Notebookcheck

ZenBook on Steroids: Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581 Laptop Review

Allen Ngo 👁, 09/18/2019

Two 4K screens on one laptop. Asus' latest ScreenPad Plus makes the Apple Touch Bar look like child's play. The unlocked Core i9 CPU, GeForce RTX graphics, 1 TB Samsung SSD, and soldered 32 GB of RAM are hefty specifications that come with an equally hefty chassis and price.

At Computex 2018, everyone thought Asus was crazy for turning the traditional clickpad into a full-fledged 1080p touchscreen. Turns out, that was just step 1 for an even crazier master plan.

The ZenBook Pro Duo UX581 succeeds last year's ZenBook Pro 15 UX580 by integrating an even larger secondary touchscreen to accompany the main display. Unlike their predecessor, the two screens here are physically closer to one another, have the same screen width, and the same PPI for a truer 1:1 dual screen experience. The changes directly address many of our complaints about ScreenPad 1.0 on last year's UX580.

Aside from the obvious visual differences, internal specifications have also had a generational upgrade. The 8th gen Core i9 CPU and Nvidia Pascal GPU of the UX580 have been updated to the 9th gen Core i9 CPU and Nvidia RTX Turing GPU for the UX581-XB94T as described here. A less expensive UX581GV-XB74T SKU is also available with the Core i7 instead, but all configurations come with the same 4K screens and RTX 2060 GPU. Add up all these high-end components with the unique double 4K display design and you have a laptop retailing for $2500 to $3000 USD.

Competitors to the ZenBook Pro Duo 15 UX581 include other high-end 15.6-inch laptops like the MSI GT63, Razer Blade 15, or HP Omen X 2S 15. While Asus is marketing the system more for content creators and heavy multimedia users rather than gamers, comparisons to dedicated gaming laptops will be inevitable. No other laptop is available as of this writing with the same display features of the UX581 to make this Asus a one-of-a-kind laptop for now.

Purchase the Asus ZenBook Pro Duo 15 UX581GV on Amazon here.

More Asus reviews:

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

Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV (ZenBook Pro Duo UX581 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop) - 6144 MB, Core: 960 MHz, Memory: 1750 MHz, GDDR6, 436.30, Optimus
Memory
32768 MB 
, DDR4-2666
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 3840 x 2160 pixel 282 PPI, Capacitive, Samsung SDCA029, OLED, glossy: yes, HDR
Mainboard
Intel HM370
Storage
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR, 1024 GB 
Soundcard
Nvidia TU106 - High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 3 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 20Gbps, 1 Thunderbolt, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo, Sensors: IR
Networking
Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX200 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 24 x 359 x 246 ( = 0.94 x 14.13 x 9.69 in)
Battery
71 Wh Lithium-Polymer, 4-cell
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: IR
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, Wrist rest, Active WACOM pen, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.5 kg ( = 88.19 oz / 5.51 pounds), Power Supply: 768 g ( = 27.09 oz / 1.69 pounds)
Price
3000 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

ZenBook laptops are typically all aluminum and the ZenBook Pro Duo is no different. The familiar Celestial Blue color, smooth surfaces, and spun-metal outer lid finish return for a familiar look and feel. Whereas all ZenBook laptops have been quite thin, however, the UX581 is noticeably thicker and heavier than what we've come to expect from the series.

The chassis feels sturdy partly due to how hefty the unit is. The lid in particular is firmer than expected with almost no twisting and the base is even stronger with no creaking and only minor depressions when applying moderate pressure on the keyboard keys. The second screen is matte in contrast to the glossy second screen of the HP Omen X 2S 15 likely in an attempt to reduce glare, but fingerprints will accumulate everywhere on the screen nonetheless. For such a heavy ZenBook, this is also the most well-made in its family.

An easily noticeable drawback to the UX581 is its weight and thickness. The system is 500 g heavier than the latest XPS 15 7590 while being almost as thick as Asus' own Strix III G531 gaming laptop. It manages to be smaller than last year's UX580 in footprint but with a much thicker profile. If you'll be traveling frequently, you may want to consider the more portable ZenBook 15 UX534 which comes with its own version of the ScreenPad.

Thicker and more substantial than your typical ZenBook
Thicker and more substantial than your typical ZenBook
On the plus side, the added weight and girth make this the most rigid ZenBook by far
On the plus side, the added weight and girth make this the most rigid ZenBook by far
Edge-to-edge glass glossy display is firm and resistant to twisting
Edge-to-edge glass glossy display is firm and resistant to twisting
The rear ErgoLift hinges are back from previous ZenBook laptops to angle the base for improved ergonomics
The rear ErgoLift hinges are back from previous ZenBook laptops to angle the base for improved ergonomics
Rubberized pad along the bottom of the front edge is a nice luxurious touch
Rubberized pad along the bottom of the front edge is a nice luxurious touch
Hidden ventilation grilles along the length of the hinge
Hidden ventilation grilles along the length of the hinge
Curved rear design means that there are no ports on the rear edge
Curved rear design means that there are no ports on the rear edge
Unique visual design is a breath of fresh air in the crowded 15.6-inch multimedia space
Unique visual design is a breath of fresh air in the crowded 15.6-inch multimedia space
360 mm / 14.2 inch 275 mm / 10.8 inch 25 mm / 0.984 inch 2.3 kg5.12 lbs365 mm / 14.4 inch 251 mm / 9.88 inch 18.9 mm / 0.744 inch 1.9 kg4.14 lbs359 mm / 14.1 inch 246 mm / 9.69 inch 24 mm / 0.945 inch 2.5 kg5.51 lbs362.2 mm / 14.3 inch 261.6 mm / 10.3 inch 19.8 mm / 0.78 inch 2.4 kg5.25 lbs357 mm / 14.1 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 17 mm / 0.669 inch 2 kg4.41 lbs354 mm / 13.9 inch 220 mm / 8.66 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.6 kg3.53 lbs

Connectivity

Port options are somewhat meager. Despite having a thicker and heavier chassis, the UX581 has fewer ports than last year's UX580. Asus has dropped both the MicroSD reader and one USB Type-C port for an additional USB Type-A port. Port positioning is otherwise good as they are evenly distributed and easy to reach along the sides.

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Right: USB Type-C + Thunderbolt 3, 3.5 mm combo audio, USB 3.1 Type-A Gen. 2
Right: USB Type-C + Thunderbolt 3, 3.5 mm combo audio, USB 3.1 Type-A Gen. 2
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Left: AC adapter, HDMI 2.0, USB 3.1 Type-A Gen. 2
Left: AC adapter, HDMI 2.0, USB 3.1 Type-A Gen. 2

Communication

WLAN is provided by an Intel AX200 module for Bluetooth 5 connectivity, transfer rates of up to 2.4 Gbps, and compatibility with Wi-Fi 6 networks. Unfortunately, the wireless on our test unit appears to be defective. Transfer rates between our UX581 and a local test server would result in transmit and receive speeds of only about 100 MB/s each. We would run this same test side-by-side with an MSI GL75 and the MSI would return more normal transfer rates of ~650 Mbps.

In addition, our unit would be unable to connect to any 802.11n networks and so we suspect that there could be an issue with the 2.4 GHz antennae. We recommend double-checking the wireless immediately after purchasing for any abnormalities.

Removable M.2 WLAN module sits next to the BIOS battery
Removable M.2 WLAN module sits next to the BIOS battery

Maintenance

Serviceability is relatively easy provided that you have a small pair of tweezers and a T5 Torx wrench to remove the ten screws on the bottom. Two of the screws are protected by rubber plugs which must be carefully removed.

Once inside, users will be able to upgrade the WLAN and M.2 2280 SSD. RAM is soldered and the slim battery is smaller than expected.

The asymmetric positioning of the fans is uncommon on laptops
The asymmetric positioning of the fans is uncommon on laptops

Accessories and Warranty

Included extras are an active WACOM stylus and a plastic wrist rest that attaches to the front edge of the laptop. A velvet cleaning cloth would have been a great addition since both screens are susceptible to fingerprints.

The standard one-year limited warranty applies.

Input Devices

Keyboard

Asus has been getting better at creating front keyboards ever since the original Zephyrus GX501 days. The main QWERTY keys of the UX581 have both deeper travel and crisper feedback than on the GX501 to feel more like a typical Ultrabook keyboard that most users are already familiar with. There is one major flaw on the UX581, however, that makes typing more difficult. The front edge of the system is leveled slightly higher than the keyboard keys meaning that when you try to hit the Space key, you might hit the edge of the laptop instead. This issue does not exist on other laptops including the GX501 or HP Omen X 2S 15.

Some other disappointments include single-zone white backlighting instead of per-key RGB and the cramped Arrow keys. There are handy auxiliary keys above the clickpad for toggling Turbo Fan mode, moving the focused window to the other display, and turning on or off the second display, but they're positioned very close to the Power button which can result in some accidental Sleep moments.

Touchpad

It's inevitable that the clickpad will be small when so much of the laptop surface has been dedicated to the keyboard and secondary touchscreen. At just ~6.3 x 8.6 cm, the clickpad is smaller than the clickpad on the older ZenBook 15 UX530 (~10.4 x 7.3 cm). While it's reliable enough to get the job done with no cursor jumping or sticking issues, it's clear that you'll be wanting an external mouse whenever possible.

The integrated mouse keys are relatively quiet in clatter with shallow travel and moderate feedback. Multi-touch gestures are not as accurate as on a trackpad with dedicated mouse keys like on the GX501. Meanwhile, the virtual NumPad from the UX533 has returned in case if users need a quick NumPad. If you rely heavily on a NumPad for work, however, then a cheap USB solution with physical keys will still be the preferred way to go.

Space key is more difficult to hit than usual because it is shallower than the raised edges of the laptop
Space key is more difficult to hit than usual because it is shallower than the raised edges of the laptop
All primary and secondary symbols are lit when the backlight is active
All primary and secondary symbols are lit when the backlight is active
Key feedback is satisfactory with soft clatter not unlike most Ultrabooks
Key feedback is satisfactory with soft clatter not unlike most Ultrabooks
A small clickpad for two 4K UHD displays will inevitably feel cramped
A small clickpad for two 4K UHD displays will inevitably feel cramped

Display

The glossy 4K UHD main display is an OLED panel sourced from Samsung. While HWiNFO is unable to identify the exact panel name, the SDCA029 controller is the same as the one found on the Dell XPS 15 OLED, Razer Blade 15 OLED, and Eurocom Nightsky RX15 OLED to suggest a very similar visual experience between these enthusiast laptops. All the usual benefits of OLED are here including the extremely fast response times for almost no ghosting, 100 percent DCI-P3 coverage, very deep black levels, no uneven backlight bleeding, and accurate colors out of the box. Even the unusually sudden change in PWM behavior from 0 to 52 percent and 53 percent to 100 percent is present.

A notable disadvantage of the OLED panel on the Asus is that it's slightly dimmer than on other 15.6-inch OLED laptops. We're able to record a maximum of 360 nits versus 421 nits, 473 nits, and 415 nits on the XPS 15, Blade 15, and Nightsky RX15, respectively. Nonetheless, the panel is still brighter than most IPS laptops while offering much wider colors as well.

Glass main screen and matte second screen. There are no 1080p or 120/144 Hz options available
Glass main screen and matte second screen. There are no 1080p or 120/144 Hz options available
Much narrower bezels than on last year's UX580
Much narrower bezels than on last year's UX580
Absolutely no uneven backlight bleeding from an OLED panel
Absolutely no uneven backlight bleeding from an OLED panel
RGB OLED subpixel arrangement
RGB OLED subpixel arrangement
365.5
cd/m²
355.3
cd/m²
357.7
cd/m²
367.7
cd/m²
359.7
cd/m²
361.3
cd/m²
379.7
cd/m²
373.2
cd/m²
376.1
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
Samsung SDCA029
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 379.7 cd/m² Average: 366.2 cd/m² Minimum: 3.33 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 359.7 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.14 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
81.3% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 61.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Samsung SDCA029, OLED, 15.6, 3840x2160
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
AU Optronics B156ZAN03.1, IPS, 15.6, 3840x2160
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
BOE07D8, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
Sharp LQ156M1JW09 (SHP14D3), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
AU Optronics AUO82ED, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Samsung 156WR04, SDCA029, OLED, 15.6, 3840x2160
Response Times
-1339%
-1634%
2962%
-453%
-24%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
2.2 (1, 1.2)
44 (22, 22)
-1900%
45 (21, 24)
-1945%
17.2 (9.2, 8)
-682%
15.2 (7.6, 7.6)
-591%
2.3 (1.1, 1.2)
-5%
Response Time Black / White *
2.6 (1, 1.6)
22.8 (12, 10.8)
-777%
37 (23, 14)
-1323%
11.2 (6.8, 4.4)
-331%
10.8 (6, 4.8)
-315%
2.4 (1.1, 1.3)
8%
PWM Frequency
240.4 (52)
24040 (29)
9900%
59.52 (100)
-75%
Screen
9%
-18%
11%
-15%
1%
Brightness middle
359.7
357.6
-1%
311
-14%
266
-26%
324.8
-10%
421.2
17%
Brightness
366
350
-4%
303
-17%
252
-31%
316
-14%
417
14%
Brightness Distribution
94
85
-10%
81
-14%
88
-6%
84
-11%
94
0%
Black Level *
0.35
0.24
0.27
0.26
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.14
4.12
20%
5.1
1%
1.81
65%
4.96
4%
6.06
-18%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.77
9.91
-28%
8.91
-15%
3.23
58%
8.95
-15%
11.89
-53%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.7
1.8
33%
4.93
-83%
2.44
10%
5
-85%
2.8
-4%
Gamma
2 110%
2.17 101%
2.44 90%
2.42 91%
2.21 100%
2.15 102%
CCT
6220 105%
6613 98%
7641 85%
7005 93%
7742 84%
6235 104%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
61.8
87.5
42%
58
-6%
62
0%
59.8
-3%
81
31%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
81.3
100
23%
88
8%
97
19%
91.8
13%
99.6
23%
Contrast
1022
1296
985
1249
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.23
2.48
1.03
3.23
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-665% / -260%
-826% / -341%
1487% / 816%
-234% / -103%
-12% / -6%

* ... smaller is better

Despite Asus' claim of 100 percent DCI-P3, our independent measurements show just 81 percent sRGB coverage compared to 100 percent on last year's UX580 or on the Dell XPS 15 7590 OLED. We suspect that Asus' pre-installed color profile was designed to match the colors of the second display for improved color consistency between them. If dragging one window from the main screen to the second screen, for example, parity in colors and grayscale will be especially important for content creators.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB

Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter show accurate grayscale and colors with average deltaE values of only 2.7 and 3.66, respectively, when compared to the AdobeRGB standard.

Grayscale (vs. AdobeRGB)
Grayscale (vs. AdobeRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (vs. AdobeRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (vs. AdobeRGB)
ColorChecker (vs. AdobeRGB)
ColorChecker (vs. AdobeRGB)

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
2.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1 ms rise
↘ 1.6 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 0 % 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
2.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 1 ms rise
↘ 1.2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 0 % 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 240.4 Hz ≤ 52 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 52 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9365 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

OLED displays are usually easier to see outdoors than IPS displays since they tend to be brighter and with deeper contrast ratios. For the UX581, the main display is usable when under shade while direct sunlight will still overwhelm any onscreen content. The maximum brightness setting is always recommended to minimize the heavy glare.

Viewing angles are excellent and better than IPS as apparent contrast remains steady from wide angles. Rainbow color bands will occur from extremely wide angles which is typical of OLED panels.

Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Wide OLED viewing angles
Wide OLED viewing angles

ScreenPad Plus

The 3840 x 1110 resolution matte secondary screen is very different from the glossy primary screen despite having the same PPI and width. Since it is an IPS panel, characteristics like response times, colors, brightness, and contrast ratio will be inferior to the main OLED panel. These drawbacks become easily noticeable when moving pictures or videos between the two screens. Content creators hoping for a perfect 1:1 dual screen setup may be disappointed while gamers and multimedia users would be less impacted.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the ScreenPad Plus is its thick matte overlay in contrast to the crisp glossy screen of the main display as shown by our microscope image below. Picture quality is grainier as a result not unlike the ScreenPad on the recent VivoBook S15. We suspect that Asus had experimented with a glossy version of the ScreenPad Plus only to find that glare would have been too distracting much like on the second screen of the HP Omen X 2S 15. It's an unfortunate trade-off that the manufacturer probably had to make.

Thankfully, the drawbacks don't detract from the inherent utility or convenience of having a second display. Moving windows, watching videos, or multi-tasking between applications feels natural with only a small learning curve. Windows recognizes the screen the same way as it would any external monitor.

Maximum BrightnessContrast RatioMinimum BrightnessPWMBlack-White Response TimeGray-Gray Response TimesRGB CoverageAdobeRGB Coverage
311.2536:111.9None13.2 ms19.2 ms94.5 percent63.3 percent
Grayscale before calibration
Grayscale before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
Black-white response times
Black-white response times
Gray-gray response times
Gray-gray response times
No PWM behavior
No PWM behavior
Outdoors under sunlight. Fingerprints will accumulate all over the two touchscreens
Outdoors under sunlight. Fingerprints will accumulate all over the two touchscreens
Outdoors under shade. The ambient lighting heavily impacts visibility and colors of the display even though glare is relatively minimal
Outdoors under shade. The ambient lighting heavily impacts visibility and colors of the display even though glare is relatively minimal
Outdoors under sunlight. The secondary screen was definitely not designed to be used outdoors frequently
Outdoors under sunlight. The secondary screen was definitely not designed to be used outdoors frequently
Typical wide IPS viewing angles
Typical wide IPS viewing angles
Subpixel array. The thick matte overlay causes texts and images to appear grainier than the main glossy OLED panel
Subpixel array. The thick matte overlay causes texts and images to appear grainier than the main glossy OLED panel
Uneven backlight bleeding around the sides since you will always be looking at the screen from an angle
Uneven backlight bleeding around the sides since you will always be looking at the screen from an angle
Screenshot of dual screen mode for a combined resolution of 3840 x 3270
Screenshot of dual screen mode for a combined resolution of 3840 x 3270

Performance

LatencyMon with WLAN disabled
LatencyMon with WLAN disabled

Asus is clearly aiming for enthusiasts with the ZenBook Pro Duo UX581. Users can choose between the hexa-core Core i7-9750H or unlocked octa-core Core i9-9980HK with 16 GB to 32 GB of soldered DDR4-2666 RAM. The primary 4K UHD OLED touchscreen, secondary ScreenPad Plus touchscreen, and GeForce RTX 2060 GPU are all fixed across every SKU. Optimus also comes standard meaning G-Sync will not be an option.

LatencyMon shows DPC latency issues only when WLAN is enabled.

 

Processor

Core i9 CPUs for laptops have been a mixed bag. If the cooling solution can't sustain the very high Turbo Boost clock rates that the Core i9 series is known for, then overall performance won't be all that much better than a regular Core i7. The unlocked Core i9-9980HK in our Asus does a decent job at maintaining consistent performance over long periods of stress as shown by our CineBench R15 Multi-Thread loop graph below. Results are faster than on both the Dell XPS 15 7590 and Eurocom Nightsky RX15 each equipped with the same i9-9980HK CPU.

In general, users can expect 17 percent and 25 percent faster multi-thread performance than the average Core i9-9880H and last generation Core i9-8950HK, respectively, before accounting for any potential throttling. Upgrading from the Core i7-8750H or Core i7-9750H will bring a performance boost of about 35 percent.

See our dedicated page on the Core i9-9980HK here for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

CineBench R15
CineBench R15
CineBench R20
CineBench R20
010203040506070809010011012013014015016017018019020021022023024025026027028029030031032033034035036037038039040041042043044045046047048049050051052053054055056057058059060061062063064065066067068069070071072073074075076077078079080081082083084085086087088089090091092093094095096097098099010001010102010301040105010601070108010901100111011201130114011501160117011801190120012101220123012401250126012701280129013001310132013301340135013601370138013901400141014201430144014501460147014801490150015101520153015401550156015701580159016001610162016301640165016601670168016901700171017201730174017501760177017801790180018101820Tooltip
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1573 (1526.78-1689.97)
MSI GE75 9SG GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 9880H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1619 (1602.44-1728.31)
Eurocom Nightsky RX15 GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD 970 Pro 512GB; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1490 (1469.51-1815.95)
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø1314 (1090.6-1600.38)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus Chimera G703GI
Intel Core i9-8950HK
206 Points ∼94% +8%
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
203 Points ∼93% +7%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
Intel Core i9-9980HK
202 Points ∼93% +6%
Average Intel Core i9-9980HK
  (190 - 205, n=6)
200 Points ∼92% +5%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK
190 Points ∼87%
Asus G703
Intel Core i7-7820HK
185 Points ∼85% -3%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
Intel Core i9-9880H
183 Points ∼84% -4%
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
Intel Core i7-9750H
179 Points ∼82% -6%
Lenovo Legion Y540-17IRH
Intel Core i5-9300H
171 Points ∼78% -10%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
170 Points ∼78% -11%
Asus ROG G703GX
Intel Core i7-8750H
167 Points ∼77% -12%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
156 Points ∼72% -18%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
144 Points ∼66% -24%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K
1987 Points ∼45% +21%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
Intel Core i9-9980HK
1821 Points ∼42% +11%
Average Intel Core i9-9980HK
  (1305 - 1930, n=7)
1646 Points ∼38% 0%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK
1641 Points ∼38%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
Intel Core i9-9880H
1401 Points ∼32% -15%
Asus Chimera G703GI
Intel Core i9-8950HK
1312 Points ∼30% -20%
Asus ROG G703GX
Intel Core i7-8750H
1212 Points ∼28% -26%
Asus Strix Hero III G731GV
Intel Core i7-9750H
1166 Points ∼27% -29%
Asus G703
Intel Core i7-7820HK
932 Points ∼21% -43%
Lenovo Legion Y540-17IRH
Intel Core i5-9300H
850 Points ∼19% -48%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
805 Points ∼18% -51%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
733 Points ∼17% -55%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
604 Points ∼14% -63%
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
131.14 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1641 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
190 Points
Help

System Performance

PCMark benchmarks rank our UX581 just a few percentage points higher than last year's UX580 meaning that you won't be noticing any huge gains in day-to-day workloads like browsing or multi-tasking. The exception is in GPU-heavy loads like editing or design as exemplified by the higher Digital Content Creation score since the performance jump from GTX 1050 Ti to the RTX 2060 is significant.

We experienced no software or hardware issues on our test unit other than the wireless issue mentioned above.

PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10
Digital Content Creation
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00
7976 Points ∼67% +16%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9880H, Intel SSD 660p 2TB SSDPEKNW010T8
7311 Points ∼61% +6%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
6880 Points ∼57%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
6110 Points ∼51% -11%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
5802 Points ∼48% -16%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4204 Points ∼35% -39%
Productivity
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9880H, Intel SSD 660p 2TB SSDPEKNW010T8
8025 Points ∼83% +7%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
8020 Points ∼83% +7%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00
7510 Points ∼77% 0%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
7494 Points ∼77% 0%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
7485 Points ∼77%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
6879 Points ∼71% -8%
Essentials
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00
9741 Points ∼89% +2%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
9701 Points ∼88% +2%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
9524 Points ∼87%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9880H, Intel SSD 660p 2TB SSDPEKNW010T8
9146 Points ∼83% -4%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
8971 Points ∼82% -6%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
8233 Points ∼75% -14%
Score
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00
5991 Points ∼77% +6%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9880H, Intel SSD 660p 2TB SSDPEKNW010T8
5826 Points ∼75% +3%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5654 Points ∼73%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
5469 Points ∼70% -3%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
5358 Points ∼69% -5%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4443 Points ∼57% -21%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00
5931 Points ∼91% +12%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9880H, Intel SSD 660p 2TB SSDPEKNW010T8
5919 Points ∼91% +12%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5381 Points ∼83% +2%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5279 Points ∼81%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
4762 Points ∼73% -10%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
4456 Points ∼68% -16%
Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q, 9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00
5039 Points ∼83% +21%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9880H, Intel SSD 660p 2TB SSDPEKNW010T8
4578 Points ∼75% +10%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4157 Points ∼68%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4052 Points ∼67% -3%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9980HK, Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
3799 Points ∼62% -9%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
3661 Points ∼60% -12%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4157 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5279 points
Help

Storage Devices

Internal storage is limited to just a single M.2 2280 PCIe x4 slot whereas other 15.6-inch laptops like the XPS 15 7590 or Asus ROG GL531 have secondary options. When considering that the UX581 is supposed to be a multimedia laptop for creators, you're likely going to want to append external storage drives or invest in a very high capacity internal M.2 drive.

Our specific test unit comes equipped with a 1 TB Samsung SSD PM981 for sequential read and write speeds of about 1400 MB/s each according to AS SSD. The PM961 on last year's UX580 shows faster speeds in both AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark.

See our table of SSDs and HDDs for more benchmark comparisons.

AS SSD
AS SSD
CDM 5.5
CDM 5.5
One storage slot only
One storage slot only
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
Samsung SSD PM961 1TB M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe (MZVLW1T0)
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
Intel SSD 660p 2TB SSDPEKNW010T8
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-1T00
AS SSD
-0%
-23%
7%
-37%
16%
Copy Game MB/s
1676.98
728.25
-57%
1823.85
9%
1853.64
11%
Copy Program MB/s
874.26
430.94
-51%
983.98
13%
896.18
3%
Copy ISO MB/s
2111.62
1045.16
-51%
3182.39
51%
2249.66
7%
Score Total
3970
4065
2%
2845
-28%
3638
-8%
2033
-49%
4743
19%
Score Write
2034
1547
-24%
1220
-40%
1693
-17%
867
-57%
1951
-4%
Score Read
1278
1679
31%
1075
-16%
1294
1%
768
-40%
1840
44%
Access Time Write *
0.118
0.036
69%
0.027
77%
0.039
67%
0.043
64%
0.102
14%
Access Time Read *
0.041
0.04
2%
0.08
-95%
0.05
-22%
0.128
-212%
0.046
-12%
4K-64 Write
1809.77
1272.75
-30%
1047.43
-42%
1456.13
-20%
602.9
-67%
1592.91
-12%
4K-64 Read
1092.42
1431.02
31%
974.82
-11%
1077.98
-1%
583.37
-47%
1604.27
47%
4K Write
93.04
100.89
8%
131.57
41%
98.3
6%
105.06
13%
108.74
17%
4K Read
44.99
37.78
-16%
41.81
-7%
43.25
-4%
26.79
-40%
25.01
-44%
Seq Write
1316.23
1728.67
31%
411.81
-69%
1386.27
5%
1590.95
21%
2493.16
89%
Seq Read
1408.99
2098.63
49%
578.98
-59%
1723.09
22%
1574.03
12%
2105.41
49%

* ... smaller is better

Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 3158 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 2397 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 358.5 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 408.7 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1618 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 1898 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 41.12 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 104 MB/s

GPU Performance

3DMark benchmarks rank the Asus GeForce RTX 2060 within just a few percentage points of the average RTX 2060 in our database taken from 10 other gaming laptops. This means users can expect 25 percent slower performance than a desktop RTX 2060 and about 30 to 60 percent faster performance than the last generation GTX 1060. If you don't value DLSS or ray-tracing, then the mobile RTX 2060 is essentially on par with the mobile GTX 1660 Ti even though the latter can be hundreds of dollars cheaper.

Running Fire Strike on the default Auto Fan mode vs. Turbo Fan mode returns almost no differences in final scores. Nonetheless, Turbo Fan mode will benefit users who intend to stress the CPU to 100 percent utilization as our Stress Test section will show.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Port Royal
Port Royal
Time Spy
Time Spy
Fire Strike (Auto Fan mode)
Fire Strike (Auto Fan mode)
Fire Strike (Turbo Fan mode)
Fire Strike (Turbo Fan mode)
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Corsair One i160
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), 9900K
14249 Points ∼97% +148%
Asus ROG G703GX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 8750H
10364 Points ∼71% +81%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9980HK
7754 Points ∼53% +35%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
7732 Points ∼53% +35%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
  (5735 - 6586, n=13)
6049 Points ∼41% +5%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK
5738 Points ∼39%
Eurocom Nightsky Ti15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
5699 Points ∼39% -1%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
5651 Points ∼39% -2%
Asus Zephyrus GX501
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q, 7700HQ
5636 Points ∼38% -2%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
3626 Points ∼25% -37%
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9750H
3470 Points ∼24% -40%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK
2075 Points ∼14% -64%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Corsair One i160
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), 9900K
34697 Points ∼85% +135%
Asus ROG G703GX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 8750H
26223 Points ∼65% +78%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9980HK
20434 Points ∼50% +38%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
19338 Points ∼48% +31%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
18346 Points ∼45% +24%
Asus Zephyrus GX501
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q, 7700HQ
18219 Points ∼45% +23%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
  (14768 - 17119, n=14)
15821 Points ∼39% +7%
Eurocom Nightsky Ti15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
15343 Points ∼38% +4%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK
14768 Points ∼36%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
11332 Points ∼28% -23%
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9750H
9350 Points ∼23% -37%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK
7291 Points ∼18% -51%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
Corsair One i160
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), 9900K
182888 Points ∼99% +112%
Asus Zephyrus GX501
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q, 7700HQ
114542 Points ∼62% +33%
Asus ROG G703GX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 8750H
107368 Points ∼58% +25%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
107083 Points ∼58% +24%
Eurocom Nightsky Ti15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
103040 Points ∼56% +19%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
101587 Points ∼55% +18%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
  (77569 - 112768, n=14)
99864 Points ∼54% +16%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK
86229 Points ∼47%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
80615 Points ∼44% -7%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9980HK
70414 Points ∼38% -18%
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9750H
59375 Points ∼32% -31%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK
43721 Points ∼24% -49%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
Corsair One i160
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), 9900K
18164 Points ∼80% +38%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9980HK
16253 Points ∼72% +23%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
13742 Points ∼61% +4%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK
13191 Points ∼58%
Eurocom Nightsky Ti15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
12421 Points ∼55% -6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
  (9099 - 14726, n=15)
12077 Points ∼53% -8%
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9750H
11904 Points ∼53% -10%
Asus ROG G703GX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 8750H
11888 Points ∼53% -10%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
8985 Points ∼40% -32%
Asus Zephyrus GX501
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q, 7700HQ
8935 Points ∼40% -32%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK
8709 Points ∼39% -34%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
6839 Points ∼30% -48%
1280x720 Performance GPU
Corsair One i160
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop), 9900K
49282 Points ∼97% +151%
Asus ROG G703GX
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop), 8750H
36478 Points ∼72% +85%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9980HK
26582 Points ∼52% +35%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
26413 Points ∼52% +34%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop), 7700HQ
24349 Points ∼48% +24%
Asus Zephyrus GX501
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q, 7700HQ
23540 Points ∼46% +20%
Eurocom Nightsky Ti15
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
20784 Points ∼41% +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
  (19537 - 22299, n=15)
20706 Points ∼41% +5%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 9980HK
19666 Points ∼39%
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9750H
13143 Points ∼26% -33%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
12620 Points ∼25% -36%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8950HK
8854 Points ∼17% -55%
3DMark 11 Performance
17912 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
43412 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
13696 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
6059 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Of all the RTX GPUs available, the performance gap between mobile and desktop is widest on the RTX 2060. Users can get nearly the same 1080p performance from the cheaper GTX 1660 Ti assuming no ray-tracing or DLSS features.

Idling on Witcher 3 shows steady performance over time. We did, however, observe that the game would automatically minimize on its own should it idle for ~30 minutes which occurred twice during our hour-long test.

See our dedicated page on the GeForce RTX 2060 for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop)
142 fps ∼100% +100%
Asus ROG G703GX
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop)
106 fps ∼75% +49%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop)
97 fps ∼68% +37%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
90 fps ∼63% +27%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
83 fps ∼58% +17%
Eurocom Nightsky Ti15
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
73 fps ∼51% +3%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
  (54 - 81, n=11)
72.1 fps ∼51% +2%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
71 fps ∼50%
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
45 fps ∼32% -37%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
43 fps ∼30% -39%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
34 fps ∼24% -52%
The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Corsair One i160
Intel Core i9-9900K, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Desktop)
131 (min: 110, max: 147) fps ∼100% +129%
Asus ROG G703GX
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 (Laptop)
99.7 fps ∼76% +74%
Eurocom Nightsky RX15
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop)
80.6 fps ∼62% +41%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
72.7 (min: 61, max: 82) fps ∼55% +27%
HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
69 fps ∼53% +21%
Asus Strix Scar III G531GW
Intel Core i9-9880H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop)
67 (min: 55) fps ∼51% +17%
Asus Zephyrus GX501
Intel Core i7-7700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q
61.9 fps ∼47% +8%
Eurocom Nightsky Ti15
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop)
60.5 fps ∼46% +6%
Asus G752VS-BA338T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Laptop)
59.6 fps ∼45% +4%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
  (55.1 - 65, n=14)
59.1 fps ∼45% +3%
Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
57.2 fps ∼44%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
40 fps ∼31% -30%
MSI GF75 Thin 9SC
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
37.7 fps ∼29% -34%
Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650
Intel Core i9-9980HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
36 fps ∼27% -37%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
30 fps ∼23% -48%
Asus ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE
Intel Core i9-8950HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
24.2 fps ∼18% -58%
0102030405060