SDHC, SDXC, MMC, TPM 2.0
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000/2500/5000MBit/s), Intel Wireless-AC 9560 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 22 x 359 x 243 ( = 0.87 x 14.13 x 9.57 in)
Battery
62.3 Wh, 0 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 180 W power supply, Recovery DVD, large mouse pad, 16 GB thumb drive, manual, key chain, Bullgard Internet Security (1 year subscription), Control Center, 36 Months Warranty
Weight
2.032 kg ( = 71.68 oz / 4.48 pounds), Power Supply: 420 g ( = 14.82 oz / 0.93 pounds)
Price
2377 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

At a Glance: Modifications and Improvements

  • Predecessor used Pascal GPUs, current model features Turing GPUs.

  • 60 Hz display that was still offered with the predecessor is no longer available, and the only display available features a 144 Hz panel.

  • Keyboard features quieter switches and a more prominent accentuation force.

  • Improved battery capacity (62.3 Wh vs. 46.7 Wh).

  • 2.5-inch hard disk drive had to make room for larger battery. 

Size Comparison

359 mm / 14.1 inch 243 mm / 9.57 inch 22 mm / 0.866 inch 2 kg4.48 lbs359 mm / 14.1 inch 255 mm / 10 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 2.1 kg4.73 lbs358 mm / 14.1 inch 248 mm / 9.76 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.8 kg4.07 lbs360 mm / 14.2 inch 268 mm / 10.6 inch 15.8 mm / 0.622 inch 2.1 kg4.62 lbs356 mm / 14 inch 250 mm / 9.84 inch 18.9 mm / 0.744 inch 2.1 kg4.67 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 17.8 mm / 0.701 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs
SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
200 MB/s ∼100% +153%
Average of class Gaming
  (11.7 - 202, n=251)
91.8 MB/s ∼46% +16%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
79 MB/s ∼40%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
25 MB/s ∼13% -68%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
242 MB/s ∼100% +172%
Average of class Gaming
  (13.4 - 257, n=249)
110 MB/s ∼45% +24%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
89 MB/s ∼37%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
32 MB/s ∼13% -64%
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Schenker XMG Neo 15
Killer Wireless-AC 1550 Wireless Network Adapter
694 MBit/s ∼100% +3%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
684 MBit/s ∼99% +1%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
683 MBit/s ∼98% +1%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Killer Wireless-AC 1550i Wireless Network Adapter (9560NGW)
678 MBit/s ∼98% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
676 MBit/s ∼97%
Acer Predator Triton 500
Killer Wireless-AC 1550i Wireless Network Adapter (9560NGW)
671 MBit/s ∼97% -1%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Killer Wireless-AC 1550 Wireless Network Adapter
660 MBit/s ∼95% -2%
Average of class Gaming
  (141 - 702, n=275)
605 MBit/s ∼87% -11%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
693 MBit/s ∼100% +2%
Acer Predator Triton 500
Killer Wireless-AC 1550i Wireless Network Adapter (9560NGW)
683 MBit/s ∼99% +1%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Killer Wireless-AC 1550i Wireless Network Adapter (9560NGW)
680 MBit/s ∼98% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
677 MBit/s ∼98%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
Killer Wireless-AC 1550 Wireless Network Adapter
665 MBit/s ∼96% -2%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Killer Wireless-AC 1550 Wireless Network Adapter
662 MBit/s ∼96% -2%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
655 MBit/s ∼95% -3%
Average of class Gaming
  (144 - 749, n=275)
558 MBit/s ∼81% -18%

Display

The matte 144 Hz 15.6-inch display runs at a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 (FHD) and features very short response times. Its contrast ratio of 1,117:1 is very decent, however its maximum brightness of just 270 nits is not. We would have expected more of a notebook at the Neo 15’s price point of more than $2,000.

Unfortunately, the display also suffered from PWM flickering at brightness levels of 99 % and below. That said, the frequency of 1,000 Hz should be high enough for most users, and should not cause headaches or sore eyes even in more sensitive users.

300
cd/m²
287
cd/m²
285
cd/m²
269
cd/m²
268
cd/m²
259
cd/m²
251
cd/m²
256
cd/m²
257
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
BOEhydis NV156FHM-N4G (BOE07AF)
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 300 cd/m² Average: 270.2 cd/m² Minimum: 11 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 268 cd/m²
Contrast: 1117:1 (Black: 0.24 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.51 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 1.57
ΔE Greyscale 5.36 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
92% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 59% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.51
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
BOEhydis NV156FHM-N4G (BOE07AF), IPS, 1920x1080
Schenker XMG Neo 15
LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
LG Philips LGD05C0, IPS, 1920x1080
Acer Predator Triton 500
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 1920x1080
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
AU Optronics B156HAN08.0 (AUO80ED), IPS, 1920x1080
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 1920x1080
Response Times
-39%
-61%
-54%
-2%
-64%
8%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
8.8 (4.4, 4.4)
16 (8.4, 7.6)
-82%
16.4 (8.8, 7.6)
-86%
16.8 (9.2, 7.6)
-91%
8 (4, 4)
9%
17.6 (9.2, 8.4)
-100%
7.4 (3.8, 3.6)
16%
Response Time Black / White *
10 (6, 4)
9.6 (5.2, 4.4)
4%
13.6 (8.4, 5.2)
-36%
11.6 (7.2, 4.4)
-16%
11.2 (6, 5.2)
-12%
12.8 (7.6, 5.2)
-28%
10 (4.4, 5.6)
-0%
PWM Frequency
1000 (99)
Screen
14%
16%
7%
0%
15%
12%
Brightness middle
268
325
21%
250
-7%
314.7
17%
304
13%
254
-5%
294
10%
Brightness
270
303
12%
235
-13%
312
16%
299
11%
262
-3%
275
2%
Brightness Distribution
84
90
7%
85
1%
90
7%
89
6%
89
6%
84
0%
Black Level *
0.24
0.33
-38%
0.29
-21%
0.38
-58%
0.27
-13%
0.22
8%
0.24
-0%
Contrast
1117
985
-12%
862
-23%
828
-26%
1126
1%
1155
3%
1225
10%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.51
2.69
40%
1.46
68%
2.56
43%
4.66
-3%
2.37
47%
2.57
43%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
9.58
4.91
49%
2.47
74%
4.89
49%
9.65
-1%
4.71
51%
4.88
49%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
1.57
1.27
19%
1.71
-9%
1.72
-10%
1.84
-17%
2.14
-36%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.36
2.34
56%
1.27
76%
3.4
37%
5.53
-3%
1.58
71%
2.41
55%
Gamma
2.51 88%
2.38 92%
2.4 92%
2.3 96%
2.5 88%
2.48 89%
2.5 88%
CCT
7826 83%
6872 95%
6749 96%
6435 101%
8028 81%
6785 96%
6370 102%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
59
60
2%
60
2%
60.7
3%
60
2%
60
2%
59
0%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
92
94
2%
93
1%
94.6
3%
93
1%
92
0%
91
-1%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-13% / 6%
-23% / 3%
-24% / -2%
-1% / 0%
-25% / 3%
10% / 11%

* ... smaller is better

With a DeltaE 2000 deviation of just 4.51, color accuracy was fairly decent out of the box. Ideally, you would be aiming at a DeltaE of less than 3. The display did however suffer from a minor blue tint. We were able to improve upon accuracy through calibration and subsequently managed to reduce DeltaE to 1.57 and improve overall grayscale balance. The display failed to cover sRGB and AdobeRGB completely and stopped short at just 92% and 59%, respectively.

As always, you can improve color accuracy with the ICC profile resulting from our calibration attempts. Make sure that your particular device is equipped with the same display (make and model) as ours, otherwise you might inadvertently make things worse rather than better. Many OEMs source their panels from different manufacturers.

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)
Schenker XMG Neo 15 vs. sRGB (92%)
Schenker XMG Neo 15 vs. sRGB (92%)
Subpixel
Subpixel
Schenker XMG Neo 15 vs. AdobeRGB (59%)
Schenker XMG Neo 15 vs. AdobeRGB (59%)

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
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6 ms rise
↘ 4 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 (24.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 4.4 ms rise
↘ 4.4 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.7 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 1000 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 1000 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 1000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9352 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The IPS panel featured fairly wide viewing angles, and thus remained readable from all positions and angles. The display was clearly intended with indoor use in mind, and can only be used outdoors on overcast days or in the shade.

direct light (photo taken under overcast sky)
direct light (photo taken under overcast sky)
indirect light (photo taken under overcast sky)
indirect light (photo taken under overcast sky)
viewing angles
viewing angles

Performance

The XMG Neo 15 is a compact and thin 15.6-inch gaming notebook. It can be individually configured and customized to your liking, and should be capable of running all current games smoothly. Our particular review unit clocked in at around 2,400 Euros (~$2707) including tax, and it performed very admirably overall. Prices start at 1,750 Euros (~$1974).

CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
HWInfo
LatencyMon
Intel XTU

Test Setup

The included Control Center software allows you to select a fan profile. Choices include Balanced and Enthusiast. For the sake of our benchmarks and tests, we chose the Balanced profile. Nevertheless, a few benchmarks were also conducted with the Enthusiast profile selected and fan turbo activated. The results can be found in the tables below.

Processor

The Core i7-8750H (Coffee Lake) CPU can be found in many modern gaming notebooks. This mobile CPU is specified with a TDP of 45 W, runs at a base clock speed of 2.2 GHz, and can turbo boost up to 3.9 GHz on all six cores, 4 GHz on four cores, or 4.1 GHz on up to two cores.

During our Cinebench multi-thread test the CPU ran at between 2.5 and 3.9 GHz (3.9 GHz with fan turbo activated). The single thread benchmarks were performed at between 3.9 and 4.1 GHz regardless of fan turbo setting. On battery, the CPU ran at 2.8-2.9 GHz (multi-thread) and 2.7-4.1 GHz (single thread).

single-core
single-core
multi-core
multi-core
GPU load
GPU load

We run Cinebench R15 multi-thread in a 30-minute loop in order to determine long-term turbo boost frequencies on mains. The scores dropped continuously between the first and fourth iteration but remained consistent afterwards, and settled at around 960-1,000 points. CPU turbo was applied throughout the test albeit only slightly. As such, the XMG Neo performed worse than its own predecessor that was equipped with the same CPU.

With fan turbo activated the CPU ran at higher clock speeds, and the results were much more akin to the Gigabyte Aero 15-X9

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890900910920930940950960970980990100010101020103010401050106010701080109011001110112011301140115011601170118011901200121012201230Tooltip
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø994 (961.98-1074.38)
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø1095 (1087.31-1156.25)
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø922 (913.2-999)
Acer Predator Triton 500 Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø980 (961.82-1019.05)
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø981 (927.26-1023.23)
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø1004 (937.73-1119.73)
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø1104 (1087.93-1138.69)
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H; Lüfter-Turbo: Ø1192 (1181.61-1224.14)
CPU clock speeds during our CB15 loop
CPU clock speeds during our CB15 loop
CPU clock speeds during our CB15 loop (fan turbo enabled)
CPU clock speeds during our CB15 loop (fan turbo enabled)
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
6645
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
31800
Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
7971
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
174 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1079 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
109.18 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Help
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Acer Predator Triton 500
Intel Core i7-8750H
176 Points ∼100% +1%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Intel Core i7-8750H
175 Points ∼99% +1%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Core i7-8750H
174 Points ∼99% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
174 Points ∼99%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H (Lüfter-Turbo)
174 Points ∼99% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
Intel Core i7-8750H
172 Points ∼98% -1%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
Intel Core i7-8750H
166 Points ∼94% -5%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
166 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Gaming
  (77 - 212, n=522)
157 Points ∼89% -10%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H (Lüfter-Turbo)
1224 Points ∼100% +13%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
1156 Points ∼94% +7%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
Intel Core i7-8750H
1154 Points ∼94% +7%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
Intel Core i7-8750H
1120 Points ∼92% +4%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
1079 Points ∼88%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Intel Core i7-8750H
1053 Points ∼86% -2%
Acer Predator Triton 500
Intel Core i7-8750H
1019 Points ∼83% -6%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Core i7-8750H
999 Points ∼82% -7%
Average of class Gaming
  (196 - 2022, n=525)
830 Points ∼68% -23%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
6645 Points ∼100%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
6351 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Gaming
  (8.85 - 8872, n=427)
4843 Points ∼73% -27%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
33923 Points ∼100% +7%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
31800 Points ∼94%
Average of class Gaming
  (19.7 - 48808, n=427)
18337 Points ∼54% -42%
Cinebench R20
CPU (Single Core)
Average of class Gaming
  (340 - 509, n=48)
428 Points ∼100% +2%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
418 Points ∼98%
CPU (Multi Core)
Average of class Gaming
  (1530 - 4926, n=48)
2513 Points ∼100% +7%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
2340 Points ∼93%
Geekbench 3
32 Bit Multi-Core Score
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
21659 Points ∼100%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
21358 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Gaming
  (9307 - 27774, n=77)
16216 Points ∼75% -25%
32 Bit Single-Core Score
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
4139 Points ∼100%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
3741 Points ∼90% -10%
Average of class Gaming
  (2926 - 4825, n=77)
3705 Points ∼90% -10%
Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
20592 Points ∼100%
Average of class Gaming
  (4116 - 32070, n=59)
18829 Points ∼91% -9%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
18716 Points ∼91% -9%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H
5123 Points ∼100%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H
4810 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Gaming
  (2131 - 6030, n=59)
4799 Points ∼94% -6%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Gaming
  (753 - 7545, n=197)
1204 ms * ∼100% -7%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44)
1138.1 ms * ∼95% -1%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44.17763.1.0)
1125.7 ms * ∼93% -0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44)
1121.9 ms * ∼93%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44)
35120 Points ∼100%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44)
33659 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Gaming
  (12288 - 49518, n=193)
33463 Points ∼95% -5%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44.17763.1.0)
30594 Points ∼87% -13%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44.17763.1.0)
255.92 Points ∼100% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44)
255.46 Points ∼100%
Average of class Gaming
  (51.6 - 333, n=196)
250 Points ∼98% -2%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44)
245.41 Points ∼96% -4%

* ... smaller is better

System Performance

Overall system performance was very smooth, and we did not encounter any problems. The 15.6-inch notebook was very fast, and its Core i7-8750H should run applications other than games perfectly fine for many years to come. The dedicated GPU allows you to run games. The PCMark benchmark results were very good.

PC Mark 10
PC Mark 10
PCMark 7 Score
6802 points
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4582 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
5288 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5679 points
Help
PCMark 10 - Score
Acer Predator Triton 500
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H, 2x WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-256G-1014 (RAID 0)
5883 Points ∼100% +4%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB
5651 Points ∼96%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5416 Points ∼92% -4%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW010T8
5353 Points ∼91% -5%
Average of class Gaming
  (2603 - 7171, n=218)
5221 Points ∼89% -8%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD 970 Pro 1TB
5191 Points ∼88% -8%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5170 Points ∼88% -9%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5095 Points ∼87% -10%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5706 Points ∼100% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB
5679 Points ∼100%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD 970 Pro 1TB
5669 Points ∼99% 0%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW010T8
5645 Points ∼99% -1%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5621 Points ∼99% -1%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
5607 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Gaming
  (2484 - 6515, n=398)
5041 Points ∼88% -11%
Home Score Accelerated v2
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4665 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4620 Points ∼99% +1%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD 970 Pro 1TB
4585 Points ∼98% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB
4582 Points ∼98%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW010T8
4338 Points ∼93% -5%
Average of class Gaming
  (2554 - 6093, n=415)
4261 Points ∼91% -7%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
4150 Points ∼89% -9%

Storage Devices

The 1 TB M.2-2280 NVMe SSD was made by Samsung. Thanks to its PCIe 3.0 x4 connection it was very fast. 896 GB were available to the user after first boot. The rest is taken up by the Windows installation and the recovery partition.

Storage can be expanded. A second M.2-2280 slot can be found on the inside. Both M.2 slots support RAID 0/1. The predecessor also featured a single 2.5-inch hard disk drive bay, which the current model lacks. Instead, this space is taken up by the larger internal battery.

Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB
Sequential Read: 1180 MB/s
Sequential Write: 1411 MB/s
512K Read: 608.7 MB/s
512K Write: 727.9 MB/s
4K Read: 58.25 MB/s
4K Write: 115.7 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 567.9 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 504.5 MB/s
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
Intel SSD 760p SSDPEKKW010T8
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Acer Predator Triton 500
2x WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-256G-1014 (RAID 0)
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
Schenker XMG Neo 15
Samsung SSD 970 Pro 1TB
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6
9%
4%
25%
4%
-11%
8%
Write 4K
92.52
97.13
5%
93.88
1%
93.6
1%
95.3
3%
98.17
6%
100.5
9%
Read 4K
40.45
53.66
33%
40.56
0%
38.82
-4%
40.13
-1%
39.43
-3%
48.64
20%
Write Seq
1197
1526
27%
1468
23%
2455
105%
1883
57%
1386
16%
1456
22%
Read Seq
1018
2020
98%
1540
51%
2107
107%
1322
30%
1100
8%
1278
26%
Write 4K Q32T1
288.6
285.6
-1%
293.5
2%
298.7
3%
309.9
7%
270.3
-6%
298.1
3%
Read 4K Q32T1
332
321.8
-3%
346
4%
338.7
2%
353.7
7%
340.3
3%
348.7
5%
Write Seq Q32T1
3317
1533
-54%
1941
-41%
2902
-13%
1919
-42%
1454
-56%
2742
-17%
Read Seq Q32T1
3515
2351
-33%
3266
-7%
3536
1%
2466
-30%
1681
-52%
3389
-4%

GPU Performance

The XMG Neo 15 features a GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q. This more energy efficient version of the regular RTX 2070 is primarily aimed at thin and light notebooks. Our particular review unit ran at short burst clocks speeds of up to 1,770 MHz, and an average long-term clock speed of 1,335 MHz. The GPU has access to 8 GB of fast GDDR6 VRAM.

In 3DMark, the results were at a level expected of this GPU. The XMG Neo performed almost identically to its direct competitors, the Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 and the Razer Blade 15. The performance gains with activated fan turbo mode were negligible and not worth mentioning.

Thanks to support for Nvidia Optimus, the laptop also utilizes Intel's integrated UHD Graphics 630 GPU to save energy.

Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike Ultra
Time Spy
Time Spy
Port Royal
Port Royal
3DMark 06 Standard
35375 points
3DMark 11 Performance
17617 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
110428 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
35086 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
15180 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
6338 points
Help
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
6728 Points ∼100% +6%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
6562 Points ∼98% +3%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q (Lüfter-Turbo)
6547 Points ∼97% +3%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
6368 Points ∼95%
Average of class Gaming
  (368 - 13013, n=161)
5705 Points ∼85% -10%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
18153 Points ∼100% +7%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
17598 Points ∼97% +4%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q (Lüfter-Turbo)
17293 Points ∼95% +2%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
16989 Points ∼94%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
14780 Points ∼81% -13%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
11558 Points ∼64% -32%
Average of class Gaming
  (385 - 40636, n=549)
11408 Points ∼63% -33%
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Acer Predator Triton 500
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q
28083 Points ∼100% +29%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
22723 Points ∼81% +5%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
22089 Points ∼79% +2%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q (Lüfter-Turbo)
22017 Points ∼78% +1%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
21723 Points ∼77%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
18687 Points ∼67% -14%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q
18296 Points ∼65% -16%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
14367 Points ∼51% -34%
Average of class Gaming
  (513 - 50983, n=623)
13486 Points ∼48% -38%

Gaming Performance

We did not experience any problems running games. This particular combination of CPU and GPU was more than capable of running all games from our database. All current games ran smoothly in FHD with high or even maximum details. Resolutions higher than FHD are supported on external displays, however they will require reduced details.

Just like in 3DMark, the XMG Neo 15 was outperformed slightly by the Razer Blade 15. The reason why the Gigabyte Aero 15-X9 performed worse than the other two can be found in its single channel RAM interface. Adding a second RAM module to the Aero 15 would almost certainly improve performance to a level akin to its competitors. 

The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Acer Predator Triton 500
GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q, 8750H
76.5 (min: 63) fps ∼100% +20%
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
68.9 fps ∼90% +8%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
63.8 fps ∼83%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
58.3 (min: 48) fps ∼76% -9%
MSI GS65 8RF-019DE Stealth Thin
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
52.7 fps ∼69% -17%
Average of class Gaming
  (12.6 - 115, n=317)
49.8 fps ∼65% -22%
Asus Zephyrus S GX531GS
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H
49.2 fps ∼64% -23%
Schenker XMG Neo 15
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
38.6 fps ∼50% -39%
BioShock Infinite - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF)
Razer Blade 15 RTX 2070 Max-Q
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
152.5 fps ∼100% +3%
Schenker XMG Neo 15 Turing
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
148.5 fps ∼97%
Gigabyte Aero 15-X9
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 8750H
127.7 fps ∼84% -14%
Average of class Gaming
  (9.7 - 266, n=345)
97.8 fps ∼64% -34%

We run Witcher 3 in a 60-minute loop in FHD with maximum details in order to determine the effects of long-term gaming load on frame rates. The avatar remains stationary throughout the entire test. Frame rates dropped slightly over time but remained well within a more than acceptable scope. We found no evidence of frame drops.

051015202530354045505560657075808590