Tutorial #28: TWEAKING THE ASUS TUF GAMING A15 - FINALE!

 


It has certainly been a slow burn in terms of incrementally extracting more performance from the laptop. If you have been with me, then you might have read the previous three installments dealing with various changes made through software in pursuit of performance. 

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

However, when push comes to shove, there is only one way to extract more and that is to make changes at the hardware level. I had refrained from doing so until now in light of the fact that I have a 3-year warranty on the laptop and did not want to void it. Having opened it up, I am not sure the warranty is void as the laptop only contains a tamper-proof sticker on one of the heatsink screws with a warning symbol, as against a "warranty void" message. In any case, it seems to have been worth it.


The intention was to further assist with heat dissipation and in doing so, possibly extract more performance from the laptop or to make it run cooler. One way of doing so is to install additional heatsinks. I was expecting to find them locally but unfortunately all I came across were cheap aluminium ones meant for the Raspberry Pi. Thus, it came down to importing copper ones from China and while I wasn't expecting much, their price was the same as the aluminium ones available locally. There was not much to lose in trying them out and surprisingly, they turned out to be as expected with a decent heft to them and adhesive pads that seem to be thermally conductive.


In case the article's main image did not make it clear, here is it again depicting how I installed the set of 8 relatively tiny heatsinks. The laptop has a common copper heatsink running across the board which does a respectable job for its size. However, the intention was to increase the surface area over the CPU and GPU to better aid with heat dissipation and as you can see, the GPU won over the CPU in terms of the heatsink distribution, rightly so as the GPU is running at a much higher TDP and has a larger die size.

At this point, I was still unsure on whether I should proceed with removing the tamper-proof sticker on the screw. However, I decided to screw it and unscrew the screws, hoping I didn't get screwed when it came to claiming the warranty. The choice of thermal paste was crucial but all I was looking at was the Noctua NT-H1 or Thermal Grizzly Kyro. Eventually, I went with the H1 10g as it is more value for money and will work for a few more applications. 


As you can see above, the OEM application was probably not the best and they even missed a spot. However, it wasn't that bad either considering how I was previously able to operate the GPU at a higher TDP without thermal throttling. The application of the paste is a controversial topic, so I am not going to wade into the best approach of doing so. The H1 does not come with an applicator and the manual illustrates the use of the dot approach, so I went with it without overthinking it. For the CPU, it was a small dollop in the centre whereas in the case of the GPU I went with additional small dots at each end. Rest of the contact points with the heatsink were covered as indicated in the image above.


I have never been in favour of using cooling pads because most of them mess up the inflow designed by the manufacturer and thus makes things worse. It is also really difficult to find benefits from using it on a gaming laptop which already has high capacity fans and does not really benefit from having its airflow disturbed. Until now, I have been using my laptop with small retractable flaps which lifts up the bottom as indicated above and simply helps in the ingestion of air. It certainly offers better performance than the stock setup, besides being a part and parcel of the laptop.


However, while purchasing the paste, I came across the Deepcool Windpal which is a really basic cooling pad with a 140mm fan at its centre. I don't care about the LED but I wouldn't say it looks bad in the night. It cost only about INR 550 ($7) but it was effectively free for me as I got that much back in terms of discount for making a purchase above a specified limit. Thus, another heat-relieving accessory got added to the list.


In case you are wondering, this is how the laptop sits now when connected to my monitor. The cooling pad actually helps with the air intake by both raising the laptop at a decent angle and delivering the air close to the bottom vents. Using the laptop flaps over the cooling pad made the inflow worse and hence I decided to keep it flat on the pad, which also happens to be a very stable position.


With all these changes, I was expecting to see an immediate benefit. I ran TimeSpy each time I made one of the above changes. So, from left to right, it indicates (1) the state before making any changes (2) with heatsinks installed (3) with thermal paste applied in addition to 2 and (4) with the cooling pad. As you can see, there wasn't a huge difference in performance but the GPU temperature did go down by more than 3 degrees Celsius. The CPU temperature was capped at 85 degrees in Ryzen Controller, so it was also good to see that in the final result, even the CPU temperature went below the limit. All in all, it indicated better thermal performance but the CPU and GPU were already operating at the limits I had set.



This led me to believe that the CPU now had the headroom to operate at a higher TDP. Thus, I stopped running Ryzen Controller and let the CPU run at its default settings with the High Performance power plan. True, enough I was immediately able to see an uplift in the overall performance. More importantly, the CPU performance improved significantly. As you can see above, the CPU score for TimeSpy crossed into 8200 for the first time whereas the CPU Profile benchmark had an all-thread score of over 6000 in comparison to a little over 5300 with my previous settings which limited the down/regular/up TDP to 25/40/50 Watt respectively. I also tried pushing up the TDP to over 60W for long boost and over 45W for short boost, but it still produced a lower performance compared to letting the CPU run on its own. Thus, out went Ryzen Controller and I had one less installed software on my laptop.


This also got me thinking whether I can also switch to using Nvidia's built-in auto performance tuner as well. The answer, as you can see above, is NO. The GPU leaves a lot of room for improvement and thus the next step was to see whether I can push the GPU even further. This got me to go back to the profile I had set previously and try to overclock it even further. The good news, I was able to do so with a general 30-45 MHz boost at the higher voltages.

And tadaa...

...a new high which inevitably leads to the comparison with the stock results. The efficiency is a tad lower than stock due to the higher power draw but then the GPU performance is nearly 18% higher and the CPU close to 3% better.


Finally, a comparison with the previous tweak to see if the change was worth it. A 2.5% CPU and over 1% GPU performance improvement without much of an efficiency loss is nothing to sniff at.


With this, I will close the chapter on tweaking this laptop, at least in terms of publishing articles about it. There may be scope for further minor improvements but nothing on the scale compared to each of my previous articles. It certainly has been an adventure in exploring the limits of the laptop and keeping a record of the same, but now it is just down to making the most of it until a time comes when I have to part company with it, hopefully not any time soon.

Tutorial #27: TWEAKING THE ASUS TUF GAMING A15 - PART TROIS

 


Update (June 1): 
The curve I ended with in the original article ended up being unstable in scenarios where the frequency dropped down to the 1600s on account of the thermal limit being breached. Hence, I tweaked the curve further to increase the voltage for the lower frequencies. Turns out it is not straightforward as even minor voltage-frequency changes at the knife edge can result in crashes. Eventually, I settled on the curve below which happens to be taken at 41 degrees Celsius ambient temperature and is thus levelling off at 1800 MHz, though it comes down by 15 MHz at over 50 degrees, making the maximum frequency same as the original curve.

Despite the reduction in undervolting, it actually lead to an increase in overall performance at a lower maximum GPU temperature. Nice!

Finally, the comparison with stock performance. The efficiency is on par with stock as diminishing returns kick-in for the GPU at its limit. Considering that the GPU TGP is now 25W higher, the chassis is doing a good job of handling the additional heat. At the same time, the CPU performance is now up to stock, but at lower power and temperature values. Overall, this is a really nice setting as the performance has increased by nearly 15% from stock and is ever so closer to desktop performance, at a much lesser TGP.


Original Article:

Tinkering with the device can be a progressive exercise. Part 1 was about getting more performance out of the box whereas Part 2 was a more holistic change aimed at efficiency. However, there is always more to be found by pushing the limits and this article is all about it.

In my previous article, I had lamented the 90W TGP limit on the GPU, especially as I wasn't close to hitting the thermal limit on the GPU after the tweak. As it turns out, extending the TGP limit to 115W that this GPU is capable of is quite a trivial task.

Even though I mention trivial, it carries a certain element of risk and hence anyone attempting the same is forewarned about the consequences. Having said so, it is a rather quick and easy process. Firstly, you will need NVFlash to take a backup of the current VGA BIOS and also to flash a new one. Secondly, you will have to find the correct replacement BIOS to flash. Any of the bios files with a Boost Clock of 1560 MHz are the 115W ones but in my case the one that worked was not an Asus one, which resulted in the USB-C DP output not working but the MSI one listed here. Note that you have to use nvflash with the "-6" option to override the PCI Subsystem ID error as follows in the case of the above BIOS file.

nvflash -6 232273.rom

Voila! You now have the full TGP unlocked. At first, I decided to give the official overclocking method a go which can be accessed from within Geforce Experience by enabling "experimental features" in the Settings and then selecting the "Performance" option from the overlay (Alt + Z). The automatic performance tuning option displayed a boost of +75 MHz though in GPU-Z, I could see that all the clocks had been increased by 100 MHz. At the end of the day, it produced a TimeSpy score of 6840 which you will recall is higher than the maximum score from last time. The GPU can be observed to now use the full 115W, though it also hits the thermal limit which was not possible with the TGP at 90W. All things considered, this overclock is on the conservative side.

The better solution then is to use the legacy scanner which is more at the edge of performance besides allowing a more generous memory overclock. One thing I failed to mention previously is that the OC Scanner on MSI Afterburner now uses the official NVAPI method of overclocking which does not detect cards lower than the 3xxx series. Hence, to get the Voltage-Frequency Curve, you will need to use the legacy OC Scanner instead which can be easily enabled in MSI Afterburner by editing the MSIAfterburner.cfg file in the root installation folder ("C:\Program Files (x86)\MSI Afterburner" by default) as follows:

LegacyOCScanner = 1

Doing so immediately produced a better result that breached the 7000-mark with the 500 MHz memory clock that I usually run the card at. It wouldn't surprise you to know then that it hit the GPU thermal limit along with the power and utilisation limits. 


The next step then was to see if I could extract the same performance at a lower temperature and power consumption. As you can imagine, it was quite a time-consuming exercise to find the ideal voltage-frequency curve. I did manage to get the maximum Time Spy score of 7155 with a maximum clock of 1800 MHz at 825 mV but that too hit the thermal limit, besides being unstable. Eventually, I found the sweet spot at the max frequency of 1785 MHz at 818 mV, going any lower resulted in instability. I also experimented with a lower frequency of 1770 MHz at lower voltages but that brought down the overall score, besides surprisingly resulting in a higher peak temperature, albeit at a lower power consumption.


Drum rolls then as I reveal the final results for the above curve which happens to be my (final?) choice for the Turbo fan profile. A score of 7148 with an average CPU and GPU power consumption of around 16W and 61W respectively is quite good in my opinion. At the same time, it did not even hit the thermal limit during the test. All in all, the best profile I could hope for at present for this hardware combination.

However, an important thing to note is that an absolute performance profile does not work well for lower fan profiles. Case in point, when I switched to the Performance mode with this profile, the score dropped to 6581 points which is far too less. Turns out that the higher voltage-frequency combination is far too much for the lower fan RPM. 

Thus, for the performance profile, I ran the OC scanner again and applied the +500 Mhz memory overclock to come up with a score of 7045 which isn't too far from my absolute profile with the Turbo mode. However, it comes with a huge spike in GPU power consumption compared to my Turbo mode settings besides still hitting the thermal limit.


I tried to tweak the curve further for the Performance mode but the lower fan RPM requires the clocks to be dropped significantly. From my tests, this would require dropping the max clock to 1600s at may be mid-700 mV but that also drops the score quite a lot, in the region of 6800-6900. That might be a feasible solution but for now I have left it at the default OC Scanner curve as I wouldn't be using the Performance mode often.

Final words also on the clock speeds reported in GPU-Z. The official Geforce Experience performance tuning with NVAPI displayed higher GPU clocks in GPU-Z, so you may be mistaken in terms of it offering better performance. As you can see below, this is a screenshot of the clock speeds reported for my final profile which doesn't seem that significant but offers significantly more performance. It is all about the frequency-voltage combination rather than the reported figures, so don't simply go by the higher numbers as it doesn't always offer the best performance.


With this, I hope I have finally closed the chapter on tweaking the hardware for the Asus Tuf A15. Before I go, here is the final comparison with the stock settings...


…and also the previous tweak at 90W. As I have mentioned previously, incremental GPU performance comes with a comparatively higher power consumption and hence the efficiency is still highest for the 90W tweak. However, at the same time, the 115W tweak still offers better efficiency than stock and hence it is a win-win in my opinion. Hope you have a great time tweaking your hardware and let me know if you have any queries.

 

Tutorial #25: TWEAKING THE ASUS TUF GAMING A15 - Part Deux

 



My previous post about the A15 was about plucking the low hanging fruit of performance. However, there is always the scope of optimising the settings further to gain the greatest benefit for the lowest cost. That is what I was up to on and off since the last post and having reached a satisfactory result, I have decided to share the same for anyone trying to squeeze the little bit extra from this hardware.

The base concept is still the same, to get more out of the GPU at the expense of CPU within the permitted power and thermal budget. To that end, I went through the process as follows:

1. Reduced the CPU temperature and Normal/Short/Long TDP limits to 85 and 25/35/45 respectively in Ryzen controller to provide further headroom to the GPU.

2. Reset the MSI Afterburner settings to stock which had the following curve for my RTX2060.

3. Ran an actual game as I would like to play it (in this case Dishonored 2 at 2K Ultra with HBAO and Triple Buffer) and noted the Average and Maximum GPU frequencies attained in the middle of the game.

4. Few observations first. Neither the CPU or GPU are thermally throttled in any way. Instead, the GPU hits the power limit which in the case of the A15 is 90W. Note that the included GPU is the RTX 2060 Notebook Refresh and thus it is a 110W TGP part. This indicates that the laptop does have thermal capacity to spare, especially as I had conducted these test with an ambient temperature close to mid-30 degree Celsius. Having the option to push the GPU Power further would have been great but with that being an impossibility with a locked BIOS, the next step was to figure out how to extract the most from the hand I have been dealt with.

To that end, I noted the frequencies which yielded the sustained performance (1560 MHz @812 mV) and the peak performance (1755 Mhz @918 mV) in-game.


This concluded the stock performance analysis. Now, there might be multiple guides present that put forth different suggestions as to how you can proceed with undervolting or overclocking but I decided to use these figures to try to set a target that I wanted to attain. In this case, it was to try to push the stock sustained performance to the lowest voltage (i.e. 1560@700) and the peak stock performance to the sustained voltage (i.e. 1755@812). Doing so manually with a smooth curve was going to be quite a challenge, so I decided to take a bit of a shortcut in attaining this objective as follows:

5. Executed the Nvidia OC Scanner within MSI Afterburner to produce an OC curve. The curves are not always the same, so I executed it a few times, also at slightly different CPU TDPs to come up with the curve that resulted in the highest boost frequency. In this case, it was as indicated below.


If I look at the frequencies at the concerned voltages, then it is 1515@700 and 1755@812. Thus, it seems I have almost attained the target I set out for without doing much.

 
Taking a look at the HWInfo figures again with the OC curve, it can be seen now that the sustained frequency has jumped to 1725 MHz from 1560 Mhz which is a decent OC. Also, the peak frequency now is at 2040 MHz which is an even bigger leap but it comes at a much higher voltage (1006 mV). The effect of this however is that the GPU is now hitting all the performance limits apart from the thermal one.

Almost there, but "almost" is not good enough, so I had to push it a bit further.


6. At this point, I decided to try to move the curve to the left, in effect overclocking the OC curve even further to see how much more performance can be extracted from it. I started by essentially shifting the curve to the left by 25 mV but as soon after I started encountering artifacts within the game indicating that I had pushed it a bit too far. As a result, I shifted the curve by 12.5 mV instead and found it to be perfectly stable. 

The other change I did was to flatten the curve at the half-way mark of the complete voltage range which is at 975 mV. There are various reasons to do so, primary of which was that the GPU never really reaches the frequency associated with that voltage and if it does as stated in the point above, it is for a fraction of a second. Consequently, it also saves the effort of manually adjusting the curve in futility. An argument could be made that the curve can be flattened even earlier to essentially attain an undervolt but I wanted to allow the GPU to boost to its practical maximum as much as possible.

With the above, after smoothing out the double frequency jumps (15 Mhz instead of 30 Mhz for a single increment in voltage step), I was left with the curve indicated below.


It starts at 1560@700 (surprise!), reaches 1755@800 and peaks at 2010@975. So how does this curve now fare within the game?


Firstly, we are back to only hitting the power and utilisation limit. The sustained in-game frequency is now 1755 Mhz, a further 30 Mhz boost from the default OC Scanner curve. The peak frequency is now 1965 Mhz though as against 2040 MHz earlier, but as I mentioned previously, it is transient and if you look at the average GPU power, it has come down to 69.4W compared to 70.3W for the OC scanner curve and 71.3W for the default curve. Amusingly, the maximum power consumption was over 97W with the stock curve and I also observed it breaching the 100W barrier in an intermediate test. May be it is due to some quirk in HWInfo or otherwise, the card is indeed capable of going over its locked TDP of 90W in some cases, though without much benefit.

7. With the GPU OC sorted, next, I wanted to see if I can push the CPU a bit more in co-ordination with this curve. You will have to take my word for it, but I tried increments and decrements for all the TDP values while keeping the temperature limit at 85 degrees Celsius and I finally found the best performance at Normal/Long/Short TDP of 25/40/50 respectively.


The proof, of course, is in the pudding. Thus, I present to you now, the comparison between the stock performance and after the CPU/GPU tweak. The duration of the HWInfo figures spanned from the launch of the Time Spy test to the calculation of the score.

Stock:

Post tweak:

A good jump and also a slightly higher score than the tweak in my last article (6703). What it doesn't indicate though is that the power consumption is lower than last time.

8. One last thing! I didn't at any point mention anything about the GPU memory overclock because I kept it for the last. After trying out different increments, I settled for a boost of 500 MHz as it was stable and didn't lead to any noticeable increment in power consumption and thermals. With that, here is the final result.


To put things in perspective then, this is how the tweak stacks up against the stock setting.








Tutorial #24: Tweaking the Asus Tuf Gaming A15


Previously, in my review of the laptop, the only tweaking I had undertaken was an auto-overclock of the GPU which, as per expectation, yielded a performance improvement of around 6% overall with only a slight loss in CPU performance, purely on the basis of the additional available thermal headroom.


During that time I had left the CPU untouched because AMD does not officially support tweaking on laptops and Ryzen Controller did not work for me then. However, later I came across Renoir Mobile Tuning and found it to be operational for this laptop, albeit with a few bugs. I switched to Ryzen Controller again and found that it too now worked well for Renoir with the additional benefit of applying the setting automatically on boot.

With a CPU tuning tool in place, the next thing was determining what to do with it. While these tools often end up as overclocking utilities, my intention couldn't be further opposite to that. The idea was to effectively underclock the system without losing performance i.e. to reduce the temperatures while still maintaining a performance boost over the stock settings.

To cut a long story short, I played around various combination of settings to finally settle on one that seems to work the best. Not that it an exhaustive analysis but rather the most practical among the ones I had tried. Note that I only experimented with the Boost TDPs and the temperature limits. The boost duration seemed pretty logical and I did not want to introduce yet another variable that muddied up the testing. Eventually this resulted in the following changes:
  • Temperature Limit: 90
  • Long Boost TDP: 54 
  • Short Boost TDP: 50
For reference, the default temperature limit is 95 with long and short boost TDPs of 60 and 54 respectively. Also, I auto-overclocked the GPU again to make the most of any benefit available from reduction of the CPU performance. So, how did this theoretical reduction in CPU performance impact the benchmark scores for Fire Strike and Time Spy compared to the ones from the review?


As expected, this has quite an impact on the CPU performance as it has dropped by nearly 5% but on the other hand the graphics score has jumped by 1% resulting in an overall gain of 0.7% on Fire Strike, taking it past 16,000 for the first time. However, the result for Time Spy was more interesting as there was a minor loss instead overall indicating the underclock has more of an impact of DX12 than it does on DX11, which is probably not unexpected. Note that this is an indication of the gain over the gain already achieved by overclocking the GPU originally, so overall the incremental gain is still worth it.

Lastly, the laptop has a secret weapon up its sleeve. Until now, all the tests were conducted using the default Performance mode. However, there is also a Turbo mode which sets the fans whirring to possibly the maximum setting under full load. Yes, it boosts up the scores even further. Below I have again attached a comparison of the Turbo mode performance for the stock CPU settings in comparison to the underclocked one and it is quite the same as earlier. While the DX11 performance is higher with the underclock, it is lower by an equal proportion in case of DX12. 

It has to be kept in mind though that apart from the scores, the underclock has an additional benefit in reducing the overall temperatures and also prolonging the life of the components. Also with the combination of the 4800H with the RTX2060, it is the latter that is going to hit the limit rather easily compared to the former, so a sacrifice of CPU performance for a GPU gain makes a lot more sense.

Finally, I leave you with a comparison of the current profile comprising of a GPU Overclock and CPU Underclock on Turbo with the stock GPU and CPU settings.

A jump of 7.8% on DX11 and 6.6% on DX12 with lower overall temperatures to boot is nothing shoddy. Seems something called as free lunch does exist after all.

Review #65: Asus TUF Gaming A15 Laptop (Ryzen 7 4800H | RTX 2060) ★★★★✭

 Team Red + Team Green - A killer combination!


Introduction:

Ever since Y2K, when AMD stole the limelight for a bit with breaking the 1 GHz barrier and releasing AMD64, AMD as a company failed to impress on me the need to purchase their products. I had opted for Intel just prior to the Athlon breakthrough and every upgrade cycle of 4-5 years led me to opt for Intel. Hence, I was simply enthralled at switching to Team Red after nearly two decades of being stuck with Team Blue. My GPU always has been Team Green but with the integrated Vega 7, there is a dash of Red over there as well.

The Choice:

During the holiday sale 2020, it was between this and the Acer Predator Helios 300 for the princely sum of "not quite" one lakh INR. I could see the reviews racking up for the Core i7 variant on Flipkart and I had even purchased the same but cancelled it as soon as I came across this Renoir masterpiece. It helped that Amazon also offered a much higher exchange price for an old laptop that was lying around, compared to Flipkart.

To put it straight, the Helios 300 has only one thing going for it compared to this one and that is the screen. On the flip side, this comes with a monster CPU, DDR4-3200, a 2000+ Mbps 1 TB SSD from Western Digital, a large 90 Wh battery, lighter weight, higher travel keyboard and about as good a cooling solution as the Helios. It also looks more professional than the Helios, so you can use it in formal environments without having people snickering at you. So overall, it is a win for the A15 over the Helios 300.

Display:

To address the elephant in the room, Asus gimped on the screen, using a Panda panel that has only about 65% sRGB colour gamut and >20 ms response time with quite some screen flex. It pales (no pun intended) in comparison to the 90% sRGB panel with 3ms response time on the Helios, but that is about it. I still managed to get popping colours out of it by increasing the saturation on Radeon Software and calibrating the display from within Windows. Sure, it throws accuracy out of the window in favour of something eye-pleasing but I am not looking to do any colour-work on it and even otherwise, I am looking to connect it to my 120 Hz 4K TV at home for gaming. I am unsure about it, but with the HDMI or DisplayPort output being driven by Vega, it should also support FreeSync directly compared to laptops having output routed through the Intel GPU.

Hardware:


The primary reason for getting this laptop is the Ryzen 4000 series. The 4800H puts the Core i7 to shame. I ran Cinebench after updating the system and without any tweaks. It registered nearly 500 on the single core and 4386 on the multi core, that even the Core i9-9980HK can't touch in most laptops, due to it being a blast furnace rather than a processor. The 4800H did not even touch 80 degrees on the Cinebench multi-core test. It did go past 90 on Firestrike but it never thermally throttled whereas the under-volted 9980HK in my earlier laptop hit 100 degrees within seconds and throttled like it was being asphyxiated.

The RTX 2060 is also the 2020 "refresh" variant with the 1.25V GDDR6 and higher TDP. It passed 15,000 on Firestrike on the first run but with the CPU running much cooler, it opens up the possibility of over-clocking the GPU farther than you can on an Intel machine.

Among other points, the machine ran without much noise on the benchmarks, but I expect it to reach whirring heights with demanding games, something that is to be expected of most gaming laptops. I haven’t checked the battery life and probably never will over the life of the laptop, as I always used it plugged, but the 90 Wh battery with the 4800H will provide a longer battery life than any Intel gaming laptop. The lonely USB 2.0 port on the right-hand side is a bit of a let-down but I have my fingerprint reader permanently plugged in so that I can use Windows Hello. Not having TB3 is also disappointing but I can’t see myself needing it over the lifespan of the laptop as DLSS will most probably help with higher resolutions in the near future.

Tweaking:

As expected, the UEFI on the laptop is barebone. AMD also doesn't support Ryzen Master on laptops, leaving it to OEMs to decide on the thermal envelope. That leaves Ryzen Controller as a tool of choice as it has experimental 4000-series support but with it currently being limited to STAPM settings, it is more likely to be needed to extract more performance rather than to lower temperatures, and thus is not the need of the hour.

However, as I mentioned previously, there is light at the end of the tunnel in terms of extracting more performance from the GPU. As the following 3DMark screenshots indicate, the GPU is able to provide 6-7% more performance using Auto-Overclock at the loss of less than 1% CPU performance. The GPU temperatures too are similar, though the CPU temperature does go up by 4-5 degrees at idle and 2-3% degrees at full load, but still does not throttle.

Warranty:

The unit received from Amazon was manufactured just 2 weeks before as per the warranty registration date. It can be changed to the invoice date by providing Asus with the invoice and a photo of the laptop serial number. An additional year of warranty, after using the 10% off code provided with the laptop, costs about $35 which is quite respectable.

Conclusion:

To sum it up, at the sale price, you can only go wrong with a gaming laptop if you choose Intel. Asus got most things right apart from the screen which is gut-wrenching but not a deal breaker, especially if you use a monitor or TV. In this case, it is what’s inside that counts and this thing is as TUF as it gets.

P.S.: It comes with a huge 16A plug that would probably go well with a microwave in the kitchen. Thankfully, the power adapter has a standard connector as a desktop PSU, so I was able to connect a 16A cable with the regular sized plug. You can also probably get away with a lower amperage cable but it is best to get a 16A one if you can.