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!

[M4M]

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.
[Ahh yess the Cinebench R23 retard shill has come again what a fucking retard shillboy CLOWN!!
Ahh yess we should just use Cinecrap23 200% x86 biased garbage so you fucked up biological muller can feel good..NOPE
R23 needs to be banned from existence and switched to C-Ray which is unbiased, compiled by the user for 100% objective realistic PURE SIMD FP Throughput measurement aka. called "RAW POWER" by imb@eciles like you.

C-RAY is the most accurate non biased render benchmark.

M4PRO 14CORE takes 19.2seconds,M4MAX 16core takes 15.8seconds to complete, AI MAX+395=31seconds, 24seconds for 9950X and 19seconds for 285K. HX370 laggs behind with 40 something seconds. All of them maxxing PL1 and PL2.
 It is clearly raw compute stays within Cache so STFU and accept reality, soyboy.
Almost the same scenario for Timed LLVM Compile M4MAX dominating 9950X3D by 35seconds, 216s vs 252s, M4PRO matching 285K at 280seconds,
HX370 lagging as a distant cuck at 755seconds AHHAHA GARBAGE!!, AI MAX+395 far behind with a unimpressive 348seconds. CLEARLY NOT MEMORY BOUND MULTI CORE INTEGER+BRANCH PREDICTION Benchmark.

ALL of this public on Openbenchmarking.com

Pure ARM64/Aarch64 domination even without SVE2 haha. Back to school shill, i know tonight gonna be a hard a one for incel shills like you]

[M4M]

You cant change these incel imbecile x86 shills unless you beat the living f*** out of them which i would for sure do. With NO EFFORT haha. No diff.
Their degenerate fishbrain only knows how to yap about Cinecrap R23 a shitmark with tons of SSE and AVX loops +OneAPI calls, purely based on x86 Intel Embree.
The smarter ones still retarded though have the excuse of eSIMD which is pure garbage and cant even transvectorize most loops, even the ones it can are trash tier with high overhead due to VL mismatch and more.

[Dropped AdobeRGB]

2025 Asus ProArt P16 H7606WP, ATNA60CL10-0, OLED, 2880x1800, 16", 120 Hz
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage: 89.5 %

VS

2024 Asus ProArt P16 H7606WI, ATNA60YV02-0, OLED, 3840x2400, 16", 60 Hz
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage: 99.1 %

Isn't this like the elephant in the room: No full AdobeRGB 1998 coverage.

Since most/all OLEDs achieve this (99.5 DCI-P3, 90% AdobeRGB), how is this "ProArt"? Maybe that's why they removed the "ProArt" text from beneath the display? XD

But I'm not a color person so Idk. The best LLMs/AIs through lmarena.ai say basically this: "Adobe RGB is still the gold standard for professionals whose final output is ink on paper."
You think ASUS asked the their ProArt customers what's more important to them, 4K 60Hz and AdobeRGB 1998 coverage (99.1%) or 2.8K 120Hz and dropping the AdobeRGB 1998 coverage?

However, as it is now a touchscreen again, the image looks a little grainy when depicting bright content.

How annoying is this? Could you maybe post some close-ups?

[M4M]

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?

Its the trust me bro xyz said R23 is the one yeah fucking retard shill what a biological muller!!!
M4MAX gets 2150 in Cb2024 almost twice as fast as HX370 yep just get over it imbecil shills.
Infact it is more like 2.5X faster than HX370 according to |||C-RAY2.0||| the most accurate render benchmark.