HP Omen 16 (2024) review: QHD gaming notebook with Core i9 and RTX 4080 for €3,200

[Redaktion]

This HP gaming laptop comes with a fitting level of specs, boasting a Core i9, an RTX 4080, a PCIe 4.0 SSD (1 TB), 32 GB of RAM, two Thunderbolt 4 ports and a QHD display (G-Sync, 240Hz). Despite having powerful components, the notebook only produces a moderate amount of noise – with the right settings.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Omen-16-2024-review-QHD-gaming-notebook-with-Core-i9-and-RTX-4080-for-EUR3-200.804952.0.html

[NikoB]

Let's begin.

Screen - mediocre contrast and brightness. Mediocre color rendering, but without problems with poisonous oversaturated colors in software that expects sRGB space as input, and this is 99% of software.
Fake 240Hz. The panel is not capable of rendering a picture even at 100Hz, if we average the response time results for B2W and G2G. And of course the idiotic 2.5k resolution is not compatible at the pixel level with 4k and fhd. Which leads to cloudy movies and TV shows on it in fhd resolution. As well as games without DLSS support, which itself is a crutch and still cannot 100% eliminate hardware incompatibility with fhd mode.

CPU. Here again is the old friend 14900HX, as in the just published review of the Razer Blade 16 (2024):
www.notebookcheck.net/Razer-Blade-16-2024-laptop-review-Now-with-super-fast-Samsung-OLED.804677.0.html

Note again the complete discrepancy between the results. And their complete absurdity given the almost identical weight of both models!

HP, supposedly with a constant PL1 equal to a monstrous 130W for laptops, has a shameful drop in the result in Cinebench R15 after several passes to a ridiculous 2750-2800 points. At the same time, the Razer Blade 16 supposedly with PL1=60 (which of course is also a lie by the author) with exactly the same 126-135W produces stable results in the same CBR15 test around 4300 points. Can you believe this with a weight difference of only 100g and almost the same real PL1?

Apparently in one of these two reviews the CPU test results are completely fake. Decide for yourself where...

Please note that the much cheaper HP has 2 TB4 ports out, while the greedy manufacturer Razer only has one port out.

The location of the ports here is much more convenient, although the usb-a 3.2 gen2 port is clearly missing on the left. And of course HP covers itself with shame for an antique 20th century port in 1Gbps RJ45, instead of at least 5Gbps.

The keyboard, like the Razer one, is completely inadequate. Although it is many times more suitable for gaming than the completely disgraceful keyboard in the Razer 16 2024. But both keyboards are completely unsuitable for professional work and therefore both models cannot be recommended as universal models, for this reason alone.

The memory in this model, as in Razer, is quite well tuned in terms of efficiency in comparison with the maximum theoretical for DDR5 5600. What is even more surprising if we return to the monstrous difference in performance of the same 14900HX in both models, on approximately the same the same PL1 levels around real 130W.

From the point of view of games, as I have written more than once, we see that the 4080 is no longer capable of delivering the minimum required 60fps+ in the native screen resolution. Razer's 4090 is still capable of this with new game releases in 2024, but this won't last long either, because... it itself loses to the desktop version (like the 4080) by 1.5 times. It's cheaper to buy a desktop with 4080, which is obviously faster than the mobile 4090.

Despite much lower performance (at the same PL1 level, which is amazing, I emphasize again!) this model has even more noise. I would never believe that a 100g difference in weight could lead to such disastrous results.

Again, I will emphasize the critically dangerous temperatures of the keyboard surface in games on an external monitor, with the screen cover closed - there is a high probability of damage to the electronics of the screen panel, because its critical operating temperature is only 50C. It is better not to close the screen cover in such cases, on all modern "gaming" laptops.

In general, the target audience of such models is unclear.
A model for "poor" gamers who don't have enough for 4090? But those who are able to pay a monstrous $3200 to see less than 60fps in the current 2024 game releases at the native screen resolution? And why do you need this? It's better to buy a desktop with 4080. It will be a much more profitable investment. Although if there is too much easy money in your pocket, then why not?

[lmao]

like that display chin isnt enough to have zero sales

[Bennyg1]

Another flawed example of overpriced hardware in the second tier "the MSRP is what?" segment of the market where 40% discounts are where they START to be worth considering.

If you're gonna pay top dollar for 14900HX (aka 13900HX+) and 4080, you want it to perform to spec...

[Sheksnnzx]

Why do hp gaming laptops, no matter the victus or omen have such a huge chin?

[the ma aan]

Let's begin.

Screen - mediocre contrast and brightness. Mediocre color rendering, but without problems with poisonous oversaturated colors in software that expects sRGB space as input, and this is 99% of software.
Fake 240Hz. The panel is not capable of rendering a picture even at 100Hz, if we average the response time results for B2W and G2G. And of course the idiotic 2.5k resolution is not compatible at the pixel level with 4k and fhd. Which leads to cloudy movies and TV shows on it in fhd resolution. As well as games without DLSS support, which itself is a crutch and still cannot 100% eliminate hardware incompatibility with fhd mode.

CPU. Here again is the old friend 14900HX, as in the just published review of the Razer Blade 16 (2024):
www.notebookcheck.net/Razer-Blade-16-2024-laptop-review-Now-with-super-fast-Samsung-OLED.804677.0.html

Note again the complete discrepancy between the results. And their complete absurdity given the almost identical weight of both models!

HP, supposedly with a constant PL1 equal to a monstrous 130W for laptops, has a shameful drop in the result in Cinebench R15 after several passes to a ridiculous 2750-2800 points. At the same time, the Razer Blade 16 supposedly with PL1=60 (which of course is also a lie by the author) with exactly the same 126-135W produces stable results in the same CBR15 test around 4300 points. Can you believe this with a weight difference of only 100g and almost the same real PL1?

Apparently in one of these two reviews the CPU test results are completely fake. Decide for yourself where...

Please note that the much cheaper HP has 2 TB4 ports out, while the greedy manufacturer Razer only has one port out.

The location of the ports here is much more convenient, although the usb-a 3.2 gen2 port is clearly missing on the left. And of course HP covers itself with shame for an antique 20th century port in 1Gbps RJ45, instead of at least 5Gbps.

The keyboard, like the Razer one, is completely inadequate. Although it is many times more suitable for gaming than the completely disgraceful keyboard in the Razer 16 2024. But both keyboards are completely unsuitable for professional work and therefore both models cannot be recommended as universal models, for this reason alone.

The memory in this model, as in Razer, is quite well tuned in terms of efficiency in comparison with the maximum theoretical for DDR5 5600. What is even more surprising if we return to the monstrous difference in performance of the same 14900HX in both models, on approximately the same the same PL1 levels around real 130W.

From the point of view of games, as I have written more than once, we see that the 4080 is no longer capable of delivering the minimum required 60fps+ in the native screen resolution. Razer's 4090 is still capable of this with new game releases in 2024, but this won't last long either, because... it itself loses to the desktop version (like the 4080) by 1.5 times. It's cheaper to buy a desktop with 4080, which is obviously faster than the mobile 4090.

Despite much lower performance (at the same PL1 level, which is amazing, I emphasize again!) this model has even more noise. I would never believe that a 100g difference in weight could lead to such disastrous results.

Again, I will emphasize the critically dangerous temperatures of the keyboard surface in games on an external monitor, with the screen cover closed - there is a high probability of damage to the electronics of the screen panel, because its critical operating temperature is only 50C. It is better not to close the screen cover in such cases, on all modern "gaming" laptops.

In general, the target audience of such models is unclear.
A model for "poor" gamers who don't have enough for 4090? But those who are able to pay a monstrous $3200 to see less than 60fps in the current 2024 game releases at the native screen resolution? And why do you need this? It's better to buy a desktop with 4080. It will be a much more profitable investment. Although if there is too much easy money in your pocket, then why not?

Im running RTX2070 on my 15.6" on max every single game I have and no issues with fps (144hz).
But youre monstrous analytic article goes totally down after youre accusing guys like me not buying desktop.

1) There is no space for PC at home. Imagine that not all people in the world live in villa or 100m2, especially in big apple cities like NY, Tokyo etc (like me)
2) I have small kid which again makes less attractive to buy 24-27" screen with PC, I rather use laptop on my knees in my bed to play sometimes
3) I have no TV, I dont need that (so no xbox playstation etc)

4) 14-16" "gaming" laptop is my only choice beside that I can do work on in. Comparing anything on notebookcheck to desktop is ignorance, low knowledgeship of real market and useless.

[NikoB]

I write comments not for those who have already made a choice, but for those who still have a choice. Obviously you are not one of them.