4K OLED is replaced by 120 Hz 2.8K OLED from the Zephyrus G16 - Asus ProArt P16 with RTX 5070 Laptop review

[Redaktion]

The ProArt P16 is a 16-inch multimedia laptop that received a lot of criticism last year because of its 60 Hz 4K OLED display. Now, it has been given the familiar 120 Hz 2.8K OLED panel from the Zephyrus G16, but it suffers weaknesses in its HDR brightness in particular.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/4K-OLED-is-replaced-by-120-Hz-2-8K-OLED-from-the-Zephyrus-G16-Asus-ProArt-P16-with-RTX-5070-Laptop-review.1026301.0.html

[Dont_Look_Up]

In Cinebench R23 multi, a real CPU multitasking benchmark, ProArt P16 is faster than Macbook 16.

The average CPU results is completely distorted by the joke of a benchmark called "Geekbench" which gives 80% higher score to Macbook than any other benchmak!!

Can you stop using this disgrace of a "benchmark" already?

In statistics we always remove the outliers from the results. This is what "Sh*tbench" is.

[996forever]

In Cinebench R23 multi, a real CPU multitasking benchmark, ProArt P16 is faster than Macbook 16.

The average CPU results is completely distorted by the joke of a benchmark called "Geekbench" which gives 80% higher score to Macbook than any other benchmak!!

Can you stop using this disgrace of a "benchmark" already?

In statistics we always remove the outliers from the results. This is what "Sh*tbench" is.

Is there any particular reason you focus on an old version of a benchmark, which is no longer representative of the latest version of Cinema3D, the real-world application it's supposed to be a benchmark for, over the latest Cinebench 2024?

[luque17]

In Cinebench R23 multi, a real CPU multitasking benchmark, ProArt P16 is faster than Macbook 16.

The average CPU results is completely distorted by the joke of a benchmark called "Geekbench" which gives 80% higher score to Macbook than any other benchmak!!

Can you stop using this disgrace of a "benchmark" already?

In statistics we always remove the outliers from the results. This is what "Sh*tbench" is.

To say, "In statistics, we always remove the outliers from the results", proves you wrong itself. It's similar to asserting, let's say, "in statistics, we always normalise data to get more accurate results". That may end up as a pure product of your imagination.

[Ednumero]

The best part here is that they removed the "ProArt" text from beneath the display.

[dj1]

In statistics we always remove the outliers from the results.

No. In statistics you absolutely do not always do that.

[Dont_Look_Up]

Wow, I see we have many Crapple fanboys here that they are also statisticians!

"Outliers can indicate a systematic error or erroneous measurement. Ignoring their impact can undermine the reliability of analysis based on flawed data. Outliers adversely affect the estimated predictive accuracy of the dataset."

This is exactly the case by using Geekbench. You introduce flawed measurements (biased data points) in your analysis, which is systematic. Since it always favors Crapple.

And it undermines the reliability of the analysis (and the analyst).

So yes, keep using Geekbench!