Notebookcheck

Asus FX550IU (FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460) Laptop Review

Bristol Ridge swan song. What should be one of the last Bristol Ridge gaming notebooks of 2017 before the push for mobile Ryzen shows us why AMD notebooks have been such a failure. An old plastic chassis, cheap TN panel, and weak CPU performance don't do the Polaris GPU any favors.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

2017 is shaping up to be a memorable year for AMD. Ryzen has been well received by critics, Vega is a respectable mid-range alternative to Nvidia, and Ryzen-based laptops are well on the way. Nonetheless, the embarrassing shroud of painfully slow Bristol Ridge and Carrizo notebooks of the previous generation still looms near and such models continue to be in stock across major retailers.

One example model is the Asus FX550UI equipped with one of fastest mobile Bristol Ridge APUs available, the budget-mainstream Polaris Radeon RX 460 GPU, 8 GB of DDR4 RAM, a 128 GB SSD and 1 TB HDD, and a 1080p TN display for just under $700 USD. This particular notebook will likely be one of the last gaming notebooks powered by a 7th generation AMD APU before we begin seeing Ryzen notebooks on store shelves. Unfortunately, even the best that mobile Bristol Ridge has to offer still leads to an overall poor gaming experience. For this review, we will how the FX-9830P-powered Asus stacks up against modern budget gaming notebooks like the popular Inspiron 15 7567, Gigabyte Sabre 15, HP Pavilion 15, Acer Aspire V17, and Asus's own FX553VD

Asus FX550IU-WSFX (FX Series)
Processor
Graphics adapter
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop) - 4096 MB, Core: 1180 MHz, Memory: 1250 MHz, GDDR5, 21.19.128.4
Memory
8192 MB 
, 1200 MHz, 15-15-15-36, Dual-Channel, Soldered
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, ID: AUO38ED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, glossy: no
Mainboard
AMD CZ FCH
Storage
SK Hynix HFS128G32TND, 128 GB 
, Secondary: 1 TB Toshiba MQ01ABD100
Soundcard
AMD Kabini - High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 VGA, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo, Card Reader: SD reader
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (ac), Bluetooth 4.0
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 31.8 x 380 x 251 ( = 1.25 x 14.96 x 9.88 in)
Battery
44 Wh Lithium-Ion, removeable, 4-cell
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: no, AC adapter, Crimson, Asus Smart Gesture, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.45 kg ( = 86.42 oz / 5.4 pounds), Power Supply: 499 g ( = 17.6 oz / 1.1 pounds)
Price
700 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Chassis design is similar to the very old FX550DM that shipped with the Core i5-4200H CPU and GeForce GTX 850M GPU and is a predecessor to the more recent FX553VD with the i7-7700HQ CPU and GTX 1050 GPU. In other words, Asus has simply swapped out the Intel board for an AMD board on the aging FX550DM with seemingly no other external changes.

The system looks and feels outdated as a result. The matte plastic palm rests and bezels and super-glossy outer lid are similar in texture to the outdated Pavilion 15 and Pavilion 17 designs prior to the 2016 refresh. Surfaces are very prone to fingerprints and the outer lid in particular will easily scratch. The lid is susceptible to flexing and the palm rests and keyboard surfaces exhibit moderate warping when applying pressure with a finger. The hinges are otherwise with no teetering when typing and the the base is relatively resistant to side-to-side twisting, but there's no doubt that the hollow plasticky feel and slight creaking are indicative of a budget offering.

Construction quality is excellent as we can notice no gaps between materials or any defects on our unit. The most awkward design decision, however, is the removal of the optical drive found on the FX550DM with nothing to take its place. This leaves a significantly large empty space inside of the notebook that offers no features or benefits to the end-user whatsoever. In a notebook where every cubic millimeter can be considered valuable space, this is a rather huge letdown.

There is nothing particularly special about the size or dimensions of the system. Like most budget notebooks in its class, the FX550 makes no attempt at being the thinnest or lightest and thus weighs about the same as others at around 2.5 kg. Nonetheless, the Asus FX family is noticeably thicker than many modern gaming notebook designs at about 31 mm compared to 27 mm or less on the Sabre 15, Inspiron 15 7567, or Omen 15.

Glossy coating on the outer lid can be easily scratched
Glossy coating on the outer lid can be easily scratched
Matte plastic chassis feels cheap to the touch
Matte plastic chassis feels cheap to the touch

Connectivity

The selection of ports makes the FX550 feel like an antiquated piece of technology. Not only is there no USB Type-C, but a legacy VGA port is present. This would have made more sense for a core business notebook where integrated VGA may still be convenient, but from a gaming perspective, swapping out VGA for mDP, DP, or USB Type-C would have likely benefited more users.

Port positioning clearly favors right-handed users as most ports are located on the left edge. Expect ample desk space to be occupied by thick HDMI, Ethernet, and USB cables. The unused optical bay on the right edge is essentially wasted space.

Front: SD card reader
Front: SD card reader
Left: AC adapter, VGA-out, HDMI, Gigabit RJ-45, 2x USB 3.0, 3.5 mm headset
Left: AC adapter, VGA-out, HDMI, Gigabit RJ-45, 2x USB 3.0, 3.5 mm headset
Rear: Removable battery
Rear: Removable battery
Right: USB 2.0, Unused optical bay, Kensington Lock
Right: USB 2.0, Unused optical bay, Kensington Lock

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

SD Card Reader

A fully inserted SD card sits flush against the chassis, but access is made difficult
A fully inserted SD card sits flush against the chassis, but access is made difficult

The integrated spring-loaded card reader is slow at just 29 MB/s when using our Toshiba SDXC UHS-II test card. This isn't uncommon on budget gaming notebooks, but users who want a faster card reader capable of up to 86 MB/s may want to consider the Sabre 15 instead. Transferring 1 GB worth of photos from the SD card to desktop takes about 14 seconds.

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the card reader is its inconvenient location. The slot is tucked underneath the curved front edge of the notebook where it is impossible to reach without first lifting up the entire system or turning it upside down. It's an unnecessary nuisanace especially for those who intend to use the card reader frequently.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Asus G701VIK-BA049T
 
168 MB/s ∼100% +527%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
 
26.8 MB/s ∼16%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
 
22.2 MB/s ∼13% -17%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Asus G701VIK-BA049T
 
246 MB/s ∼100% +747%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
 
29.04 MB/s ∼12%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
 
27.2 MB/s ∼11% -6%

Communication

WLAN is provided by a Realtek 8821AE module with integrated Bluetooth 4.0. Connection is stable when paired to our Linksys EA8500 802.11ac network with an average real-world transfer rate of 343 Mbps. Higher-end notebooks with 2x2 WLAN cards are capable of over twice the transfer rates as our AMD Asus.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
648 MBit/s ∼100% +89%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
343 MBit/s ∼53%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
240 MBit/s ∼37% -30%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
529 MBit/s ∼100% +139%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
319 MBit/s ∼60% +44%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
221 MBit/s ∼42%

Accessories

There are no included extras outside of the AC adapter, warranty card, and user's guide. The manual is also available online through the manufacturer.

Maintenance

Serviceability is limited to one HDD bay and one DDR4 SODIMM slot via a small hatch on the bottom of the notebook. Removing the entire bottom panel is more difficult and is not detailed in the manual. This is unfortunate because the notebook houses 2x HDD bays and only one is easily accessible.

Warranty

The standard one-year limited manufacturer warranty applies. Resellers may offer additional coverage.

Input Devices

Keyboard

The non-backlit keyboard is mostly comfortable to use due to the firm feedback of the main QWERTY keys. A major drawback is that clatter is louder than on other Ultrabooks and gaming notebooks for a noisier typing experience. The NumPad keys are smaller than the main QWERTY keys and are noticeably softer in feedback since they sit directly above the hollow would-be optical bay. Perhaps a more inflexible chassis would have led to a more even feel across all keys.

No macro keys or dedicated keyboard software are included.

Touchpad

The integrated clickpad (10.5 x 7.5 cm) is slightly smaller than the clickpads on both the XPS 15 (10.5 x 8.5 cm) and Sabre 15 (10.2 x 5.8 cm). In practice, however, we find the surface area to be sufficient for simple scrolling and multi-touch inputs. Cursor control is smooth and reliable with no jittering even at slow speeds. Unfortunately, the firm texture-less plastic surface provides poor gliding for oily or sweaty fingers and feels low budget to the touch. Expect a sheen of grease to buildup over time. 

The integrated mouse keys are shallow in travel with loud and firm feedback when pressed. Pushing down on the trackpad requires quite a bit of force unless if the finger is along the very bottom edge of the surface. Thus, we find it much less tiring (and definitely quieter) to simply tap on the surface for inputting mouse clicks.

The Asus Smart Gesture software is able to recognize up to four-finger inputs with support for Mobile Control when connected to a smartphone.

The cheap plastic keys and trackpad clatter loudly when typing
The cheap plastic keys and trackpad clatter loudly when typing
Travel and feedback are otherwise firm. The NumPad keys, however, are smaller and softer than the main QWERTY keys
Travel and feedback are otherwise firm. The NumPad keys, however, are smaller and softer than the main QWERTY keys

Display

The Asus system is equipped with the same AU Optronics AUO38ED TN panel as found on a handful of other notebooks including the Dell Inspiron 7567, Acer Aspire E5-574, and Aspire E5-552. Unfortunately, this also means that contrast is average and overall quality is very poor. Colors appear bland and faded and the dim backlight is insufficient for comfortable use anywhere outside of an indoor office setting or classroom. On the bright side, the screen doesn't suffer from major graininess issues that can be common on matte panels. Users looking for brighter displays and lower black levels may want to consider the Sabre 15 or Omen 15.

TN backlight
TN backlight
RGB subpixel array (141 PPI)
RGB subpixel array (141 PPI)
230.1
cd/m²
226.4
cd/m²
232
cd/m²
205
cd/m²
231.9
cd/m²
212
cd/m²
207.8
cd/m²
221.2
cd/m²
218.8
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Basic Pro 2
Maximum: 232 cd/m² Average: 220.6 cd/m² Minimum: 10.84 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 231.9 cd/m²
Contrast: 515:1 (Black: 0.45 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 12 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 14 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
54.8% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 34.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.09
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
ID: AUO38ED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
CMN15E8 (N156HCE-EN1), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
AU Optronics AUO38ED B156HTN 28H80, TN, 15.6, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
ID: LGD0533, Name: LG Display LP156WF6-SPK3, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
AUO42ED, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
1%
-12%
12%
-13%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
39.2 (21.2, 18)
38.8 (20.4, 18.4)
1%
36 (17, 19)
8%
32 (16.4, 15.6)
18%
43.2 (21.2, 22)
-10%
Response Time Black / White *
27.2 (22.8, 4.4)
27.2 (14.8, 12.4)
-0%
36 (19, 17)
-32%
25.6 (15.6, 10)
6%
31.2 (16.4, 14.8)
-15%
PWM Frequency
25910 (20)
20000 (99)
Screen
58%
-3%
19%
58%
Brightness middle
231.9
335
44%
246
6%
248.4
7%
304
31%
Brightness
221
313
42%
235
6%
241
9%
289
31%
Brightness Distribution
88
83
-6%
75
-15%
84
-5%
86
-2%
Black Level *
0.45
0.27
40%
0.55
-22%
0.3
33%
0.26
42%
Contrast
515
1241
141%
447
-13%
828
61%
1169
127%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
12
4.7
61%
10.97
9%
7.5
37%
3.46
71%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
21.6
8.1
62%
25.2
-17%
7.72
64%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
14
5.8
59%
14.25
-2%
6.5
54%
2.46
82%
Gamma
2.09 105%
2.06 107%
1.83 120%
2.19 100%
2.38 92%
CCT
16348 40%
6518 100%
11200 58%
7852 83%
6915 94%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
34.8
58.7
69%
35
1%
37
6%
59
70%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
54.8
90.1
64%
55
0%
57.9
6%
91
66%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
30% / 48%
-8% / -5%
16% / 18%
23% / 46%

* ... smaller is better

Color coverage is poor at just 35 percent and 55 percent of the AdobeRGB and sRGB standards, respectively. Colors are not as deep or saturated when compared to the IPS panels found on most modern Ultrabooks. If a wider gamut is desired, then a budget gaming notebook like the FX550 is definitely not the right place to look.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. Zenbook UX550
vs. Zenbook UX550

Further measurements with an X-Rite spectrophotometer reveal very inaccurate colors and an overly cool color temperature. There is an obvious blue tint commonly observed on cheap budget notebooks. Our calibration efforts improve grayscale and colors dramatically and we highly recommend applying our ICM color profile in order to get the most out of the display. The muddy blacks and grays when gaming or during video playback are unfortunately unavoidable due to the average contrast.

Grayscale before calibration
Grayscale before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
27.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22.8 ms rise
↘ 4.4 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 57 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
39.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21.2 ms rise
↘ 18 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 42 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8773 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is poor because of the narrow TN viewing angles and dim backlight. Colors and texts appear washed out and difficult to comfortably see even when on the maximum brightness setting. The hinges allow for a wide lid angle of up to 160 degrees, but this pairs rather poorly with the aforementioned limited viewing angles.

Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Outdoors under sunlight
Narrow TN viewing angles
Narrow TN viewing angles

Performance

The stars of the show are the 3.0 GHz FX-9830P Bristol Ridge APU and Radeon RX 460 Polaris GPU. It's rare enough to find one of these in a notebook let alone both in the same shell. This particular APU operates in the 25 W to 45 W range to be in between the Intel ULV 15 W U-class and 45 W HQ-class of processors in terms of power consumption. Actual processing performance, however, is far closer to the Intel U-class rather than the HQ-class due in part to the higher power demands of the Radeon R7 GPU compared to the HD Graphics alternative. Users can switch to the integrated Radeon R7 GPU via Switchable Graphics with no Dual Graphics options present.

No other AMD SKUs are available on this particular chassis. We suspect that the market for AMD notebooks is so small compared to Intel that Asus saw no reason to offer multiple AMD FX550 builds.

Processor

CPU performance is comparable to the low-end Skylake Core i3-6100U and Kaby Lake Core i3-7100U found on some entry-level mainstream systems. When considering that this is the best quad-core Bristol Bridge has to offer for notebooks, overall processor performance is very poor for a budget gaming notebook. Single-core performance is especially poorer than expected as even an i5-7200U can outperform our Asus by about 30 percent according to CineBench R15. The FX-9830P is still faster than the abysmal A10-9620P and A12-9720P in all cases, but certainly not by as much as we were hoping.

CPU performance is steady as shown by our looping CineBench R15 Multi-Thread scores below. This doesn't mean that clock rates are perfectly flat, however, as our Stress Test section will detail. Clock rates fluctuate between 3.2 GHz and 3.5 GHz rapidly enough that performance can be considered smooth over time.

See our dedicated CPU page on the FX-9830P for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R15
CineBench R15
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
152 Points ∼71% +63%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
145 Points ∼68% +56%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
133 Points ∼62% +43%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
132 Points ∼62% +42%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
123 Points ∼58% +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
97 Points ∼46% +4%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
93 Points ∼44%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
86 Points ∼40% -8%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
72 Points ∼34% -23%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
69 Points ∼32% -26%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
738 Points ∼24% +145%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
543 Points ∼17% +80%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
538 (min: 467.61, max: 538.34) Points ∼17% +79%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
503 Points ∼16% +67%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
464 Points ∼15% +54%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
328 Points ∼11% +9%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
301 Points ∼10%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
256 Points ∼8% -15%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
247 Points ∼8% -18%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
230 Points ∼7% -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
229 Points ∼7% -24%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.73 Points ∼71% +57%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
1.6 Points ∼66% +45%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
1.51 Points ∼62% +37%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
1.49 Points ∼61% +35%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
1.45 Points ∼59% +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
1.1 Points ∼45% 0%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
1.1 Points ∼45%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
1.03 Points ∼42% -6%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
0.94 Points ∼39% -15%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
0.81 Points ∼33% -26%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.14 Points ∼30% +124%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
6.11 Points ∼23% +68%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
5.81 Points ∼21% +60%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
5.32 Points ∼20% +46%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
3.67 Points ∼14% +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
3.64 Points ∼13%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
2.85 Points ∼11% -22%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
2.75 Points ∼10% -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
2.7 Points ∼10% -26%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
2.66 Points ∼10% -27%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
5877 Points ∼54% +94%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
5545 Points ∼51% +83%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
4975 Points ∼46% +64%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
4920 Points ∼45% +62%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
4815 Points ∼44% +59%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
3871 Points ∼36% +28%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
3714 Points ∼34% +22%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
3033 Points ∼28%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
2640 Points ∼24% -13%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
2277 Points ∼21% -25%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
21824 Points ∼44% +122%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
17618 Points ∼35% +79%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
16456 Points ∼33% +68%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
14148 Points ∼28% +44%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
11373 Points ∼23% +16%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
9822 Points ∼20%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
8718 Points ∼18% -11%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
8413 Points ∼17% -14%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
7420 Points ∼15% -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
7200 Points ∼14% -27%
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
656.927 s * ∼8% -108%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
644.6 s * ∼8% -104%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
489.402 s * ∼6% -55%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
470.94 s * ∼6% -49%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
415.484 s * ∼5% -32%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
315.907 s * ∼4%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
314.7 s * ∼4% -0%
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
225.617 s * ∼3% +29%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - ---
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
977.05 Seconds * ∼4% -12%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
870.396 Seconds * ∼4%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
863.551 Seconds * ∼4% +1%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
837.557 Seconds * ∼4% +4%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
817.6 Seconds * ∼4% +6%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
627.687 Seconds * ∼3% +28%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
611 Seconds * ∼3% +30%
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
561.342 Seconds * ∼2% +36%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
6157
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
9822
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
3033
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
3.64 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
42.05 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.1 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
93 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
98 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
57.24 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
301 Points
Help

System Performance

PCMark consistently ranks our AMD Asus below other gaming notebooks equipped with GTX 1050 graphics. The differences in scores only grow larger when running the newer PCMark 10 benchmark. Subjectively, navigating through the operating system is smooth and without issues, but applications (and especially games) take noticeably longer to launch due to the weaker processing power.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5348 Points ∼82% +26%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
5068 Points ∼78% +19%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
5063 Points ∼78% +19%
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
5040 Points ∼77% +18%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
4260 Points ∼65%
Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4858 Points ∼80% +44%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
3850 Points ∼63% +14%
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
3832 Points ∼63% +13%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
3431 Points ∼56% +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
3384 Points ∼56%
PCMark 10
Essentials
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
8191 Points ∼77% +51%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
7542 Points ∼71% +39%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
5417 Points ∼51%
Score
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4861 Points ∼63% +87%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
4364 Points ∼56% +68%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
2603 Points ∼34%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3384 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
4640 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4260 points
Help

Storage Devices

Internal storage bays include 2x 2.5-inch SATA III of which one is easily accessible. Our specific unit ships with a primary 128 GB SK Hynix HFS128G32TND SSD and secondary 1 TB Toshiba MQ01ABD100 HDD. Transfer rates rates from the primary drive are below average even for a SATA III SSD. When compared to the Intel and Lite-On SSDs as found on the Dell Inspiron 7567 and Sabre 15 series, sequential write rates are very slow at just 120 MB/s. The secondary 5400 RPM Toshiba HDD also exhibits average transfer rates of just 87.6 MB/s compared to over 100 MB/s on faster 7200 RPM models. Unsurprisingly, costlier gaming notebooks with NVMe support will be several times faster than what our AMD Asus has to offer.

See our table of HDDs and SSDs for more benchmarks and comparisons.

AS SSD
AS SSD
CDM 5 (Primary SSD)
CDM 5 (Primary SSD)
CDM 5 (Secondary HDD)
CDM 5 (Secondary HDD)
HD Tune (Secondary HDD)
HD Tune (Secondary HDD)
PCMark 8 Storage
PCMark 8 Storage
 
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Liteonit CV3-8D128
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
Hynix HFS128G39TND
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
AS SSD
76%
79%
20%
247%
Copy Game MB/s
110.59
286.18
159%
323.54
193%
442.81
300%
Copy Program MB/s
70.78
224.01
216%
195.3
176%
326.34
361%
Copy ISO MB/s
150.75
425.43
182%
446.8
196%
1128.09
648%
Score Total
587
734
25%
752
28%
798
36%
1829
212%
Score Write
177
227
28%
234
32%
175
-1%
600
239%
Score Read
278
332
19%
337
21%
419
51%
849
205%
Access Time Write *
0.27
0.057
79%
0.073
73%
0.273
-1%
0.034
87%
Access Time Read *
0.145
0.094
35%
0.141
3%
0.119
18%
0.079
46%
4K-64 Write
114.47
118.34
3%
132.19
15%
97.01
-15%
428.18
274%
4K-64 Read
208.73
258.63
24%
257.03
23%
342.15
64%
628.03
201%
4K Write
50.56
66.58
32%
53.75
6%
65.47
29%
112.04
122%
4K Read
22.09
25.16
14%
28.3
28%
26.34
19%
35.84
62%
Seq Write
120.13
416.13
246%
479.79
299%
129.15
8%
601
400%
Seq Read
468.46
481.62
3%
515.92
10%
502.61
7%
1847.57
294%

* ... smaller is better

SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 522.6 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 128 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 176.1 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 128.3 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 516.7 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 128.1 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 31.13 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 78.3 MB/s

GPU Performance

According to 3DMark Fire Strike, the RX 460 in our Asus laptop is 11 percent slower than our reference RX 460 desktop setup. Much of the performance discrepancy can be attributed to the slower clock speed and memory speed on our mobile RX 460 when under load. While the mobile GPU is rated for 1180 MHz to be similar to the 1200 MHz RX 460 desktop, actual clock rates will fluctuate between 866 MHz and 1045 MHz on our Asus notebook.

Raw graphics performance from our mobile RX 460 sits comfortably between the Kepler GTX 960M and GTX 965M. In other words, AMD's budget Polaris 11 offering is roughly equivalent to Nvidia's mid-range offering from the last generation. When compared to the current Pascal lineup, however, the RX 460 is significantly behind in both performance and performance-per-Watt. The increasingly common GTX 1050 outperforms the RX 460 by about 20 to 25 percent.

See our review on the desktop RX 460 for more information on the Polaris series.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Ice Storm Unlimited
Ice Storm Unlimited
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Fire Strike Extreme
Fire Strike Extreme
Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike Ultra
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
12186 Points ∼30% +141%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
6166 Points ∼15% +22%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
5863 Points ∼14% +16%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
5701 Points ∼14% +13%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
5062 Points ∼12%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points ∼10% -18%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 7200U
3576 Points ∼9% -29%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
3574 Points ∼9% -29%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
1593 Points ∼4% -69%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
72213 Points ∼39% +131%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
39507 Points ∼21% +26%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
34892 Points ∼19% +11%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
34679 Points ∼19% +11%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
31294 Points ∼17%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
25986 Points ∼14% -17%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
22439 Points ∼12% -28%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 7200U
19333 Points ∼10% -38%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
8385 Points ∼5% -73%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
10801 Points ∼60% +294%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
8447 Points ∼47% +208%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
7182 Points ∼40% +162%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
6707 Points ∼37% +145%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points ∼25% +63%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 7200U
4156 Points ∼23% +52%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
4113 Points ∼23% +50%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
2742 Points ∼15%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
1770 Points ∼10% -35%
1280x720 Performance GPU
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
17919 Points ∼35% +130%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
8597 Points ∼17% +10%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
7903 Points ∼16% +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
7794 Points ∼15%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
7731 Points ∼15% -1%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points ∼9% -38%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 7200U
4575 Points ∼9% -41%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
4251 Points ∼8% -45%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
2230 Points ∼4% -71%
3DMark 11 Performance
5537 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
60282 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
9968 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
3962 points
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score
2148 points
Help

Gaming Performance

The gaming benchmarks below were performed with Radeon Crimson version 16.6 installed. Our attempts to update Crimson or the video drivers resulted in errors each and every time even after a fresh install or reset. While we didn't experience any game-ending issues at 1080p, the GPU was unable to output at 1366 x 768 resolution and we were thus unable to test gaming performance at 768p. Beyond these software issues, users can also expect excruciatingly long loading times since the processing power of the FX-9830P is embarrassingly slow.

In general, gaming performance is between that of the GTX 950M and GTX 960M. Most titles will be playable at the native 1080p resolution so long as other settings are tuned to low-medium. More CPU-intensive games like Ashes of the Singularity will suffer from extreme frame rate dips irregardless of the graphics settings. When compared to the desktop RX 460, the performance gap when gaming is wider than what the 3DMark benchmarks above would suggest due to the CPU bottleneck.

See our dedicated GPU page on the mobile RX 460 for more benchmark comparisons.

BioShock Infinite - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF)
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
61 fps ∼100% +47%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K, Intel SSD 530 Series SSDSC2BW240A
55.3 fps ∼91% +34%
Gigabyte P55K v5
GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U1T001122
52.4 fps ∼86% +27%
MSI GL72 6QF
GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ, Samsung SSD 950 Pro 256GB m.2 NVMe
49.9 fps ∼82% +21%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
41.4 fps ∼68%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U, Toshiba MQ01ABD100
35 fps ∼57% -15%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
GeForce MX150, 7200U, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
30.2 fps ∼50% -27%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
GeForce 940MX, 7500U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
13.5 fps ∼22% -67%
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017
Iris Plus Graphics 640, 7360U, Apple SSD AP0128
12.5 fps ∼20% -70%
Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
34.2 fps ∼100% +74%
Gigabyte P55K v5
GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U1T001122
28.3 fps ∼83% +44%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K, Intel SSD 530 Series SSDSC2BW240A
27.9 (min: 24, max: 31) fps ∼82% +42%
MSI GL72 6QF
GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ, Samsung SSD 950 Pro 256GB m.2 NVMe
25.6 fps ∼75% +30%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
19.7 fps ∼58%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
GeForce MX150, 7200U, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
17.2 fps ∼50% -13%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U, Toshiba MQ01ABD100
16.9 fps ∼49% -14%
low med. high ultra
StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013) 175.348.7fps
BioShock Infinite (2013) 9641.4fps
Metro: Last Light (2013) 42.629.5fps
Thief (2014) 24.7fps
The Witcher 3 (2015) 71.729.617.2fps
Batman: Arkham Knight (2015) 4335fps
Fallout 4 (2015) 55.432.327.7fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 61.528.419.7fps
Ashes of the Singularity (2016) 24.221fps
Overwatch (2016) 10079.743fps
Prey (2017) 57.549.236.430.3fps
Dirt 4 (2017) 95.460.739.622.4fps
F1 2017 (2017) 37272420fps

Stress Test

We stress the notebook with unrealistic benchmark loads to test for potential stability or throttling issues. When running Prime95 to stress the CPU, the FX-9830P can be observed alternating between 3.2 GHz and 3.5 GHz in quick succession compared to the base 3.0 GHz clock rate. It's strange that clock rate is not steady at some intermediate value like 3.3 GHz or 3.4 GHz instead of jumping between 3.2 GHz and 3.5 GHz, though this could be for performance reasons. Otherwise, core temperature remains relatively cool at a steady 66 C.

GPU stress with FurMark is less stable in terms of performance. Since the cooling solution is small and shared evenly across the CPU and discrete GPU, the CPU can reach temperatures warmer than 66 C at up to 85 C and will climb back and forth between the two temperatures. Meanwhile, GPU clock rates can range from 546 MHz to 866 MHz in response to the continuous rise and fall of the CPU temperature. GPU temperature is otherwise steady throughout the test. Having GPU performance tied down by CPU temperature is definitely not an ideal condition for a gaming notebook.

Maximum stress (Prime95 + FurMark) will heavily throttle both CPU and GPU clock rates. The CPU will alternate between 1.4 GHz and 3.5 GHz while the GPU can range from as low as 326 MHz up to 866 MHz. CPU and GPU temperatures remain steady at 77 C and 74 C, respectively.

Running Witcher 3 is more representative of real-world gaming loads. When under such conditions, the CPU can be observed maintaining a steady 3.5 GHz clock rate and 75 C core temperature. In contrast, the RX 460 will fluctuate between 866 MHz and 1045 MHz instead of holding steady at 1045 MHz or higher. Our graph below shows frame rates steadily falling over time from 35 FPS to around 29 FPS because the GPU is only able to maintain high clock rates of 1097 MHz for the first few minutes or so before reaching a slower steady state. GPU temperature remains acceptably cool at 74 C.

Running on battery power will throttle CPU and GPU performances. A 3DMark Fire Strike run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores of 2337 and 3895 points, respectively, compared to 3234 and 5062 points when on mains.

Prime95 stress
Prime95 stress
FurMark stress
FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Witcher 3 stress
Witcher 3 stress
01234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435Tooltip
The Witcher 3 high
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C) Average GPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress 3.2 - 3.5 -- 66 58
FurMark Stress -- 866 - 1045 66 - 85 74
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 1.4 - 3.5 326 - 866 77 74
Witcher 3 Stress 3.5 866 - 1045 75 74

Emissions

System Noise

The system fan is always active no matter the load. At its quietest, fan noise is barely audible at about 30 dB(A) and light tasks may bump this up to 33 dB(A). The fan is more likely to stabilize at 33 dB(A) if on the High Performance profile and so we recommend running on Power Saver if noise is a concern. Fortunately, fan RPM will not pulsate frequently during use.

Medium load with 3DMark06 will bump fan noise to a steady 41.6 dB(A) and gaming load will be even noisier at 43.7 dB(A). While still very load, the system is no louder than most notebooks with GTX 1050 graphics and is even quieter than the newer Asus FX553 or Sabre 15. Max-Q notebooks are both quieter and more powerful, but they currently retail for over twice the price of our FX550UI.

Asus FX550UI (White: Background, Red: System idle, Blue: 3DMark06, Orange: Witcher 3, Green: Prime95+FurMark)
Asus FX550UI (White: Background, Red: System idle, Blue: 3DMark06, Orange: Witcher 3, Green: Prime95+FurMark)
Dell XPS 15 9560
Dell XPS 15 9560
Lenovo Legion Y520
Lenovo Legion Y520

Noise Level

Idle
30.2 / 30.3 / 30.3 dB(A)
Load
41.6 / 45.3 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   BK Precision 732A (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 28.2 dB(A)
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
Noise
-5%
-10%
-6%
-8%
off / environment *
28.2
30.3
-7%
28.2
-0%
30
-6%
30.8
-9%
Idle Minimum *
30.2
30.9
-2%
33
-9%
30
1%
32.9
-9%
Idle Average *
30.3
30.9
-2%
33.3
-10%
33
-9%
32.9
-9%
Idle Maximum *
30.3
31
-2%
34.7
-15%
37
-22%
33.5
-11%
Load Average *
41.6
46.5
-12%
44.5
-7%
41
1%
43.7
-5%
Witcher 3 ultra *
43.7
49.2
-13%
42
4%
46.2
-6%
Load Maximum *
45.3
46.8
-3%
52.8
-17%
50
-10%
47
-4%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Surface temperature measurements reveal that the left half of the notebook will become warmer than the right half when under load conditions. This behavior is not unusual for notebooks with optical drives. Higher-end gaming notebooks tend to favor symmetrically arranged fans and heat pipes for more even temperature development. As shown by our temperature maps below, users can expect the center of the keyboard to be significantly warmer than the rest of the notebook during medium or higher loads at up to 47 C. At the very least, the palm rests and NumPad should never become uncomfortably warm.

Maximum load (top). Note the warm exhaust on the left edge
Maximum load (top). Note the warm exhaust on the left edge
Maximum load (bottom)
Maximum load (bottom)
Witcher 3 load (top)
Witcher 3 load (top)
Witcher 3 load (bottom)
Witcher 3 load (bottom)
Max. Load
 37.8 °C
100 F
41.2 °C
106 F
28.4 °C
83 F
 
 41.8 °C
107 F
46.2 °C
115 F
29.8 °C
86 F
 
 30.8 °C
87 F
35.8 °C
96 F
34 °C
93 F
 
Maximum: 46.2 °C = 115 F
Average: 36.2 °C = 97 F
27 °C
81 F
40.2 °C
104 F
51.2 °C
124 F
28.2 °C
83 F
42.6 °C
109 F
44 °C
111 F
32.6 °C
91 F
30 °C
86 F
27 °C
81 F
Maximum: 51.2 °C = 124 F
Average: 35.9 °C = 97 F
Power Supply (max.)  50 °C = 122 F | Room Temperature 23 °C = 73 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.2 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.2 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F, ranging from 21.6 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The maximum temperature on the bottom side is 51.2 °C / 124 F, compared to the average of 41.6 °C / 107 F, ranging from 21.1 to 78 °C for the class Gaming.
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.6 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.7 °C / 96 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 36.2 °C / 97.2 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.7 °C / 83.7 F (-7.5 °C / -13.5 F).

Speakers

Sound quality is not bad for a budget gaming notebook. There is an apparent lack of bass as expected from most notebooks without dedicated subwoofers and treble is overemphasized at higher volume settings. Other 15.6-inch notebooks like the XPS 15 or Legion Y520 have wider pink noise curves that extend to lower frequencies for better bass reproduction. We can otherwise observe no static or major chassis vibrations from audio playback. Headphones are still recommended when gaming due to the relatively loud fan noise.

Asus FX550UI (Red: System idle, Pink: Pink noise)
Asus FX550UI (Red: System idle, Pink: Pink noise)
Dell XPS 15 9560
Dell XPS 15 9560
Lenovo Legion Y520
Lenovo Legion Y520
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2040.736.82536.835.63134354032.334.35031.335.36332.434.28031.431.310031.430.212529.429.91602831.320027.938.825027.943.231527.445.740025.650.250025.753.463025.15580025.353.9100024.949.5125024.652.7160024.455.5200024.257.5250023.860.3315023.859.3400023.859.4500023.659.7630023.666.4800023.765.71000023.760.31250023.757.71600023.859.6SPL36.572.2N2.727.5median 24.6median 55Delta1.37.435.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus FX550IU-WSFXApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Asus FX550IU-WSFX audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (66.35 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 88% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 8% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 76% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 8%, average was 20%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 2% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency Comparison (Checkbox selectable!)
Graph 1: Pink Noise 100% Vol.; Graph 2: Audio off

Energy Management

Power Consumption

We've shown that the RX 460 in our Asus can be about 20 percent slower than the GTX 1050 in a competing notebook according to our above Fire Strike benchmarks. Will this translate to lower power consumption readings as well? Unfortunately for AMD, the answer is a resounding no. Our table below reveals a demand of 78 W and 112 W when running 3DMark06 and Witcher 3, respectively, whereas the more powerful 15.6-inch alternatives with Intel HQ-class CPUs and mainstream GTX 1050 options are about the same if not even more efficient than our AMD Asus when gaming. The last generation Zenbook UX510 with i7-6500U and GTX 960M graphics is more efficient still, albeit at the small cost of graphics performance.

Maximum load with both Prime95 and FurMark will draw about 117 W from a medium-sized power adapter (~16 x 7.6 x 2.6 cm) rated for 137 W. The power consumption difference when running Witcher 3 and Prime95+FurMark is very minimal, so expect fan noise and surface temperatures to be near maximum levels when gaming.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.233 / 0.437 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.9 / 8.8 / 9.7 Watt
Load midlight 78.1 / 117 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), SK Hynix HFS128G32TND, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 Gaming (Core i5-7300HQ, GTX 1050)
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Toshiba MQ02ABD100H, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Hynix HFS128G39TND, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
6500U, GeForce GTX 960M, SanDisk SD8SNAT256G1002, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Power Consumption
-13%
-56%
-101%
14%
9%
Idle Minimum *
5.9
9.1
-54%
14.6
-147%
18
-205%
4
32%
5
15%
Idle Average *
8.8
10.3
-17%
17.2
-95%
23
-161%
6.7
24%
8.9
-1%
Idle Maximum *
9.7
13
-34%
17.3
-78%
30
-209%
9.6
1%
11.8
-22%
Load Average *
78.1
75.6
3%
82.7
-6%
85
-9%
81
-4%
55
30%
Load Maximum *
117
115.2
2%
136.7
-17%
158
-35%
107
9%
93
21%
Witcher 3 ultra *
112.4
83.8
25%
107
5%
96
15%
90
20%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Removable battery design
Removable battery design

Runtimes from the removable 44 Wh battery are average at best for a gaming notebook at just four hours of constant WLAN use when on the Balanced profile setting. Battery capacity is smaller than most other mainstream 15.6-inch alternatives where 70 Wh or higher can be common. The more powerful Gigabyte Sabre 15 and Asus FX553VD have longer runtimes than our AMD-powered notebook despite having very similar battery capacities between them.

Charging from near empty to full capacity will take just over two hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
9h 05min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
4h 07min
Load (maximum brightness)
0h 53min
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), 44 Wh
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 73 Wh
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 74 Wh
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 47 Wh
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 70 Wh
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 48 Wh
Battery Runtime
81%
107%
14%
-7%
20%
Reader / Idle
545
1061
95%
1174
115%
493
-10%
256
-53%
587
8%
WiFi v1.3
247
535
117%
622
152%
261
6%
198
-20%
360
46%
Load
53
70
32%
81
53%
77
45%
80
51%
56
6%
Witcher 3 ultra
68

Pros

+ generally steady processor performance
+ accessible HDD slot and RAM slot
+ fast white-black response time
+ 2x storage bays; VGA-out
+ removable Li-Ion battery
+ relatively inexpensive
+ firm QWERTY keys

Cons

- very poor grayscale before calibration; dim backlight brightness
- poor TN panel; middling contrast ratio; narrow color gamut
- plastic chassis feels cheap; aging design
- unimpressive performance-per-Watt
- very slow processor performance
- slow SSD write performance
- unutilized empty optical bay
- warm keyboard under load
- unimpressive battery life
- difficult-to-reach SD slot
- no keyboard backlight
- software driver issues
- cheap glossy outer lid
- soft numpad keys
- loud key clatter

Verdict

In review: Asus FX550IU
In review: Asus FX550IU

The FX550UI suffers from a lot of the same issues as older AMD-based gaming notebooks. In this case, the slow-performing FX-9830P APU is a bottleneck to the otherwise decent RX 460 GPU and the performance-per-Watt of the system is far inferior to current Nvidia offerings. Power consumption is similar to competing notebooks with more powerful Intel HQ-class CPUs and GTX 1050 graphics. Thus, the FX550UI is not necessarily running any cooler, longer, or quieter than a current Intel/Nvidia alternative even though it is the weaker performer. 

The mismatched Bristol Ridge and Polaris 11 pairing isn't the only thing to blame. The fact that the FX550UI is a gutted version of the much older FX550DM makes the entire notebook feel like an afterthought. The empty optical bay is a waste of space and the TN display is subpar. AMD certainly deserves better hardware from Asus akin to the UX550 or ROG Strix G501 series. We're beginning to see bigger investments in AMD notebooks now that the GL702ZC is available and we're hoping that this will trickle down to future mainstream AMD offerings.

Price continues to be the biggest advantage of the FX550UI over Nvidia alternatives. At $700 USD, the Asus is about $200 to $300 cheaper than a Pavilion 15 or Sabre 15 with i7-7700HQ and GTX 1050 graphics. Those who choose to invest in a mainstream Nvidia system will see massive gains over the FX550UI, especially in CPU power.

It's tough to recommend the FX550UI due to the cheap plastic chassis, slow processor performance, and poor TN display. Gamers on very tight budgets are better off saving a couple hundred more for a newer GTX 1050 notebook or an older and less expensive GTX 965M notebook.

Asus FX550IU-WSFX - 09/16/2017 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
65 / 98 → 66%
Keyboard
68%
Pointing Device
78%
Connectivity
43 / 81 → 53%
Weight
60 / 10-66 → 89%
Battery
76%
Display
77%
Games Performance
77%
Application Performance
77%
Temperature
86 / 95 → 90%
Noise
85 / 90 → 94%
Audio
50%
Camera
34 / 85 → 40%
Average
67%
72%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 6 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Asus FX550IU (FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460) Laptop Review
Allen Ngo, 2017-09-17 (Update: 2017-09-19)
Allen Ngo
Allen Ngo - US Editor in Chief
After graduating with a B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics from the University of California, I studied reactor physics to become licensed by the U.S. NRC to operate nuclear reactors. There's a striking level of appreciation you gain for everyday consumer electronics after working with modern nuclear reactivity systems astonishingly powered by computers from the 80s. When I'm not managing day-to-day activities and US review articles on Notebookcheck, you can catch me following the eSports scene and the latest gaming news.