Notebookcheck

Asus TUF FX505DY (Ryzen 5 3550H, Radeon RX 560X) Laptop Review

Finally, a decent AMD gaming laptop. Sick of seeing Intel Core i5-8300H and Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 gaming laptops? Then try this $700 AMD-only alternative instead. The Ryzen Zen+ platform shines in its first outing even though it's a bit late to the party.

Asus unveiled the TUF FX505DY at CES 2019 alongside the AMD Zen+ family of processors. It has the distinction of being all AMD inside and the first to carry a Zen+ Ryzen 5 3550H CPU that will have a lot to prove in a market dominated by Intel H-class CPUs. Much like how the 2017 Asus Zephyrus GX501 was the premier Nvidia Max-Q laptop, the TUF FX505 is AMD's premier Zen+ laptop with all eyes on performance.

The TUF series is home to Asus' budget-mainstream gaming laptops in contrast to the higher-end ROG series. Since the Ryzen 5 3550H is also targeting budget-mainstream laptops, the TUF FX505DY should be a snug fit to showcase the Zen+ CPU at its best. Asus has chosen to pair AMD's brand new processor with the two-year old Radeon RX 560X Polaris GPU, so this uncommon combination should make some interesting results when compared to the sea of Intel-Nvidia alternatives currently available.

The FX505 is the successor to last year's FX504 with a newer chassis. Nonetheless, we will still be comparing the system to the FX504 as well as some competing budget Intel-Nvidia 15.6-inch alternatives like the Gigabyte Sabre 15, Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH, MSI GP63Acer Nitro 5 AN515, Samsung Odyssey 15, and HP Pavilion 15 Gaming. Our Asus has the notable advantage of costing only $700 MSRP compared to the $900+ launch prices of the aforementioned alternatives.

Note that Asus is also planning to launch a 17.3-inch version of the model we have here called the TUF FX705DY.

More Asus gaming reviews:

Asus TUF FX505DY (TUF FX505 Series)
Graphics adapter
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop) - 4096 MB, Core: 1223 MHz, Memory: 1750 MHz, GDDR5, 25.20.15025.1002 (Adrenalin 19.2.3)
Memory
8192 MB 
, DDR4-2666, 17-17-39, Single-channel
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, Sharp LM156LF-CL03, IPS, NCP002D, glossy: no
Mainboard
AMD CZ FCH
Storage
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G, 256 GB 
Soundcard
AMD Raven - Audio Processor - HD Audio Controller
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo audio
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 26.8 x 360.4 x 262 ( = 1.06 x 14.19 x 10.31 in)
Battery
48 Wh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Additional features
Speakers: 2 W stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, McAfee LiveSafe, AMD Display Optimizations, Graphics Profile, Asus Armoury Crate, Keyboard Hotkeys, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.2 kg ( = 77.6 oz / 4.85 pounds), Power Supply: 480 g ( = 16.93 oz / 1.06 pounds)
Price
700 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Take the FX504 chassis, cut the side bezels narrower, and you're essentially left with the FX505. The design, chassis material, and overall feel of the system remain the same. Unfortunately, this also means that all the disadvantages of the FX504 are still in effect here including the flexible lid and slight creaking of the hinges and base. The all-plastic build certainly gives a budget impression when compared to the higher-end Zephyrus or Strix series that retail for significantly more. We find it to be run-of-the-mill and not significantly better or worse than many other budget gaming laptops like the Sabre 15 or Acer Nitro 5 AN515.

Thickness and length are almost identical to the FX504 series while width has been cut by over 20 mm because of the narrower bezels. It's one of the more compact 15.6-inch gaming laptops available without resorting to higher-end models like the MSI GS65 or Razer Blade 15 that can cost over twice as much.

Textured plastic surfaces from top to bottom. Center of keyboard warps slightly with applied pressure
Textured plastic surfaces from top to bottom. Center of keyboard warps slightly with applied pressure
Similar chassis design as last year's FX504 but shorter in length
Similar chassis design as last year's FX504 but shorter in length
Lid opened to maximum angle of ~150 degrees
Lid opened to maximum angle of ~150 degrees
Small hinges are satisfactory, but we're unsure how they will hold up a few years down the line
Small hinges are satisfactory, but we're unsure how they will hold up a few years down the line
390 mm / 15.4 inch 266 mm / 10.5 inch 27 mm / 1.063 inch 2.4 kg5.29 lbs383 mm / 15.1 inch 260 mm / 10.2 inch 29 mm / 1.142 inch 2.3 kg5.11 lbs384 mm / 15.1 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 25 mm / 0.984 inch 2.3 kg5.07 lbs378 mm / 14.9 inch 267 mm / 10.5 inch 26.9 mm / 1.059 inch 2.5 kg5.5 lbs365 mm / 14.4 inch 260 mm / 10.2 inch 24 mm / 0.945 inch 2.3 kg5.07 lbs360.4 mm / 14.2 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 26.8 mm / 1.055 inch 2.2 kg4.85 lbs

Connectivity

Port options and positioning are identical to the FX504 series except that the HDMI port has now been upgraded from 1.4 to 2.0. We're still disappointed to not see any USB Type-C ports which we believe should be standard across all gaming laptops. Some users may also find it odd that there are no ports along the right edge of the system. An SD reader is excluded yet again much like on the Lenovo Legion series and the Razer Blade 15.

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

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit RJ-45, HDMI 2.0, USB 2.0 Type-A, 2x USB Type-A 3.1 Gen. 1, 3.5 mm combo audio
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit RJ-45, HDMI 2.0, USB 2.0 Type-A, 2x USB Type-A 3.1 Gen. 1, 3.5 mm combo audio
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Right: Kensington Lock
Right: Kensington Lock

Communication

Interestingly enough, the removable WLAN module sits directly underneath the M.2 slot
Interestingly enough, the removable WLAN module sits directly underneath the M.2 slot

Unlike most Ultrabooks and pricier gaming laptops where 2x2 wireless is the norm, the FX505DY ships with a 1x1 RealTek WLAN module for theoretical transfer rates of only 433 Mbps. This is likely a cost-saving measure as the usual Intel and Killer solutions are more premium solutions.

We didn't experience any connectivity issues during our time with the test unit despite the slower maximum transfer rates.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus FX504GD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
657 MBit/s ∼100% +103%
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
626 MBit/s ∼95% +93%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
324 MBit/s ∼49%
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
293 (min: 186, max: 315) MBit/s ∼45% -10%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
660 MBit/s ∼100% +147%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
614 MBit/s ∼93% +130%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
267 MBit/s ∼40%
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
144 (min: 113, max: 190) MBit/s ∼22% -46%

Maintenance

Servicing is easier than expected and requires only a Philips screwdriver. The bottom panel pops out without much effort unlike what we experienced on the MSI GE75. Users have direct access to both storage bays, both SODIMM slots, and the BIOS battery.

Easy access to internal components
Easy access to internal components

Accessories and Warranty

There are no extras in the box outside of the AC adapter.

The standard one-year limited warranty applies. Registering the laptop with Asus will extend the warranty by an extra year.

Input Devices

Keyboard and Touchpad

The red backlit keyboard and plastic trackpad (~10.3 cm x 7.3 cm) are essentially identical to last year's FX504 and so our previous comments still apply here. The sides of the keyboard are narrower this time around due to the narrow bezel design of the chassis, but key feedback remains satisfactory with relatively quiet clatter. 

The trackpad is still disappointing and more fit for a cheap $500 laptop. Its integrated click keys are spongy and the plastic surface offers a bumpy glide when moving the cursor slowly. Conspicuous fingerprints will accumulate very quickly as well.

The NumPad keys are narrower and feel squished when compared to the QWERTY keys
The NumPad keys are narrower and feel squished when compared to the QWERTY keys
Adequate key travel with slightly softer feedback than the SteelSeries keys on  many MSI laptops
Adequate key travel with slightly softer feedback than the SteelSeries keys on many MSI laptops

Display

Too many budget laptops are equipped with cheap TN panels that offer poor contrast, shallow colors, and narrow viewing angles. Thankfully, the FX505DY has a 1080p IPS panel without any of these drawbacks. Granted, it's still a budget panel with just average colors, response times, and brightness, but even a cheap IPS panel is leagues ahead of a cheap TN panel. Contrast ratio is surprisingly good at almost 1000:1 compared to half that on the outgoing FX504GD.

Interestingly, Asus has sourced Sharp for the matte panel here whereas most other Asus gaming laptops have panels from AU Optronics. Graininess is kept to a minimum for a crisp and almost glossy-like viewing experience without the glare. Some uneven backlight bleeding is present on our test unit that's only noticeable when viewing movies with black borders.

Enthusiast features like G-Sync, 120/144 Hz, 3/5 ms, or 4K UHD are not available here. This is supposed to be a no frills inexpensive gaming laptop, after all.

Inner plastic bezels are textured instead of smooth unlike on most other budget laptops. Note the glare even when indoors
Inner plastic bezels are textured instead of smooth unlike on most other budget laptops. Note the glare even when indoors
Narrow side bezels for a more compact form factor
Narrow side bezels for a more compact form factor
Light-moderate uneven backlight bleeding
Light-moderate uneven backlight bleeding
Matte subpixel array with no edge-to-edge glossy options
Matte subpixel array with no edge-to-edge glossy options
223.5
cd/m²
215.3
cd/m²
197.3
cd/m²
199
cd/m²
211.5
cd/m²
182.8
cd/m²
185.7
cd/m²
200
cd/m²
185.8
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 223.5 cd/m² Average: 200.1 cd/m² Minimum: 10.12 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 82 %
Center on Battery: 211.5 cd/m²
Contrast: 920:1 (Black: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.92 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2, calibrated: 4.16
ΔE Greyscale 3.1 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
60% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 38.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.23
Asus TUF FX505DY
Sharp LM156LF-CL03, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
Chi Mei CMN15F4 (N156HHE-GA1 CMN), TN LED, 120 Hz, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus FX504GD
AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, 15.6, 1920x1080
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
LG Display LP156WFG-SPB2, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AU Optronics B156HAN06.0 (AUO60ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
ID: LGD0533, Name: LG Display LP156WF6-SPK3, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
48%
29%
66%
-7%
14%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
44.8 (18.8, 26)
24 (12.8, 11.2)
46%
41.6 (19.6, 22)
7%
15 (8, 7)
67%
48.4 (24, 24.4)
-8%
32 (16.4, 15.6)
29%
Response Time Black / White *
30.8 (17.6, 13.2)
8.4 (6, 2.4)
73%
15.2 (10, 5.2)
51%
11 (7, 4)
64%
32.8 (18, 14.8)
-6%
25.6 (15.6, 10)
17%
PWM Frequency
20830 (30)
26040 (19)
25%
20000 (99)
-4%
Screen
-5%
-34%
10%
19%
-25%
Brightness middle
211.5
368.5
74%
260
23%
305
44%
299
41%
248.4
17%
Brightness
200
341
71%
241
21%
284
42%
284
42%
241
21%
Brightness Distribution
82
87
6%
85
4%
83
1%
88
7%
84
2%
Black Level *
0.23
0.34
-48%
0.55
-139%
0.52
-126%
0.24
-4%
0.3
-30%
Contrast
920
1084
18%
473
-49%
587
-36%
1246
35%
828
-10%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.92
8.91
-127%
7
-79%
3.63
7%
4.98
-27%
7.5
-91%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
17.63
14.39
18%
22.52
-28%
8.18
54%
7.67
56%
25.2
-43%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.16
2.87
31%
5.27
-27%
1.31
69%
3.7
11%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.1
12
-287%
6.1
-97%
4.77
-54%
4.58
-48%
6.5
-110%
Gamma
2.23 99%
1.825 121%
1.97 112%
2.54 87%
2.55 86%
2.19 100%
CCT
6578 99%
11519 56%
7894 82%
7500 87%
6397 102%
7852 83%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
38.1
85.94
126%
35.5
-7%
59
55%
57
50%
37
-3%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
60
99.98
67%
61
2%
93
55%
87
45%
57.9
-3%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
22% / 7%
-3% / -24%
38% / 19%
6% / 15%
-6% / -16%

* ... smaller is better

Color space covers only 60 percent of sRGB to indicate a budget panel. Most mainstream gaming laptops cover 90 percent of sRGB or more for deeper and more accurate colors. For gaming purposes, however, the more limited color space will not dramatically impact the experience.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB

Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter reveal generally accurate grayscale before any calibration. Most budget gaming laptops have overly cool color temperatures for poor first impressions, but the FX505 has thankfully broken this trend. Colors still become increasingly inaccurate at higher saturation levels due to the narrow color space mentioned above. Blue in particular is measurably more inaccurate than other colors as it leans towards blue-violet instead.

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
30.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17.6 ms rise
↘ 13.2 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 240 (maximum) ms. » 77 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
44.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 18.8 ms rise
↘ 26 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. » 68 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (40.7 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 detected 20830 Hz ≤ 30 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 20830 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 20830 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9821 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is poorer than most gaming laptops as the display is dimmer than average. Even though the matte panel keeps glare at a minimum, ambient lighting will still wash out colors and make it difficult to read text for long periods. Viewing angles are wide as expected from an IPS panel with only slight changes to colors and contrast from extreme angles.

Be sure to disable the display power savings option through the Radeon settings or else maximum brightness will be even lower when running on battery power.

Wide IPS viewing angles
Wide IPS viewing angles

Performance

There are no other CPU or GPU options available other than the quad-core Ryzen 5 3550H CPU and Radeon RX 560X GPU. It's possible that Asus will add additional SKUs or introduce different models in the future with the more powerful Ryzen 7 3750H.

As for the GPU, the Radeon RX 560X is an aging model based on AMD's last generation (and soon-to-be two generations old) Polaris architecture. It's rarely found on PCs since most OEMs would rather use the more common GeForce GTX 1050 Nvidia equivalent.

Our specific test unit is equipped with just 8 GB of single-channel DDR4 RAM. Slightly faster results than we've recorded here can be obtained if upgrading to dual-channel memory.

Processor

CPU performance is comparable to the Core i5-8300H and Core i7-7700HQ according to CineBench benchmarks despite the fact that the AMD processor is running at a lower TDP envelope than the Intel (35 W vs. 45 W). Single-thread performance, however, is slower than we were expecting as it's only comparable to the 15 W Ryzen 7 2700U. Meanwhile, the higher-end hexa-core Core i7-8750H will still handily outperform the new Zen+ processor by 30 percent or more depending on the laptop. Even so, AMD's intention was to offer a CPU that's competitive against the Core i5-8300H and the Ryzen 5 3550H is a success in this regard.

Performance sustainability is excellent. When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, the CPU is able to maintain its initial high score of ~755 points for the first few loops before falling just 5 percent as shown by our graph below. This corresponds to an initial clock rate of 3.7 GHz before falling to 3.5 GHz which we will detail in our Stress Test section.

Note that the Core i5-8300H in last year's Asus FX504GD suffered from throttling issues and so its scores are much lower than the average Core i5-8300H in our database. Our FX505DY thankfully exhibits no similar performance issues.

See our dedicated page on the Ryzen 5 3550H for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R15
CineBench R15
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830840850860870880890900910920930940950960970Tooltip
Asus TUF FX505DY Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø725 (718.93-754.96)
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø892 (884.49-963.04)
Asus FX504GD GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø605 (578.56-609.13)
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø658 (642.69-661.47)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U
191 Points ∼88% +32%
Dell Precision 7530
Intel Core i9-8950HK
187 Points ∼86% +29%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
170 Points ∼78% +17%
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
Intel Core i7-8750H
170 Points ∼78% +17%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
161 Points ∼74% +11%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
150 Points ∼69% +3%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
147 Points ∼67% +1%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
145 Points ∼67%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
144 Points ∼66% -1%
Honor Magicbook
AMD Ryzen 5 2500U
138 Points ∼63% -5%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700
1408 Points ∼32% +86%
Dell Precision 7530
Intel Core i9-8950HK
1166 Points ∼27% +54%
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
Intel Core i7-8750H
964 Points ∼22% +27%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U
815 Points ∼19% +8%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
757 Points ∼17%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
736 Points ∼17% -3%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
661 Points ∼15% -13%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H
604 Points ∼14% -20%
Honor Magicbook
AMD Ryzen 5 2500U
576 Points ∼13% -24%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
501 Points ∼11% -34%
Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
7839
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
20097
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
4575
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
74 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.65 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
8.55 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
145 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
87.72 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
757 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
98 %
Help

System Performance

PCMark benchmarks rank our FX505 consistently ahead of last year's FX504 equipped with the i5-8300H CPU and GTX 1050 GPU. Part of this is likely due to the fact that our FX504 was running on a slow primary HDD compared to the NVMe SSD of our FX505, but it's a breath of fresh air to see a full-on AMD gaming laptop match and even outscore a competing Intel-Nvidia alternative. Mid-range gaming laptops equipped with the i7-8750H and GTX 1060 will still outperform our Asus by a wide margin.

We didn't experience any software issues during our time with the test unit.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10
Digital Content Creation
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
5983 Points ∼53% +32%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4528 Points ∼40%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
4432 Points ∼40% -2%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND
3855 Points ∼34% -15%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3843 Points ∼34% -15%
Productivity
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
7019 Points ∼72% +9%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
6749 Points ∼70% +5%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
6446 Points ∼67%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
5927 Points ∼61% -8%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND
5574 Points ∼58% -14%
Essentials
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
8702 Points ∼82% +9%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
7949 Points ∼75%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
7542 Points ∼71% -5%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND
6733 Points ∼63% -15%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
6583 Points ∼62% -17%
Score
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
5125 Points ∼66% +16%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4405 Points ∼57%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
4364 Points ∼56% -1%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3808 Points ∼49% -14%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND
3763 Points ∼48% -15%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
5543 Points ∼85% +6%
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ
5354 Points ∼82% +3%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
5223 Points ∼80%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
5063 Points ∼78% -3%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
5018 Points ∼77% -4%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND
4810 Points ∼74% -8%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4560 Points ∼75%
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
4440 Points ∼73% -3%
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ
4415 Points ∼72% -3%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3909 Points ∼64% -14%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND
3860 Points ∼63% -15%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
3431 Points ∼56% -25%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4560 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
5223 points
Help

Storage Devices

Secondary 2.5-inch bay sits underneath the left palm rest
Secondary 2.5-inch bay sits underneath the left palm rest

Internal storage options include a single PCIe Gen. 3 M.2 2280 slot and a secondary 2.5-inch SATA III bay. Our specific test unit is configured with only a 256 GB Western Digital M.2 NVMe SSD.

Sequential read and write rates are balanced at just over 1000 MB/s each. While much faster than any SATA III SSD, this is rather average for an NVMe drive. The pricier Samsung SSD PM981 can offer almost twice the read rates as our Kingston drive. In the end, the WD drive a budget NVMe SSD fit for a budget gaming laptop.

Swapping out and upgrading drives will not void any warranties.

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

Asus TUF FX505DY
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
SK Hynix HFS128G39TND
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Liteonit CV3-8D128
AS SSD
-60%
-1%
-119%
-60%
Copy Game MB/s
480.25
220.72
-54%
323.54
-33%
Copy Program MB/s
506.75
328.1
-35%
195.3
-61%
Copy ISO MB/s
1166.32
690.28
-41%
446.8
-62%
Score Total
1899
742
-61%
1663
-12%
600
-68%
752
-60%
Score Write
730
245
-66%
514
-30%
194
-73%
234
-68%
Score Read
762
325
-57%
763
0%
274
-64%
337
-56%
Access Time Write *
0.034
0.072
-112%
0.038
-12%
0.269
-691%
0.073
-115%
Access Time Read *
0.087
0.155
-78%
0.085
2%
0.121
-39%
0.141
-62%
4K-64 Write
501.87
137.77
-73%
273.64
-45%
127.11
-75%
132.19
-74%
4K-64 Read
618.95
253.02
-59%
536.48
-13%
203.12
-67%
257.03
-58%
4K Write
110.59
60.78
-45%
97.03
-12%
54.49
-51%
53.75
-51%
4K Read
37.55
21.88
-42%
46.1
23%
23.64
-37%
28.3
-25%
Seq Write
1179.95
462.89
-61%
1429.35
21%
126.79
-89%
479.79
-59%
Seq Read
1058.74
503.5
-52%
1808.33
71%
470.8
-56%
515.92
-51%

* ... smaller is better

WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1734 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 1302 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 311.9 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 207.6 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1373 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 1302 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 45.19 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 129.8 MB/s

GPU Performance

Graphics performance is most similar to the GeForce GTX 1050 or GTX 965M if not just slightly better at DX12 titles according to 3DMark benchmarks. Nonetheless, the GTX 1050 Ti is still the noticeably faster card by about 27 percent. The even rarer Radeon RX 580 as found on the Asus GL702ZC is up to 90 percent faster.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Ice Storm Extreme
Ice Storm Extreme
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Time Spy
Time Spy
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
3626 Points ∼26% +103%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop), 1700
3440 Points ∼24% +92%
Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, 8809G
2908 Points ∼20% +62%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
1790 Points ∼13%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
1597 Points ∼11% -11%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
11332 Points ∼28% +79%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop), 1700
11010 Points ∼27% +74%
Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, 8809G
10248 Points ∼25% +62%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
8004 Points ∼20% +27%
Schenker XMG P506
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
7595 Points ∼19% +20%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8305G
7355 Points ∼18% +16%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
6356 Points ∼16% 0%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
6327 Points ∼16%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U
6262 Points ∼15% -1%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
AMD Radeon RX 560 (Laptop), 7300HQ
5738 Points ∼14% -9%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U
5622 Points ∼14% -11%
Asus GL552VW-DK725T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ
4326 Points ∼11% -32%
Honor Magicbook
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
2328 Points ∼6% -63%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, 8809G
10391 Points ∼57% +61%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop), 1700
8946 Points ∼49% +39%
Schenker XMG P506
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
8271 Points ∼46% +28%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
7932 Points ∼44% +23%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8305G
7788 Points ∼43% +21%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
7025 Points ∼39% +9%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
6839 Points ∼38% +6%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U
6774 Points ∼37% +5%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
6447 Points ∼36%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
AMD Radeon RX 560 (Laptop), 7300HQ
5933 Points ∼33% -8%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U
5792 Points ∼32% -10%
Asus GL552VW-DK725T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ
5378 Points ∼30% -17%
Honor Magicbook
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
2597 Points ∼14% -60%
1280x720 Performance GPU
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop), 1700
15264 Points ∼30% +87%
Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, 8809G
14302 Points ∼28% +75%
Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8750H
12620 Points ∼25% +54%
Schenker XMG P506
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 6700HQ
9967 Points ∼20% +22%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8305G
9862 Points ∼19% +21%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H
9805 Points ∼19% +20%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 2700U
8451 Points ∼17% +3%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
AMD Radeon RX 560 (Laptop), 7300HQ
8345 Points ∼16% +2%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
8181 Points ∼16%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
7133 Points ∼14% -13%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U
7016 Points ∼14% -14%
Asus GL552VW-DK725T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ
5384 Points ∼11% -34%
Honor Magicbook
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
3482 Points ∼7% -57%
3DMark 06 Standard
25730 points
3DMark 11 Performance
7714 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
57356 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
18476 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
5515 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
1925 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Since raw performance is not unlike the GTX 1050, the latest PC titles should have no issues running on this AMD machine. Gaming at 1080p is certainly possible on demanding titles with most settings on Low-Medium or Medium.

Idling on Witcher 3 shows no sudden dips in frame rates to suggest no interrupting background activity or heavy throttling.

See our dedicated page on the Radeon RX 560X for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop)
42.3 fps ∼100% +86%
Asus GL702ZC-GC104T
AMD Ryzen 7 1700, AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop)
37.4 (min: 31) fps ∼88% +65%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
30 fps ∼71% +32%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
Intel Core i5-8300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
27.9 fps ∼66% +23%
Schenker XMG P506
Intel Core i7-6700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
25.7 fps ∼61% +13%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G
Intel Core i5-8305G, AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
23.7 fps ∼56% +4%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)
22.7 fps ∼54%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Core i5-8300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
22.2 fps ∼52% -2%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
Intel Core i5-7300HQ, AMD Radeon RX 560 (Laptop)
20.7 fps ∼49% -9%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)
20.6 fps ∼49% -9%
Asus GL552VW-DK725T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
14 fps ∼33% -38%
010203040