Notebookcheck

Asus TUF FX504GD (Core i5-8300H, GTX 1050) Laptop Review

Starter gamer. Asus has made its inexpensive FX series even more affordable by reducing the battery capacity, GPU power, and number of ports. The end result is definitely easier on the wallet, but the TN display and primary HDD drag down the system.

The Asus TUF FX504 is the first laptop to carry the TUF name. The branding is designed to cater towards entry-level gamers who may not want to spend more on a "proper" Republic of Gamers (ROG) system. As a result, the budget TUF FX504 sits right below the cheapest ROG laptop available in the class hierarchy.

Our test system today is the 15.6-inch FX504GD that represents a small update to last year's FX503 series. The new model incorporates Coffee Lake-H (i5-8300H, i7-8750H), entry level GTX GPUs (GTX 1050, GTX 1050 Ti), and only FHD display options (TN, IPS, or 120 Hz) whereas last year's FX503 could go up to the GTX 1060. The $700 starting price, however, is quite attractive and comparable to the entry-level Lenovo Legion Y520, Dell Inspiron 7577, Gigabyte Sabre 15, HP Pavilion 15 Power, and the Acer Aspire series. Unfortunately, our review below will show that the FX504GD sacrifices a bit too much for that low asking price.

We recommend checking out our existing review on the FX503VM as they share very similar external and internal features.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Asus FX504GD (TUF FX504GD Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop) - 6144 MB, Core: 1354 MHz, Memory: 7008 MHz, GDDR5, 388.73, Optimus
Memory
8192 MB 
, DDR4-2666, PC4-21300
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, ID: AUO38ED, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM370
Storage
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172, 1027 GB 
, 5400 rpm,
Soundcard
Intel Cannon Lake-H/S - cAVS (Audio, Voice, Speech)
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000/2500/5000MBit/s), Intel Wireless-AC 9560 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 25 x 384 x 262 ( = 0.98 x 15.12 x 10.31 in)
Battery
48 Wh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, Asus Hello, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.3 kg ( = 81.13 oz / 5.07 pounds), Power Supply: 505 g ( = 17.81 oz / 1.11 pounds)
Price
700 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The chassis is nearly the same as the FX503 save for some purely aesthetic changes on the outer lid and corners. Asus has added slight accent marks on the outer surface while shaving off the rounded corners for a sharper look. Otherwise, chassis rigidity is essentially identical. In short, the base is strong considering the price, but the lid could have been more rigid especially down its center. The base of the Inspiron 7577 is even stronger and heavier due to its internal aluminum reinforcement.

Note that the bottom side of the notebook is now one piece whereas last year's FX503 had a removable section for exposing the drive bays and SODIMM slots.

Sharper edges and corners than the FX503...
Sharper edges and corners than the FX503...
... but otherwise identical in design, feel, and quality
... but otherwise identical in design, feel, and quality
New red markings on palm rests
New red markings on palm rests
Dual rear "jet engine" vents
Dual rear "jet engine" vents
389 mm / 15.3 inch 274.7 mm / 10.8 inch 24 mm / 0.945 inch 2.8 kg6.13 lbs383 mm / 15.1 inch 260 mm / 10.2 inch 29 mm / 1.142 inch 2.5 kg5.4 lbs384 mm / 15.1 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 25 mm / 0.984 inch 2.3 kg5.07 lbs384 mm / 15.1 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 24 mm / 0.945 inch 2.2 kg4.85 lbs380 mm / 15 inch 265 mm / 10.4 inch 25.8 mm / 1.016 inch 2.4 kg5.29 lbs356 mm / 14 inch 250 mm / 9.84 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 2.1 kg4.58 lbs

Connectivity

We're not expecting Thunderbolt 3 since this is a budget gaming system. Nonetheless, there are glaring omissions potential buyers should be aware of. The lack of both USB Type-C and a card reader feels strange on a thick 15-inch chassis. Furthermore, there are no ports on the right edge of the system that can potentially be an inconvenience for users. Even last year's FX503 included USB ports on both sides of the notebook.

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Right: Kensington Lock
Right: Kensington Lock
Rear: No connectivity (Status LEDs)
Rear: No connectivity (Status LEDs)
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit RJ-45, HDMI 1.4, USB 2.0, 2x USB 3.0, 3.5 mm combo audio
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit RJ-45, HDMI 1.4, USB 2.0, 2x USB 3.0, 3.5 mm combo audio
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus FX504GD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
657 MBit/s ∼100%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
513 MBit/s ∼78% -22%
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
141 MBit/s ∼21% -79%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus FX504GD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
614 MBit/s ∼100%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
458 MBit/s ∼75% -25%
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
316 MBit/s ∼51% -49%

Accessories

There are no included extras outside of the AC adapter and Warranty card.

Maintenance

As mentioned earlier, Asus has made it harder to service the notebook when compared to the FX503. Removing the screws from the bottom will require tearing a plastic cover to indicate tampering from the end user. Users will find 2x SODIMM slots and 2x storage bays. Intel Optane is supported.

Warranty

The standard 12-month warranty applies. Please see our Guarantees, Return policies and Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices

Keyboard and Touchpad

The keyboard (~34.3 cm x 10.4 cm) and trackpad (10.3 cm x 7.3 cm) are identical to the ones on the FX503 save for some aesthetic changes around the edges. We refer to our existing review for more information on the feedback and feel of the keys. In short, key feedback is acceptable while the integrated trackpad keys continue to be soft and on the spongy side. Its smooth plastic surface will accumulate grease much more quickly than the rest of the notebook as well.

Identical layout to the FX503. Note the missing "ROG" key found on ROG notebooks
Identical layout to the FX503. Note the missing "ROG" key found on ROG notebooks
Space key and plastic trackpad could be firmer in feedback
Space key and plastic trackpad could be firmer in feedback

Display

RGB subpixel array (141 PPI)
RGB subpixel array (141 PPI)

Three 1080p display options are available distinguished by the panel type (TN or IPS), refresh rate (60 Hz or 120 Hz), and color coverage (45 percent vs. 94 percent NTSC). Our test unit is equipped with the low-end 60 Hz TN option and its middling quality shows through our measurements below. Contrast is poor and colors appear muted and not very deep. Furthermore, the overlying matte panel is slightly grainy and so texts do not appear as sharp as they would on a glossy panel. This same AU Optronics B156HTN03.8 panel can also be found on the Asus X555DA and Acer Aspire E5-552G.

Benefits of TN include the lack of uneven backlight edge bleeding and faster black-white response times when compared to most IPS panels. 

242.9
cd/m²
250.6
cd/m²
246.6
cd/m²
236.7
cd/m²
260
cd/m²
228.6
cd/m²
220.5
cd/m²
257.2
cd/m²
222.1
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
AU Optronics B156HTN03.8
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 260 cd/m² Average: 240.6 cd/m² Minimum: 15.76 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 260 cd/m²
Contrast: 473:1 (Black: 0.55 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 5.27
ΔE Greyscale 6.1 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
61% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 35.5% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 1.97
Asus FX504GD
AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, 15.6, 1920x1080
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
LG Philips LP156WF6-SPK3, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus FX503VM-EH73
AU Optronics B156HAN06.1, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
ID: LG Philips LGD053F, Name: 156WF6, Dell P/N: 4XK13, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
CMN N156HGE-EAL, TN LED, 15.6, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
LGD05C0, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
-43%
-48%
-42%
-27%
43%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
41.6 (19.6, 22)
39 (21, 18)
6%
36.8 (19.6, 17.2)
12%
41 (20, 21)
1%
34.4 (22.4, 12.4)
17%
16.8 (8.4, 8.4)
60%
Response Time Black / White *
15.2 (10, 5.2)
29 (16, 13)
-91%
31.6 (18.4, 13.2)
-108%
28 (15, 13)
-84%
26 (20, 6)
-71%
11.2 (6, 5.2)
26%
PWM Frequency
21000 (90)
200 (99)
Screen
19%
21%
39%
3%
56%
Brightness middle
260
283
9%
235.9
-9%
257
-1%
265.7
2%
313
20%
Brightness
241
281
17%
235
-2%
229
-5%
243
1%
300
24%
Brightness Distribution
85
91
7%
91
7%
84
-1%
87
2%
78
-8%
Black Level *
0.55
0.39
29%
0.27
51%
0.17
69%
0.63
-15%
0.33
40%
Contrast
473
726
53%
874
85%
1512
220%
422
-11%
948
100%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
7
6.1
13%
4.81
31%
5.34
24%
9.6
-37%
1.29
82%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
22.52
11.08
51%
21.55
4%
9.99
56%
18.5
18%
2.04
91%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
5.27
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.1
5.69
7%
3.1
49%
4.82
21%
12.7
-108%
0.69
89%
Gamma
1.97 112%
2.44 90%
2.31 95%
2.46 89%
2.01 109%
2.43 91%
CCT
7894 82%
6702 97%
6984 93%
6587 99%
13654 48%
6550 99%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
35.5
37
4%
36
1%
38
7%
76
114%
60
69%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
61
58
-5%
56
-8%
60
-2%
100
64%
94
54%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-12% / 8%
-14% / 9%
-2% / 25%
-12% / -2%
50% / 54%

* ... smaller is better

Reproducible color space is limited to only 36 percent and 61 percent of the AdobeRGB and sRGB standards, respectively, which is typical of cheap TN panels. The narrow gamut is responsible for the muted colors as mentioned above. Digital artists may want to consider the more color-accurate panel option for the FX504 or a different notebook altogether.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. Dell XPS 15 2-in-1
vs. Dell XPS 15 2-in-1

Further measurements with a X-Rite spectrophotometer reveal generally inaccurate colors and grayscale out of the box. Color temperature is much too cool and RGB is off balance to indicate a budget panel. Our calibration efforts improve grayscale and RGB balance to a degree, but calibrations can only go so far when the gamut is so narrow. Colors become increasingly inaccurate the higher the saturation level due to the limited sRGB coverage.

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
15.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10 ms rise
↘ 5.2 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. » 17 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
41.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19.6 ms rise
↘ 22 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. » 54 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (39.4 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 9322 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is poor when under sunlight or overcast sky due to the limited brightness of the backlight. The system is simply not designed for long periods of outdoor use. To its credit, the matte panel helps in reducing glare, but this advantage is somewhat mitigated by the limited viewing angles of the TN panel.

Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors on overcast day
Narrow TN viewing angles
Narrow TN viewing angles

Performance

Unlike the hexa-core Core i7-8750H that is making the rounds on higher-end laptops like the Aero 15X, GS65, and Asus' own GM501, the Core i5-8300H is merely a quad-core offering meant to supplant the quad-core i5-7300HQ. The most notable change in the i5-8300H when compared to the i5-7300HQ is its inclusion of Hyper-Threading for 8 simultaneous threads. This fact alone puts the i5-8300H more in line with the Core i7-7700HQ of yesteryear in terms of horsepower.

For graphics, the mid-range GTX 1050 is a common find on less expensive gaming systems like the FX504. Optimus is supported for switching to the integrated UHD Graphics 630 if needed.

Processor

CPU performance is a mixed bag. While single-thread performance is excellent and where we expect it to be for an i5-8300H, multi-thread performance is about 20 percent slower than the average i5-8300H. Even the two-generations old i7-6700HQ in the MSI GE72VR is able to handily outperform the i5-8300H in our FX504 according to CineBench benchmarks. We double-checked that the High Performance profile was in place and repeated the tests to be sure, but scores would never improve.

On the bright side, performance is at least consistent. Running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop results in very consistent scores throughout the entire run. Thus, we can at least expect the i5-8300H in the FX504 to not throttle even if it is unable to reach the higher clock rates that we know the CPU is capable of.

See our dedicated page on the Core i5-8300H CPU for more technical information.

CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R15
CineBench R15
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
6835
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
20061
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
6482
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
70.38 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
6.2 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.72 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
103.12 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
604 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
170 Points
Help

System Performance

PCMark benchmarks rank the FX504GD within just a few percentage points of the Lenovo Legion Y520 and Inspiron 15 7577. We were hoping for a bigger difference because of the new CPU, but systems with the Core i7-7700HQ and GTX 1050 Ti can still outscore our configured Asus.

We experienced no hardware or software issues during our time with the unit.

PCMark 10 Home Accelerated
PCMark 10 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
5676 Points ∼87% +13%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
5174 Points ∼79% +3%
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
5130 Points ∼79% +2%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
5018 Points ∼77%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
4849 Points ∼74% -3%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR
4746 Points ∼73% -5%
Creative Score Accelerated v2
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
7238 Points ∼66% +56%
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
5054 Points ∼46% +9%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
4646 Points ∼43%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR
4608 Points ∼42% -1%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
4390 Points ∼40% -6%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
4940 Points ∼81% +26%
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
4504 Points ∼74% +15%
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
3928 Points ∼64% 0%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3909 Points ∼64%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3807 Points ∼62% -3%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR
3651 Points ∼60% -7%
PCMark 10 - Score
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
5059 Points ∼62% +33%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
4856 Points ∼60% +28%
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
4568 Points ∼56% +20%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR
3995 Points ∼49% +5%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3808 Points ∼47%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3380 Points ∼42% -11%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3909 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
4646 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5018 points
Help

Storage Devices

Our test model utilizes a 5400 RPM Seagate ST1000LX015 HDD. Fortunately, there is a PCIe M.2 slot should users want to install secondary NVMe SSDs for faster system performance. HD Tune returns an average transfer rate of 101 MB/s which pales in comparison to even the cheapest SATA III SSDs in the market. We highly recommend investing in a small primary SSD with a large secondary HDD for a significantly better gaming experience.

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

HD Tune
HD Tune
CDM 5
CDM 5
PCMark 8 Storage
PCMark 8 Storage
Asus FX504GD
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
Asus FX503VM-EH73
SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
Average Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
 
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6
17374%
-10%
38862%
24089%
25%
Write 4K
0.27
51.19
18859%
0.42
56%
158.4
58567%
94.43
34874%
0.4682 (0.179 - 1.27, n=5)
73%
Read 4K
0.586
24.82
4135%
0.41
-30%
45.04
7586%
37.65
6325%
0.533 (0.28 - 0.93, n=5)
-9%
Write Seq
86.83
313.1
261%
55.58
-36%
621.6
616%
1335
1437%
75.6 (53.5 - 101, n=5)
-13%
Read Seq
113.2
458.3
305%
114.3
1%
1592
1306%
1404
1140%
116 (107 - 125, n=5)
2%
Write 4K Q32T1
0.242
208.1
85892%
0.238
-2%
434.2
179321%
268.6
110892%
0.643 (0.238 - 1.22, n=5)
166%
Read 4K Q32T1
0.963
279.3
28903%
0.942
-2%
589.8
61146%
332.8
34459%
1.067 (0.695 - 1.68, n=5)
11%
Write Seq Q32T1
98.43
337.9
243%
68.16
-31%
630.4
540%
1375
1297%
81.9 (63.7 - 98.4, n=5)
-17%
Read Seq Q32T1
110.2
545.3
395%
69.62
-37%
2108
1813%
2627
2284%
97 (69.6 - 114, n=5)
-12%
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
Transfer Rate Minimum: 47 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 137.2 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 100.6 MB/s
Access Time: 20.2 ms
Burst Rate: 135.5 MB/s
CPU Usage: 3.4 %

GPU Performance

The FX504 brings nothing new to the table with its GTX 1050 even when taking the Coffee Lake-H CPU into consideration. 3DMark scores reveal it to be in line with the average GTX 1050 in our database. Fire Strike Physics is almost 40 percent higher than the i5-7300HQ to bring the system closer to i7-7700HQ laptops in terms of raw CPU power. For gaming, however, the CPU boost is more marginal. Don't expect steep rises in frame rates just because the i5-8300H is newer than the i7-7700HQ.

See our dedicated page on the GTX 1050 for more benchmark comparisons. Note that our configuration utilizes 2 GB of VRAM whereas some SKUs may have 4 GB of VRAM with the GTX 1050 instead.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Sky Diver
Sky Diver
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Time Spy
Time Spy
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Fire Strike Extreme
Fire Strike Extreme
3DMark
Fire Strike Extreme Graphics
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
5373 Points ∼27% +97%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7300HQ
4851 Points ∼24% +77%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
4623 Points ∼23% +69%
Asus GL703GE-ES73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
3701 Points ∼19% +35%
Asus Strix GL502VT-DS74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
3517 Points ∼18% +29%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i7-8705G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
3245 Points ∼16% +19%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
2733 Points ∼14%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (2192 - 2817, n=23)
2648 Points ∼13% -3%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
1988 Points ∼10% -27%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Combined
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
4335 Points ∼35% +84%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7300HQ
4000 Points ∼33% +69%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
3663 Points ∼30% +55%
Asus Strix GL502VT-DS74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
2733 Points ∼22% +16%
Asus GL703GE-ES73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
2722 Points ∼22% +15%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
2361 Points ∼19%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (2099 - 2373, n=36)
2286 Points ∼19% -3%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i7-8705G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
2282 Points ∼19% -3%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
1652 Points ∼13% -30%
Lenovo ThinkPad T580-20LAS01H00
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
1135 Points ∼9% -52%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Physics
Asus GL703GE-ES73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
14558 Points ∼45% +59%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i7-8705G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
11246 Points ∼35% +23%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
10498 Points ∼32% +15%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
9756 Points ∼30% +7%
Asus Strix GL502VT-DS74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
9551 Points ∼29% +5%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (5524 - 11971, n=41)
9458 Points ∼29% +4%
Lenovo ThinkPad T580-20LAS01H00
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
9241 Points ∼28% +1%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
9136 Points ∼28%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7300HQ
6664 Points ∼21% -27%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4710 Points ∼14% -48%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
11483 Points ∼28% +81%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7300HQ
10263 Points ∼25% +61%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
9608 Points ∼24% +51%
Asus GL703GE-ES73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
7953 Points ∼20% +25%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i7-8705G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
7348 Points ∼18% +16%
Asus Strix GL502VT-DS74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
7321 Points ∼18% +15%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
6356 Points ∼16%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (4935 - 6393, n=41)
6008 Points ∼15% -5%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points ∼10% -35%
Lenovo ThinkPad T580-20LAS01H00
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
3291 Points ∼8% -48%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
Asus GL703GE-ES73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
8828 Points ∼39% +26%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i7-8705G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
8633 Points ∼38% +23%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
8343 Points ∼37% +19%
Asus Strix GL502VT-DS74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
7952 Points ∼35% +13%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
7696 Points ∼34% +10%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
7025 Points ∼31%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (4446 - 7607, n=39)
6798 Points ∼30% -3%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7300HQ
6264 Points ∼28% -11%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points ∼20% -36%
Lenovo ThinkPad T580-20LAS01H00
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4000 Points ∼18% -43%
1280x720 Performance GPU
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
14550 Points ∼29% +104%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7300HQ
13075 Points ∼26% +83%
Asus Strix GL502VY-DS71
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 6700HQ
12472 Points ∼24% +75%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i7-8705G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
10118 Points ∼20% +42%
Asus Strix GL502VT-DS74
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
9824 Points ∼19% +38%
Asus GL703GE-ES73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
9128 Points ∼18% +28%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (6744 - 8223, n=39)
7633 Points ∼15% +7%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
7133 Points ∼14%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points ∼9% -32%
Lenovo ThinkPad T580-20LAS01H00
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4392 Points ∼9% -38%
3DMark 11 Performance
6971 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
128216 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
18404 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
5656 points
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score
2702 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
1729 points
Help
BioShock Infinite - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF)
Alienware 13 R3 (i5-7300HQ, GTX 1050 Ti)
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
69.8 fps ∼100% +11%
Asus Strix GL502VT-DS74
GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ, Lite-On CV1-8B128
69.5 fps ∼100% +10%
Asus GL503VD-DB74
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, ADATA SX7000NP 256 GB
66 fps ∼95% +5%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
64.3 (min: 20.9, max: 125.4) fps ∼92% +2%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
63 fps ∼90%
Asus ZenBook Flip 15 UX561UD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
55.5 fps ∼80% -12%
Huawei Matebook X Pro i5
GeForce MX150, 8250U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
27.9 fps ∼40% -56%
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 192.7 167.8 151.5 63 fps
The Witcher 3 (2015) 119.9 72.2 40.9 22.2 fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 85.9 71.8 38.2 31.9 fps

Stress Test

We stress the system to identify for any potential throttling or stability issues. When subjected to Prime95 load, the CPU can be observed running at a steady 2.3 GHz and an unusually low CPU temperature of 59 C. The base clock rate for the i5-8300H is 2.3 GHz, so the system is strangely not benefiting from any Turbo Boost when under such conditions. Our findings mirror the CineBench results above where the Multi-Thread score was much lower than expected. The CPU is clearly capable of sustaining faster clocks and there is a high core temperature ceiling to support it, but this does not occur for whatever reason when under extreme CPU stress.

The results become even stranger when running Prime95 and FurMark simultaneously as the CPU can be observed running steady at 2.8 GHz. CPU and GPU clock rates remain in the low to mid 70 C range when gaming as is typical of most thicker gaming notebooks.

Running on battery power will impact GPU performance while the CPU remains unaffected. A 3DMark 11 run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores of 6213 and 5803 points, respectively, compared to 6234 and 7133 when on mains.

Prime95 stress
Prime95 stress
FurMark stress
FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Witcher 3 stress
Witcher 3 stress
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C) Average GPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress 2.3 -- 59 48
FurMark Stress -- 1531 76 68
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 2.8 1633 77 70
Witcher 3 Stress ~3.6 1721 74 66

Emissions

System Noise

The dual system fans are always active no matter the load. Thankfully, they are barely audible in a typical classroom or library environment during low loads like browsing. Fans become very loud very quickly when subjected to average (3DMark06) loads. Users can expect a 40 to 44 dB(A) range when gaming to be quieter than most super-thin gaming notebooks like the Razer series. The fans are generally steady and will not pulsate frequently.

We can notice no electronic noise or coil whine on our test unit.

Noise Level

Idle
29 / 29.2 / 29.7 dB(A)
Load
44.3 / 47.7 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: 28.1 dB(A)
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7700HQ, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7
Noise
0%
-3%
-3%
-5%
-11%
off / environment *
28.1
30.6
-9%
27.8
1%
31
-10%
28
-0%
29
-3%
Idle Minimum *
29
31.9
-10%
29.6
-2%
32.7
-13%
32.2
-11%
30
-3%
Idle Average *
29.2
31.9
-9%
29.6
-1%
32.7
-12%
32.2
-10%
31
-6%
Idle Maximum *
29.7
31.9
-7%
29.6
-0%
32.7
-10%
32.2
-8%
35
-18%
Load Average *
44.3
34.6
22%
37.3
16%
38.7
13%
40.9
8%
49
-11%
Witcher 3 ultra *
40.7
39.3
3%
49.8
-22%
39
4%
45.4
-12%
51
-25%
Load Maximum *
47.7
41.7
13%
53.7
-13%
44.6
6%
48.6
-2%
54
-13%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Witcher 3 load (rear exhaust)
Witcher 3 load (rear exhaust)

Surface temperatures are generally cool in the mid to high 20 C range when idling save for the left palm rest. As shown by the temperature maps below, the HDD will warm the left palm rest to as much as 5 degrees higher than the right palm rest. It's not enough to be uncomfortable, but the temperature difference is certainly noticeable when typing.

Higher loads like gaming can induce a surface temperature of 54 C near the center of the keyboard and 47 C on the opposite side. It's clear where the processors are located simply by identifying the hot spots of the notebook. Luckily, the important WASD and Arrow keys are kept comfortably cool for gaming because of the system fans directly underneath.

System idle (top)
System idle (top)
System idle (bottom)
System idle (bottom)
Witcher 3 stress (top)
Witcher 3 stress (top)
Witcher 3 stress (bottom)
Witcher 3 stress (bottom)
Maximum stress (top)
Maximum stress (top)
Maximum stress (bottom)
Maximum stress (bottom)
Max. Load
 41 °C
106 F
46.4 °C
116 F
36.8 °C
98 F
 
 34.4 °C
94 F
55.8 °C
132 F
35.4 °C
96 F
 
 30.8 °C
87 F
27.2 °C
81 F
26.4 °C
80 F
 
Maximum: 55.8 °C = 132 F
Average: 37.1 °C = 99 F
39.8 °C
104 F
42 °C
108 F
44.4 °C
112 F
41 °C
106 F
51.4 °C
125 F
41.6 °C
107 F
28.8 °C
84 F
29.4 °C
85 F
38.4 °C
101 F
Maximum: 51.4 °C = 125 F
Average: 39.6 °C = 103 F
Power Supply (max.)  55 °C = 131 F | Room Temperature 23 °C = 73 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.1 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 55.8 °C / 132 F, compared to the average of 39.6 °C / 103 F, ranging from 21.6 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 51.4 °C / 125 F, compared to the average of 42.3 °C / 108 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.3 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 37.3 °C / 99 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (32.4 °C / 90.3 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (-3.6 °C / -6.5 F).

Speakers

Sound quality from the stereo speakers are subpar. As graph pink graph below shows, bass is poorly represented while higher frequencies are exaggerated similar to cheap netbooks. Maximum volume is sufficiently loud but no particularly ideal for movies or gaming. We recommend earphones if possible. Higher volume settings do not reverberate or rattle the chassis.

Pink noise graph
Pink noise graph
Speaker grilles on the left and right edges of the system
Speaker grilles on the left and right edges of the system
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.937253536.73133.533.84033.435.2503233.86332.533.78031.831.110028.330.512528.530.516028.740.920027.445.92502750.931526.653.440025.953.950024.854.863024.659.680024.864.7100023.964.8125023.860.2160023.762.6200023.466.3250023.661.7315023.366400023.570.4500023.369.8630023.365.9800023.460.31000023.359.21250023.3511600023.456.3SPL3677.5N2.638.8median 23.8median 59.6Delta1.66.135.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus FX504GDApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Asus FX504GD audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (70.44 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 80% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 34% 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
» 1% 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
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Idling will draw anywhere from 7 W to 11 W depending on the brightness setting and Windows Power profile. Gaming demands about 96 W to be very comparable to the Lenovo Legion Y520 and Dell Inspiron 15 7577 with the GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 1060 Max-Q, respectively. The FX503VM is the more graphically powerful notebook but with slightly higher power consumption during most loads.

Maximum load will draw about 103 W from a medium-sized (~16 x 7.5 x 2.5 cm) 120 W AC adapter. The rough 15 percent overhead is sufficient for running even extremely demanding applications.

Prime95+FurMark load
Prime95+FurMark load
Prime95 activated at 20s mark
Prime95 activated at 20s mark
Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.3 / 0.42 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 7.2 / 10.2 / 10.9 Watt
Load midlight 93.3 / 102.5 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus FX504GD
8300H, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW128HEGR, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus FX503VM-EH73
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5512GPU7, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577 4K
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, SK hynix SC311 M.2, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6
Power Consumption
15%
-35%
-44%
-65%
3%
Idle Minimum *
7.2
5.2
28%
12.8
-78%
14.6
-103%
14
-94%
5.5
24%
Idle Average *
10.2
8.3
19%
15.4
-51%
17.2
-69%
18
-76%
10.5
-3%
Idle Maximum *
10.9
10.1
7%
15.9
-46%
17.3
-59%
22
-102%
10.9
-0%
Load Average *
93.3
62.7
33%
78
16%
82.7
11%
91
2%
72
23%
Load Maximum *
102.5
100
2%
143.4
-40%
136.7
-33%
173
-69%
130.4
-27%
Witcher 3 ultra *
95.8
94
2%
107.3
-12%
107
-12%
142
-48%
97.4
-2%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Runtimes are average at best from the non-removable 48 Wh battery. Competing systems like the Inspiron 15 7577 and even the older FX503 have larger batteries for longer runtimes. There is definitely room for optimization as the Lenovo Legion Y520 is able to outlast our Asus by at least an hour longer under WLAN loads with a smaller 45 Wh battery pack.

Charging from near empty to full capacity will take about 2 hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
7h 29min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
3h 43min
Load (maximum brightness)
0h 56min
Asus FX504GD
8300H, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 48 Wh
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBN 80WK0042GE
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 45 Wh
Asus FX503VM-EH73
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 64 Wh
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7577
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 56 Wh
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 41 Wh
Gigabyte Aero 15X v8
8750H, GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q, 94.24 Wh
Battery Runtime
42%
7%
74%
-30%
126%
Reader / Idle
449
634
41%
340
-24%
665
48%
259
-42%
762
70%
WiFi v1.3
223
310
39%
276
24%
405
82%
174
-22%
513
130%
Load
56
81
45%
67
20%
108
93%
41
-27%
156
179%

Pros

+ 2.5-inch SATA III + M.2 NVMe slot
+ support for Intel Optane memory
+ relatively low core temperatures
+ no pulse-width modulation
+ steady CPU performance
+ inexpensive

Cons

- budget TN panel; narrow color space
- strange CPU Turbo Boost behavior
- soft trackpad prone to fingerprints
- matte panel is slightly grainy
- no USB Type-C or SD reader
- more difficult serviceability
- poor internal speakers
- short battery life

Verdict

In review: ASUS TUF FX504GD
In review: ASUS TUF FX504GD

We welcome cheaper and more affordable gaming notebooks so long as they preserve core features and offer a balanced experience. Cut too many corners and the drawbacks can become distracting. For $700 USD, the FX504 sacrifices display quality and includes no SSD for a poorer overall experience. Users are better off investing $100 to $200 more on a small primary SSD and a quality IPS display.

Existing notebook gamers with i5-7300HQ or i7-7700HQ systems need not upgrade to the i5-8300H if gaming is a priority. Instead, investing in a system with the older i7-7700HQ and GTX 1060 would be tremendously more fruitful than a system with the newer i5-8300H and GTX 1050 or 1050 Ti.

The FX504 falters when compared to other budget gaming systems as well. Alternatives like the Legion Y520, Sabre 15, and Inspiron 7577 have longer battery life and more port features including USB Type-C and SD card readers. Gamers on a budget may want to consider the FX503 instead of the FX504 since the former is essentially the same system but with easier serviceability, larger battery, and more balanced CPU and GPU options.

The FX504GD is one of the cheapest gaming notebooks available with the GTX 1050. Nonetheless, we recommend spending a bit more on the higher-end SKUs with IPS and SSD options or even the older GTX 1060-powered FX503 for about the same price.

Asus FX504GD - 05/24/2018 v6(old)
Allen Ngo

Chassis
75 / 98 → 77%
Keyboard
89%
Pointing Device
75%
Connectivity
41 / 81 → 51%
Weight
61 / 10-66 → 91%
Battery
73%
Display
79%
Games Performance
88%
Application Performance
92%
Temperature
84 / 95 → 89%
Noise
83 / 90 → 92%
Audio
60%
Camera
50 / 85 → 59%
Average
73%
79%
Gaming - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 10 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 FX504GD (Core i5-8300H, GTX 1050) Laptop Review
Allen Ngo, 2018-05-24 (Update: 2019-03-11)
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.