Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 Notebook Review: Multitasking monster with AMD Zen4, RTX 4090 & Mini-LED – NotebookCheck.net Reviews

Debut for the AMD Zen4 Ryzen 9 7945HX. Asus refreshes its ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 and uses the best components you can currently get. The new GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop is supported by AMD’s Ryzen 9 7945HX, the fastest mobile CPU right now. The manufacturer also replaces the 4K screen with a new WQHD Mini-LED panel with 240 Hz, which is supported by a secondary 4K screen. Update: sRGB profile is included

Andreas Osthoff ???? (translated by Andreas Osthoff), Published 03/15/2023 ???????? ????????

Asus continues the concept of the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 with its two screens in 2023 and uses the best technologies you can currently get for laptops. In addition to the brand-new mobile graphics cards from Nvidia, the GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop and GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop, Asus once again uses HX processor from AMD. It is actually one of the first laptops in our editorial office with the new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, which offers 16 Zen4 cores against Intel’s Raptor Lake HX CPUs. Asus also upgraded the display: The resolution drops from 4K to WQHD, but it is a matte Mini-LED panel with a refresh rate of 240 Hz and fast response times.

The classification of the laptop is actually not that simple, because the Zephyrus Duo could be a gaming laptop, a machine for content creator or even a mobile workstation. However, the concept with two screens is definitely not interesting for every user. There are currently four different configurations and our review unit with the RTX 4090 Laptop, 32 GB RAM and 2 TB SSD storage retails for 4999 Euros. The SKU with the smaller 1 TB SSD as well as the GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop will be available soon for 4299 Euros.

Processor

AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX 16 x 2.5 – 5.4 GHz, 130 W PL2 / Short Burst, 120 W PL1 / Sustained, Dragon Range (Zen4)

Memory

32 GB

, DDR5-4800, Dual-Channel, max. 64 GB

Display

16.00 inch 16:10, 2560 x 1600 pixel 189 PPI, capacitive, NE160QDM-NM4, MiniLED, glossy: no, HDR, 240 Hz

Mainboard

AMD Promontory/Bixby FCH

Storage

SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N, 2048 GB

, 1900 GB free

Connections

4 USB 3.1 Gen2, USB-C Power Delivery (PD), 1 HDMI, 2 DisplayPort, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm, Card Reader: microSD

Networking

Realtek RTL8125 2.5GBe Family Ethernet Controller (10/100/1000/2500MBit/s), MediaTek RZ616 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/ Wi-Fi 6E 6 GHz), Bluetooth 5.2

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 29.7 x 355 x 266 ( = 1.17 x 13.98 x 10.47 in)

Battery

90 Wh, 5675 mAh Lithium-Polymer

Operating System

Microsoft Windows 11 Home

Camera

Webcam: 1080p
Primary Camera: 2 MPix

Additional features

Speakers: 6 Speakers, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 330W PSU, ROG Backpack, rubberized palmrest, 24 Months Warranty

Weight

2.666 kg ( = 94.04 oz / 5.88 pounds), Power Supply: 1.149 kg ( = 40.53 oz / 2.53 pounds)

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

The chassis design did not change compared to the previous model. The laptop is actually rather subtle when the lid is closed and only the ROG logo is colored compared to the otherwise matte black finish. There is no crazy chassis lighting, either. The quality of the laptop leaves a good impression, only the plastic bottom cover falls a bit short.

Once you open the lid, however, you will immediately see that this is not a regular laptop. Depending on the opening angle of the main screen, the secondary screen is slightly raised (to ~15 degrees) and shifted towards the back, which uncovers a transparent cover above the keyboard where you can even glimpse inside the chassis at the corners. The angle of the secondary screen cannot be changed, but it works well in practice. The lifting mechanism is also very sturdy and there are no movements. The stability is very good in general, only the maximum opening angle of the lid is a bit limited at ~130 degrees.

Our size comparison shows that the 17-inch MSI Titan GT77 has a much bigger footprint, but it also shows that the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is by far the thickest device in our little comparison group. This is obviously caused by the secondary screen, which requires additional space. It is also one of the heaviest 16-inch models at almost 2.7 kg and you also have to consider the bulky 330W power supply, which tips the scale at more than 1.1 kg.

MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake DIN A4 397 mm / 15.6 inch 330 mm / 13 inch 23 mm / 0.906 inch 3.5 kg7.65 lbs363 mm / 14.3 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 26 mm / 1.024 inch 2.7 kg5.89 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 266 mm / 10.5 inch 29.7 mm / 1.169 inch 2.7 kg5.88 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 244 mm / 9.61 inch 21.99 mm / 0.866 inch 2.4 kg5.34 lbs355 mm / 14 inch 266 mm / 10.5 inch 20.5 mm / 0.807 inch 2.6 kg5.64 lbs355.7 mm / 14 inch 248.1 mm / 9.77 inch 16.8 mm / 0.661 inch 2.2 kg4.76 lbs297 mm / 11.7 inch 210 mm / 8.27 inch 1 mm / 0.03937 inch 5.7 g0.01257 lbs

The rear area of the base unit is almost completely occupied by the cooling, which is why there are only three ports (Ethernet, HDMI, USB-A) in the center of the rear. The majority of the remaining ports is located at the front of the left side, which is also the case for the angled power connector. The cable from the PSU is pretty short, so the power cable can block the USB-A port depending on the orientation. There is one more USB-C port at the left side.

In addition to the somewhat inconvenient port layout, we are surprised that Asus did not include USB 4 support. The AMD processor supports USB 4 in general, but requires an additional USB controller, and it seems Asus did not want to spend the money.

There is a microSD card reader at the left side and SD cards sit flush with the chassis. The transfer rates in combination with our reference card (Angelbird AV Pro V60 128 GB) are excellent and we measure up to 270 MB/s and more than 180 MB/s when we copy jpeg image files.

The Wi-Fi module is located underneath the M.2-SSD.

You get a 2.5 Gbps Ethernet jack at the rear and the Wi-Fi module (RZ616) also supports the modern Wi-Fi 6E standard for 6 GHz networks. We had no issues to use the corresponding 6 GHz Wi-Fi network with our reference router from Asus and the transfer rates were both very high and stable. Bluetooth 5.2 is supported as well.

Networking
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W MediaTek RZ616
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	1767 (min: 1634) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1738 (min: 1633) MBit/s ∼96%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Killer Wi-Fi 6E AX1690i 160MHz
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	1582 (min: 1517) MBit/s ∼93%
iperf3 receive AXE11000	1545 (min: 1508) MBit/s ∼91%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Killer Wi-Fi 6E AX1675i 160MHz Wireless Network Adapter
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	1579 (min: 848) MBit/s ∼93%
iperf3 receive AXE11000	1619 (min: 1537) MBit/s ∼96%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	1155 (min: 495) MBit/s ∼68%
iperf3 receive AXE11000	1328 (min: 1093) MBit/s ∼78%
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	1371 (min: 1036) MBit/s ∼78%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1494 (min: 1283) MBit/s ∼83%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX MediaTek Wi-Fi 6E MT7922 160MHz Wireless LAN Card
iperf3 transmit AXE11000	1695 (min: 1556) MBit/s ∼100%
iperf3 receive AXE11000	1692 (min: 1567) MBit/s ∼100%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Broadcom 0x14E4, 0x4388 WiFi 6E AirPort
iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz	1730 (min: 1700) MBit/s ∼98%
iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz	1803 (min: 1749) MBit/s ∼100%

Asus upgraded the webcam and now uses a 1080p sensor. This has a positive effect on the sharpness of images compared to the previous model, but the color accuracy is still not very good. The ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 does not offer a mechanical shutter.

ColorChecker Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W: 15.1 ∆E min: 2.09 – max: 26 ∆E

Every version of the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is shipped with a rubberized palm rest as well a dark ROG backpack, which leaves a pretty good quality impression. The more expensive units with Windows 11 Pro, 64 GB RAM and 2 or 4 TB SSD storage also include the ROG Fusion II 300 headset as well as the gaming mouse ROG Gladius III Mouse P514.

The bottom cover is secured by several Torx screws (TR6), but there is also an additional screw hidden in the center underneath a glued rubber pad, which makes it unnecessarily complicated to access the internals. Inside you get two SO-DIMM slots as well as two M.2-2280 slots for SSDs. It is also possible to replace the Wi-Fi module, but you will have to remove the SSD first.

The additional screen requires a shift towards the front of the base unit for the keyboard, which is obviously not ideal for the ergonomics. Asus knows this as well and ships every unit with a rubberized palm rest. It works well on your desk at home, but it is no help when you are on the road. The keyboard itself offers a comfortable typing experience with a shallow, but also quiet key travel. The keyboard is illuminated and you can use the Armoury Crate software to set the color for every key individually (if you want).

The touchpad in portrait orientation is sitting right next to the keyboard and even standard cursor movements can be challenging and require multiple attempts due to the narrow form factor. You can also use the touchpad as a numeric keypad (activated by tap in the upper left corner), which works well.

The 16-inch Mini-LED panel is one major upgrade over the previous model. It offers the WQHD resolution (2560 x 2600 pixels, 16:10) and a refresh rate of 240 Hz. The matte panel offers an exceptional image quality with razor-sharp contents and rich colors. Asus advertises a brightness of up to 1100 nits, but you have to differentiate between SDR and HDR contents.

The test results are very good and while the Mini-LED panel of the MacBook Pro 16 only reaches 500 nits for SDR contents, wen can measure up to 700 nits for the review unit. It even manages almost 1400 nits with HDR contents, and it does not matter if you only have a small area or a full picture. The HDR implementation of Windows on the other hand is still cumbersome and requires a manual settings change.

The black value is extremely low and results in an excellent contrast ratio. Mini-LED panels also do not have any issues with clouding or backlight bleeding.


692 cd/m²	690 cd/m²	693 cd/m²
724 cd/m²	712 cd/m²	709 cd/m²
701 cd/m²	710 cd/m²	693 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

NE160QDM-NM4

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 724 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 702.7 cd/m² Minimum: 85 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 713 cd/m²
Contrast: 10171:1 (Black: 0.07 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.7 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.2, calibrated: 1.2
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
90.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.4% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.21

Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
NE160QDM-NM4, MiniLED, 2560×1600, 16.00

MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
B173ZAN06.C, Mini-LED, 3840×2160, 17.30

Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake
2560×1600, 16.00

Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
MNG007DA2-3 (CSO1628), IPS, 2560×1600, 16.00

Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
CSOT T3 MNG007DA4-1, IPS, 2560×1600, 16.00

Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
BOE NE160QAM-NX1, IPS-Level, 3840×2400, 16.00

Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
Mini-LED, 3456×2234, 16.20

Display

-1%

-20%

-17%

-1%

-2%

-1%

Display P3 Coverage

99.4

94.9

-5%

67.44

-32%

69.1

-30%

98.5

-1%

sRGB Coverage

100

99.9

96.89

-3%

99.7

100

99.9

100

AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage

90.8

92.4

68.93

-24%

71.2

-22%

89.7

-1%

86.3

-5%

88.5

-3%

Response Times

-91%

44%

47%

38%

-185%

Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *

15.2

The picture quality is already very good out of the box. We analyzed the panel with the professional CalMAN software (X-Rite i1 Pro 2) and both the grayscale as well as color checker performance only show small deviations compared to the P3 reference color space. However, there is a minor blue cast and the color temperature is also a bit on the cool side. Our own calibration (profile can be downloaded for free in the box above) improves the performance even further, so the panel is also suited for picture/video editing. It is a bit unfortunate that Asus does not include an option to switch to the smaller sRGB gamut.

Update: There is a dedciated sRGB profile available in the Armoury Crate software.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
19 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 10.6 ms rise
19 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 8.4 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 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 31 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
15.2 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 11.2 ms rise
15.2 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 19 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (35.6 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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

12000 Hz

≤ 100 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 12000 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 12000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19343 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

The panel used PWM at all brightness levels, but the frequency of 12 kHz is very high and should not cause any problems. However, the constant PWM flickering makes it very hard to measure response times accurately. Our results are pretty average, but Asus advertises a response time of 3 ms. We did not notice any ghosting in during our tests and the panel is great for gaming.

The matte Mini-LED panel also works great outdoors, which is confirmed by our outdoor pictures. You should obviously avoid reflections from direct light sources, but you can still see the contents very comfortable on sunny days, while you cannot see anything on the glossy secondary screen (~400 nits). The viewing angle stability does not cause any criticism, either.

Like last year’s model, the secondary screen has a resolution of 3840 x 1100 pixels (14 inches) and is now glossy. Touch inputs are well executed and Asus avoids the problem of different horizontal resolutions by adjusting the scaling factor, which means the width of windows does not change when you switch them from one display to the other. This works reasonably well in practice, but there can be issues when the run apps in full-screen mode (like games), where apps or windows on the second screen can move around.

The brightness is almost 400 nits and the other measurements are also good, but the picture quality cannot keep up with the primary screen. The additional panel is also limited to the smaller sRGB gamut, but we did not detect any PWM flickering.


384 cd/m²	381 cd/m²	379 cd/m²
377 cd/m²	386 cd/m²	377 cd/m²
365 cd/m²	349 cd/m²	382 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 386 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 375.6 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 386 cd/m²
Contrast: 1838:1 (Black: 0.21 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.7 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
Gamma: 2.11

Display Response Times

ℹ

↔ Response Time Black to White
17.2 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 7.7 ms rise
17.2 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 9.5 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 0.4 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 29 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
32.1 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 15.4 ms rise
32.1 ms … rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 16.7 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 33 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (35.6 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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 19343 (minimum: 5 – maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

All models of the ROG Zephyrus Duo are equipped with the powerful AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, but Asus does not use fast RAM and still uses DDR5-4800. We also faced some bugs during our review and we even had some blue screens when we launched AIDA64 benchmarks, for example. You also have to know that the graphics are handled by the dedicated GeForce GPU when you use an external screen. This is caused by the secondary screen, and the GeForce GPU is also running even when both integrated screens are turned off, which will obviously increase the power consumption.

The preloaded Armoury Crate software offers several power profiles for the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16. It is also possible to adjust the GPU settings in addition to the basic profiles. We got the best overall results with the Turbo profile as well as the default GPU setting (MSHybrid).

The new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (Dragon Range) uses 16 Zen4 cores (32 threads) and is manufactured in a 5 nm process. It is AMD’s new flagship mobile CPU and is a direct rival for Intel’s current Raptor Lake HX chips. AMD advertises a typical TDP of 55 Watts, but the processor in the ROH Zephyrus Duo 16 can consume up to 130 Watts and 120 Watts for sustained workloads. This means it is much more efficient than Intel’s latest models like the Core i9-13980HX, which can consume more than 200 Watts in peak load scenarios.

The multi-core performance in particular is very impressive and the Ryzen 9 7945HX can take the top spot in almost every benchmark. Intel’s current CPUs only have a slight advantage in single-core tests, but also consume more power in these scenarios. We will offer a detailed comparison of the performance and efficiency between the new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX and the Raptor Lake HX CPUs in a separate comparison article.

MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX: Ø4987 (4917.63-5171.97)

The CPU performance is almost completely stable under sustained workloads, but you have to expect a performance deficit of around 50 % in multi-core tests running on battery (the single-core performance is not affected). Compared to the Ryzen 9 6900HX in the old Zephyrus Duo 16, the CPU performance has increased by 68 % across all CPU benchmarks. More benchmark results are available in our tech section.

CPU Performance Rating
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	84.5 pt ∼85%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	82.7 pt ∼83%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	82.5 pt ∼83%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	80.7 pt ∼81%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	80.4 pt ∼80%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	78.5 pt ∼79%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	72.3 pt ∼72%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	67.6 pt ∼68%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max ^-6! Apple M2 Max	60.4 pt ∼60%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	49.3 pt ∼49%
Average of class Gaming	48.1 pt ∼48%

Cinebench R23 / Multi Core
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	34521 (32987.6^min – 34521.3^max) Points ∼100%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	33277 Points ∼96% -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	33052 Points ∼96% -4%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (31534 – 34521, n=2)	33028 Points ∼96% -4%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	30162 Points ∼87% -13%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	28707 (26191.7^min – 28706.8^max) Points ∼83% -17%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	28010 (26406.1^min – 28009.8^max) Points ∼81% -19%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	26703 Points ∼77% -23%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	26736 (22394.1^min – 26736.1^max) Points ∼77% -23%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	22982 Points ∼67% -33%
Average of class Gaming (2435 – 34521, n=226, last 2 years)	15051 Points ∼44% -56%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	14767 Points ∼43% -57%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	14085 Points ∼41% -59%

Cinebench R23 / Single Core
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	2169 Points ∼100% +12%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	2100 Points ∼97% +8%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	2055 Points ∼95% +6%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	2043 Points ∼94% +5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	2029 Points ∼94% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	1940 Points ∼89%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	1913 Points ∼88% -1%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (1863 – 1940, n=2)	1902 Points ∼88% -2%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	1625 Points ∼75% -16%
Average of class Gaming (527 – 2169, n=223, last 2 years)	1624 Points ∼75% -16%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	1566 Points ∼72% -19%

Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core)
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	13457 Points ∼100%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	12648 Points ∼94% -6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	12437 Points ∼92% -8%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (10025 – 13457, n=2)	11741 Points ∼87% -13%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	11500 Points ∼85% -15%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	11289 Points ∼84% -16%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	8697 Points ∼65% -35%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	8667 Points ∼64% -36%
Average of class Gaming (930 – 13457, n=230, last 2 years)	5666 Points ∼42% -58%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	5489 Points ∼41% -59%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	4044 Points ∼30% -70%

Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	825 Points ∼100% +9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	803 Points ∼97% +6%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	788 Points ∼96% +4%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	756 Points ∼92% 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	756 Points ∼92%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	742 Points ∼90% -2%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	738 Points ∼89% -2%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (712 – 756, n=2)	734 Points ∼89% -3%
Average of class Gaming (169 – 825, n=230, last 2 years)	625 Points ∼76% -17%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	595 Points ∼72% -21%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	460 Points ∼56% -39%

Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	5554 (5255.55^min – 5554.01^max) Points ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (5205 – 5554, n=3)	5406 Points ∼97% -3%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	5227 (4889.98^min – 5226.71^max) Points ∼94% -6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	5172 (4917.63^min – 5171.97^max) Points ∼93% -7%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	4913 Points ∼88% -12%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	4875 (4298.3^min – 4875.08^max) Points ∼88% -12%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	4819 (4429.68^min – 4819.28^max) Points ∼87% -13%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	4529 (4463.29^min – 4528.99^max) Points ∼82% -18%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	3570 (3259.45^min – 3569.52^max) Points ∼64% -36%
Average of class Gaming (400 – 5554, n=235, last 2 years)	2420 Points ∼44% -56%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	2292 Points ∼41% -59%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	2074 (2068.47^min, 2068.57^P1 – 2081.27^max) Points ∼37% -63%

Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	312 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	307 Points ∼98%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	301 Points ∼96% -2%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (294 – 307, n=3)	301 Points ∼96% -2%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	300 Points ∼96% -2%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	295 Points ∼95% -4%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	294 Points ∼94% -4%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	278 Points ∼89% -9%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	274 Points ∼88% -11%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	249 Points ∼80% -19%
Average of class Gaming (79.2 – 312, n=231, last 2 years)	245 Points ∼79% -20%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	239 Points ∼77% -22%

Blender / v2.79 BMW27 CPU
Average of class Gaming (93 – 1259, n=232, last 2 years)	247 Seconds * ∼100% -166%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	220 Seconds * ∼89% -137%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	147 Seconds * ∼60% -58%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	114 Seconds * ∼46% -23%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	111 Seconds * ∼45% -19%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	105 Seconds * ∼43% -13%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	101 Seconds * ∼41% -9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	100 Seconds * ∼40% -8%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (93 – 100, n=2)	96.5 Seconds * ∼39% -4%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	93 Seconds * ∼38%

7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	135927 MIPS ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (123364 – 135927, n=2)	129646 MIPS ∼95% -5%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	127295 MIPS ∼94% -6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	125720 MIPS ∼92% -8%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	122254 MIPS ∼90% -10%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	118715 MIPS ∼87% -13%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	109330 MIPS ∼80% -20%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	86234 MIPS ∼63% -37%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	64457 MIPS ∼47% -53%
Average of class Gaming (11386 – 135927, n=227, last 2 years)	61467 MIPS ∼45% -55%

7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (7319 – 7332, n=2)	7326 MIPS ∼100% 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	7319 MIPS ∼100%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	7035 MIPS ∼96% -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	7018 MIPS ∼96% -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	6897 MIPS ∼94% -6%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	6800 MIPS ∼93% -7%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	6445 MIPS ∼88% -12%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	6256 MIPS ∼85% -15%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	5727 MIPS ∼78% -22%
Average of class Gaming (2685 – 7332, n=228, last 2 years)	5707 MIPS ∼78% -22%

Geekbench 5.4 / Multi-Core
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	21058 Points ∼100% +8%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	20784 Points ∼99% +6%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	20634 Points ∼98% +5%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	20329 Points ∼97% +4%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	19583 Points ∼93%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (18372 – 19583, n=2)	18978 Points ∼90% -3%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	18152 Points ∼86% -7%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	16250 Points ∼77% -17%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	15348 Points ∼73% -22%
Average of class Gaming (1946 – 21058, n=226, last 2 years)	10772 Points ∼51% -45%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	10167 Points ∼48% -48%

Geekbench 5.4 / Single-Core
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	2139 Points ∼100% 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	2132 Points ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (2053 – 2132, n=2)	2093 Points ∼98% -2%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	2043 Points ∼96% -4%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	2025 Points ∼95% -5%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	2023 Points ∼95% -5%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max	1978 Points ∼92% -7%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	1923 Points ∼90% -10%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	1805 Points ∼84% -15%
Average of class Gaming (158 – 2139, n=226, last 2 years)	1635 Points ∼76% -23%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	1594 Points ∼75% -25%

HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	34.8 fps ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (33.8 – 34.8, n=2)	34.3 fps ∼99% -1%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	33.4 fps ∼96% -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	32.7 fps ∼94% -6%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	31.9 fps ∼92% -8%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	30.9 fps ∼89% -11%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	28.7 fps ∼82% -18%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	25.6 fps ∼74% -26%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	18 fps ∼52% -48%
Average of class Gaming (3 – 34.8, n=232, last 2 years)	17.1 fps ∼49% -51%

LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	60.4 s * ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (45.7 – 60.4, n=2)	53.1 s * ∼88% +12%
Average of class Gaming (32.8 – 332, n=228, last 2 years)	51.4 s * ∼85% +15%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	47.5 s * ∼79% +21%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	46.5 s * ∼77% +23%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	46 s * ∼76% +24%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	45 s * ∼75% +25%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	44 s * ∼73% +27%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	39 s * ∼65% +35%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	36.7 s * ∼61% +39%

R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean
Average of class Gaming (0.3793 – 4.47, n=228, last 2 years)	0.517 sec * ∼100% -30%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	0.4799 sec * ∼93% -21%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX	0.4194 sec * ∼81% -5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX	0.4121 sec * ∼80% -3%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (0.3982 – 0.4159, n=2)	0.4071 sec * ∼79% -2%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX	0.4033 sec * ∼78% -1%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13980HX	0.4008 sec * ∼78% -1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	0.3982 sec * ∼77%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX	0.3979 sec * ∼77% -0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX	0.3866 sec * ∼75% +3%

* … smaller is better

Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit

21698

Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit

71582

Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit

8481

Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit

3.65 Points

Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit

64.29 Points

Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit

182.2 fps

Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit

307 Points

Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit

99.6 %

Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit

283 fps

Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit

5554 Points

Help

Except for the previously mentioned blue screens, we also noticed some software bugs during our review period. There were issues with the Bluetooth connection (we occasionally had to open the Bluetooth menu before our mouse worked) and YouTube sometimes did not play any videos, which was solved by a restart. We are currently not sure whether these are software issues caused by Asus or initial issues with the new AMD platform.

If everything works as designed (which is the case most of the time), the performance is really good. There are no stutters and all inputs are executed without delays. The results in the synthetic benchmarks are also excellent and the AMD system can beat most Intel rivals.

PCMark 10 / Score
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	9151 Points ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	9151 Points ∼100% 0%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	8884 Points ∼97% -3%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	7888 Points ∼86% -14%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	7830 Points ∼86% -14%
Average of class Gaming (4477 – 9151, n=188, last 2 years)	7124 Points ∼78% -22%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	6351 Points ∼69% -31%

PCMark 10 / Essentials
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	12176 Points ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	12176 Points ∼100% 0%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	11761 Points ∼97% -3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	11703 Points ∼96% -4%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	11078 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Gaming (7334 – 12639, n=187, last 2 years)	10334 Points ∼85% -15%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	9374 Points ∼77% -23%

PCMark 10 / Productivity
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	11833 Points ∼100%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	11833 Points ∼100% 0%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	10788 Points ∼91% -9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	9851 Points ∼83% -17%
Average of class Gaming (6161 – 11833, n=187, last 2 years)	9308 Points ∼79% -21%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	8271 Points ∼70% -30%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	7704 Points ∼65% -35%

PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	16424 Points ∼100% +14%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	14535 Points ∼88% +1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	14432 Points ∼88%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	14432 Points ∼88% 0%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	10319 Points ∼63% -28%
Average of class Gaming (5288 – 16424, n=187, last 2 years)	10243 Points ∼62% -29%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	9626 Points ∼59% -33%

CrossMark / Overall
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	2139 Points ∼100% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	2078 Points ∼97%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	2078 Points ∼97% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX	1993 Points ∼93% -4%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z	1910 Points ∼89% -8%
Average of class Gaming (974 – 2195, n=92, last 2 years)	1818 Points ∼85% -13%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	1711 Points ∼80% -18%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	1592 Points ∼74% -23%

CrossMark / Productivity
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	1977 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	1946 Points ∼98%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	1946 Points ∼98% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX	1820 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Gaming (907 – 2062, n=92, last 2 years)	1746 Points ∼88% -10%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	1698 Points ∼86% -13%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z	1618 Points ∼82% -17%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	1509 Points ∼76% -22%

CrossMark / Creativity
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z	2505 Points ∼100% +5%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	2423 Points ∼97% +2%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX	2384 Points ∼95% 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	2377 Points ∼95%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	2377 Points ∼95% 0%
Average of class Gaming (1027 – 2514, n=92, last 2 years)	1949 Points ∼78% -18%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	1780 Points ∼71% -25%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	1724 Points ∼69% -27%

CrossMark / Responsiveness
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	1861 Points ∼100% +10%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	1715 Points ∼92% +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	1689 Points ∼91%
Average AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	1689 Points ∼91% 0%
Average of class Gaming (1029 – 2230, n=92, last 2 years)	1683 Points ∼90% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX	1528 Points ∼82% -10%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z	1395 Points ∼75% -17%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	1342 Points ∼72% -21%

PCMark 10 Score		9151 points
Help

Our standardized Latency test (web browsing, YouTube 4K playback, CPU load) shows significant limitations for the test unit with the current BIOS version, so it is not suited for real-time audio applications.

DPC Latencies / LatencyMon – interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	5418.4 μs * ∼100%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	4710.9 μs * ∼87% +13%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	2448.6 μs * ∼45% +55%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	521.5 μs * ∼10% +90%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	437.7 μs * ∼8% +92%

* … smaller is better

Our review unit is equipped with a fast 2 TB SSD from SK Hynix (PC801), which is attached via PCIe 4.0. The performance of the NVMe drive is excellent and we transfer rates of more than 7 GB/s. The performance is also stable under sustained workloads, which is a problem for many high-end laptops right now. More SSD benchmarks are listed here.

CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1:
7107 MB/s

CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1:
6036 MB/s

CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1:
532 MB/s

CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1:
585 MB/s

CDM 5/6 Read 4K:
64.4 MB/s

CDM 5/6 Write 4K:
163.9 MB/s

CDM 6 Write 4K Q8T8:
486 MB/s

CDM 6 Read 4K Q8T8:
1278 MB/s

Drive Performance Rating – Percent
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	77.6 pt ∼78%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	74.8 pt ∼75%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	67.8 pt ∼68%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	57.9 pt ∼58%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	57.9 pt ∼58%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	57.6 pt ∼58%
Average of class Gaming	52.9 pt ∼53%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake ^-11!	40.7 pt ∼41%

DiskSpd
seq read
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	5598 (5462.22^min – 5597.85^max) MB/s ∼100% +103%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	4903 MB/s ∼88% +78%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	4525 (4498.41^min – 4525.41^max) MB/s ∼81% +64%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	3844 (3257.93^min – 3843.87^max) MB/s ∼69% +39%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	3180 (3109.94^min – 3179.84^max) MB/s ∼57% +15%
Average of class Gaming (834 – 5676, n=186, last 2 years)	3070 MB/s ∼55% +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	2756 (2741.19^min – 2756.29^max) MB/s ∼49%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	2756 MB/s ∼49% 0%
seq write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	7889 (6495.73^min – 7888.81^max) MB/s ∼100% +86%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	7533 (7482.85^min – 7532.79^max) MB/s ∼95% +77%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	4378 (4355.78^min – 4378.43^max) MB/s ∼55% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	4250 (4204.35^min – 4249.88^max) MB/s ∼54%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	4250 MB/s ∼54% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	3434 (3027.24^min – 3434.35^max) MB/s ∼44% -19%
Average of class Gaming (399 – 7889, n=185, last 2 years)	3265 MB/s ∼41% -23%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	3242 (1498^min – 3241.78^max) MB/s ∼41% -24%
seq q8 t1 read
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	11242 (10740.3^min – 11242.2^max) MB/s ∼100% +60%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	10557 (9742.97^min – 10557.3^max) MB/s ∼94% +50%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	7048 (6068.56^min – 7047.9^max) MB/s ∼63%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	7048 MB/s ∼63% 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	6872 (4963.33^min – 6872.25^max) MB/s ∼61% -2%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	6682 (5778.28^min – 6681.95^max) MB/s ∼59% -5%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	6637 (5645.11^min – 6636.65^max) MB/s ∼59% -6%
Average of class Gaming (1620 – 13195, n=186, last 2 years)	5317 MB/s ∼47% -25%
seq q8 t1 write
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	9942 (9912.92^min – 9941.76^max) MB/s ∼100% +66%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	9830 (9799.27^min – 9829.82^max) MB/s ∼99% +64%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	6004 (5933.65^min – 6004.3^max) MB/s ∼60%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	6004 MB/s ∼60% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	4985 (4706.66^min – 4985.24^max) MB/s ∼50% -17%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	4943 (4923.06^min – 4943.2^max) MB/s ∼50% -18%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	4244 (427.59^min – 4244.22^max) MB/s ∼43% -29%
Average of class Gaming (86.2 – 10261, n=186, last 2 years)	4002 MB/s ∼40% -33%
4k q1 t1 read
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	95.3 (93.25^min – 95.25^max) MB/s ∼100% +48%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	83.1 (79.37^min – 83.07^max) MB/s ∼87% +29%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	73.1 (72.79^min – 73.06^max) MB/s ∼77% +14%
Average of class Gaming (23.3 – 97.4, n=186, last 2 years)	64.6 MB/s ∼68% 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	64.3 (63.09^min – 64.34^max) MB/s ∼67%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	64.3 MB/s ∼67% 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	56.5 (49.8^min – 56.49^max) MB/s ∼59% -12%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	46.6 (45.38^min – 46.63^max) MB/s ∼49% -28%
4k q1 t1 write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	359 (324.09^min – 358.58^max) MB/s ∼100% +119%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	255 (243.79^min – 255.25^max) MB/s ∼71% +55%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	220 (56.84^min – 219.56^max) MB/s ∼61% +34%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	213 (205.52^min – 212.72^max) MB/s ∼59% +30%
Average of class Gaming (66.6 – 421, n=185, last 2 years)	201 MB/s ∼56% +22%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	164.3 (163.26^min – 164.34^max) MB/s ∼46%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	164.3 MB/s ∼46% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	108.4 (106.69^min – 108.4^max) MB/s ∼30% -34%
4k q32 t16 read
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	4100 (4085.58^min – 4100.1^max) MB/s ∼100% +254%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	3111 (2388.54^min – 3111.42^max) MB/s ∼76% +169%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	2390 (2226.95^min – 2390.15^max) MB/s ∼58% +106%
Average of class Gaming (310 – 5829, n=185, last 2 years)	2293 MB/s ∼56% +98%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	1469 (1266.81^min – 1469.47^max) MB/s ∼36% +27%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	1158 (1132.18^min – 1157.71^max) MB/s ∼28%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	1158 MB/s ∼28% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	973 (941.21^min – 972.98^max) MB/s ∼24% -16%
4k q32 t16 write
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	3537 (3519.01^min – 3536.66^max) MB/s ∼100% +635%
Average of class Gaming (288 – 4383, n=185, last 2 years)	2019 MB/s ∼57% +320%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	1542 (1501.74^min – 1541.63^max) MB/s ∼44% +221%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	1424 (1251.47^min – 1423.75^max) MB/s ∼40% +196%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	1282 (960.6^min – 1281.78^max) MB/s ∼36% +167%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	481 (462.66^min – 481.19^max) MB/s ∼14%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	481 MB/s ∼14% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake	460 (453.59^min – 459.8^max) MB/s ∼13% -4%

AS SSD
Score Total
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	8224 Points ∼100% +28%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	7311 Points ∼89% +14%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	6635 Points ∼81% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	6435 Points ∼78%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	6435 Points ∼78% 0%
Average of class Gaming (910 – 10330, n=175, last 2 years)	6199 Points ∼75% -4%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	4850 Points ∼59% -25%
Score Read
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	3308 Points ∼100% +113%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	3188 Points ∼96% +105%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	2619 Points ∼79% +69%
Average of class Gaming (389 – 3629, n=175, last 2 years)	2316 Points ∼70% +49%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	2035 Points ∼62% +31%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	1554 Points ∼47%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	1554 Points ∼47% 0%
Score Write
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	4164 Points ∼100%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	4164 Points ∼100% 0%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	3468 Points ∼83% -17%
Average of class Gaming (338 – 5157, n=175, last 2 years)	2740 Points ∼66% -34%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	2556 Points ∼61% -39%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	2428 Points ∼58% -42%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	1877 Points ∼45% -55%
Seq Read
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	9511 MB/s ∼100% +67%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	5689 MB/s ∼60%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	5689 MB/s ∼60% 0%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	5429.33 MB/s ∼57% -5%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	5344.88 MB/s ∼56% -6%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	5144.76 MB/s ∼54% -10%
Average of class Gaming (925 – 9971, n=175, last 2 years)	4208 MB/s ∼44% -26%
Seq Write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	7663.27 MB/s ∼100% +96%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	7181 MB/s ∼94% +84%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	4064.76 MB/s ∼53% +4%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	3904 MB/s ∼51%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	3904 MB/s ∼51% 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	3058.47 MB/s ∼40% -22%
Average of class Gaming (308 – 8590, n=175, last 2 years)	3055 MB/s ∼40% -22%
4K Read
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	85.9 MB/s ∼100% +45%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	72.8 MB/s ∼85% +23%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	68.93 MB/s ∼80% +16%
Average of class Gaming (20 – 108, n=175, last 2 years)	62.6 MB/s ∼73% +6%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	59.2 MB/s ∼69%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	59.2 MB/s ∼69% 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	49.65 MB/s ∼58% -16%
4K Write
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	328.69 MB/s ∼100% +73%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	205.06 MB/s ∼62% +8%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	189.7 MB/s ∼58%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	189.7 MB/s ∼58% 0%
Average of class Gaming (18 – 364, n=175, last 2 years)	181.1 MB/s ∼55% -5%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	177.9 MB/s ∼54% -6%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	144.8 MB/s ∼44% -24%
4K-64 Read
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	2744.3 MB/s ∼100% +197%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	2558.72 MB/s ∼93% +177%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	2015.68 MB/s ∼73% +118%
Average of class Gaming (216 – 2963, n=175, last 2 years)	1832 MB/s ∼67% +98%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	1011 MB/s ∼37% +9%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	925 MB/s ∼34%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	925 MB/s ∼34% 0%
4K-64 Write
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	3584 MB/s ∼100%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	3584 MB/s ∼100% 0%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	2856.24 MB/s ∼80% -20%
Average of class Gaming (243 – 4381, n=175, last 2 years)	2265 MB/s ∼63% -37%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	1944.47 MB/s ∼54% -46%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	1460.96 MB/s ∼41% -59%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	981 MB/s ∼27% -73%
Access Time Read
Average of class Gaming (0.02 – 0.23, n=170, last 2 years)	0.05671 ms * ∼100% -96%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	0.053 ms * ∼93% -83%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	0.036 ms * ∼63% -24%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	0.029 ms * ∼51%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	0.029 ms * ∼51% -0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	0.028 ms * ∼49% +3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	0.025 ms * ∼44% +14%
Access Time Write
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 SSSTC CA6-8D1024	0.082 ms * ∼100% -290%
Average of class Gaming (0.012 – 0.425, n=175, last 2 years)	0.0566 ms * ∼69% -170%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	0.023 ms * ∼28% -10%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	0.021 ms * ∼26%
Average SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	0.021 ms * ∼26% -0%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	0.019 ms * ∼23% +10%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	0.013 ms * ∼16% +38%

* … smaller is better

Asus offers the new ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop or the GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop like on our review unit right now. In theory, it is the fastest version of the GPU, but the maximum TGP of 175 Watts (150W TGP + 25W Dynamic Boost) is reserved for the manual power profile. The Turbo profile, which was used for all the benchmarks, is limited to 155 Watts (140W TGP + 15W Dynamic Boost).

This means the RTX 4090 Laptop in the Zephyrus Duo 16 in Turbo mode cannot quite keep up with the fastest rivals like the Titan GT77 and is usually only a couple of percent points faster than the GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop. The RTX 3080 Ti in the previous Zephyrus Duo 16 is clearly beaten in all tests (55-78 % faster). The compute performance is also very good and the RTX 4090 Laptop can also rival professional mobile GPU in some SPECviewperf tests. Please see our comprehensive analysis of the RTX 4090 Laptop and RTX 4080 Laptop for more test results.

The GPU performance is stable under sustained workloads and the Time Spy stress test is passed at 97.8 %. However, the power consumption of the GPU is limited to 55W on battery power, which results in a performance deficit of more than 50 % (Time Spy Graphics: 9575 points).

3DMark 11 – 1280×720 Performance GPU
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	71432 Points ∼100% +15%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	69211 Points ∼97% +11%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (58891 – 71432, n=8)	65225 Points ∼91% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	62240 Points ∼87%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	60038 Points ∼84% -4%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	56565 Points ∼79% -9%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX	44906 Points ∼63% -28%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	40257 Points ∼56% -35%
Average of class Gaming (1029 – 71432, n=222, last 2 years)	34398 Points ∼48% -45%

3DMark
1920×1080 Fire Strike Graphics
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	49247 Points ∼100% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	47798 Points ∼97%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (44568 – 49247, n=10)	46959 Points ∼95% -2%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	46240 Points ∼94% -3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	43525 Points ∼88% -9%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	40570 Points ∼82% -15%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX	34439 Points ∼70% -28%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	27562 Points ∼56% -42%
Average of class Gaming (781 – 49247, n=234, last 2 years)	25966 Points ∼53% -46%
2560×1440 Time Spy Graphics
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	22254 Points ∼100% +11%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	21786 Points ∼98% +9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (17650 – 22479, n=10)	20904 Points ∼94% +4%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	20033 Points ∼90%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	18441 Points ∼83% -8%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	18417 Points ∼83% -8%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX	13554 Points ∼61% -32%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	11227 Points ∼50% -44%
Average of class Gaming (224 – 22479, n=235, last 2 years)	10184 Points ∼46% -49%
Wild Life Extreme Unlimited
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	44487 Points ∼100% +9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (40668 – 44487, n=3)	42587 Points ∼96% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	40668 Points ∼91%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX	28879 Points ∼65% -29%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU, Apple M2 Max	25103 Points ∼56% -38%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	23085 Points ∼52% -43%
Average of class Gaming (882 – 44487, n=32, last 2 years)	21220 Points ∼48% -48%

SPECviewperf 13
Solidworks (sw-04)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	159.12 fps ∼100% +14%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (140.1 – 159.1, n=2)	149.6 fps ∼94% +7%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	140.08 fps ∼88%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	134.49 fps ∼85% -4%
Average of class Gaming (79.5 – 179, n=20, last 2 years)	118.9 fps ∼75% -15%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	108.6 fps ∼68% -22%
Siemens NX (snx-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	34.38 fps ∼100% +9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (31.5 – 34.4, n=2)	32.9 fps ∼96% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	31.45 fps ∼91%
Average of class Gaming (13.3 – 79.4, n=20, last 2 years)	29.4 fps ∼86% -7%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	28.76 fps ∼84% -9%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	21.2 fps ∼62% -33%
Showcase (showcase-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	281.1 fps ∼100% +22%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (231 – 281, n=2)	256 fps ∼91% +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	230.78 fps ∼82%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	203.33 fps ∼72% -12%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	148.9 fps ∼53% -35%
Average of class Gaming (68.9 – 281, n=20, last 2 years)	146.3 fps ∼52% -37%
Medical (medical-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	122.82 fps ∼100% +2%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (120.3 – 122.8, n=2)	121.6 fps ∼99% +1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	120.28 fps ∼98%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	107.84 fps ∼88% -10%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	75.2 fps ∼61% -37%
Average of class Gaming (42.2 – 122.8, n=20, last 2 years)	75.2 fps ∼61% -37%
Maya (maya-05)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	600.78 fps ∼100% +22%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (494 – 601, n=2)	547 fps ∼91% +11%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	494.88 fps ∼82% 0%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	494.02 fps ∼82%
Average of class Gaming (157 – 601, n=20, last 2 years)	320 fps ∼53% -35%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	308.1 fps ∼51% -38%
Energy (energy-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	74.73 fps ∼100% +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (70.6 – 74.7, n=2)	72.6 fps ∼97% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	70.56 fps ∼94%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	61.32 fps ∼82% -13%
Average of class Gaming (2.05 – 74.7, n=20, last 2 years)	29.6 fps ∼40% -58%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	26.1 fps ∼35% -63%
Creo (creo-02)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	461.26 fps ∼100% +22%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (378 – 461, n=2)	420 fps ∼91% +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	377.82 fps ∼82%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	377.58 fps ∼82% 0%
Average of class Gaming (120 – 461, n=20, last 2 years)	243 fps ∼53% -36%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	239.7 fps ∼52% -37%
Catia (catia-05)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	281.44 fps ∼100% +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (266 – 281, n=2)	274 fps ∼97% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	266.33 fps ∼95%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	233.27 fps ∼83% -12%
Average of class Gaming (47.7 – 344, n=20, last 2 years)	181.5 fps ∼64% -32%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	171.4 fps ∼61% -36%
3ds Max (3dsmax-06)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	372.51 fps ∼100% +10%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (338 – 373, n=2)	355 fps ∼95% +5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	346.23 fps ∼93% +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	338.22 fps ∼91%
Average of class Gaming (49.1 – 373, n=20, last 2 years)	226 fps ∼61% -33%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	208.7 fps ∼56% -38%

SPECviewperf 2020 v1
1920×1080 Solidworks (solidworks-05)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	499.25 fps ∼100% +17%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (426 – 499, n=2)	463 fps ∼93% +9%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	426.16 fps ∼85%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	420.83 fps ∼84% -1%
Average of class Gaming (29.9 – 499, n=7, last 2 years)	290 fps ∼58% -32%
1920×1080 Siemens NX (snx-04)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	34.28 fps ∼100% +10%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (31.3 – 34.3, n=2)	32.8 fps ∼96% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	31.26 fps ∼91%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	30 fps ∼88% -4%
Average of class Gaming (2.93 – 34.3, n=16, last 2 years)	21.6 fps ∼63% -31%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	21.1 fps ∼62% -33%
1920×1080 Medical (medical-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	56.7 fps ∼100% +3%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (55.1 – 56.7, n=2)	55.9 fps ∼99% +1%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	55.09 fps ∼97%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	49.97 fps ∼88% -9%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	38.7 fps ∼68% -30%
Average of class Gaming (23.5 – 56.7, n=16, last 2 years)	37.1 fps ∼65% -33%
1920×1080 Maya (maya-06)
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	611 fps ∼100%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	610.71 fps ∼100%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	555.93 fps ∼91%
Average of class Gaming (123.1 – 611, n=14, last 2 years)	360 fps ∼59%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	336 fps ∼55%
1920×1080 Energy (energy-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	74.95 fps ∼100% +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (70.7 – 75, n=2)	72.8 fps ∼97% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	70.65 fps ∼94%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	62.41 fps ∼83% -12%
Average of class Gaming (20.6 – 75, n=16, last 2 years)	34 fps ∼45% -52%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	26.2 fps ∼35% -63%
1920×1080 Creo (creo-03)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	138.99 fps ∼100% +23%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	130.27 fps ∼94% +15%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (113.3 – 139, n=2)	126.1 fps ∼91% +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	113.27 fps ∼81%
Average of class Gaming (52 – 139, n=15, last 2 years)	97 fps ∼70% -14%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	86.4 fps ∼62% -24%
1920×1080 CATIA (catia-06)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	116.64 fps ∼100% +554%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	98.79 fps ∼85% +454%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (17.8 – 116.6, n=2)	67.2 fps ∼58% +277%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	66.6 fps ∼57% +273%
Average of class Gaming (17.8 – 116.6, n=16, last 2 years)	63.8 fps ∼55% +258%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	17.84 fps ∼15%
1920×1080 3ds Max (3dsmax-07)
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	212.6 fps ∼100% +3%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (207 – 213, n=2)	210 fps ∼99% +2%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	206.67 fps ∼97%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	177.9 fps ∼84% -14%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX	128.7 fps ∼61% -38%
Average of class Gaming (47.4 – 213, n=16, last 2 years)	123.4 fps ∼58% -40%

3DMark 11 Performance		46207 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score		40149 points
3DMark Time Spy Score		18602 points
Help

Blender / v3.3 Classroom OPTIX/RTX
Average of class Gaming (9 – 142, n=65, last 2 years)	25.7 Seconds * ∼100% -98%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX	22 Seconds * ∼86% -69%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	15 Seconds * ∼58% -15%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	15 Seconds * ∼58% -15%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	13 Seconds * ∼51%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (9 – 15, n=11)	11.6 Seconds * ∼45% +11%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	11 Seconds * ∼43% +15%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	11 Seconds * ∼43% +15%

Blender / v3.3 Classroom CUDA
Average of class Gaming (17 – 168, n=68, last 2 years)	43.4 Seconds * ∼100% -117%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX	32 Seconds * ∼74% -60%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (17 – 119, n=12)	26.4 Seconds * ∼61% -32%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	23 Seconds * ∼53% -15%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	22 Seconds * ∼51% -10%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	20 Seconds * ∼46%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	18 Seconds * ∼41% +10%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	17 Seconds * ∼39% +15%

Blender / v3.3 Classroom CPU
Average of class Gaming (147 – 698, n=77, last 2 years)	329 Seconds * ∼100% -124%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU, Apple M2 Max	326 Seconds * ∼99% -122%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-12900HX	263 Seconds * ∼80% -79%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	207 Seconds * ∼63% -41%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	200 Seconds * ∼61% -36%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13900HX	192 Seconds * ∼58% -31%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (147 – 286, n=11)	189.5 Seconds * ∼58% -29%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Intel Core i9-13950HX	175 Seconds * ∼53% -19%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX	147 Seconds * ∼45%

* … smaller is better

The gaming performance of the ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is excellent, but a bit lower compared to the fastest devices due to the slightly slower version of the RTX 4090 Laptop. The AMD processor leaves a good impression during gaming and does not have to hide behind its Intel HX counterparts. We did not notice any issues during our gaming benchmarks, either. Considering the native WQHD resolution, however, we recommend you save the money for the RTX 4090 Laptop SKU and get the RTX 4080 Laptop instead.

Performance Rating – Percent
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	97 pt ∼97%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	95.9 pt ∼96%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	91.5 pt ∼92%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	90.4 pt ∼90%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	88.8 pt ∼89%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	76.7 pt ∼77%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	57 pt ∼57%
Average of class Gaming	56.8 pt ∼57%

The Witcher 3 – 1920×1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	216.4 (5.6^P0.1, 144.3^P1) fps ∼100% +21%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	198.9 (190^min, 191^P1) fps ∼92% +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	178.6 (172^min, 173^P1) fps ∼83%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	178 (151^min) fps ∼82% 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	176.8 (159^min) fps ∼82% -1%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	129.3 (110^min, 111.14^P1) fps ∼60% -28%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	111.1 (30^min, 41.5^P0.1, 74.7^P1) fps ∼51% -38%
Average of class Gaming (8.61 – 217, n=229, last 2 years)	99 fps ∼46% -45%

GTA V – 1920×1080 Highest Settings possible AA:4xMSAA + FX AF:16x
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	145.5 (3.79^min, 100^P1) fps ∼100% +9%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	140.9 (3.54^min, 83.3^P1) fps ∼97% +5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	140.7 (3.02^min, 100^P1) fps ∼97% +5%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	137.5 (3.4^min, 100^P1) fps ∼95% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	134 (7.27^min, 90.9^P1) fps ∼92%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	131.8 (6.21^min, 90.9^P1) fps ∼91% -2%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	101.5 (21.1^min, 71.4^P1) fps ∼70% -24%
Average of class Gaming (4.18 – 151.6, n=226, last 2 years)	96.7 fps ∼66% -28%

Final Fantasy XV Benchmark – 1920×1080 High Quality
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	187.4 fps ∼100% +10%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	180.7 (119^min, 128.92^P1) fps ∼96% +7%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	169.6 fps ∼91%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	162.4 fps ∼87% -4%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	157.8 fps ∼84% -7%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	137.6 fps ∼73% -19%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	108 fps ∼58% -36%
Average of class Gaming (9.13 – 194.9, n=224, last 2 years)	95.8 fps ∼51% -44%

Strange Brigade – 1920×1080 ultra AA:ultra AF:16
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	373 (29.9^min, 272^P1) fps ∼100% +12%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	350 (32.1^min, 230^P1) fps ∼94% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	333 (38^min, 227^P1) fps ∼89%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	323 (61.7^min, 222^P1) fps ∼87% -3%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	318 (29.2^min, 228^P1) fps ∼85% -5%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	219 (67.8^min, 154.6^P1) fps ∼59% -34%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	182.4 (66.8^min, 132.6^P1) fps ∼49% -45%
Average of class Gaming (10.9 – 421, n=226, last 2 years)	173.3 fps ∼46% -48%

Dota 2 Reborn – 1920×1080 ultra (3/3) best looking
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	194.7 (160^min) fps ∼100% +8%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	185.9 (157.5^min) fps ∼95% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	179.7 (153.7^min) fps ∼92%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	179 (152.4^min) fps ∼92% 0%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	177.3 (150.3^min) fps ∼91% -1%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	170.5 (148.2^min) fps ∼88% -5%
Average of class Gaming (22 – 194.7, n=245, last 2 years)	129.3 fps ∼66% -28%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	111.3 (96.1^min) fps ∼57% -38%

X-Plane 11.11 – 1920×1080 high (fps_test=3)
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	137 fps ∼100% +16%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	137 fps ∼100% +16%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	135.7 fps ∼99% +15%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	135.5 fps ∼99% +15%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	134.2 fps ∼98% +14%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	134.1 fps ∼98% +14%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	131.8 fps ∼96% +12%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	123.8 fps ∼90% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	117.8 fps ∼86%
Average of class Gaming (12.4 – 146.4, n=248, last 2 years)	88.4 fps ∼65% -25%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	78.2 fps ∼57% -34%

The Witcher 3 – 1920×1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	216.4 (5.6^P0.1, 144.3^P1) fps ∼100% +21%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (178 – 217, n=9)	201 fps ∼93% +13%
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	198.9 (190^min, 191^P1) fps ∼92% +11%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	178.6 (172^min, 173^P1) fps ∼83%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	178 (151^min) fps ∼82% 0%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	176.8 (159^min) fps ∼82% -1%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	129.3 (110^min, 111.14^P1) fps ∼60% -28%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	111.1 (30^min, 41.5^P0.1, 74.7^P1) fps ∼51% -38%
Average of class Gaming (8.61 – 217, n=229, last 2 years)	99 fps ∼46% -45%

Cyberpunk 2077 1.5 – 1920×1080 Ultra Preset
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	135 fps ∼100% +3%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	130.6 (34.83^min) fps ∼97%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (104.5 – 159.7, n=6)	128.7 fps ∼95% -1%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	122.8 (25.64^min) fps ∼91% -6%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	106.2 (47.5^min) fps ∼79% -19%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	99.4 (40.7^min) fps ∼74% -24%
Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	99.1 (29^min) fps ∼73% -24%
Average of class Gaming (23.8 – 159.7, n=65, last 2 years)	79.3 fps ∼59% -39%

The Witcher 3 v4.00 – 1920×1080 Ultra Preset / On AA:FX
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	150 fps ∼100% +12%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	141.8 fps ∼95% +6%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (133.9 – 150, n=4)	140.8 fps ∼94% +5%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	133.9 fps ∼89%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	125.3 (35.5^min, 57.7^P0.1, 92.5^P1) fps ∼84% -6%
Average of class Gaming (66.3 – 150, n=9, last 2 years)	113 fps ∼75% -16%

Shadow of the Tomb Raider – 1920×1080 Highest Preset AA:T
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	214 fps ∼100% +9%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	207 (140^min) fps ∼97% +6%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	196 fps ∼92%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (143.7 – 214, n=5)	186.5 fps ∼87% -5%
Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	176 (117^min) fps ∼82% -10%
Average of class Gaming (57 – 214, n=25, last 2 years)	133.9 fps ∼63% -32%

F1 22 – 1920×1080 Ultra High Preset AA:T AF:16x
MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI Intel Core i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	138.2 (118^min, 84^P1) fps ∼100% +21%
Schenker XMG Neo 16 Raptor Lake Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	137.4 (118^min, 92^P1) fps ∼99% +20%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU (114.3 – 140.6, n=7)	131.7 fps ∼95% +15%
Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU	114.3 (92^min, 71^P1) fps ∼83%
Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H Intel Core i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU	101 (90^min) fps ∼73% -12%
MSI Titan GT77 12UHS Intel Core i9-12900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU	79.8 (65^min, 29^P1) fps ∼58% -30%
Average of class Gaming (28 – 140.6, n=35, last 2 years)	77 fps ∼56% -33%

The Zephyrus Duo is usually audible in everyday situations and you should use the Quiet power profile when you do not need the full performance. The Turbo mode usually results in more than 30 dB(A) even while idling. Gaming and high load scenarios quickly result in more than 50 dB(A) and up to 56 dB(A), which will be annoying for longer periods. You can also notice the comparatively small fans of the cooling solution. There is no way around the noise when you need the maximum performance, but we recommend you check the other power profiles of the Armoury Crate software when you play games. We tested it with three different games:

Title	Quiet	Performance	Turbo
Witcher 3	40.2 dB(A)	48.6 dB(A)	51.2 dB(A)
Witcher 3 v4.00	40.2 dB(A)	48.6 dB(A)	56 dB(A)
Cyberpunkt 2077 v1.5	40.2 dB(A)	48.6 dB(A)	56 dB(A)

Modern titles will usually run well with the Performance mode, where the fps number is just a bit lower compared to the Turbo mode, but the fan noise is much more convenient at ~49 dB(A). The Quiet mode is mostly suitable for older titles, because the performance will drop noticeable. We also noticed some electronic sounds in some benchmarks/games.

Noise Level

Idle		23.9 / 32.9 / 36.5 dB(A)
Load		42.9 / 56 dB(A)

	30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud
min: , med: , max: Earthworks M23R, Arta (15 cm distance) environment noise: 23.9 dB(A)

	Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, R9 7945HX, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N	MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB	Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13900HX, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR	Razer Blade 16 Early 2023 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, i9-13950HX, SSSTC CA6-8D1024	Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, R9 6900HX, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0)	Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max M2 Max 38-Core GPU, M2 Max, Apple SSD AP2048Z
Noise		-4%	-1%	13%	6%	19%
off / environment *	23.9	24.6 -3%	24 -0%	23 4%	26 -9%	23.9 -0%
Idle Minimum *	23.9	29.2 -22%	26 -9%	23 4%	26 -9%	23.9 -0%
Idle Average *	32.9	29.2 11%	28 15%	23 30%	27 18%	23.9 27%
Idle Maximum *	36.5	29.2 20%	34 7%	23.6 35%	29 21%	23.9 35%
Load Average *	42.9	50.7 -18%	47 -10%	39 9%	41 4%	36.6 15%
Witcher 3 ultra *	51.2	53.3 -4%	55 -7%	51.6 -1%	48 6%	35.1 31%
Load Maximum *	56	61 -9%	56 -0%	51.3 8%	50 11%	43.2 23%

* … smaller is better

The chassis temperatures are very comfortable during light workloads. The position of the keyboard is beneficial for gaming/under load, because it only warms up in the upper region and the frequently used keys usually stay very cool. However, the area between the keyboard and the secondary is a hot spot. We measure up to 47 °C at the bottom, so you should not put the device on your lap under load. The overall temperature development is okay.

Our stress test favors the dedicated graphics card, The processor will level off at 50 Watts after a few minutes, while the GPU consumption rises from 130 to ~140 Watts (which is the specified value for the Turbo power profile) and stays on this level. This is a decent result and we did no see a performance drop immediately after the stress test. Combined CPU/GPU workloads on battery power result in a CPU consumption of ~43 Watts and ~33 Watts for the GPU.


29.7 °C 85 F	31 °C 88 F	29.9 °C 86 F
42.5 °C 109 F	44.2 °C 112 F	42.2 °C 108 F
35.6 °C 96 F	34.7 °C 94 F	34.8 °C 95 F

Maximum: 44.2 °C = 112 F
Average: 36.1 °C = 97 F


46.8 °C 116 F	46.7 °C 116 F	44.9 °C 113 F
41.7 °C 107 F	41.6 °C 107 F	40.9 °C 106 F
38.5 °C 101 F	38.6 °C 101 F	35.8 °C 96 F

Maximum: 46.8 °C = 116 F
Average: 41.7 °C = 107 F

Power Supply (max.) 50.8 °C = 123 F | Room Temperature 20.5 °C = 69 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-900

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.1 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 40.4 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 46.8 °C / 116 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 36.5 °C / 98 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (35.7 °C / 96.3 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 29 °C / 84.2 F (-6.7 °C / -12.1 F).

Asus uses a speaker system consisting of 6 modules and the result is very good overall. The manufacturer also improved the sound performance compared to the previous model, only the bass performance could be better. The result is definitely sufficient for occasional video/movie playback, but the speakers are usually rivaled by the fan noise while gaming.

The ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is not a particularly efficient device with a minimal power consumption of 19 Watts and more than 30 Watts at the maximum brightness (secondary screen turned off). The secondary screen will increase the power consumption by 4-7 Watts depending on the brightness. We measure around 260 Watts while gaming and up to 330 Watts during our stress test, but the value quickly levels off at ~270 Watts. This means the 330W PSU is completely sufficient.

We once again want to mention that the dedicated GeForce GPU is handling all the graphics tasks when you use an external screen, which means the following CPU measurements with an external screen do not deliver comparable results.

Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, SK hynix PC801 HFS002TEJ9X101N, MiniLED, 2560×1600, 16.00

MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL22T0HBLB, Mini-LED, 3840×2160, 17.30

Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, Samsung PM9A1 MZVL21T0HCLR, IPS, 2560×1600, 16.00

Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, SSSTC CA6-8D1024, IPS, 2560×1600, 16.00

Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
R9 6900HX, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, 2x Samsung SSD 980 Pro 2TB MZ-V8P2T0 (RAID 0), IPS-Level, 3840×2400, 16.00

Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max, M2 Max 38-Core GPU, Apple SSD AP2048Z, Mini-LED, 3456×2234, 16.20

Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU

Average of class Gaming

Power Consumption

14%

49%

22%

Idle Minimum *

19.2

27%

15.2

21%

5.2

73%

14.8

The battery runtime is considerably worse compared to the previous model, despite the same 90 Wh battery. Right now, we are not sure whether this is only caused by the new Mini-LED panel or issues with the new AMD platform. Even at 150 nits and without the secondary screen, we only managed about 4 hours video playback and Wi-Fi runtime, which dropped to just 2.5 hours at the maximum panel brightness. These are poor results and the load runtime is less than one hour. A full recharge of battery takes 108 minutes when the laptop is turned on.

Battery Runtime

WiFi Websurfing (Edge 110)		3h 58min
WiFi Websurfing max. Brightness (Edge 110)		2h 36min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		3h 50min
Load (maximum brightness)		0h 57min

Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
R9 7945HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, 90 Wh

MSI Titan GT77 HX 13VI
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop GPU, 99.9 Wh

Lenovo Legion Pro 7 16IRX8H
i9-13900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, 99.9 Wh

Razer Blade 16 Early 2023
i9-13950HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Laptop GPU, 95.2 Wh

Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650RX
R9 6900HX, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU, 90 Wh

Apple MacBook Pro 16 2023 M2 Max
M2 Max, M2 Max 38-Core GPU, 99.6 Wh

Average of class Gaming

Battery Runtime

47%

73%

48%

83%

226%

55%

H.264

230

358

56%

559

143%

1124

389%

368

Pros

+ sturdy metal chassis

+ fastest CPU/GPU combination

+ great system performance

+ excellent 240 Hz Mini-LED screen

+ numerous features like FreeSync, G-Sync & Wi-Fi 6E

+ 2x SO-DIMM & 2x M.2-2280 SSD

+ fast card reader

Cons

– no USB 4.0

– loud fans during gaming

– high idle consumption and short battery runtime

– some software bugs

– handling of the second screen not always ideal

– external screen is always handled by dGPU

In review: Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 2023. Test model courtesy of Asus Germany.

The new ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is once again an interesting concept with its secondary screen, but it also requires compromises. The laptop is significantly thicker than the competition and even though the quality of the secondary screen is very good, it just cannot match the excellent image quality of the new 240 Hz Mini-LED screen. The dual-screen handling is also not always ideal in practice, but this is a general issue of Windows. The secondary screen is attached via iGPU, which means the Nvidia GPU takes care of all graphics calculations when you use an external screen (4K for example), which will increase the power consumption. The position of the keyboard at the front of the laptop is another issue, which can be solved with the included palm rest on your desk at home, but it is still an issue on the road. Does the secondary screen make much sense? Well, that depends on your usage scenario.

Asus improved the laptop in key areas, starting with the new matte 240 Hz Mini-LED screen and the WQHD resolution. The picture quality is amazing and it is already very bright for SDR contents at 700 nits (almost 1400 nits for HDR contents). The colors are already very accurate out of the box and we had no problems to calibrate the screen.

The new GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop is the most powerful GPU for notebooks right now and the performance advantage over the old RTX 3080 Ti is huge. However, it is only the fastest version (175W) in manual mode, but we recommend the RTX 4080 Laptop SKU nonetheless considering the native WQHD resolution.

The new Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 convinces with the excellent Mini-LED screen as well as the powerful hardware combination consisting of the new AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX and the GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop, which has no problems with the native WQHD resolution. There are still some bugs though and the fans are very noisy when you utilize the full performance potential.

AMD’s new Zen4 processor, the Ryzen 9 7945HX, is probably the most interesting upgrade right now. Thanks to 16 Zen4 cores, it steals the multi-core performance crown from the Intel Core i9-13980HX and even consumes less power. Due to the previously mentioned issues with the dedicated Nvidia GPU when external screens are attached, we cannot offer accurate efficiency numbers at this point, but we will cover that in a separate article.

There are also some issues we need to talk about, and our test unit had some bugs. The idle power consumption is also very high, which obviously affects the battery runtime as well. Whether this is a software issue from Asus or an initial problem of the new AMD platform is not clear at this point. The high price is another problem, but this is the case for all RTX 4090 notebooks right now. Considering the price, we also have to criticize the lack of USB 4 as well as the use of DDR5-4800 RAM.

All in all, the new ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 is good device with plenty of power and the secondary screen can be a real advantage for some users. If you do not need the second display (gamer or content creator) on your notebook, however, you are better off with a regular laptop, which also means less compromise in some areas.

The ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 2023 can only be pre-ordered right now and should be available in the next couple of weeks.

Asus Zephyrus Duo 16 GX650PY-NM006W
–
03/14/2023 v7

Andreas Osthoff

Connectivity

63 / 80 → 79%

Application Performance

96%

Gaming – Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Editor of the original article: Andreas Osthoff – Managing Editor Business Laptops – 1471 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2013

I grew up with modern consumer electronics and my first computer was a Commodore C64, which encouraged my interest in building my own systems. I started working as a review editor for Notebookcheck during my dual studies at Siemens. Currently, I am mainly responsible for dealing with business laptops and mobile workstations. It’s a great experience to be able to review the latest devices and technologies and then compare them with each other.

Andreas Osthoff, 2023-03-15 (Update: 2023-03-15)

Latest

Don't miss

newsycanuse https://newsycanuse.com

News You Can USe!

News You Can USe!

Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 16 Notebook Review: Multitasking monster with AMD Zen4, RTX 4090 & Mini-LED – NotebookCheck.net Reviews

Display Response Times

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Pros

Cons

More Articles for this Device

Related Articles

Transparency

Pricecompare

Latest

Study suggests fibroid rates in Latina women may be lower than previously thought

Rimas Entertainment Presents SONAR: ‘A Record Label Where Artists Can Develop with Freedom’

YouTube’s Tuma Basa to Exit as Director of Black Music & Culture

Feza – Khanyisa

Newsletter

Don't miss

Study suggests fibroid rates in Latina women may be lower than previously thought

Rimas Entertainment Presents SONAR: ‘A Record Label Where Artists Can Develop with Freedom’

YouTube’s Tuma Basa to Exit as Director of Black Music & Culture

Feza – Khanyisa

Universal Music and Believe Reach Settlement in Copyright Infringement Dispute — $500 Million Case Dismissed With Prejudice

The Vogue Business Funding Tracker

Family Business? Tee Grizzley Reacts After His Mom Accuses Him Of Leaving Her To Struggle (PHOTOS)

SoE necessary but not sufficient, business leaders say