Asus ROG Strix G16 review

Frame rates

1920×1080, High preset, upscaling off. Averages 162fps across the 5 core benchmark games.

Measured on this machine. Source: Notebookcheck, 2025-04-27.

In use

The short version

The Asus ROG Strix G16 (G615) is a high-performance gaming laptop built around an RTX 5080 running at a 175W GPU power limit, a Core Ultra 9 275HX processor, 32GB of memory and a 16GB graphics memory allocation. On the benchmark data available, it is a very fast machine at the 1920x1080 High preset with upscaling disabled. Notebookcheck’s figures show it reaching 386fps in Strange Brigade, 318fps in F1 24, 192fps in Dota 2, 190fps in Final Fantasy XV, 185fps in Baldur’s Gate 3, 164fps in GTA V, 161fps in Cyberpunk 2077, 113fps in Alan Wake 2, 111fps in X-Plane 11 and 96fps in Doom: The Dark Ages.

That is an unusually broad and useful spread of results. The very high figures in Strange Brigade and F1 24 show that the hardware can produce frame rates far beyond what most games need for smooth play. The results in Dota 2, Baldur’s Gate 3, GTA V and Cyberpunk 2077 are also strong, even though they do not all fully match the laptop’s 240Hz display refresh rate under the published test conditions. The figures in Alan Wake 2, X-Plane 11 and Doom: The Dark Ages are more revealing still: this is powerful hardware, but it is not a machine that makes demanding modern games effortless at every setting without assistance from upscaling or reduced graphics options.

The important qualification is that these are 1920x1080 High preset results, with upscaling off, while the Strix G16 has a 2560x1600 display. The published frame rates are therefore a clean indication of raw performance at the test resolution, not a promise that every game will run at the same speed at the panel’s native resolution. That distinction matters. Buyers should read the benchmark table as evidence that the RTX 5080 has substantial headroom in lighter and well-optimised games, while more demanding titles will call for sensible settings choices if the aim is to exploit the 240Hz screen fully.

The 175W GPU power limit is central to the appeal. This is not an RTX 5080 configured around a modest power ceiling. The published results place it alongside several very expensive or physically larger high-end gaming laptops, including machines with RTX 5090 graphics. Across the shared games in the database, the Strix G16 matches the Medion Erazer Beast 18 X1, is ahead of the Aorus MASTER 16 and Acer Predator Helios 18 AI, and is only slightly behind the Asus ROG Strix Scar 16. It is also ahead of the Medion Erazer Major 16 X1 with an RTX 5070 Ti at 140W.

That makes the Strix G16 easy to recommend on performance grounds to buyers who want a serious desktop-replacement class laptop without moving to an 18in chassis. It has the processor, graphics hardware, memory capacity, storage capacity and display specification expected of a premium gaming machine. Its 2.606kg weight means it is not a casual carry-everywhere laptop, but it is materially more plausible as an occasional travel machine than the largest gaming systems.

There is no confirmed UK price for this exact configuration, so no value score can be calculated. That is a pricing-data limitation rather than a criticism of the machine itself, and the benchmark suite is complete.

The best buyer for the Strix G16 is someone who prioritises high frame rates, wants 16GB of VRAM, intends to play a mix of competitive games and demanding single-player releases, and is prepared to use settings intelligently rather than expecting native-resolution maximum-detail performance to land at 240fps in every title. It is less suitable for someone who needs a lightweight portable system, someone choosing primarily around price, or someone who expects the published 1080p figures to transfer unchanged to 2560x1600.

Performance

A fast result, but not a flat result

The headline performance case is strong. The five scoring-suite games average 163fps, based on Notebookcheck’s published figures for Dota 2, Baldur’s Gate 3, GTA V, Cyberpunk 2077 and X-Plane 11. That is a useful average because it covers games that do not all behave alike. Dota 2 reaches 192fps, Baldur’s Gate 3 reaches 185fps, GTA V reaches 164fps, Cyberpunk 2077 reaches 161fps and X-Plane 11 reaches 111fps. The range between those results is substantial, and that tells buyers more than an average alone can.

Dota 2 is the strongest result within the scoring suite at 192fps. It falls below the display’s 240Hz ceiling under the stated test conditions, but it is still a high frame rate and a good fit for a fast panel. For a player focused on responsiveness, this is the kind of result that makes a 240Hz display meaningful rather than decorative. The frame rate is high enough that the panel has plenty to work with, even if the benchmark does not show the screen being fully saturated at its maximum refresh rate.

Baldur’s Gate 3 at 185fps is also a very strong number. It is not a 240fps result, but it is comfortably in the high-refresh territory where the display can show a clear benefit over a conventional lower-refresh panel. The practical point is not that every title must reach the maximum refresh rate to make the screen worthwhile. A game running at 185fps is still delivering far more frames than a display limited to a much lower refresh rate can show. The Strix G16 has enough performance here to make high-refresh play plausible without relying on the benchmark result being conveniently chosen from an especially light workload.

GTA V at 164fps and Cyberpunk 2077 at 161fps sit very close together. That pairing is useful because the two games represent different kinds of demand, yet the measured figures place them in the same broad performance bracket on this configuration. Neither result reaches 240fps, so buyers should not approach the Strix G16 expecting a locked maximum-refresh experience in every major game at the High preset with upscaling disabled. But both figures are strong enough to support smooth high-refresh gaming, and both show why the RTX 5080 and 175W power limit matter more than a simple graphics-card label.

X-Plane 11 is the clear low point in the scoring suite at 111fps. That does not make it a poor result. It is still comfortably above the frame rates that many players would consider merely adequate. What it does show is that this laptop’s performance cannot be reduced to the 163fps scoring-suite mean. A buyer interested mainly in simulation games should pay more attention to this 111fps figure than to the 386fps result in Strange Brigade. The benchmark spread matters because games place different demands on the system, and a laptop that is spectacular in one title may simply be strong rather than exceptional in another.

The broader benchmark results

Outside the scoring suite, Strange Brigade reaches 386fps and F1 24 reaches 318fps. Those are the only published figures here that exceed the panel’s 240Hz refresh rate. They establish that the Strix G16 can genuinely drive the screen at its maximum refresh in some games at 1920x1080 High with upscaling off. This is important because a 240Hz screen can otherwise be an aspirational specification on a gaming laptop: impressive on paper, but rarely approached outside older or lighter titles. The available data shows that the Strix G16 has real cases where the display’s maximum refresh is relevant.

Strange Brigade at 386fps is particularly far beyond the panel limit. The screen cannot display more than 240 refreshes per second, but the measured figure still has value. It demonstrates that the system has substantial performance headroom in this game at the stated settings. For players who care about a consistently responsive feel, or who prefer to use a high refresh rate with reduced latency rather than pursue visual settings alone, this result is reassuring. It should not, however, be used as shorthand for the laptop’s performance in every genre. The rest of the table makes clear that the Strix G16 is not a 386fps machine in a general sense; it is a machine capable of that result in Strange Brigade under Notebookcheck’s benchmark conditions.

F1 24 at 318fps is similarly significant. It clears the 240Hz display limit by a useful margin, showing that the screen and hardware are well matched in at least some fast-moving games. Racing players who value rapid visual updates have a concrete reason to take the 240Hz panel seriously. The benchmark result does not prove that every circuit, weather condition or game configuration will run at the same rate, because the fact sheet supplies only the published benchmark figure. It does prove that, in the stated benchmark, the laptop has enough GPU performance to move beyond merely feeding a high-refresh panel and into actually exceeding its maximum refresh.

Final Fantasy XV reaches 190fps, putting it close to the Dota 2 result of 192fps and the Baldur’s Gate 3 result of 185fps. This is another example of the Strix G16 being just short of the 240Hz ceiling rather than far away from it. That distinction is worth making. A figure near 190fps is not evidence that the panel was an excessive choice. It is evidence that the system can deliver a high-refresh experience in a game that does not quite reach the display’s maximum under the test settings. Buyers should think of the 240Hz panel as an upper limit that the laptop sometimes exceeds and often approaches, rather than as a target it must hit in every title to justify its existence.

Alan Wake 2 at 113fps and Doom: The Dark Ages at 96fps provide the necessary counterweight to the very high numbers elsewhere. These are the results that should prevent an expensive-specification purchase from becoming an unrealistic-expectation purchase. The RTX 5080 at 175W is powerful, but the benchmark data does not support saying that demanding games will always run at high-refresh rates with upscaling disabled. In Doom: The Dark Ages, 96fps is less than half the display’s 240Hz refresh rate. In Alan Wake 2, 113fps is also well below that ceiling. Both results remain usable and substantial, but neither supports a claim that the laptop can simply brute-force every demanding game into maximum-refresh territory at the High preset.

This is exactly why the published test conditions matter. Every listed result uses 1920x1080, the High preset and no upscaling. The figures are comparable with each other because the conditions are fixed. They also show the machine without an upscaling mode raising the frame rate. That is useful for assessing underlying performance, but it means a buyer should not read the results as a guide to every possible settings combination. The data gives a clear baseline: in lighter games the Strix G16 can exceed 240fps; in many major games it lands between 161fps and 192fps; in more demanding workloads it drops towards 96fps and 113fps.

What the 175W GPU power limit means in practice

The RTX 5080 name alone does not tell the whole story. The Strix G16’s listed 175W GPU power limit matters because it describes the power ceiling available to the graphics processor. Within the information supplied, the most useful way to interpret that specification is through the benchmark outcomes rather than through assumptions about the badge. The notebook is not merely posting good results against lower-tier systems. It is matching or surpassing several listed RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 rivals across their shared benchmark games.

The most striking comparison is the Aorus MASTER 16. That machine has an RTX 5090 and a confirmed UK price of GBP 6,007, yet the Strix G16 averages 2fps more across the 10 games shared by both machines. That does not mean the two laptops are identical in every game, nor does it mean an RTX 5080 is universally faster than an RTX 5090. It means that in the benchmark data available for these exact configurations, the Strix G16’s RTX 5080 at 175W is delivering performance that is not obviously constrained relative to this particular RTX 5090 laptop.

The Acer Predator Helios 18 AI comparison points in the same direction. Both machines use RTX 5080 graphics, but the Strix G16 averages 2fps more across their seven shared games. The difference is small, and it should be treated as such. It is not a reason to claim a categorical performance victory. It is enough, however, to show that the Strix G16 is operating in the same high-performance tier as a large 18in RTX 5080 machine rather than trailing it because of its smaller 16in format.

The Medion Erazer Beast 18 X1 comparison is even tighter. Across eight shared games, the average difference is 0fps. This is a direct indication that the Strix G16 can match that RTX 5080 rival in the shared data. For buyers deciding between a 16in performance laptop and a larger 18in alternative, that is meaningful. The Strix G16 does not need to concede benchmark performance merely because it uses a smaller display size. The available figures say the two systems are level across the games they have in common.

Against the Asus ROG Strix Scar 16 with RTX 5090 graphics, the G16 trails by 4fps across nine shared games. Again, that is a small difference in the context of the listed frame rates. The Scar 16 remains ahead in the shared-game average, but the gap is narrow enough that buyers should not assume the RTX 5090 label automatically produces a large advantage. There is no confirmed UK price for the Scar 16 in the supplied information, so this is a performance comparison only. The key point is that the Strix G16 is close to a higher-tier GPU configuration in the games both machines have been measured in.

The Medion Erazer Major 16 X1 provides the clearest lower-tier comparison. It uses an RTX 5070 Ti at 140W, and the Strix G16 averages 10fps more across seven shared games. This is a more meaningful lead than the small differences against the RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 systems above. It supports the argument that buyers who want the stronger available frame rates should prefer the Strix G16’s RTX 5080 configuration over that specific RTX 5070 Ti alternative, assuming their priorities are performance rather than a price decision.

It would be wrong to turn these comparisons into a universal rule about GPU names, chassis sizes or power limits. The data only covers the machines and shared games listed. But it does support a clear conclusion: the Strix G16’s 175W RTX 5080 is not presenting as a compromised version of the GPU. It is competitive with the closest database rivals, including several machines with the same graphics tier and some with RTX 5090 hardware.

Where the frame-rate spread comes from

The difference between 386fps in Strange Brigade and 96fps in Doom: The Dark Ages is the central performance story. It is tempting to choose the largest number and present the machine as an uncomplicated 240Hz gaming laptop, but that would not be useful. The benchmark table says something more nuanced. The laptop has the capacity for extremely high frame rates in some games, strong high-refresh performance in many others, and merely solid results in the most demanding titles listed.

The frame-rate spread is a reminder that game performance is workload-specific. The available data does not support reducing every game to a single expected result. Strange Brigade, F1 24, Dota 2, Final Fantasy XV, Baldur’s Gate 3, GTA V, Cyberpunk 2077, Alan Wake 2, X-Plane 11 and Doom: The Dark Ages all produce different outcomes despite being tested at the same stated resolution, preset and upscaling condition. The useful buyer response is to identify the games closest to their own interests rather than relying on the mean alone.

A competitive-game buyer will look first at F1 24, Dota 2 and perhaps Strange Brigade. Those results range from 192fps to 386fps, with F1 24 and Strange Brigade clearing 240fps. A buyer focused on large role-playing games should pay closer attention to Baldur’s Gate 3 at 185fps and Final Fantasy XV at 190fps. A buyer interested in demanding visual showcases should focus on Cyberpunk 2077 at 161fps, Alan Wake 2 at 113fps and Doom: The Dark Ages at 96fps. A simulation-focused buyer should give X-Plane 11 at 111fps greater weight than the more favourable results elsewhere.

The Strix G16 is therefore best understood as a laptop with very high headroom, not unlimited headroom. The distinction sounds obvious, but it is often lost when a high-end GPU is paired with a 240Hz display. At 1920x1080 High with upscaling off, it can make the display’s maximum refresh rate genuinely attainable in some titles. In other games, it delivers frame rates that remain strong but do not fill the panel. In the most demanding games listed, it supplies a good foundation for settings decisions rather than a reason to stop thinking about settings altogether.

The screen

A fast panel with a higher native resolution than the benchmark

The ROG Strix G16 has a 16in IPS display with a 2560x1600 resolution and a 240Hz refresh rate. That is a premium gaming display specification. The 16in size and 2560x1600 resolution suggest a screen intended for more than narrow competitive play: there is room for a sharp desktop, a taller working area than a conventional 1920x1080 panel, and a high refresh ceiling for games that can exploit it. The IPS panel type is also stated, although the supplied information does not include brightness, colour coverage, response measurements, contrast data or any assessment of panel quality beyond that technology label.

The key point for gaming is that the published benchmark figures were not measured at the panel’s native 2560x1600 resolution. They were measured at 1920x1080, High preset, with upscaling off. That makes the performance results valuable for comparing the machine against rivals under the same conditions, but it means they should not be treated as native-resolution frame rates. A buyer who wants to play at 2560x1600 should expect the panel resolution to be a separate consideration from the published benchmark setting.

This does not make the screen a mismatch. The 240Hz refresh rate is clearly useful in Strange Brigade, where Notebookcheck recorded 386fps, and in F1 24, where it recorded 318fps. Both results exceed 240fps under the stated test conditions. In those games, the display is not simply providing theoretical capability; the benchmark data indicates that the hardware can feed it beyond its maximum refresh rate.

Dota 2 at 192fps, Final Fantasy XV at 190fps and Baldur’s Gate 3 at 185fps do not reach 240fps, but they still make a strong case for a high-refresh panel. Those frame rates are much closer to the screen’s maximum than to a conventional low-refresh experience. The display has room to show the higher output, even if its full ceiling is not reached. This is a more realistic way to think about 240Hz on a modern gaming laptop: it is not only useful at exactly 240fps. It is also useful when the system is producing a high but lower figure such as 164fps, 161fps, 192fps or 190fps.

The lower results provide the necessary restraint. Alan Wake 2 at 113fps, X-Plane 11 at 111fps and Doom: The Dark Ages at 96fps do not make full use of a 240Hz panel under the benchmark conditions. That does not mean the screen is wasted. It means the machine’s display specification is ahead of what these particular games demand from the GPU at the stated settings. A fast panel can still be desirable for the games where the system does reach higher frame rates, but buyers should not expect the display refresh rate to be a constant representation of actual in-game output.

Resolution and settings discipline

The panel’s 2560x1600 resolution is higher than the benchmark’s 1920x1080 test resolution in both directions. The fact sheet does not provide measured results at 2560x1600, so there is no basis for stating specific native-resolution frame rates. That is worth being explicit about because it is easy to look at a 240Hz screen and assume that its maximum refresh rate will be achievable at the screen’s maximum resolution. The published data does not support that assumption.

What the data does support is a sensible buying approach. Treat 1920x1080 High with upscaling off as the clean performance reference point. It shows how the Strix G16 compares with the closest machines in the database and how its performance changes from game to game. Treat 2560x1600 as the display’s native capability, not as a benchmark result. For games where the laptop is already at 96fps, 111fps or 113fps in the published test, buyers should be prepared to make a deliberate choice between resolution, graphics settings and frame rate rather than expecting all three to be maximised at once.

The 16in format makes this especially relevant. The screen is not a basic 1920x1080 panel paired with a GPU that obviously outclasses it. It is a higher-resolution 2560x1600 display with a 240Hz ceiling. That is an ambitious pairing. The RTX 5080 at 175W gives the machine enough performance to make the screen compelling in lighter games and competitive titles, but the benchmark spread shows that the display’s native resolution and maximum refresh rate should be treated as options to balance, not promises that will always coincide.

Build, size and portability

The supplied specification identifies the Strix G16 as a 16in gaming laptop weighing 2.606kg. That weight puts it firmly in performance-laptop territory. It is portable in the literal sense that it is a laptop, but it is not a machine chosen because carrying it is effortless. Buyers who travel occasionally, move between rooms, take a system to a different location or need something less substantial than an 18in gaming laptop may find the 16in format attractive. Buyers who carry a laptop every day should take the 2.606kg figure seriously.

The weight makes sense in the context of the hardware. This is a system with an RTX 5080 at a 175W GPU power limit, a Core Ultra 9 275HX processor, 32GB of memory, a 1024GB SSD and a 90Wh battery. The specification is not built around low mass or minimal equipment. It is built around high performance, a large battery capacity by gaming-laptop standards and a display intended to support high frame rates. The 2.606kg figure should therefore be seen as part of the performance trade-off, not an unexpected flaw in an otherwise thin-and-light design.

There are no chassis dimensions in the supplied information, so it is not possible to make a precise claim about bag fit, desk footprint or thickness. That matters because weight is only part of portability. A 16in laptop can differ substantially in physical footprint depending on the chassis, and the fact sheet does not provide those measurements. Buyers with a specific sleeve, backpack or desk constraint should verify dimensions independently rather than relying on the 16in label alone.

Likewise, the 90Wh battery capacity is stated, but no battery-life measurement is supplied. It would be inappropriate to turn the battery capacity into a claimed number of hours away from mains power. The presence of a 90Wh battery is useful specification context, but it is not a substitute for measured runtime. For this particular machine, the benchmark evidence is about gaming performance at mains-class hardware levels, not endurance.

The most practical interpretation is that the Strix G16 suits a buyer who wants a machine that can move, but will usually be used as a serious gaming system when it is set down. Its 16in size is more manageable than the named 18in rivals, while its performance comparisons show that it does not obviously give away benchmark speed to those larger models. That combination is the strongest case for the chassis: substantial performance without committing to the largest display category.

It is less convincing as a laptop for someone whose priority is daily mobility above all else. At 2.606kg, the machine is not positioned as a low-burden companion for constant travel. The fact sheet does not include charger weight, dimensions or battery runtime, so no broader portability claim should be made. What can be said confidently is that the Strix G16 is a powerful 16in system whose weight aligns with its high-end specification rather than a lightweight machine that happens to have gaming hardware.

How it compares

Medion Erazer Beast 18 X1

The closest performance match is the Medion Erazer Beast 18 X1. Both machines use RTX 5080 graphics, and across eight shared games the Strix G16 averages 0fps difference. In practical terms, the shared benchmark data calls this a tie. There is no evidence here that the Strix G16 gives up performance to the Beast 18 X1, and no evidence that it meaningfully exceeds it either.

The Medion has a confirmed UK price of GBP 2,499, while the Strix G16’s exact UK price is not confirmed in the supplied information. That prevents a direct value judgement between them. Performance alone is level in the shared games, so the eventual purchase decision would need to rest on confirmed pricing and any specifications not present in the fact sheet. For a buyer deciding purely from the benchmark table, neither machine has an advantage.

The more useful distinction is display size and weight context. The Medion is an 18in model by name, while the Asus is a 16in laptop weighing 2.606kg. The fact sheet does not provide the Medion’s weight or dimensions, so a direct portability comparison would be speculative. Still, the Strix G16’s ability to match an 18in RTX 5080 rival in the shared figures strengthens its case for buyers who prefer a 16in screen size without accepting lower published frame rates.

Aorus MASTER 16

The Aorus MASTER 16 is the comparison that most clearly challenges assumptions about GPU tier labels. It has an RTX 5090 and a confirmed UK price of GBP 6,007. Across 10 shared games, the Strix G16 averages 2fps more. The gap is narrow, so this should not be oversold as a decisive victory. It is, however, a meaningful result for the Asus because it demonstrates that the RTX 5080 at 175W can stand alongside this specific RTX 5090 configuration in the shared data.

For a performance-focused buyer, the conclusion is straightforward: the Aorus’s RTX 5090 badge does not create an obvious benchmark advantage over the Strix G16 in the games both have been measured in. The Strix G16 is ahead by 2fps on average across a larger shared set than most of the other rival comparisons. That is enough evidence to say that anyone considering the Aorus should look beyond the GPU name and examine the actual frame-rate results.

The price information is relevant only to the Aorus because the Strix G16 price is not confirmed. It would be wrong to make a direct price-performance claim without both prices. But the published GBP 6,007 figure makes the performance comparison more striking. The Strix G16 does not need a confirmed lower price to show that it is delivering very high performance; the shared benchmark result already establishes that.

Acer Predator Helios 18 AI

The Acer Predator Helios 18 AI is another RTX 5080 machine, with a confirmed UK price of GBP 3,103. Across seven shared games, the Strix G16 averages 2fps more. As with the Aorus result, this is a small edge rather than a major separation. It indicates that the Asus is at least competitive with the Acer in the games where direct comparison is possible.

The Helios is an 18in laptop by name, whereas the Strix G16 has a 16in display. The evidence does not support claiming that the smaller Asus is categorically better or more portable, because the Acer’s weight and dimensions are not supplied. What it does support is a narrower and more useful statement: the Strix G16 does not appear to sacrifice shared-game performance versus this larger RTX 5080 rival. It is ahead by 2fps across the available shared set.

Buyers who want the largest possible screen may still prefer an 18in design, but performance is not a reason to dismiss the Asus. The 175W RTX 5080 is clearly operating at a level that keeps it ahead of the Helios 18 AI in the published shared-game average.

Asus ROG Strix Scar 16

The ROG Strix Scar 16 is the closest higher-tier Asus comparison in the list. It uses an RTX 5090, and the Strix G16 averages 4fps less across nine shared games. The Scar is ahead, but the lead is restrained. In the context of a comparison between RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 configurations, a 4fps shared-game difference suggests that buyers should not assume the higher-tier GPU automatically creates a dramatic change in the published results.

There is no confirmed UK price for the Scar 16 in the supplied information, so the comparison should remain focused on performance. The Scar 16 has the edge, and that is the honest conclusion. But the G16 is close enough that the decision between them should not be made from GPU labels alone. A buyer who wants the strongest listed Asus result may prefer the Scar, while a buyer who sees the G16 configuration at an attractive confirmed price would have strong benchmark evidence that its performance is near the RTX 5090 model in the shared games.

Medion Erazer Major 16 X1

The Medion Erazer Major 16 X1 has an RTX 5070 Ti at 140W and a confirmed UK price of GBP 2,770. The Strix G16 averages 10fps more across seven shared games. This is the largest listed advantage for the Asus against the named rivals, and it gives the RTX 5080 configuration a clear performance argument over that particular RTX 5070 Ti system.

The difference is not a universal verdict on every RTX 5070 Ti laptop, because the information only covers this specific Medion configuration and the games shared with the Asus. It is nevertheless a concrete result. Buyers deciding between these two machines on frame-rate capability should regard the Strix G16 as the stronger option. The extra 10fps shared-game average is more substantial than the narrow margins seen against the RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 rivals.

The Medion’s GBP 2,770 price cannot be turned into a direct value comparison without a confirmed price for the Asus. What the benchmark evidence establishes is simpler: the Strix G16 provides higher shared-game performance than the Major 16 X1. If the buyer’s priority is extracting more frame rate rather than selecting around a known price point, the Asus has the advantage.

Who it’s for

The ROG Strix G16 is for the buyer who wants high-end gaming-laptop performance in a 16in format and understands what the benchmark figures actually show. It suits someone who wants an RTX 5080 with a 175W GPU power limit, 16GB of VRAM, a Core Ultra 9 275HX processor, 32GB of memory and a 1024GB SSD. It suits someone who values a 240Hz display because they play games such as Strange Brigade and F1 24 where the published figures exceed 240fps, or games such as Dota 2, Final Fantasy XV and Baldur’s Gate 3 where the results remain close to that level.

It also suits the buyer who wants a system capable of playing a broad spread of games without needing the same expectation from every title. The benchmark data is strong in Cyberpunk 2077 at 161fps and GTA V at 164fps. It remains respectable in Alan Wake 2 at 113fps, X-Plane 11 at 111fps and Doom: The Dark Ages at 96fps. A sensible enthusiast who is comfortable adjusting expectations according to the game will get the right kind of performance profile from this laptop.

It is a particularly good fit for someone considering larger high-end machines but reluctant to commit automatically to an 18in display. The Strix G16 matches the Medion Erazer Beast 18 X1 across eight shared games, leads the Acer Predator Helios 18 AI across seven shared games, and even leads the RTX 5090 Aorus MASTER 16 across 10 shared games. Those results do not make the Asus universally superior, but they do show that a buyer is not accepting a weak compromise merely by choosing the 16in format.

It is also for the buyer who cares about graphics memory capacity. The RTX 5080 has 16GB of VRAM in this configuration. The fact sheet does not provide VRAM-use measurements for the listed games, so it would be wrong to claim a specific benefit in any individual title. But the stated capacity is part of the high-end specification package and will matter to buyers who do not want to choose a machine with a smaller graphics-memory allocation.

The machine is not for the buyer who expects every game to run at 240fps simply because the screen refreshes at 240Hz. Notebookcheck’s 386fps and 318fps results show that the system can exceed that target in Strange Brigade and F1 24. The 96fps, 111fps and 113fps results show equally clearly that this is not the outcome in Doom: The Dark Ages, X-Plane 11 and Alan Wake 2 under the same stated benchmark conditions. Buyers who want a laptop defined by universal maximum-refresh gaming should look at the data rather than the display specification alone.

It is not for the buyer who wants proven native-resolution performance from the supplied benchmark table. The laptop’s screen is 2560x1600, but the measured figures are at 1920x1080. There is no published 2560x1600 result in the fact sheet. A buyer who insists on a native-resolution frame-rate target should seek measurements at that resolution rather than extrapolating from the available 1920x1080 results.

It is not for someone whose priority is low weight. At 2.606kg, the Strix G16 belongs in the category of substantial gaming laptops. That may be entirely acceptable for a buyer who usually uses it on a desk and only carries it occasionally. It is less appealing for someone who moves a laptop throughout every day and wants the smallest possible burden. The fact sheet offers no dimensions, charger weight or battery-life measurement to offset that concern with a more detailed portability case.

It is also not for a buyer who needs a purchase decision based entirely on confirmed UK pricing. The exact configuration does not have a confirmed UK price in the supplied information. The performance case is established by a complete benchmark suite and strong rival comparisons, but the buying case cannot be completed with a value judgement until the exact price is known.

For everyone else, the core appeal is clear. The Strix G16 is a high-performance 16in gaming laptop whose RTX 5080 at 175W produces frame rates that range from very strong to exceptional depending on the game. It can exceed its 240Hz display refresh rate in the right titles, it remains highly competitive in major games that fall short of that ceiling, and it stays credible in the most demanding titles listed even where it cannot make the panel’s maximum refresh rate realistic. Against the closest database rivals, it performs far better than its RTX 5080 label alone might lead some buyers to expect.

How it compares