华硕ROG Strix G16 G614JZ笔记本电脑回顾。为RTX 4080清除舞台

ROG,即Republic of Gamers,是华硕的高端游戏品牌。其中有三个产品系列。Flow、Zephyrus和Strix,其中只有Strix笔记本电脑是经典游戏笔记本电脑。华硕将Strix产品线进一步细分为ROG Strix和ROG Strix Scar类别。原则上,所有ROG Strix笔记本电脑都有与ROG Strix Scar型号类似的硬件,但设计略显简单。然后,这也是一个角度问题,因为这家台湾制造商的所有游戏笔记本电脑都相当华丽。同时,ROG Strix G和Scar系列的设备已经有点接近了。虽然2022年的Scar型号是用蒸汽室冷却的,但这两个系列的冷却系统现在几乎是相同的。
我们的测试设备,其英特尔酷睿i7-13980HX和 NvidiaGeForce RTX 4080是装备最好的设备之一。为了使强大的硬件保持在可容忍的工作温度,华硕安装了一个带有三个风扇的大规模冷却系统。液态金属也确保了良好的散热和长时间的提升。
16英寸游戏笔记本电脑目前风头正劲,因此我们的数据库中有大量规格相似的现役游戏机。我们已经审查了ROG Strix系列最新一代的几款笔记本电脑。这些产品包括 华硕ROG Strix G18和 华硕ROG Strix Scar 18。这两款笔记本电脑有不同的图形芯片,即RTX 4070和RTX 4090,但有类似的冷却系统,几乎相同的主板,因此有类似的功率限制值。这导致不同的Nvidia图形单元之间出现了有趣的比较可能性。
这 联想Legion Pro 7和 Razer Blade 16是与ROG Strix G16处于同一性能级别的16英寸笔记本电脑,尽管这两款笔记本电脑可能更加昂贵。
» Notebookcheck多媒体笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck游戏笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck低价办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck高端办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck工作站笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck亚笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck超级本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck变形本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck平板电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck智能手机Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck评测过最出色的笔记本电脑屏幕
» Notebookcheck售价500欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck售价300欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
潜在的竞争对手比较
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
88.4 % | 03/2023 | Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ i9-13980HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU | 2.4 kg | 30.4 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1600 | |
88 % | 04/2023 | Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU | 2.7 kg | 29.7 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1600 | |
89.4 % | 02/2023 | Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU | 2.7 kg | 26 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1600 | |
86.2 % | 03/2023 | Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | 2.1 kg | 18 mm | 16.00" | 3840x2400 | |
86.2 % | 02/2023 | Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 R7 7735HS, Radeon RX 7600S | 2.2 kg | 27 mm | 16.00" | 1920x1200 | |
91.2 % | 02/2023 | Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU | 2.4 kg | 21.99 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1600 | |
88.4 % | 04/2023 | Asus ROG Strix G17 G713PI R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | 2.8 kg | 30.7 mm | 17.30" | 2560x1440 | |
87.4 % | 03/2023 | Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI i7-13650HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU | 3 kg | 31 mm | 18.00" | 2560x1600 | |
86.6 % | 02/2023 | Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W i9-13980HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU | 3.1 kg | 30.8 mm | 18.00" | 2560x1600 | |
86.9 % | 11/2022 | Asus ROG Strix Scar 17 SE G733CX-LL014W i9-12950HX, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU | 2.9 kg | 28.3 mm | 17.30" | 2560x1440 | |
85 % | 03/2021 | Asus ROG Strix G15 G513QR R9 5900HX, GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU | 2.3 kg | 27.2 mm | 15.60" | 1920x1080 |
案例 - 顶尖的设计,但实施可以改进
华硕ROG Strix G16的设计师们不遗余力。这款笔记本电脑的任何组件都没有设计或文字元素。每个部件也都以这种或那种方式进行了3D塑形。例如,底座的顶部是略微向边缘凹陷的。正面和部分侧面配有RGB灯带。键盘也是RGB发光的,并通过半透明的按键公开突出了对游戏最重要的区域。各种灰色的阴影定义了这个别致的外壳。华硕甚至还在大多数笔记本中无趣的底部布置了各种设计元素,其中一些也是为了帮助散热。与以前的机型相比,一些端口不得不从笔记本的背面移开,以便为散热让路,因为现在散热器沿着笔记本的整个背面运行。这使散热器的总表面积超过174平方毫米,使这台游戏笔记本看起来非常有侵略性。16:10格式的屏幕可以用一只手打开到130°。铰链相当坚硬,但能稳定地将16英寸(约41厘米)的显示屏固定在任何可以想象的位置。
与其说是肆无忌惮的设计,我们倒是希望机箱的质量和做工更好。除了显示屏的盖子,所有部件都是由塑料制成的。许多元素显得过度,有难看的缝隙,如铰链上方的条状物。摄像头模块是受影响最严重的,除了较大的缝隙外,关闭时还会远远地伸出来。这使得网络摄像头看起来好像是在机箱制造完成后被附加上去的。从远处看,这款游戏笔记本看起来质量很高,但仔细观察就会发现其弱点。至少,16英寸的笔记本比18英寸的笔记本更稳定;我们发现ROG Strix G18的基本单元的稳定性很好。ROG Strix G18的基本单元的稳定性是值得批评的。
目前所有的16英寸游戏笔记本电脑在尺寸和重量方面都非常相似。几乎所有机型的重量都在两到三公斤之间,不含电源装置。在我们的测试设备中,电源装置几乎增加了一公斤的重量,所以你不得不拖着一台重约3.3公斤的笔记本电脑。只有Gigabyte AERO 16比我们数据库中的其他16英寸笔记本明显更薄。
设备 - Thunderbolt 4和快速Wi-Fi 6E
ROG Strix G16的大部分端口都集中在笔记本的左侧。在右边,只有两个USB接口。左边的两个USB Type-C插座分享它们的任务:后面的支持Thunderbolt 4,前面的支持Power Delivery,同时都支持DisplayPort。通过USB-C的供电是相当有限的。笔记本电脑需要20伏的电源输出,最大功率为100瓦。因此,通过USB-C电力传输无法获得笔记本电脑的全部性能。
沟通
英特尔的Wi-Fi 6E AX211模块确保本地网络和华硕游戏笔记本电脑之间的快速连接,因此是最先进的。上传和下载的连接速度略高于平均水平,但我们看到英特尔的WLAN-ax模块的效果更强。
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W | |
Average of class Gaming (648 - 1780, n=129, last 2 years) | |
Average Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 (464 - 1861, n=142) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average of class Gaming (685 - 1890, n=136, last 2 years) | |
Average Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 (826 - 1890, n=142) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
网络摄像头

安全问题
这里找不到指纹扫描仪或其他安全功能。只有英特尔酷睿i9的安全措施,如TPM 2.0,是可用的。
辅料
这款游戏笔记本除了一个330瓦的电源和一些文件外,并没有带来更多东西。华硕在很大程度上免除了塑料包装,只用保护膜将笔记本包裹起来。
维护
11颗PH1螺丝将游戏笔记本的底板固定在原位。我们建议从笔记本的后面到前面,最后松开前面右边的螺丝。这是因为它有一个锁环,确保盖子的一部分被抬起,因此为塑料开启工具提供了方便。几个夹子将盖子固定住。该工具是用来打开底部四周的。关于如何打开笔记本电脑以及哪些部件可以更换的更详细的信息,见华硕的维修手册.
在笔记本电脑内部,我们遇到了一个相当容易维护的设备。我们发现两个内存插槽(都被占用),两个M.2插槽(一个被占用)和可更换的WLAN模块。90瓦时的电池也很容易更换,因为它不是用胶粘的。
担保
华硕在欧洲为ROG Strix G16提供两年的保修。这在其他地区可能有所不同,所以感兴趣的买家应该在购买前仔细检查。
输入设备 - 良好的键盘,但不是机械键盘
键盘
ROG Strix G16配备了一个小键盘,但由于其1.9毫米的键程和体面的触觉反馈,它提供了一个愉快的打字感觉。键盘设计是典型的游戏笔记本电脑,安装了RBG照明。此外,对游戏最重要的按键被突出显示。所有按钮都被设计成全尺寸键,这意味着右侧的方向键相当拥挤。在紧张的时刻,你很容易在这里按错键。笔记本电脑本身会有足够的空间将方向键往下移一点。然而,在输入文本时,你必须习惯于缩短的移位键
在功能键上方还有五个可以分配各种宏的按键。然而,宏键离掌托很远。根据你的手的大小,如果不改变手的位置,就很难够到它们。
触摸板
显示屏 - 响应式QHD+,16:10格式
|
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 470 cd/m²
Contrast: 1119:1 (Black: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.86 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5.1, calibrated: 0.93
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
84.9% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
97% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.246
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ TL160ADMP03-0, IPS, 2560x1600, 16.00 | Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NE160QDM-NM4, MiniLED, 2560x1600, 16.00 | Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H MNG007DA2-3 (CSO1628), IPS, 2560x1600, 16.00 | Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF Samsung SDC4191 (ATNA60YV09-0, OLED, 3840x2400, 16.00 | Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 NE160WUM-NX2 (BOE0B33), IPS-Level, 1920x1200, 16.00 | Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 CSOT T3 MNG007DA4-1, IPS, 2560x1600, 16.00 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | 3% | -15% | 6% | -15% | 3% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 97 | 99.4 2% | 69.1 -29% | 99.9 3% | 69.4 -28% | 98.5 2% |
sRGB Coverage | 99.9 | 100 0% | 99.7 0% | 100 0% | 97.8 -2% | 100 0% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 84.9 | 90.8 7% | 71.2 -16% | 96.4 14% | 70.9 -16% | 89.7 6% |
Response Times | -193% | -65% | 66% | -143% | -56% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 5.1 ? | 15.2 ? -198% | 12.3 ? -141% | 2 ? 61% | 17 ? -233% | 6.6 ? -29% |
Response Time Black / White * | 6.6 ? | 19 ? -188% | 5.9 ? 11% | 1.98 ? 70% | 10.1 ? -53% | 12 ? -82% |
PWM Frequency | 12000 ? | 60 | ||||
Screen | 108% | 22% | 117% | 5% | -13% | |
Brightness middle | 470 | 712 51% | 511 9% | 389.97 -17% | 308 -34% | 456.8 -3% |
Brightness | 459 | 703 53% | 469 2% | 395 -14% | 293 -36% | 437 -5% |
Brightness Distribution | 93 | 95 2% | 86 -8% | 97 4% | 90 -3% | 83 -11% |
Black Level * | 0.42 | 0.07 83% | 0.4 5% | 0.03 93% | 0.23 45% | 0.35 17% |
Contrast | 1119 | 10171 809% | 1278 14% | 12999 1062% | 1339 20% | 1305 17% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.86 | 1.7 9% | 0.95 49% | 2 -8% | 1.47 21% | 3.7 -99% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.87 | 4 -3% | 2.07 47% | 4.1 -6% | 2.98 23% | 6.42 -66% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 0.93 | 1.2 -29% | 0.91 2% | 1.68 -81% | 1.02 -10% | 0.66 29% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 2.8 -4% | 0.6 78% | 2.23 17% | 2.2 19% | 2.6 4% |
Gamma | 2.246 98% | 2.21 100% | 2.176 101% | 2.41 91% | 2.228 99% | 2.3 96% |
CCT | 6711 97% | 6978 93% | 6545 99% | 6323 103% | 6228 104% | 6108 106% |
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -27% /
42% | -19% /
2% | 63% /
86% | -51% /
-21% | -22% /
-16% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
6.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.2 ms rise | |
↘ 4.2 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.8 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
5.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.3 ms rise | |
↘ 2.8 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (34.3 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18694 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. |
性能 -GeForce RTX 4080的功率最高可达175瓦。
华硕ROG Strix G16有多种配置。顶级配置包括一个 英特尔酷睿i9-13980HX与32GB的DDR5内存和一个 NvidiaGeForce RTX 4080.我们的测试单元是相同的,除了16GB的内存。由于高TDP和TGP值,对游戏几乎没有任何限制。在最高质量设置下,许多当前的标题在ROG Strix上以显示器的原生QHD+分辨率呈现,远远超过60 FPS。
性能控制和测试条件
ROG Strix G16的性能可以通过全面的Armory Crate应用来控制。除了性能之外,RGB灯光、显示器和其他功能也在这里配置。有三个预定义的性能配置文件,即静音、性能和涡轮,以及对 RTX 4080.根据GPU模式,有一种混合模式,或在i9的iGPU或Nvidia显卡作为GPU之间进行选择。切换是通过MUX进行的,因此显示器总是直接连接到活动的图形单元。如果需要,用户可以在手动模式下榨出笔记本的所有游戏潜力,并调整各种设置。可以设置风扇曲线、TGP、动态提升、PL1和PL2以及温度限制。即使华硕试图用硬性限制来遏制系统,超频者也会在这里得到他们的金钱回报。至少笔记本电脑的性能可以适应一些游戏的要求。GPU和CPU都没有构成任何性能瓶颈问题。
Armory Crate的各种设置可以使TGP和TDP值有相当大的变化。例如,该处理器在涡轮模式下能够长时间提取130瓦,而在静音模式下能够提取约70瓦。在用Prime95和Furmark进行的压力测试中,英特尔酷睿i9和NvidiaGeForce RTX 4080在涡轮模式下的综合输出功率约为210瓦,在静音模式下为95瓦。更精确的数值可以从下面的日志中收集到。仔细观察可以发现,虽然以瓦为单位的硬件性能值偶尔会因工作模式而相差甚远,但处理器和图形芯片的有效时钟速率却相差不远。
另一方面,我们注意到笔记本的噪音排放有很大差异。在静音模式下,三个风扇的运行速度约为40 dB(A)。涡轮模式约为51 dB(A)。由于分贝尺度是对数的,这使ROG Strix G16的感知响度增加了一倍。我们的测量和基准测试主要是在标准GPU模式和性能模式下进行的。
处理器
猛禽湖是英特尔第13代处理器的名称,它带来了 英特尔酷睿i9-13980HX.这款高端CPU是为具有强大冷却能力的大型笔记本设计的。由于有8个P核和16个E核,i9有32个线程。根据HWinfo,华硕游戏笔记本中的CPU运行时远远高于英特尔推荐的TDP值。在涡轮增压模式下,可实现高达130瓦的连续功率。
在性能模式下,风扇在Cinebench R15循环中反复明显地启动得相当晚。这解释了前三次运行后性能急剧下降的原因。然而,此后不久,冷却就稳定下来,处理器能够继续在高水平上工作。性能的急剧下降只发生在这个特定的基准测试中。每次运行后,Cinebench都会重新启动,在两次运行之间给处理器一到三秒的时间来恢复。然而,这也可能导致性能控制对负载情况的延迟反应。在使用Cinebench R23的循环中,我们无法引起性能的急剧下降。在这里,各次运行之间的时间要短一些。在两次超过30,000分的强劲运行后,ROG Strix G16在CB R23循环中保持了10分钟的29,000分左右。在电池模式下,多核性能下降了约30%,达到约20,000分。
总的来说,ROG Strix G16的英特尔酷睿i9是相当强大的。这里的基准测试结果一直是顶级水平。然而,i9无法与华硕Zephyrus Duo 16中的Ryzen 9相比。
Cinebench R15 Multi Sustained Load
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
Cinebench R23 / Multi Core | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (28301 - 33052, n=11) | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (2435 - 34613, n=237, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
Cinebench R23 / Single Core | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (1825 - 2169, n=9) | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Average of class Gaming (527 - 2169, n=235, last 2 years) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core) | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (10353 - 12437, n=10) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (930 - 13769, n=235, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (717 - 825, n=10) | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average of class Gaming (169 - 825, n=235, last 2 years) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (4358 - 5172, n=11) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (400 - 5663, n=241, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (289 - 312, n=11) | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average of class Gaming (79.2 - 312, n=240, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
Blender / v2.79 BMW27 CPU | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Average of class Gaming (87 - 1259, n=233, last 2 years) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (97 - 136, n=10) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (104616 - 129804, n=10) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (11386 - 140932, n=232, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1 | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (6230 - 7163, n=10) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average of class Gaming (2685 - 7581, n=233, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
Geekbench 5.5 / Multi-Core | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (18475 - 22200, n=10) | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (1946 - 22200, n=239, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
Geekbench 5.5 / Single-Core | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (1796 - 2139, n=10) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average of class Gaming (158 - 2139, n=239, last 2 years) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (27 - 33.4, n=9) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (3 - 37.6, n=236, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (32.8 - 332, n=231, last 2 years) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (35 - 51.4, n=10) |
R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (0.375 - 4.47, n=233, last 2 years) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (0.3793 - 0.4462, n=10) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ |
* ... smaller is better
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx
Performance Rating | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / FP32 Ray-Trace | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (21332 - 29553, n=9) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Average of class Gaming (2585 - 60169, n=229, last 2 years) |
AIDA64 / FPU Julia | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (108001 - 148168, n=9) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (12439 - 252486, n=229, last 2 years) |
AIDA64 / CPU SHA3 | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (5264 - 7142, n=9) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (629 - 10389, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / CPU Queen | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (126758 - 143409, n=9) | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average of class Gaming (15371 - 200651, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / FPU SinJulia | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (13785 - 17117, n=9) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Average of class Gaming (2137 - 32988, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF |
AIDA64 / FPU Mandel | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (53398 - 73758, n=9) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (7135 - 134044, n=229, last 2 years) |
AIDA64 / CPU AES | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (105169 - 136520, n=9) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average of class Gaming (18146 - 328679, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / CPU ZLib | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (1513 - 2039, n=9) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (150.9 - 2409, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / FP64 Ray-Trace | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (11431 - 16325, n=9) | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (1437 - 31796, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / CPU PhotoWorxx | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (37069 - 52949, n=9) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average of class Gaming (8341 - 60161, n=230, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
系统性能
在PCMark 10测试中,华硕ROG Strix G16落后于许多具有类似硬件的竞争对手。性能下降发生在生产力子部分,其中考虑到了内存和硬盘驱动器的性能。与目前其他游戏笔记本相比,ROG Strix G16的这两项性能都不理想。然而,我们不能说这里的数值低,因为华硕ROG Strix仍然远远高于一般的游戏笔记本。
当你看到Crossmark以及PCMark 10 Essentials和Content Creation的结果时,你就会明白这款笔记本非常强大:华硕ROG Strix G16配备了所有可能的设备。除了在游戏方面的主要能力外,这款笔记本电脑在日常使用中也是非常通用的。强大的计算硬件确保了较短的加载时间和一个非常灵敏的系统。
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (5288 - 18475, n=199, last 2 years) | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI |
CrossMark / Responsiveness | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (1029 - 2275, n=160, last 2 years) | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 |
PCMark 10 Score | 7223 points | |
Help |
AIDA64 / Memory Copy | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (62189 - 80776, n=9) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average of class Gaming (18074 - 88014, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / Memory Read | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (62624 - 89096, n=9) | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Average of class Gaming (20318 - 89096, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / Memory Write | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (59912 - 79917, n=9) | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W | |
Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average of class Gaming (15975 - 103259, n=229, last 2 years) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
AIDA64 / Memory Latency | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Asus ROG Strix Scar 18 2023 G834JY-N6005W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Average Intel Core i9-13980HX (79.4 - 93.2, n=9) | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 | |
Asus ROG Strix G18 G814JI | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Average of class Gaming (76.2 - 136.8, n=226, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
DPC延时
DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W | |
Asus ROG Strix G16 G614JZ | |
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 | |
Gigabyte AERO 16 OLED BSF | |
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H | |
Asus TUF Gaming A16 FA617 |
* ... smaller is better