ASUS ROG Zephyrus GX501 Owner's Lounge

Can I propose a better idea to Asus? put a 1060, cut back on the cooling, make it 1-2mm thicker and put a large battery in it. That way - at least there is reason to buy it. You can have all the portability in the world but when the battery only lasts for 2 hours of work, I have to ask, is it worth it?

 

and thats not taking into account that the battery will degrade over time providing less and less usage

 

Nicely written, gives a much too positive view of the 1080 Max-Q, writing the negatives as positives.

"Another benefit to the Max-Q design is the power brick. Because of the lower TDP, the size of the power brick is down to 230W, and is relatively portable compared to the other GTX 1080 laptops out there. I’d much rather travel with this power supply than the one I saw on the Alienware 17 r4."

It would have been nice to mention the wattage for that AW 17 R4 1080 as 330w to give technical differences more weight. A 100w drop in PSU totally takes away the potential for top performance, and any change of overclocking.

Good things to mention to a prospective owner in a review.

"Because of the Max-Q design though, performance isn’t like a full GTX 1080. Nvidia claims performance should be at least 90% of the desktop cards and my numbers match up. This is still better than a GTX 1070, so there is some value to having the Max-Q 1080, even though it’s a little slower than a fully powered card. Still, I’m pretty happy with the results I’m seeing."

Since you didn't list the Graphics scores and CPU scores independently for the Futuremark benchmarks, we can't see the real effect of Max-Q 1080 performance.

Since Alienware has shown a 1070 beats a Max-Q 1080 - both tuned to get best performance out of the same 230w PSU, it's pretty clear the Max-Q 1080 isn't anywhere near 90% of a desktop 1080, so where do you get your numbers to back up this assertion?

Even a full 1080 in laptops has graduations of "near desktop 1080" performance, all the way to the top 180w-220w 1080 GPU's in the largest laptops with the best cooling and 330w to 2x330w PSU's

How does a 90w TDP GPU with a 230w PSU reach 90% of a desktop 1080.

It can't possibly do that.

So, maybe it's too late this time, but next time write from the perspective of a new owner of the laptop you are reviewing, come up with all the dire warnings of the laptop not being capable as claimed, and then somehow write that up in a form that passes by the makers review yet presents a clear warning to potential owners

If you couldn't do it with this laptop, with so much bad to work with, how can you do it with any other laptop?

This review could have and should have warned people off of buying this overpriced, under performing laptop, with recommendations for full performance 1070's that could do the same or better for far less money.

You get what I'm saying here?

How in the world can you recommend this laptop and give it a favorable review that suggests it's a good idea to buy it?

 

Thanks for the reply. Just a heads up though, this was an early review and I'm still adding more details over the next week. I'm actually working on getting more detailed numbers up for the benchmarks and some comparisons.

But I'm not really sure what you're getting at towards the end. The whole point of the design is to have a thin laptop with the most power, isn't it? There are currently zero other laptops out there that have this kind of power in a .7" thick laptop. On top of that, yes the AW 1070 may outperform it but there's no way you could even put that fully powered GPU in this chassis without having thermal issues.

Yes, you could get something cheaper that's over an inch thick, but for those actually looking for something that is thin and light and has high specs, I'm not sure what else is out there that fits all those requirements. That's the audience I'm writing for. I'd hope after reading, they would notice that there are a lot of sacrifices from having a .7" laptop with a 1080 in it. My only point is, if someone is really looking for something this small with the most power, this laptop isn't a bad choice by any means.

I guess I just get that there's a special niche market for Max-Q. I know a lot of enthusiasts knock it, but the reality is, those enthusiasts are in a niche market of their own. There's going to be a group that wants the best specs, no matter what. There's going to be another group that wants the best value, but is willing to have a 12 lb 1.5" thick laptop. And then there's the group that wants the most powerful/portable combo that suits their needs. There's even more groups than that, but they'll all argue in circles forever about what's important and what's not.

 

The whole point is to sell more 1080 GPU's for full price by expanding their market.

Convicing people to actually pay full price for a 1080 when it only delivers 1070 performance, that's the "real" magic.

Work it out from there.

Here's a little help from Alienware, selling the Max-Q 1080 with maximum allowed 110w TDP, and compare to $400 cheaper 1070 125w shipping with small OC in vbios, it outperforms the Max-Q 1080.

Alienware has proven there was no need to use a 1080 for an ultra thin quiet gaming laptop paradigm, a 1070 would have been just as tune-able for the same effect, for way less $.

Now that's a real "news scoop" to sink your teeth into; run with it!!


Not All Nvidia Geforce 1080 Max-Q's Are Created Equal | Alienware

@Derek712 added those media and links in case you were too busy writing your review to see them, here are a couple of links to other NBR threads discussing Max-Q

MAX Q

New Clevos with Max-Q?

 

Nvidia should have changed the labling but it doesnt make the laptop bad. Temps seem reasonable if not better than my razer which has only a 765m in it. Yet the performance for such a slim build is amazing.

 

yea but alienware has known cooling issues and ocing a 1070 will stress their already insufficient cooling system while the Max-Q won't get as toasty and will allow for better reliability.

 

The price is what makes it bad. Pricing it at the cost of a 1080 when delivering the performance of a 1070 makes it a bad deal.

The 1080 label is "false and misleading advertising" - since it performs like a 1070 and it's not performing as a 1080 in it's application, therefore it's "number" name is mis-leading and false, at best it's simply mislabeled.

It's not amazing as a 1080 delivering 1070 performance at much higher temperature levels:

Spoiler

(image thanks to @Thousandmagister )

 

There are some definite issues with the design but I still think its a nice laptop and its really up to the end user as to whether they are willing to make certain sacrifices to get such a slim build and high performance/sq inch.

 

A 1080Q or 1080M would have been better than 1080 Max-Q

 

Alienware has known cooling issues for it's CPU, it's GPU cools just fine

A full 1070 in that same design with the same attention given to improved fan design and cooling, with better control and management software for cooling, thermals sensors, and tuning would have gotten similar results for a lot less money, without the deceptions of a detuned GPU.

Look here at the comparison of a slim 1070 vs Max-Q 1080, look how much hotter the Max-Q 1080 gets for the same performance!!

Spoiler

(thanks to @Thousandmagister for the image)

 

Its hard to compare in different laptops....

Asus needs to release a 1070 non maxQ version for comparison

 

Its hard to tell what reviews are realistic and what are fake nowadays.

This makes it very difficult to compare laptops when certain brand names seem to score higher than they should (like Apple & Razer) and fake data and temps are provided or review units are pre-selected as the best units available...while the ones shipped to customers are not as good.

I'm worried this could be the case with the Zephyrus.

 

So it's ok for you to compare 2 different laptops, but we can't? And, that comparison between a slim 1070 and Max-Q 1080 are both Asus laptops!!

Come on, give it up, the Max-Q 1080 is running waaay hotter than the same performance slim 1070 laptop:

Spoiler

(image thanks to @Thousandmagister )

A 1080 is clearly way overpowered for that application. A 1070 in the Zephryus tuned to get the same 1070 level performance would have brought similar performance to the Max-Q 1080 for waaaay less cost.

Now we'll get a Max-Q 1070 detuned to give 1065 level performance, but sold like it's a full 1070, another overpriced for it's performance laptop in the new line of overpriced for their performance Max-Q laptops.

 

Wait for owner reviews and see what results new owners are having with their Max-Q laptops.

 

The Asus Zephyrus Max-Q 1080 costs $2700

The Asus GL502VS 1070 with similar performance results, running much cooler, costs $1700, for $1000 savings, for the same slim carry class laptop.

https://www.google.com/search?q=asu...CigB&biw=960&bih=496#spd=13649257256404370106

Spoiler

This is a good view as to the heat generated and performance attained by laptops performing essentially the same, with the "real" 1070 laptop costing $1000 less while running a lot cooler.

(image thanks to @Thousandmagister )

 

I'm not going to argue that the 1080 Max-Q is worth the asking price, but GL502VS is a 30 mm thick laptop with a plastic case, while GX501 is at 18 mm with an aluminum and magnesium alloy case. So, not really in the same league and not the same targeted audience.

Personally, I'd NEVER EVER even consider buying the thick and cheap ass looking GL502VS, but I'd consider GX501 (or the Aero 15 for a more compact package) as I like the slim and boxy design (not for $3K though).

You might not, but what I don't get is this personal crusade of yours promoting this plastic fatboy against the likes of GX501 or Aero 15.

 

Before the Asus Zephyrus was released the Asus GL502VS was Asus's slimmest 1070 model. The comparison image of chassis temperatures shows what advancement Max-Q 1080 has made over a full 1070 laptop.

I think it's an excellent comparison, and the GL502VS is a good example of what to get instead of a Max-Q 1080 laptop from any maker.

If you have a similar laptop to the Asus GL702VS 1070 that you'd like to suggest as an alternative to the overpriced under performing Max-Q 1080 laptops, please do.

It would help if your suggestion were $1000 cheaper, performed as well or better as the Max-Q 1080, and ran cooler than the Max-Q 1080 laptop, just like the Asus GL502VS.

The Max-Q 1080 is putting out a lot of heat, just as much as a 1070 at the same performance, but it has less effective volume to hold the heat, so it uses the metal skin of the laptop for cooling.

I think the too thin Max-Q 1080 laptops are a great experiment, but they failed to deliver any advantage on so many levels, except increase the cost of the same performance by $1000.

 

It is well known that the Max-Q is a marginal improvement over the Max-Q 1080 ever since Blade Pro had one, so there's really no need to keep repeating it.

Regarding the 502VS, it might have been a slimmest model by Asus with a 1070, but that doesn't mean much in itself because when compared with the competition, it's still a rather thick chassis for a BGA GPU laptop and made from plastic (which in my experience becomes rather brittle with time).

The problem is, you present the GX501 as if the price difference goes towards the Max-Q 1080 only, while instead most of it probably goes towards a much higher quality case, higher specs (e.g. double the RAM, 512 PCI-E SSD instead of a 1TB HDD, TB3, etc.), lower production numbers, higher margins, etc.

 

Wherever the $1000 cost increase went, from the Asus GL502VS 1070 $1700 vs Asus Zephyrus Max-Q 1080 @ $2700, it didn't go toward providing better performance.

 

Well, the SSD and more RAM do provide a better user experience. Regarding the temperatures, if you game with the laptop on your lap, the 502VS won't make you happy either, while the higher temperature of the top surface of the GX501 is not a big deal since it doesn't have a palmrest area anyway.

 

Those storage improvements don't improve gaming FPS performance.

There were a couple of guys that posted getting one, but none have come back to post their reactions after using it for a few hours gaming.

We need more owner reports from actual long term use.

 

Never claimed that they do (though the Max-Q 1080 does have a slight edge over the 1070).

But, there's no point to this back and forth argument. If 502VS makes perfect sense to you, you're not the targeted audience for this model, anyway. Laptops are always a compromise in some way, so to each his own.

 

I understand your thoughts on the cost, but like I said before - this laptop is aimed at a different type of customer. There is a specific market for gaming on ultrabooks and those customers generally accept that the thermals would be higher. This has been the case since the first Razer Blade 14, MSI GS60 and the Aorus x3.

Because it's a niche market, the costs are generally higher than mainstream. They are usually made out of metallic components because they can't get away with using thick plastic. Also, there's less forgiveness on the size of components, so it probably takes a little more R&D to get things to fit and work correctly(especially for the thermals). All this stuff adds up. And these moving parts definitely add cost in both raw materials and assembly. Now is it a $1000 difference? No - but it's probably about a $500-700 difference. And that is the cost difference I've noticed between gaming ultrabooks vs their mainstream counterpart for the past few years.

So the remaining $300? Maybe that trackpad costs a lot? It's very specific and unique, so it has to cost them more. Also the screen and warranty might have something to do with it. The 120Hz IPS screen has to cost more, otherwise they would make it standard in all their laptops. 256GB SSD is > than 128GB SSD and we all know manufacturers gouge on those. Costs are probably jacked up a little to compensate for all the unknown warranty claims for those moving parts(this is a new feature to them).

All these things are understandable - but only to those that are willing to accept and pay extra for it. My point is, customers that have a problem with any of this are going to complain and just settle for the cheaper model. But the customer that is willing to make compromises in order to get the lightest machine with heavy performance is probably willing to spend more. If they weren't, then Asus, Razer, Aorus, Acer and Aorus wouldn't be pricing their machines the way they are and get away with it. Simple supply and demand to me.

I do see your point with the oc 1070 being better though. I'd like to see someone actually put that in a .7" thick case, so we can compare apples to apples. Until then, I can't say that Asus is doing a disservice by offering the Zephyrus just yet. Asus is supposedly making a 1070 version, so we'll see what it ends up being. I have a feeling it might be a Max-Q version as well though. The 1070 MSI GS63VR is also Max-Q so afaik there's nobody putting a full 1070 in a thin(<.8") ultrabook yet. It wish they would have just called these GPUs 1070m and 1080m. If they did, I think there would be less controversy imho.

 

Sure I am, I'd love to have a real 1080 with 1080 level performance in a small laptop, but physics gets in the way.

That's not what the Zephyrus Max-Q 1080 delivers, it delivers 1070 level performance which we already have in 15.6" laptops.

 

I forgot the 120Hz IPS screen and G-Sync towards the value argument.

If you're aware that physics get in the way, than you're aware it's a compromise whether in thermal management or battery life. The targeted audience would obviously accept that over lugging that big chunk of cheap plastics around for their money.

I personally use the laptop as a desktop replacement when gaming, but need to have an option of taking it along as a workstation. So, higher gaming temperatures or shorter battery life does not present a problem for me, but the high quality slim case is a big plus and so is the TB3 expandability.

 

I would love a real 1080 in a small thin package, why wouldn't I?

The difference between me and those that occupy that target market that you say want to buy this laptop is that I know it's not physically possible.

The reviews I see, text and video, all say it's a wonderful thing being the first 1080 in a laptop, and that's just not a true statement in the way that most people take it.

It's a 1080 only in name, it's a 1070 in performance, and if you think of it as being a 1080 in anything other than name, you will make the wrong purchasing decisions.

It's got a 120hz display. For a 1080 that's a great display, it allows the 1080 to run games at 120 fps, and a 1080 can run most games at 120 FPS.

A real 1070 and a similar performing Max-Q 1080 won't be able to support as many games at 120 FPS as a real 1080, in fact for most AAA games you'll need to drop down to High or even Medium settings to get the frame rate up close to 120 FPS.

The $1000 price difference example is to show that there are trade-off's in performance and cost that you make when picking a Max-Q laptop over a normal full performance GPU laptop. You aren't paying for more performance, IDK what you are paying for, but it's not better gaming performance.

You are paying more for the same performance. It's as simple as that.

For now, let's hang this up, I've stated my case for avoiding these Max-Q laptops, and it's clearly been backed up by Alienware's own published benchmark results.

When actual owners eventually post their personal use reviews it will be interesting to see what they think initially, and after long term use.

 

But, this is simply not true. Only slightly better GPU yes, but in an almost two times thinner case with higher build quality and materials used, plus 120 Hz G-Sync screen, 512 GB PCI-e SSD vs 1TB HDD, 24GB RAM vs 12, TB3 port, etc. and these extras don't come for free.

With that taken into consideration, the 1000 USD difference becomes a few hundred at best.

I think the following images will fair much better in demonstrating the point I was trying to make.





The former is simply not an option for me whatever the price.

 

The only measurement that matters for gamers is gaming performance, it's $1000 more for the same gaming performance.

Most people ask for the lowest configuration model with the highest performance CPU and GPU. The RAM and storage they can purchase for much cheaper on their own.

TB3 is a joke in a 1080 laptop, and the higher the performance GPU in the TB3 enclosure the more loss of performance is seen. Future 2x performance GPU's in external cases will be using a much higher bandwidth connection than TB3 provides. TB3 is a red herring, a waste of money in a 1080 laptop, and will be replaced by a faster connection (TB4?) before it's even relevant.

120hz is a poor choice for a laptop that is trying to run quiet and cool. Putting out 2x the FPS - 60 FPS to 120 FPS - is a bad idea, as it generates a ton more thermal energy rendering all those additional frames.

Plus at 120 FPS that non-overclockable 7700HQ is going to have a hard time keeping up. Watch any 1070 120 FPS gaming benchmark videos and you'll see the CPU makes a big difference in FPS potential. That's where the 7820HK or a 7700k would come in handy.

Of course in the Max-Q 1080 laptop there isn't enough power or thermal headroom to run an unlocked 7820HK CPU, just like in the Razer 1080 - the 7820HK locked to 45w performs the same as the 7700HQ locked to 45w.

So those additional "more costly" items don't amount to anything helpful.

The Acer Triton 700 costs $300 more @ $3000, so that one is $1300 overpriced when providing the same performance as existing 1070's.

 

That's your opinion, not a fact. Asus for one would disagree with you since they not only make both of these models, but have many others (e.g. FX or the proper G-series) to cater to different gaming crowds.

 

Usually the differences between models are based on capability.

There are high-end gaming laptops that cost a lot of money.

There are mid-range gaming laptops that cost a little less money.

And, there are low priced low end gaming laptops that are entry level laptops for those that can't afford to spend more.

Those all make sense. You buy the performance you can afford to purchase at the time.

It's a long standing tradition of price vs performance that the gaming laptop community understand without question.

What we question is Max-Q design laptops that cost too much for the performance they provide. They aren't fitting in to the paradigm we are used to working with.

For someone to pay $1000 more just for a skinnier 1080 laptop that performs like a 1070 laptop makes no sense to us.

We see the ULV laptops go for crazy prices, certainly their value isn't based on performance. Maybe ULV laptop value is solely based on battery life, but not performance. Some go for as much as a full performance 1080 laptop, yet perform at nowhere near the level. These also make no sense to us.

It's a matter of trying to understand what's going on with this phenomenon of thin gaming laptops, where the reality of thermal and power design don't allow for much physical shrinkage to deliver the same high performance.

This desire for thin + high performance gaming + long battery life = chasing an impossibility.

The Asus Zephyrus is proof that you can't shrink the form factor to that thin without giving up performance, giving up battery life, and increasing the cost well beyond it's price performance value.

The same goes for the other Max-Q 1080 laptops we've seen so far.

 

Sorry, your personal experience doesn't make it a fact. Otherwise, it would also mean that Asus likes to throw money away by maintaining several lines of gaming laptops. And, not only Asus, but all the other brands making all the flashy gaming accessories.

If people only bought the GL series, Asus would have probably killed the other lines a long time ago, rather than expand on them (with e.g. FX and GX series).

 

Woah, hold on there, you're getting silly now.

I never said there was only 1 Asus laptop worth getting, I'm saying there's only 1 Asus laptop *not* worth getting.

The other Asus laptops make sense for the most part.

I never even said I would buy a GL502VS 1070, I just used it as a handy example of a laptop with the same display size, form factor, and performance, and available for $1000 less.

I'd much rather have a full frame 17.3" laptop that provides better cooling and better power, and I'd like it to have a 1080, not a 1070. A real laptop that can give the 1080 GPU full power and cooling to give it's full performance.

There are plenty of other 1070 performance level laptops out there, all of them I am sure have their fans, and I couldn't be happier for all of them to exist.

So far, it's only the Max-Q 1080 laptops that don't make sense in their existence.

If we were talking gaming value, actual performance and it's value, you'd truthfully conclude that a Max-Q 1080 is a waste of a perfectly good 1080 GPU, it's potential completely lost for nothing.

As I've done for many years, for any Asus laptop people end up with, I'm happy helping them with any problems they run across when using their Asus laptop's

 

ASUS GX501V Zephyrus i7-7700HQ/GTX 1080 Max-Q Review

ASUS ROG Zephyrus GX501 - FIRST LOOK & Unboxing, Max-q, GTX1080

 

Edit, ok finally read updated review

Is this a consumer or pre-production/review model? Reason I ask is Notebookcheck got significantly different adobeRGB value

 

All my external temperatures and gaming tests were done while it was on the lap. Only the benchmarks were done in a desk. I always tend do lap tests because it's worst case. Especially the external temps because they get much higher when your legs are covering the bottom.

 

Bought it today. TDP of the 1080 seems limited to 100W according to hwinfo.
Display lid seems to be plastic resembling aluminium and not aluminium. One fan has a whining noise at lower speed which goes away at higher speed. Will do more testing tomorrow.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk

 

LOL so the "brushed" aluminum isnt really brushed aluminum. Explains how they were able to "brush" in two directions like that.

 

It's metal - at least I'm pretty sure it is. It's cold to touch, gets insane fingerprints and is a pain in the ass to clean. Plastic doesn't have that problem. I just put my tooth on it to verify and it feels like metal to me.

 

How can I activate "turbo gear" in gaming center like it is stated in the notebookcheck review?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk

 

Here is a screenshot of the review in notebookchannel.de

Turbo gear is available.

In my case gaming centet does not show a turbo gear option. Is there a trick to activate it? Pls help, I am new to asus notebooks.

 

EchoFox and the ROG Zephyrus GX501

 

First FS run with +200MHz on gpu and +200MHz on vram
CPU not oc with -100mv undervolt.

TDP of 1080 seems to be around 110W.


Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk

 

After 2 h of heaven. Peak TDP of gpu was 119W. No throttling, no stuttering. Fans are rather quiet under load. So far very impressive regarding the size

Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk

 

Looks pretty good. Thanks for posting those.

There's also a 'first impressions/review' article posted on ultrabook review here.

I'll wait to see what the Acer and Aorus competition will be like, but I certainly like what I see so far.

 

Max CPU temps seem great!
I'm guessing this is a stock model with no cpu/gpu re pasting or anything..

 

Yep, no repaste and repad yet, I will for sure do this in the near future.

I guess this is the notebook the razer blade pro should have been. Size of a Macbook Pro 15 but much more horse power with silent operation under load.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk

 

Best FS graphics score yet: GPU oc of 220 MHz. DDR5X also oc by 220MHz. Voltage stays below 0.8. Powerdraw of gpu around 100 to 110 W.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk

 

That's amazing - with that OC that's almost the score of a "real" 1080 laptop!

Have you tried to game at these settings yet?

How's the fan noise at peak during back to back FS runs?

Did you uninstall the ROG Center - if not what changes did you make to it? Or, do you only use XTU or TS? / MSI AB

Thanks for posting the tests, please continue as you run other benchmarks and games

 

Asus finally put up the GX501VI product page, and more importantly the specifications page.

So it comes with a 230w PSU. The Razer 1080 comes with a 250w PSU. Real 1080's like the MSI, Clevo, Asus all come with 330w PSU's.

I'm wondering how the GX501VI Max-Q 1080 GPU @ 120w monitored maximum power draw can perform anywhere near a real 1080 without enough power from it's PSU?

It's baffling... more results from gaming and other benchmarks, and from more new owners would be nice.

If it's pulling power from it's tiny 50wh battery, I wonder how long you can game before the performance drops back to what the 230w PSU alone can deliver?

This has been a big deal in the past with some high end laptops draining their batteries - not charging while under load (gaming) - and when the battery got down to a certain limit the laptop would stop getting power from the battery and the gaming performance suffered. Those laptops had much larger batteries than the GX501VI.

Guys with the GX501, please check to see if your battery is charging / discharging while OC'd and under benchmark load and gaming load - probably also check at stock tuning as well.