Notebookcheck

Asus TUF A15 with AMD Renoir and Nvidia Graphics in Review

Excellent value! With its latest TUF gaming laptops, Asus relies on AMD's brand-new Renoir SoC. A closer look at the performance results shows that combined with the Nvidia GPU this is a powerful gaming machine. In the following article we will determine whether our in-depth review of the Asus TUF A15 FA506 confirms this.
Sebastian Bade, 👁 Sebastian Jentsch, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Marius S.),

The Asus TUF Gaming A15 is an entry-level gaming laptop. The relatively low price of 1299 Euros (~$1469) also reflects this, particularly in light of the device's fast raw gaming performance. For its current generation, Asus relies on AMD's brand-new Renoir processors.

With eight physical cores, the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H is a solid foundation for modern games and video-editing. In conjunction with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060, the device does not struggle with the latest games at the native resolution. However, this already represents the highest-end GPU option for the Asus TUF A15 FA506. For more price-conscious buyers, alternative configurations with a GeForce GTX 1660 Ti or GeForce GTX 1650 Ti are also available.

We chose 15-inch laptops with similar specifications for comparison. They are listed in the following table.

Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
Processor
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H 8 x 2.9 - 4.2 GHz, Renoir (Zen 2)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile - 6144 MB, Core: 1005 - 1350 MHz, Memory: 5500 MHz, GDDR6, Nvidia 442.53
Memory
8192 MB 
, DDR4
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, LM156LF-2F01, IPS, glossy: no, 144 Hz
Mainboard
AMD Promontory/Bixby FCH
Storage
Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB, 512 GB 
, M.2 2280 SSD, 450 GB free
Soundcard
Realtek Audio
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 USB 3.1 Gen2, 1 Thunderbolt, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm audio jack
Networking
Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller (10/100/1000/2500/5000MBit/s), Realtek 8822CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 24.9 x 359 x 256 ( = 0.98 x 14.13 x 10.08 in)
Battery
48 Wh, 4110 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: 6-row chiclet, 230-watt AC adapter, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
2.175 kg ( = 76.72 oz / 4.8 pounds), Power Supply: 754 g ( = 26.6 oz / 1.66 pounds)
Price
1299 EUR
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Height
Size
Resolution
Best Price
83 %
06/2020
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
R7 4800H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
2.2 kg24.9 mm15.6"1920x1080
82 %
08/2019
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2.2 kg26 mm15.6"1920x1080
79 %
02/2020
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
R7 3750H, Radeon RX 5500M
2.3 kg27.5 mm15.6"1920x1080
81 %
10/2019
MSI GL65 9SEK
i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
2.3 kg27.5 mm15.6"1920x1080
82 %
07/2019
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
i5-9300H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
2.3 kg25 mm15.6"1920x1080
83 %
05/2019
Asus ROG GA502DU
R7 3750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
2.1 kg20.4 mm15.6"1920x1080

Case - Plastic Everywhere

Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172

The chassis of the Asus TUF A15 FA506 primarily consists of plastic. The color scheme is mostly black. The lid is adorned with a single red stripe. Additionally, the designers seem to have texturized the surface to enhance the appearance of the laptop. There are no metal surfaces, which likely stems from price constraints. The laptop still looks quite attractive and the rigidity of the base unit matches our expectations. Since the lid is somewhat flimsy, it can be twisted with little effort. The bezels on the sides are only 7 mm wide, making them very small. This reinforces the modern look, which Asus has successfully created regardless of the plastic construction.

The two hinges hold the display firmly in place. It is possible to open the display with one hand, and even though there is some teetering it is fairly minor.

Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172

All the devices in our comparison share the approximate same dimensions. This should not come as a big surprise, since we only included 15-inch devices. In terms of thickness, there is no clear winner, either. The laptops in our comparison do not differ too much from one another, and this also includes their weight. At 2.2 kg (~4.85 lbs), the Asus TUF A15 F506's weight is identical to that of the Lenovo Legion Y540. The AC adapter weighs an additional 754 g (~1.66 lbs).

Size Comparison

365 mm / 14.4 inch 260 mm / 10.2 inch 26 mm / 1.024 inch 2.2 kg4.85 lbs357.7 mm / 14.1 inch 248 mm / 9.76 inch 27.5 mm / 1.083 inch 2.3 kg5.04 lbs357.7 mm / 14.1 inch 248 mm / 9.76 inch 27.5 mm / 1.083 inch 2.3 kg5.07 lbs360 mm / 14.2 inch 263 mm / 10.4 inch 25 mm / 0.984 inch 2.3 kg5.11 lbs359 mm / 14.1 inch 256 mm / 10.1 inch 24.9 mm / 0.98 inch 2.2 kg4.8 lbs360 mm / 14.2 inch 252 mm / 9.92 inch 20.4 mm / 0.803 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs

Features - The Basics

The port selection of the Asus TUF A15 FA506 is relatively bare-bones, and the most important connectivity has been included. There are three USB Type-A ports in total. Since only two of them support USB 3.0 speeds, they are the preferred choice for external drives. By contrast, the single USB port on the right only supports USB 2.0, which makes it better suited to peripherals. Furthermore, there is LAN, HDMI, and a USB Type-C port that can be used to connect external displays. The port layout is asymmetrical. Almost all ports are located on the left. Since the spacing is sufficiently wide, cables will not block adjacent ports.

However, we regret the absence of an SD card reader. In our opinion, there is enough space available on the right for one.

Left: AC adapter, HDMI 2.0b, RJ45, 2x Type-A USB 3.2 (Gen 1), Type-C USB 3.2 (Gen 2) with display support DP1.4, combined audio jack
Left: AC adapter, HDMI 2.0b, RJ45, 2x Type-A USB 3.2 (Gen 1), Type-C USB 3.2 (Gen 2) with display support DP1.4, combined audio jack
Right: 1x Type-A USB 2.0, vents
Right: 1x Type-A USB 2.0, vents
Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Back: vents
Back: vents

Communication

Wi-Fi module
Wi-Fi module

For local networks, users have the choice between Wi-Fi and LAN. The Asus TUF A15 FA506 offers both. The user-replaceable Realtek Wi-Fi module is hidden directly below the internal M.2 SSD. In addition to Wi-Fi, it also provides Bluetooth 5.0 support. The results of our performance measurements put the Wi-Fi module on par with the Intel Wireless AC 9560 module. There were no noteworthy performance dips in terms of sending or receiving data.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Gaming
  (141 - 1670, n=359)
750 MBit/s ∼100% +19%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Realtek 8822CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
665 MBit/s ∼89% +6%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
646 MBit/s ∼86% +3%
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
637 MBit/s ∼85% +1%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
Realtek 8822CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
630 (571min - 641max) MBit/s ∼84%
Average Realtek 8822CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
  (486 - 685, n=18)
624 MBit/s ∼83% -1%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
619 MBit/s ∼83% -2%
Asus ROG GA502DU
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
332 MBit/s ∼44% -47%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Gaming
  (144 - 1645, n=359)
690 MBit/s ∼100% +4%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
680 MBit/s ∼99% +3%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
Realtek 8822CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
662 (553min - 769max) MBit/s ∼96%
Average Realtek 8822CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
  (588 - 690, n=18)
647 MBit/s ∼94% -2%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Realtek 8822CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
634 MBit/s ∼92% -4%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
630 MBit/s ∼91% -5%
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
355 MBit/s ∼51% -46%
Asus ROG GA502DU
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
252 MBit/s ∼37% -62%
050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø629 (571-641)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø661 (553-769)

Webcam

The installed webcam (0.9 MP) has a maximum resolution of 1280x720 pixels. The resulting pictures look somewhat washed-out and slightly blurry. Unfortunately, the color deviation of 13.44 is far too high. Unfortunately, the webcam misses the ideal DeltaE of less than 3 by a large margin.

ColorChecker
14.8 ∆E
12.7 ∆E
18.3 ∆E
15.8 ∆E
17.6 ∆E
14.6 ∆E
12.4 ∆E
24.2 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
13.5 ∆E
11.9 ∆E
15.1 ∆E
14.1 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
15.9 ∆E
18.8 ∆E
2.3 ∆E
12 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
14.5 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172: 13.44 ∆E min: 2.33 - max: 24.17 ∆E

Accessories

Apart from the laptop itself, the package of the Asus TUF A15 FA506 includes a 230-Watt AC adapter and the usual paperwork. Additionally, there is a cable for installing a 2.5-inch drive.

Maintenance

Performing maintenance on the Asus TUF A15 FA506 is fairly simple. Note: In order to safely remove the bottom plate without permanent scratches, it should be disconnected from the base unit with a special tool. On the inside, all of the internal components are easy to reach. For example, the RAM can be swapped or expanded. Similarly, the storage drives can be upgraded without any issues. In our case, there is space for a secondary M.2 SSD and a 2.5-inch drive. Ideally, we would have liked to see one or two small maintenance hatches to make this process even easier.

Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172 without bottom plate
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172 without bottom plate

Warranty

Asus offers buyers of the TUF A15 FA506 a two-year warranty - including pick-up and delivery service.

Input Devices

Keyboard

Keyboard
Keyboard
Keyboard (backlit)
Keyboard (backlit)

Asus has equipped the TUF A15 FA506 with a 6-row chiclet keyboard that comes with RGB lighting. As with the base unit and the majority of the chassis, almost all the keys are black. Only the WASD keys are visually distinct and further highlighted by the RGB backlighting. The keys offer shallow travel and a distinct actuation point. However, they cannot be pressed down linearly. The manufacturer has omitted noticeable dampening, in order to prevent a spongy typing experience. The keyboard is good overall, although the arrow keys could have been slightly larger.

Touchpad

Touchpad
Touchpad

With a surface area of 10.8 x 5.9 centimeters (~4.25 x 2.32 in), the touchpad is sufficiently large enough for occasional use. Unfortunately, some areas in the corners of the touchpad can respond somewhat imprecisely. Regardless, accurately controlling the cursor did not prove to be an issue. Additionally, multi-touch gestures were recognized and executed. Unlike with ClickPads, the bottom area of the touchpad contains two buttons that are separate from the input area. Their fairly deep travel is the only feedback they provide. There is no distinct acoustic feedback.

Display - 144 Hz and No PWM

Subpixel array, Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Subpixel array, Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Slight backlight bleeding on the top edge of the screen
Slight backlight bleeding on the top edge of the screen

Asus has equipped our test device with a matte 15.6-inch Full HD IPS panel that supports a refresh rate of 144 Hz. The display resolution of 1920x1080 pixels amounts to a pixel density of 141 PPI. Alternatively, a 60-Hz version of the IPS panel is also available.

We observed an average display brightness of 254 cd/m². With 88%, the display's illumination is good and there are no noticeable halos. The installed panel has a black value of 0.15, which is very low for an excellent contrast ratio of 1867:1. No other device in our comparison even comes close to this result.

Thankfully, users of the Asus TUF A15 FA506 should not experience PWM-related eyestrain. PWM is not used to control the display's brightness. The only issue we encountered on our test device was slight backlight bleeding. In our case, it manifests on the top of the screen.

252
cd/m²
247
cd/m²
251
cd/m²
253
cd/m²
280
cd/m²
246
cd/m²
249
cd/m²
260
cd/m²
251
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
LM156LF-2F01
Xrite i1 Pro
Maximum: 280 cd/m² Average: 254.3 cd/m² Minimum: 12 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 280 cd/m²
Contrast: 1867:1 (Black: 0.15 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.89 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8, calibrated: 4.79
ΔE Greyscale 4.08 | 0.64-98 Ø6
58% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 37% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.33
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
LM156LF-2F01, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
BOE 084D, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AU Optronics B156HAN08.0 (AUO80ED), IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI GL65 9SEK
AU Optronics B156HAN13.0, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
LGD05CE, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus ROG GA502DU
Panda LM156LF-CL03, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Response Times
62%
68%
-2%
-21%
-9%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
34 (16, 18)
8.8 (4, 4.4)
74%
7 (3.4, 3.6)
79%
26.4 (13.2, 13.2)
22%
40 (21.2, 18.8)
-18%
34 (17.2, 16.8)
-0%
Response Time Black / White *
24 (13, 11)
12 (6.8, 5.2)
50%
10.4 (5.2, 5.2)
57%
30 (17.6, 12.4)
-25%
29.6 (17.2, 12.4)
-23%
28 (17.2, 10.8)
-17%
PWM Frequency
21280 (34)
Screen
15%
11%
-4%
-7%
-11%
Brightness middle
280
299
7%
310
11%
277.3
-1%
251
-10%
240.1
-14%
Brightness
254
290
14%
310
22%
256
1%
232
-9%
231
-9%
Brightness Distribution
88
89
1%
86
-2%
86
-2%
76
-14%
85
-3%
Black Level *
0.15
0.29
-93%
0.29
-93%
0.2
-33%
0.17
-13%
0.34
-127%
Contrast
1867
1031
-45%
1069
-43%
1387
-26%
1476
-21%
706
-62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.89
3.7
37%
4.78
19%
5.25
11%
6.2
-5%
4.2
29%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
19
7
63%
8.1
57%
19.43
-2%
18.6
2%
17.8
6%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.79
2
58%
2.36
51%
4.39
8%
4.8
-0%
4.09
15%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.08
4.1
-0%
4.78
-17%
3.5
14%
4.2
-3%
2.8
31%
Gamma
2.33 94%
2.19 100%
2.43 91%
2.1 105%
2.32 95%
2.2 100%
CCT
7303 89%
7166 91%
7739 84%
6895 94%
7454 87%
6925 94%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
37
59.3
60%
59
59%
35
-5%
36.5
-1%
38.4
4%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
58
91.5
58%
91
57%
55
-5%
57.4
-1%
60.4
4%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
39% / 22%
40% / 20%
-3% / -3%
-14% / -9%
-10% / -11%

* ... smaller is better

Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172 vs. sRGB (58%)
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172 vs. sRGB (58%)
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172 vs. AdobeRGB (37%)
Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172 vs. AdobeRGB (37%)

The display's quality is decent overall. Relative to the laptop's price class and intended purpose, the installed panel offers a good visual experience. There is still room for improvement, since the panel suffers from slightly increased grayscale and color DeltaE-2000 values ex-factory with the sRGB color space as a reference. Here, the Lenovo Legion Y540 and the MSI Alpha 15 achieve better results. Our calibration attempt significantly improves the grayscale (1.49). Regrettably, the colors were barely improved. As such, the device is a relatively poor choice for professional video and photo-editing.

CalMAN: Grayscale
CalMAN: Grayscale
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: ColorChecker
CalMAN: Saturation sweeps
CalMAN: Saturation sweeps
CalMAN: Grayscale (calibrated)
CalMAN: Grayscale (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)
CalMAN: ColorChecker (calibrated)
CalMAN: Saturation sweeps (calibrated)
CalMAN: Saturation sweeps (calibrated)

The matte layer prevents distracting reflections, which often occur during outdoor use. We still recommend working in the shade whenever possible. A look at the viewing angles shows a result that is typical for IPS panels. There are no significant color distortions at any of the angles we tested.

Asus TUF FA506IV in the sunshine
Asus TUF FA506IV in the sunshine
Asus TUF FA506IV under shade
Asus TUF FA506IV under shade
Asus TUF FA506IV viewing angles
Asus TUF FA506IV viewing angles

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
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 13 ms rise
↘ 11 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 36 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 16 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 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 27 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.7 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9588 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Performance

Based on the latest AMD Renoir SoCs, the Asus TUF A15 FA506, which features an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060, achieves a respectable level of gaming performance. A total of eight cores are nice to have and hold the promise of being somewhat future-proof. Conversely, our device is equipped with just 8 GB of RAM, which is not a lot for today's standards. Modern games are still playable on this setup and the RAM can easily be upgraded without any issues.

CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
CPU-Z
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
GPU-Z
HWiNFO
 

Processor

AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H

The AMD Ryzen 7 4800H is an octa-core CPU and a direct competitor of Intel's 10th generation Comet Lake-H SoCs. The latest Renoir AMD SoC performs particularly well in multithreaded workloads. Compared to the 3000 series, the single-core performance of the AMD chip has been improved dramatically as well, which puts the Ryzen 7 4800H on par with an Intel Core i7-9750H.

During the Cinebench R15 multithread loop test, we did not observe a performance drop-off after stressing the CPU for a prolonged period of time. All the scores range from 1850 to 1601, which results in a fair average score of 1753 points.

More comparisons and benchmarks can be found in our CPU table.

Cinebench R20: CPU (Single Core) | CPU (Multi Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Single 64Bit | CPU Multi 64Bit
Blender 2.79: BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 -mmt1 | 7z b 4
Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2: 64 Bit Single-Core Score | 64 Bit Multi-Core Score
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core) - CPU (Single Core)
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (456 - 511, n=21)
486 Points ∼100% 0%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
485 Points ∼100%
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H
465 Points ∼96% -4%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
458 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Gaming
  (312 - 569, n=135)
451 Points ∼93% -7%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
419 Points ∼86% -14%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
352 Points ∼72% -27%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
340 Points ∼70% -30%
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core) - CPU (Multi Core)
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
4257 Points ∼100%
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (2800 - 4133, n=21)
3469 Points ∼81% -19%
Average of class Gaming
  (1397 - 6321, n=136)
2987 Points ∼70% -30%
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H
2785 Points ∼65% -35%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
2595 Points ∼61% -39%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
1825 Points ∼43% -57%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
1723 Points ∼40% -60%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
1633 Points ∼38% -62%
Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit - CPU Single 64Bit
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (190 - 214, n=26)
203 Points ∼100% +9%
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H
188 Points ∼93% +1%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
187 Points ∼92% +1%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
186 Points ∼92%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
171 Points ∼84% -8%
Average of class Gaming
  (77 - 219, n=624)
162 Points ∼80% -13%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
144 Points ∼71% -23%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
143 Points ∼70% -23%
Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit - CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
1850 Points ∼100%
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (1111 - 1833, n=26)
1580 Points ∼85% -15%
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H
1281 Points ∼69% -31%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
1155 (899.54min - 1211.72max) Points ∼62% -38%
Average of class Gaming
  (196 - 2804, n=629)
925 Points ∼50% -50%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
805 Points ∼44% -56%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
769 Points ∼42% -58%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
734 Points ∼40% -60%
Blender 2.79 / BMW27 CPU - BMW27 CPU
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
643 Seconds * ∼100% -145%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
584.19 Seconds * ∼91% -123%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
410 Seconds * ∼64% -56%
Average of class Gaming
  (179 - 901, n=89)
388 Seconds * ∼60% -48%
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (261 - 386, n=19)
323 Seconds * ∼50% -23%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
262.5 Seconds * ∼41%
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1 - 7z b 4 -mmt1
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (5114 - 5605, n=20)
5332 MIPS ∼100% +14%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
4962 MIPS ∼93% +6%
Average of class Gaming
  (2480 - 5811, n=90)
4892 MIPS ∼92% +5%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
4666 MIPS ∼88%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
4626 MIPS ∼87% -1%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
3511 MIPS ∼66% -25%
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 - 7z b 4
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
45679 MIPS ∼100%
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (33674 - 48397, n=20)
42504 MIPS ∼93% -7%
Average of class Gaming
  (3034 - 75612, n=90)
36868 MIPS ∼81% -19%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
34458 MIPS ∼75% -25%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
20736 MIPS ∼45% -55%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
18689 MIPS ∼41% -59%
Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2 / 64 Bit Single-Core Score - 64 Bit Single-Core Score
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (1233 - 1371, n=18)
1298 Points ∼100% +11%
Average of class Gaming
  (703 - 1551, n=72)
1221 Points ∼94% +5%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
1166 Points ∼90%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
874 Points ∼67% -25%
Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2 / 64 Bit Multi-Core Score - 64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (6988 - 8620, n=18)
7751 Points ∼100% +31%
Average of class Gaming
  (2783 - 11393, n=72)
6560 Points ∼85% +11%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
5920 Points ∼76%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
3537 Points ∼46% -40%
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset - 4k Preset
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (10.1 - 13.5, n=16)
11.6 fps ∼100% +7%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
10.8 fps ∼93%
Average of class Gaming
  (1.7 - 19.8, n=88)
10.1 fps ∼87% -6%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H
9.2 fps ∼79% -15%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
5.7 fps ∼49% -47%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
4.352 fps ∼38% -60%
LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF - 20 Documents To PDF
Average of class Gaming
  (23.9 - 95.8, n=65)
56.7 s ∼100% +98%
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (30.2 - 84.3, n=19)
50.8 s ∼90% +78%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
28.6 s ∼50%
R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean - Overall mean
Average of class Gaming
  (0.531 - 1.088, n=69)
0.618 sec * ∼100% -2%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
0.603 sec * ∼98%
Average Intel Core i7-10875H
  (0.547 - 0.662, n=18)
0.584 sec * ∼94% +3%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R15 Multi-Thread Loop

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890900910920930940950960970980990100010101020103010401050106010701080109011001110112011301140115011601170118011901200121012201230124012501260127012801290130013101320133013401350136013701380139014001410142014301440145014601470148014901500151015201530154015501560157015801590160016101620163016401650166016701680169017001710172017301740175017601770178017901800181018201830184018501860Tooltip
: Ø1753 (1601.6-1850.14)
Cinebench R10
Cinebench R10
Cinebench R11
Cinebench R11
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R20
Cinebench R20
Jetstream 1.1
Jetstream 1.1
Octane V2
Octane V2
Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
10064
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
9712 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
61208 Points
Cinebench R10 Shading 64Bit
10190 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
5643
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
37236
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 32Bit
19.85 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 32Bit
71.68 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
2.16 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
21.1 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
69.64 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 32Bit
2.04 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
186 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
99.24 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
1850 Points
Help

System Performance

The PCMark 10 benchmark results are slightly worse than those of other devices equipped with the same CPU. During our testing, we did not encounter any software or hardware issues. The system always remained smooth and responsive.

PCMark 10
Digital Content Creation
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G
7564 Points ∼100% +33%
MSI GL65 9SEK
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
7104 Points ∼94% +25%
Average AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (5695 - 6808, n=5)
6491 Points ∼86% +14%
Average of class Gaming
  (1764 - 11829, n=302)
6454 Points ∼85% +13%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
5695 Points ∼75%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ
5344 Points ∼71% -6%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G
5044 Points ∼67% -11%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, R7 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4682 Points ∼62% -18%
Productivity
MSI GL65 9SEK
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
7748 Points ∼100% +8%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G
7430 Points ∼96% +4%
Average of class Gaming
  (4175 - 9077, n=303)
7337 Points ∼95% +3%
Average AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (7122 - 7586, n=5)
7278 Points ∼94% +2%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G
7261 Points ∼94% +1%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
7156 Points ∼92%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, R7 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
6305 Points ∼81% -12%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ
6067 Points ∼78% -15%
Essentials
MSI GL65 9SEK
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
9431 Points ∼100% +7%
Average AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (8806 - 9784, n=5)
9355 Points ∼99% +6%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G
9020 Points ∼96% +2%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
8806 Points ∼93%
Average of class Gaming
  (4892 - 11266, n=304)
8776 Points ∼93% 0%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G
8575 Points ∼91% -3%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ
8174 Points ∼87% -7%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, R7 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
7424 Points ∼79% -16%
Score
MSI GL65 9SEK
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5761 Points ∼100% +13%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G
5716 Points ∼99% +12%
Average AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (5095 - 5706, n=5)
5459 Points ∼95% +7%
Average of class Gaming
  (2603 - 7511, n=306)
5329 Points ∼93% +5%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
5095 Points ∼88%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G
4873 Points ∼85% -4%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ
4605 Points ∼80% -10%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, R7 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4322 Points ∼75% -15%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Average AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (5742 - 5983, n=4)
5867 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
5773 Points ∼98%
MSI GL65 9SEK
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5287 Points ∼90% -8%
Average of class Gaming
  (2484 - 6825, n=459)
5121 Points ∼87% -11%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G
5107 Points ∼87% -12%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ
5045 Points ∼86% -13%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G
5041 Points ∼86% -13%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, R7 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4956 Points ∼84% -14%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Average AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (4698 - 5197, n=4)
4912 Points ∼100% +5%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
4698 Points ∼96%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G
4507 Points ∼92% -4%
Average of class Gaming
  (2554 - 6093, n=476)
4291 Points ∼87% -9%
MSI GL65 9SEK
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, i7-9750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4136 Points ∼84% -12%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Radeon RX 5500M, R7 3750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ
4121 Points ∼84% -12%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G
3691 Points ∼75% -21%
Asus ROG GA502DU
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, R7 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
3642 Points ∼74% -22%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4698 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
7841 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5773 points
PCMark 10 Score
5095 points
Help

DPC Latencies

According to LatencyMon, the DPC latencies do not reach critical levels when opening multiple browser tabs in Edge, and regardless of 81% GPU usage there are no problems with 4K video playback. LatencyMon only starts to report issues with real-time audio and video playback when running Prime95 with large FFTs.

DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
797.4 μs * ∼100%

* ... smaller is better

Storage Solution

Asus has installed a fast Kingston NVMe SSD inside the TUF A15 FA506. It offers 512 GB of storage space and uses the M.2-PCIe interface for data transfer. In our tests, it achieves good transfer rates when reading and writing data. Its 4K read performance of just above 60 MB/s is exceptional and thus noteworthy. The TUF A15 FA506 can be fitted with a total of three mass-storage devices. There is a secondary M.2 slot and a 2.5-inch drive bay. The cables required to connect the 2.5-inch drive to the motherboard are included.

More comparisons and benchmarks can be found in our comparison table.

AS SSD
AS SSD
CDM 3
CDM 3
CDM 5
CDM 5
CDM 6
CDM 6
CDI
CDI
512-GB M.2 SSD
512-GB M.2 SSD
Unoccupied M.2 slot and 2.5-inch drive bay
Unoccupied M.2 slot and 2.5-inch drive bay
 
 
 
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ
MSI GL65 9SEK
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G
Asus ROG GA502DU
Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
Average Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
 
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6
30%
-20%
10%
35%
-17%
0%
Write 4K
219.8
158.8
-28%
105.4
-52%
150.2
-32%
112.1
-49%
132.2
-40%
220
0%
Read 4K
50.16
29.11
-42%
33.24
-34%
43.46
-13%
42.01
-16%
55.5
11%
50.2
0%
Write Seq
978.7
1584
62%
1029
5%
1412
44%
1964
101%
986.2
1%
979
0%
Read Seq
1990
1694
-15%
1098
-45%
1340
-33%
2065
4%
1318
-34%
1990
0%
Write 4K Q32T1
515.8
535.7
4%
322.1
-38%
482.2
-7%
318.2
-38%
220.3
-57%
516
0%
Read 4K Q32T1
298.3
363.9
22%
352
18%
534.6
79%
406.7
36%
315.5
6%
298
0%
Write Seq Q32T1
981.7
2536
158%
1036
6%
1454
48%
2534
158%
986.6
0%
982
0%
Read Seq Q32T1
1907.2
3458
81%
1606
-16%
1744
-9%
3438
80%
1416
-26%
1907
0%
Write 4K Q8T8
980.5
981
0%
Read 4K Q8T8
300.9
301
0%
AS SSD
63%
-9%
10%
66%
-10%
0%
Copy Game MB/s
534.73
483.58
-10%
1217.53
128%
907.05
70%
818.54
53%
535
0%
Copy Program MB/s
248.35
252.67
2%
889.12
258%
392.55
58%
496.94
100%
248
0%
Copy ISO MB/s
674.64
1043.29
55%
1278.63
90%
1417.66
110%
905.3
34%
675
0%
Score Total
2143
4208
96%
2365
10%
2485
16%
4323
102%
1641
-23%
2143
0%
Score Write
1101
1794
63%
885
-20%
976
-11%
1901
73%
927
-16%
1101
0%
Score Read
701
1621
131%
991
41%
996
42%
1619
131%
459
-35%
701
0%
Access Time Write *
0.02
0.026
-30%
0.047
-135%
0.091
-355%
0.032
-60%
0.045
-125%
0.02
-0%
Access Time Read *
0.087
0.065
25%
0.1
-15%
0.116
-33%
0.084
3%
0.064
26%
0.087
-0%
4K-64 Write
845.47
1432.15
69%
708.26
-16%
720.16
-15%
1538.26
82%
735.67
-13%
845
0%
4K-64 Read
472.49
1285.67
172%
815.95
73%
838.68
78%
1282.6
171%
321.47
-32%
472
0%
4K Write
164.78
147.12
-11%
80.65
-51%
118.19
-28%
118.58
-28%
98.74
-40%
165
0%
4K Read
60.21
42.43
-30%
33.2
-45%
25.31
-58%
40.56
-33%
47.26
-22%
60.2
0%
Seq Write
904
2148.72
138%
958.11
6%
1378.16
52%
2439.74
170%
926.26
2%
904
0%
Seq Read
1682
2927.09
74%
1422.58
-15%
1315.25
-22%
2955.46
76%
906.87
-46%
1682
0%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
47% / 49%
-15% / -13%
10% / 10%
51% / 55%
-14% / -13%
0% / 0%

* ... smaller is better

Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB
Sequential Read: 1136 MB/s
Sequential Write: 979.4 MB/s
512K Read: 892.4 MB/s
512K Write: 977.5 MB/s
4K Read: 38.53 MB/s
4K Write: 121.2 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 297.9 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 495.7 MB/s

Continuous read performance: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260Tooltip
: Ø255 (246.21-255.55)

GPU Performance

Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060

The Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 model represents the highest-end GPU configuration of the TUF A15 F506 that Asus is currently offering. In synthetic benchmarks, the results of our test device and the MSI GL65 are neck-and-neck. In order to access the full performance of the GeForce RTX 2060, users will have to connect their AC adapter. In battery mode, the performance is fairly heavily throttled.

During 2D use, AMD's Radeon Vega is responsible for video output, which improves the battery life due to the iGPU's lower energy consumption.

More comparisons and benchmarks can be found in our GPU table.

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
21480 Points ∼100%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (19143 - 24662, n=35)
21373 Points ∼100% 0%
MSI GL65 9SEK
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-9750H
21075 Points ∼98% -2%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-9750H
19553 Points ∼91% -9%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
17170 Points ∼80% -20%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
16335 Points ∼76% -24%
Average of class Gaming
  (513 - 50983, n=722)
14820 Points ∼69% -31%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H
13447 Points ∼63% -37%
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (5660 - 6910, n=36)
6213 Points ∼100% +3%
MSI GL65 9SEK
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-9750H
6159 Points ∼99% +2%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
6043 Points ∼97%
Average of class Gaming
  (368 - 13013, n=258)
6024 Points ∼97% 0%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
4867 Points ∼78% -19%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
4298 Points ∼69% -29%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H
3565 Points ∼57% -41%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
MSI GL65 9SEK
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-9750H
16331 Points ∼100% +2%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (14768 - 18358, n=38)
16273 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
15967 Points ∼98%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-9750H
14288 Points ∼87% -11%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
13355 Points ∼82% -16%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
12441 Points ∼76% -22%
Average of class Gaming
  (385 - 40636, n=643)
12284 Points ∼75% -23%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H
9536 Points ∼58% -40%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
MSI GL65 9SEK
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-9750H
107016 Points ∼100% +93%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (55324 - 116593, n=33)
94342 Points ∼88% +71%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-9750H
92951 Points ∼87% +68%
Average of class Gaming
  (5761 - 184578, n=617)
71971 Points ∼67% +30%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H
57365 Points ∼54% +4%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 7 4800H
55325 Points ∼52%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Radeon RX 5500M, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
46119 Points ∼43% -17%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
44557 Points ∼42% -19%
3DMark 11 Performance
17390 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
72466 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
34649 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
14757 points
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score
7382 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
6256 points
Help

Gaming Performance

The Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 combined with the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H reaches good frame rates. Even more-demanding modern games can be played smoothly at the native resolution with maximum details. Here, our test device has to compete with the MSI GL65 once more, although both devices tend to perform about the same as the resolution and quality settings increase.

The Witcher 3
1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (50.6 - 74, n=36)
60.9 fps ∼100% +1%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
60.5 (51min - 68max) fps ∼99%
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
58.7 fps ∼96% -3%
Average of class Gaming
  (12.6 - 115, n=417)
53.9 fps ∼89% -11%
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
53.1 (50min, 51P1 - 58max) fps ∼87% -12%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
48.8 fps ∼80% -19%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
44.7 fps ∼73% -26%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
37 fps ∼61% -39%
1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off)
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
117.5 fps ∼100% +12%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (74.4 - 131, n=30)
112 fps ∼95% +7%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
105 (90min - 115max) fps ∼89%
Average of class Gaming
  (11.1 - 223, n=351)
94.8 fps ∼81% -10%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
83.9 fps ∼71% -20%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
73.3 fps ∼62% -30%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
62.2 fps ∼53% -41%
1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
204 fps ∼100% +28%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (158 - 215, n=22)
187 fps ∼92% +17%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
160 (142min - 179max) fps ∼78%
Average of class Gaming
  (20.9 - 332, n=224)
156 fps ∼76% -2%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
129 fps ∼63% -19%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
109.6 fps ∼54% -31%
1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing
MSI GL65 9SEK
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
286 fps ∼100% +50%
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
  (189 - 295, n=25)
259 fps ∼91% +36%
Average of class Gaming
  (17 - 472, n=212)
222 fps ∼78% +16%
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
AMD Ryzen 7 4800H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
191 (167min - 211max) fps ∼67%
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, AMD Radeon RX 5500M
173.6 fps ∼61% -9%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
157.1 fps ∼55% -18%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
138.4 fps ∼48% -28%

Even under prolonged load the performance level does not drop. As the graph shows, the frame rates remain very consistent when running The Witcher 3 for one hour.

0510152025303540455055606570Tooltip
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172 GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, R7 4800H, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB: Ø58.6 (54-62)
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 232 209 189 119 fps
The Witcher 3 (2015) 191 160 105 60.5 fps
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) 103.8 94.7 85.4 81.3 fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 99.7 124 85.2 fps
X-Plane 11.11 (2018) 69.9 63.9 55.6 fps

Emissions

System Noise

In terms of cooling, gaming laptops tend to be on the louder side due to their high-performance components. The Asus TUF A15 FA506, which is equipped with one large heatpipe cooler and two fans, continues this trend. However, the device is pleasantly quiet and often even completely silent at times when the fans do not spin at all.

Noise Level

Idle
30.2 / 30.2 / 30.2 dB(A)
Load
40 / 49 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 30.2 dB(A)

Temperature

Generally, the surface temperatures of the Asus device do not leave much room for criticism. The high maximum temperature of 49.9 °C is the only real downside, although thankfully, it was recorded towards the back on the bottom of the laptop. While gaming, this value slightly increased to 50.4 °C, since the adjacent GPU adds to the heat development.

A closer look at the components during our stress test quickly shows that the capabilities of the cooling solution are fully exhausted in order to keep the CPU and GPU cool. During our CPU stress test with only Prime95, we recorded a peak core temperature of 81 °C. When stressing both the CPU and the GPU, the temperatures rise even further, since the CPU and GPU are connected via the same heatpipe. This results in temperature measurements of 94.5 °C for the Ryzen 7 4800H and up to 84 °C for the GeForce RTX 2060. The continuous stress scenario had no sustained impact on the 3D performance.

Stress test: Prime95 only
Stress test: Prime95 only
Stress test: FurMark only
Stress test: FurMark only
Max. Load
 37.8 °C
100 F
42.9 °C
109 F
42.6 °C
109 F
 
 30.3 °C
87 F
41.9 °C
107 F
38.4 °C
101 F
 
 26.2 °C
79 F
26.9 °C
80 F
26.9 °C
80 F
 
Maximum: 42.9 °C = 109 F
Average: 34.9 °C = 95 F
49.9 °C
122 F
42.2 °C
108 F
44.2 °C
112 F
34 °C
93 F
35.5 °C
96 F
27.2 °C
81 F
27 °C
81 F
26.4 °C
80 F
26.4 °C
80 F
Maximum: 49.9 °C = 122 F
Average: 34.8 °C = 95 F
Power Supply (max.)  39.2 °C = 103 F | Room Temperature 23.7 °C = 75 F | FIRT 550-Pocket
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.9 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 33.4 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.9 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 39.8 °C / 104 F, ranging from 21.6 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 49.9 °C / 122 F, compared to the average of 42.6 °C / 109 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.4 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 33.4 °C / 92 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.9 °C / 91 F, compared to the device average of 33.4 °C / 92 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 26.9 °C / 80.4 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (+1.9 °C / 3.4 F).
Heat development top (idle)
Heat development top (idle)
Heat development top (load)
Heat development top (load)
Heat development top (The Witcher 3)
Heat development top (The Witcher 3)
Heat development bottom (idle)
Heat development bottom (idle)
Heat development bottom (load)
Heat development bottom (load)
Heat development bottom (The Witcher 3)
Heat development bottom (The Witcher 3)

Speakers

Speakers of the Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172
Speakers of the Asus TUF FA506IV-HN172

The audio system is comprised of two simple stereo speakers, which unfortunately lack a complementary subwoofer for lower frequencies. Thus, the sound stage is characterized mainly by the treble and mids, which is acceptable for a gaming laptop in this price segment. However, we recommend using a headset for a better audio experience. It can be connected to the laptop via 3.5 mm jack or USB.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.533.22528.530.83127.430.34026.528.75024.927.86325.327.4802328.51002228.512522.328.816022.239.920022.151.325020.958.231520.657.640020.357.650019.660.463019.365.580018.766.3100018.463.8125018.166.4160017.265.5200016.766.5250016.468.3315015.667.7400015.565.4500015.661.7630015.564.2800015.561.81000015.357.11250014.960.9160001560.4SPL29.377.4N1.240.7median 18.1median 61.7Delta2.56.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseLenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 20% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Energy Management

Energy Consumption

Our configuration of the Asus TUF A15 FA506 consumes only 5.4 to 10.5 watts while idling. During gaming use, this value increases to an average of 144 watts. This amount approximately matches that of the MSI GL65, which is also equipped with a GeForce RTX 2060. Our test device comes with a 230-watt AC adapter. It is sufficiently powerful enough for the battery not to be drained during our stress test.

230-watt AC adapter
230-watt AC adapter
230-watt AC adapter
230-watt AC adapter
Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.5 / 0.7 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.4 / 10 / 10.5 Watt
Load midlight 135 / 147 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
R7 4800H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, Kingston OM8PCP3512F-AB, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, WDC PC SN720 SDAPNTW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
R7 3750H, Radeon RX 5500M, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI GL65 9SEK
i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
i5-9300H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, WDC PC SN720 SDAQNTW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus ROG GA502DU
R7 3750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Average NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile
 
Average of class Gaming
 
Power Consumption
-56%
-68%
-230%
20%
-36%
-67%
-114%
Idle Minimum *
5.4
14.5
-169%
14
-159%
41
-659%
4.04
25%
7.4
-37%
11.9 (2.9 - 41, n=34)
-120%
18.7 (1.9 - 113, n=796)
-246%
Idle Average *
10
18.5
-85%
18
-80%
45.3
-353%
7.2
28%
8.6
14%
17.1 (6.9 - 45.3, n=34)
-71%
24.1 (6 - 119, n=796)
-141%
Idle Maximum *
10.5
20
-90%
32
-205%
47.1
-349%
11.4
-9%
39.1
-272%
23.9 (8.5 - 47.1, n=34)
-128%
29.8 (8.3 - 122, n=796)
-184%
Load Average *
135
81.6
40%
64
53%
94.9
30%
80.8
40%
65.9
51%
107 (82 - 147, n=35)
21%
104 (14.1 - 319, n=788)
23%
Witcher 3 ultra *
144
132
8%
123
15%
149.4
-4%
93.6
35%
106.9
26%
Load Maximum *
147
208.1
-42%
193
-31%
214.2
-46%
144.5
2%
141.3
4%
199 (145 - 243, n=35)
-35%
176 (21.9 - 590, n=787)
-20%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Cinebench R15 in battery mode
Cinebench R15 in battery mode
3DMark 11 in battery mode
3DMark 11 in battery mode
48-Wh battery
48-Wh battery

The 48Wh battery is able to power the Asus TUF A15 FA506 for just above six hours in our real-world Wi-Fi test before the laptop has to be recharged. For this test, we reduced the display's brightness by three steps, which results in a brightness of 150 cd/m². At full brightness, the runtime decreases by 40 minutes in the same test. In spite of the small battery, the runtimes are relatively good for a gaming laptop.

In this category, competitors fall short or they owe their longer battery life to their larger batteries. Users can expect to fully charge the battery within two hours.

As mentioned before, we want to point out once more that the CPU and GPU performance is significantly reduced in battery mode.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
9h 47min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (EDGE: 44.18362.449.0)
6h 10min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 max Brightness (EDGE: 44.18362.449.0)
5h 29min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
5h 22min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 56min
Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172
R7 4800H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, 48 Wh
Lenovo Legion Y540-15IRH-81SX00B2GE
i7-9750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile, 57 Wh
MSI Alpha 15 A3DDK-034
R7 3750H, Radeon RX 5500M, 51 Wh
MSI GL65 9SEK
i7-9750H, GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, 51 Wh
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
i5-9300H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, 52.5 Wh
Asus ROG GA502DU
R7 3750H, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 76 Wh
Average of class Gaming
 
Battery Runtime
-51%
-40%
-47%
19%
31%
-28%
Reader / Idle
587
240
-59%
349
-41%
262
-55%
951
62%
916
56%
364 (39 - 1399, n=736)
-38%
H.264
322
234
-27%
482
50%
277 (88 - 860, n=171)
-14%
WiFi v1.3
370
145
-61%
245
-34%
230
-38%
385
4%
482
30%
269 (62 - 683, n=456)
-27%
Load
116
76
-34%
49
-58%
60
-48%
71
-39%
123
6%
79.8 (18 - 243, n=704)
-31%
Witcher 3 ultra
59
56.5 (50 - 66, n=6)
Maximum battery life
Maximum battery life
Minimum battery life
Minimum battery life
Wi-Fi runtime (70 % brightness)
Wi-Fi runtime (70 % brightness)
Wi-Fi runtime (100 % brightness)
Wi-Fi runtime (100 % brightness)
H.264 battery life
H.264 battery life
Battery charge time
Battery charge time

Pros

+ Ryzen 7 4800H offers faster multithread performance than the Core i7-10875H
+ GeForce RTX 2060 with 6 GB of VRAM
+ 144-Hz display with good contrast ratio
+ dedicated mouse buttons and integrated USB Type-C port
+ good maintenance options; 3x mass storage, 2x SODIMM
+ good battery life
+ backlit keyboard

Cons

- no webcam slider, IR, or fingerprint sensor
- no per-key RGB lighting, no Thunderbolt 3
- no SD card reader
- small arrow keys
- poor color gamut
- no Wi-Fi 6
- only 8 GB of RAM

Verdict - Competitive Price and Solid Performance

In review: Asus TUF A15 FA506, courtesy of Asus Germany
In review: Asus TUF A15 FA506, courtesy of Asus Germany

The Asus TUF A15 FA506 is a gaming laptop with great hardware for a fair price. The device can be purchased from various online retailers for below 1300 Euros (~$1470), and it comes with the brand-new AMD Ryzen 7 4800H CPU, which outperforms its Intel counterpart thanks to its eight cores. The former is a solid gaming CPU and suitable as a foundation for a gaming machine, which runs even very demanding games at maximum details when paired with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060.

Speaking of visuals, the installed display offers a great contrast ratio and a fast 144-Hz refresh rate. Furthermore, there is no PWM and thus, no additional eyestrain during prolonged use. That being said, we were disappointed with the small color gamut. Meanwhile, the case is decent, although its feel did not entirely convince us due to the full plastic construction. By contrast, we have no complaints at all when it comes to raw performance, which can be partially attributed to the AMD SoC. Similar devices in this price class tend to be limited to 6-core processors. It is hard to complain about two additional cores for the same price.

With good performance and a competitive price, the Asus TUF A15 FA506 is definitely worth considering if you are looking for an inexpensive gaming laptop.

Furthermore, the battery life is surprisingly good, which cannot be taken for granted, particularly on a gaming device. If you are interested in this system, RAM and storage upgrade options are worth taking a look at. Unfortunately, our model is only equipped with the bare minimum memory configuration for a gaming laptop. That being said, 8 GB of RAM and 512 GB of SSD storage are still sufficient for many tasks and applications.

Asus TUF A15 FA506IV-HN172 - 06/09/2020 v7
Sebastian Bade

Chassis
81 / 98 → 83%
Keyboard
81%
Pointing Device
86%
Connectivity
58 / 80 → 72%
Weight
62 / 10-66 → 93%
Battery
66 / 95 → 69%
Display
81%
Games Performance
91%
Application Performance
86%
Temperature
89 / 95 → 93%
Noise
83 / 90 → 93%
Audio
70%
Camera
39 / 85 → 46%
Average
75%
83%
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 TUF A15 with AMD Renoir and Nvidia Graphics in Review
Sebastian Bade, 2020-06-10 (Update: 2020-06-12)
Sebastian Bade
Editor of the original article: Sebastian Bade - Editor
From an early age I was interested in technology and was then able to learn the desired profession of "IT systems electronics engineer". Subsequently, my 12-year military service began, during which I learned a lot and kept my knowledge constantly up to date with the latest technology. Since I would like to share this with you, Notebookcheck offers a very good possibility to offer this to the masses. Furthermore, I am very much involved with water cooling and network security.