Asus TUF Gaming FX705DT (Ryzen 5 3550H, GTX 1650, SSD, FHD) Laptop Review

A co-production from AMD and Nvidia. The hardware spec, comprised of a Ryzen 5 3550H APU and GeForce GTX 1650 GPU, is able to fluidly play all modern and current games on its 17.3-inch, full HD IPS display. The laptop has comparatively low energy consumption and only gets moderately warm. In its favour are also an NVMe SSD, an additional HDD and very good battery life. Not so good is the somewhat miserly connectivity included.

Sascha Mölck (translated by Greg Williams), Published 06/03/2019 🇩🇪 🇪🇸 ...

The TUF range from Asus is comprised of comparatively affordable gaming laptops, and we have already reviewed several models from this range. The model on the test bench today, the FX705DT, is already the fourth 17.3-inch device to come through our review labs. The hardware configuration of this unit makes it interesting - Asus has paired a Ryzen APU with a GeForce GPU, and our review will demonstrate whether this pairing works well. As competition we will be comparing it against the Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52, the Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, the MSI GF75 8RD and the Dell G3 17 3779.

As the FX705DT is in terms of build exactly the same as previously reviewed models from the FX705 range, we will not go in-depth into the chassis, general config, display and speakers in this article. For more detail on these areas please refer to our reviews of the FX705GM and FX705DY.

Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T (TUF FX705 Series)

Processor

AMD Ryzen 5 3550H 4 x 2.1 - 3.7 GHz, Picasso-U (Zen+)

Graphics adapter

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile - 4 GB VRAM, Core: 1560 MHz, Memory: 2000 MHz, GDDR5, 128-bit bus width, Nvidia 430.64, Optimus

Memory

8 GB

, DDR4-2666, Single channel, two slots (one slot occupied)

Display

17.30 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 127 PPI, AU Optronics B173HAN04.2, IPS, glossy: no

Mainboard

AMD CZ FCH

Storage

WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G, 256 GB

, NVMe SSD + Toshiba MQ04ABF100 (1 TB, 5400 rpm), 1100 GB free

Soundcard

Realtek ALC233 @ AMD K17.1 - Audio Processor - High Definition Audio Controller

Connections

1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: Combo audio jack, TPM 2.0

Networking

Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit/s), Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 4.2

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 26.6 x 399.8 x 279.4 ( = 1.05 x 15.74 x 11 in)

Battery

64 Wh, 4240 mAh Lithium-Ion, 15.2 V

Operating System

Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit

Camera

Webcam: HD
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix

Additional features

Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, McAfee LiveSafe (trial version), 24 Months Warranty

Weight

2.7 kg ( = 95.24 oz / 5.95 pounds), Power Supply: 442 g ( = 15.59 oz / 0.97 pounds)

Price

1049 Euro

Links

Asus homepage
Asus notebook section

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

[+] Add to comparison

» Compare devices

Size Comparison

Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Dell G3 17 3779 Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T MSI GF75 8RD-001 DIN A4 ❌

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Average of class Gaming (450 - 1580, n=73, last 2 years)	1129 MBit/s ∼100% +462%
Asus TUF FX705GM Intel Wireless-AC 9560	692 MBit/s ∼61% +244%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Wireless-AC 9560	644 (499^min - 661^max) MBit/s ∼57% +220%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Intel Wireless-AC 9560	640 MBit/s ∼57% +218%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter	579 MBit/s ∼51% +188%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC	327 (275^min - 394^max) MBit/s ∼29% +63%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Wireless AC 9462	321 MBit/s ∼28% +60%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Wireless AC 9462	317 (274^min - 362^max) MBit/s ∼28% +58%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC	201 (89^min - 272^max) MBit/s ∼18%
iperf3 receive AX12
Average of class Gaming (90 - 1743, n=73, last 2 years)	1178 MBit/s ∼100% +448%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Intel Wireless-AC 9560	692 MBit/s ∼59% +222%
Asus TUF FX705GM Intel Wireless-AC 9560	681 MBit/s ∼58% +217%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Wireless-AC 9560	651 (547^min - 681^max) MBit/s ∼55% +203%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter	630 MBit/s ∼53% +193%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Wireless AC 9462	292 (204^min - 344^max) MBit/s ∼25% +36%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Wireless AC 9462	284 MBit/s ∼24% +32%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC	271 (246^min - 281^max) MBit/s ∼23% +26%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC	215 (199^min - 221^max) MBit/s ∼18%

Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø214 (199-221)

MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Wireless AC 9462; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø291 (204-344)

Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø270 (246-281)

Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Wireless-AC 9560; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø650 (547-681)

Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø201 (89-272)

MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Wireless AC 9462; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø317 (274-362)

Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø327 (275-394)

Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Wireless-AC 9560; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø643 (499-661)

Display - IPS-Equipped

The matte 17.3-inch display of the FX705DT has a native resolution of 1,920x1,080 pixels. Brightness (293.8 cd/m²) and contrast (988:1) are fine. Generally we consider values on or above 300 cd/m² and 1000:1 respectively to be good. Positive: The display shows no signs of PWM flickering.

The display is also of the IPS variety, with good viewing angles - the same as in two of its sibling models previously reviewed by us. The values do vary a little, however this is normal - apparently, identical display panels will differ from one another ever so slightly.


275 cd/m²	266 cd/m²	283 cd/m²
300 cd/m²	316 cd/m²	311 cd/m²
290 cd/m²	294 cd/m²	309 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

AU Optronics B173HAN04.2

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 316 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 293.8 cd/m² Minimum: 18.6 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 316 cd/m²
Contrast: 988:1 (Black: 0.32 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.39 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2, calibrated: 2.14
ΔE Greyscale 3.17 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
89% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
51% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
63.7% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
89.1% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
62.3% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.39

Download ICC File (X-Rite i1Pro 2)

	Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30	Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30	MSI GF75 8RD-001 IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30	Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30	Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30	Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30	Asus TUF FX705GM IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30	Dell G3 17 3779 IPS, 1920x1080, 17.30
Display			2%	-0%	1%	-1%	0%	2%
Display P3 Coverage	62.3		64 3%	66.4 7%	67.1 8%	63.1 1%	62.4 0%	63.9 3%
sRGB Coverage	89.1		90.1 1%	84.9 -5%	86.1 -3%	86.8 -3%	88.8 0%	89.8 1%
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage	63.7		65.2 2%	62.1 -3%	63 -1%	63.5 0%	63.8 0%	64.9 2%
Response Times		6%	7%	15%	20%	6%	75%	10%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *	41 ?(20, 21)	40 ?(20, 20) 2%	38 ?(18, 20) 7%	36.8 ?(18.8, 18) 10%	36 ?(18.8, 17.2) 12%	39 ?(21, 18) 5%	7.4 ?(3.8, 3.6) 82%	38 ?(18, 20) 7%
Response Time Black / White *	30 ?(16, 14)	27 ?(16, 11) 10%	28 ?(16, 12) 7%	24 ?(14, 10) 20%	22 ?(10.4, 11.6) 27%	28 ?(16, 12) 7%	10 ?(4.8, 5.2) 67%	26 ?(15, 11) 13%
PWM Frequency					122000 ?(95)
Screen		5%	14%	-29%	-30%	4%	13%	-14%
Brightness middle	316	322 2%	356 13%	328.7 4%	365 16%	299 -5%	234 -26%	323 2%
Brightness	294	303 3%	332 13%	318 8%	341 16%	291 -1%	228 -22%	306 4%
Brightness Distribution	84	84 0%	89 6%	91 8%	89 6%	90 7%	85 1%	89 6%
Black Level *	0.32	0.32 -0%	0.27 16%	0.51 -59%	0.32 -0%	0.28 12%	0.2 37%	0.31 3%
Contrast	988	1006 2%	1319 34%	645 -35%	1141 15%	1068 8%	1170 18%	1042 5%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	3.39	2.97 12%	2.73 19%	4.91 -45%	6.51 -92%	3.02 11%	2.16 36%	4.96 -46%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	5.56	5.08 9%	4.7 15%	10.15 -83%	12.32 -122%	5.27 5%	3.39 39%	8.25 -48%
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated *	2.14	2.29 -7%	2.14 -0%	4.27 -100%	2.9 -36%	2.76 -29%	2.02 6%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	3.17	2.26 29%	2.38 25%	3.9 -23%	7.65 -141%	2.18 31%	2 37%	5.65 -78%
Gamma	2.39 ^92%	2.45 ^90%	2.48 ^89%	2.13 ^103%	2.64 ^83%	2.48 ^89%	2.46 ^89%	2.24 ^98%
CCT	7098 ^92%	6892 ^94%	6643 ^98%	6911 ^94%	8066 ^81%	6392 ^102%	6394 ^102%	7441 ^87%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)	51	57 12%	59 16%	55.6 9%	56 10%	57 12%	58 14%	58 14%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)	89	87 -2%	90 1%	84.7 -5%	86 -3%	87 -2%	89 0%	90 1%
Total Average (Program / Settings)		6% / 6%	8% / 11%	-5% / -18%	-3% / -18%	3% / 4%	29% / 18%	-1% / -7%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

ℹ

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 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 16 ms rise
30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 14 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 75 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
41 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 20 ms rise
41 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 21 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 57 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.2 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18889 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Performance - AMD/Nvidia Power

With the TUF Gaming FX705DT, Asus presents a 17.3-inch gaming laptop able to competently and fluidly play all modern games. Our reviewed model is available for around 1,050 Euros (~$1,182), and other configurations are available.

Test Conditions

The pre-installed Armory Crate Control Center provides options for performance and power consumption. Available modes are 'Quiet', 'Balanced', 'Turbo' and 'Windows'. If the latter mode is enabled, Windows takes over power management. This option was chosen for our benchmarking.

Processor

Asus has equipped the FX705DT with a Ryzen 5 3550H (Picasso) APU from AMD, which has a TDP value of 35 watts. The CPU portion of the APU features four cores running at a base clock of 2.1 GHz, which is able to turbo boost up to 3.7 GHz. The CPU also features simultaneous multi-threading, which allows for two threads per CPU core.

The multi-threaded benchmark Cinebench initially ran for a short period at 3.6 to 3.7 GHz, and then dropped down to 3.2 to 3.3 GHz. The single-threaded tests ran at between 1.7 to 3.7 GHz. This was on mains power - in battery mode, the CPU ran at 2.3 to 2.4 GHz (multi-threaded) and 1.4 to 2.4 GHz (single-threaded).

AMDs 3550H APU is a direct competitor to Intel's Core i5 8300H and Core i5 9300H CPUs. In terms of pure CPU performance however, the APU is not quite able to match Intel. The performance difference is more noticeable in the single-threaded benchmarks compared to multi-threaded. The Intel CPUs here benefit from their 10-watt higher TDP.

By using a looped run of Cinebench R15's multi-threaded benchmark for at least 30 minutes, we test whether or not the CPU is able to sustain longer periods of time with turbo boost. The results dropped somewhat between the 5th and 6th runs and then stayed at a constant level - CPU turbo boost was in operation.

If 'Turbo' mode is selected in the Armory Create Center, the APU deliveres slightly better results due to the fact that it runs at somewhat increased clock rates. The opposite is true if 'Quiet' mode is activated, but with the positive side effect that noise is significantly reduced.

Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H: Ø709 (702.86-742.45)

MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø935 (909.48-1089.06)

Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø1193 (1158.58-1229.48)

Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Intel Core i5-8300H, Intel Core i5-8300H: Ø767 (738.02-807.05)

Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H: Ø710 (704.34-742)

Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø1050 (994.7-1115.98)

Asus TUF FX705GM Intel Core i7-8750H, Intel Core i7-8750H: Ø1022 (992.14-1137)

Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H, Intel Core i5-8300H: Ø759 (750.51-796.5)

CPU clock rates during the CB15 benchmarking runs

Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit

4606

Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit

19002

Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit

8016

Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit

742 Points

Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit

144 Points

Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit

82.1 fps

Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit

99.6 %

Help

... in comparison

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Average of class Gaming (79.2 - 312, n=242, last 2 years)	251 Points ∼100% +74%
Asus TUF FX705GM Intel Core i7-8750H	175 Points ∼70% +22%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Intel Core i5-8300H	173 Points ∼69% +20%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Intel Core i7-8750H	173 Points ∼69% +20%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	173 Points ∼69% +20%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Core i7-8750H	172 Points ∼69% +19%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H	169 Points ∼67% +17%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	144 Points ∼57%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	142 Points ∼57% -1%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (77 - 146, n=11)	137.9 Points ∼55% -4%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Average of class Gaming (400 - 5663, n=241, last 2 years)	2595 Points ∼100% +250%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Intel Core i7-8750H	1230 Points ∼47% +66%
Asus TUF FX705GM Intel Core i7-8750H	1137 Points ∼44% +53%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	1116 Points ∼43% +50%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Core i7-8750H	1089 (909^min - 1089^max) Points ∼42% +47%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Core i7-8750H	1089 (909.48^min - 1089.06^max) Points ∼42% +47%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Intel Core i5-8300H	807 Points ∼31% +9%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H	798 Points ∼31% +8%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	742 Points ∼29% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	742 Points ∼29%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (635 - 769, n=11)	717 Points ∼28% -3%

Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
Average of class Gaming (5847 - 11940, n=24, last 2 years)	8368 Points ∼100% +82%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	7893 Points ∼94% +71%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H	6445 Points ∼77% +40%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	6236 Points ∼75% +35%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (4575 - 7893, n=4)	5413 Points ∼65% +18%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	4606 Points ∼55%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Average of class Gaming (30491 - 85088, n=24, last 2 years)	52989 Points ∼100% +179%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	34168 Points ∼64% +80%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H	24718 Points ∼47% +30%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (19002 - 20097, n=4)	19535 Points ∼37% +3%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	19437 Points ∼37% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	19002 Points ∼36%

Cinebench R20
CPU (Single Core)
Average of class Gaming (169 - 825, n=238, last 2 years)	645 Points ∼100% +79%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	362 Points ∼56% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	361 Points ∼56%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (331 - 370, n=8)	354 Points ∼55% -2%
CPU (Multi Core)
Average of class Gaming (930 - 13769, n=238, last 2 years)	6113 Points ∼100% +268%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	1685 Points ∼28% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	1659 Points ∼27%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (1421 - 1728, n=8)	1596 Points ∼26% -4%

Geekbench 3
32 Bit Multi-Core Score
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	21635 Points ∼100% +61%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	14437 Points ∼67% +7%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (13474 - 15114, n=3)	14342 Points ∼66% +6%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	13474 Points ∼62%
32 Bit Single-Core Score
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	3734 Points ∼100% +12%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (3348 - 3558, n=3)	3420 Points ∼92% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	3353 Points ∼90% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	3348 Points ∼90%

Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Average of class Gaming (18976 - 71700, n=33, last 2 years)	43914 Points ∼100% +268%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	18068 Points ∼41% +52%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (11183 - 13441, n=7)	12118 Points ∼28% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	11926 Points ∼27%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	11344 Points ∼26% -5%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Average of class Gaming (5249 - 8936, n=33, last 2 years)	7154 Points ∼100% +88%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H	4692 Points ∼66% +23%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	3807 Points ∼53%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (3623 - 3938, n=7)	3797 Points ∼53% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	3699 Points ∼52% -3%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Edge 44)	1229 ms * ∼100% -2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Edge 44)	1201 ms * ∼98%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H (Edge 42.17134.1.0)	1157 ms * ∼94% +4%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (1042 - 1229, n=8)	1145 ms * ∼93% +5%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Core i7-8750H	1129 ms * ∼92% +6%
Average of class Gaming (446 - 882, n=213, last 2 years)	568 ms * ∼46% +53%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Gaming (63457 - 105526, n=41, last 2 years)	85085 Points ∼100% +200%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H (Edge 42.17134.1.0)	33833 Points ∼40% +19%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Edge 44)	28917 Points ∼34% +2%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (28324 - 29361, n=4)	28827 Points ∼34% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Edge 44)	28324 Points ∼33%

Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Gaming (177 - 407, n=32, last 2 years)	278 runs/min ∼100% +560%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Edge 44)	43.5 runs/min ∼16% +3%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (42.1 - 43.5, n=2)	42.8 runs/min ∼15% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Edge 44)	42.1 runs/min ∼15%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Gaming (324 - 541, n=22, last 2 years)	431 Points ∼100% +126%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H (Edge 44)	250.6 Points ∼58% +31%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H (Edge 42.17134.1.0)	241.3 Points ∼56% +26%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (190.9 - 210, n=4)	201 Points ∼47% +5%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Edge 44)	190.9 Points ∼44%

* ... smaller is better

System Performance

The FX705DT offers plenty of performance for all daily usage scenarios and the dedicated GPU enables gaming potential. The system runs smoothly and without issue, and no problems were noted by us. This was borne out by the good results in PC Mark - checking the comparison chart, we see that most of the competition do beat out the Asus laptop, which can be attributed to their significantly more powerful Intel CPUs.

Increasing overall performance is possible however by installing a second RAM module. This would enable dual-channel RAM mode. Asus has installed only one module and thus the laptop runs in single-channel mode.

PCMark 7 Score		6405 points
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2		4593 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2		3628 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2		4898 points
PCMark 10 Score		4339 points
Help

... in comparison

PCMark 10 | PCMark 8

PCMark 10
Score
Average of class Gaming (4477 - 9331, n=195, last 2 years)	7248 Points ∼100% +67%
Asus TUF FX705GM GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	5169 Points ∼71% +19%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G	4982 Points ∼69% +15%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831	4975 Points ∼69% +15%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1	4437 Points ∼61% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, R5 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	4339 Points ∼60%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	4339 Points ∼60% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R5 3550H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ	4237 Points ∼58% -2%
Essentials
Average of class Gaming (7334 - 12176, n=194, last 2 years)	10452 Points ∼100% +28%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831	9110 Points ∼87% +12%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G	8989 Points ∼86% +10%
Asus TUF FX705GM GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	8791 Points ∼84% +8%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, R5 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	8149 Points ∼78%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	8149 Points ∼78% 0%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1	8057 Points ∼77% -1%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R5 3550H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ	7471 Points ∼71% -8%
Productivity
Average of class Gaming (6161 - 11833, n=194, last 2 years)	9441 Points ∼100% +43%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831	7201 Points ∼76% +9%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G	7057 Points ∼75% +7%
Asus TUF FX705GM GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	7025 Points ∼74% +6%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1	6724 Points ∼71% +2%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, R5 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	6619 Points ∼70%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	6619 Points ∼70% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R5 3550H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ	6209 Points ∼66% -6%
Digital Content Creation
Average of class Gaming (5288 - 16424, n=194, last 2 years)	10534 Points ∼100% +156%
Asus TUF FX705GM GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	6071 Points ∼58% +48%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G	5290 Points ∼50% +29%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831	5096 Points ∼48% +24%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R5 3550H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ	4451 Points ∼42% +8%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1	4377 Points ∼42% +6%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, R5 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	4110 Points ∼39%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	4110 Points ∼39% 0%

PCMark 8
Home Score Accelerated v2
Average of class Gaming (3570 - 6657, n=41, last 2 years)	5100 Points ∼100% +11%
Asus TUF FX705GM GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	4660 Points ∼91% +1%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, R5 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	4593 Points ∼90%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	4593 Points ∼90% 0%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i5-8300H, Hynix HFS128G39TND	4253 Points ∼83% -7%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831	4230 Points ∼83% -8%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G	4148 Points ∼81% -10%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R5 3550H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ	4041 Points ∼79% -12%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1	3969 Points ∼78% -14%
Work Score Accelerated v2
Average of class Gaming (4622 - 7085, n=40, last 2 years)	5997 Points ∼100% +22%
Asus TUF FX705GM GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	5719 Points ∼95% +17%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831	5461 Points ∼91% +11%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i5-8300H, Hynix HFS128G39TND	5347 Points ∼89% +9%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-8750H, Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G	5340 Points ∼89% +9%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-8750H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1	5317 Points ∼89% +9%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, R5 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	4898 Points ∼82%
Average AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	4898 Points ∼82% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R5 3550H, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ	4877 Points ∼81% 0%

Storage

For its system drive the laptop features an NVMe SSD from Western Digital in M.2 2280 format and with 256 GB capacity. With default config and installation, approximately 208 GB is available as the rest is used by the OS installation and recovery partition. Due to its PCI Express connection, the NVMe SSD achieves significantly higher transfer rates than SATA 3 models (which are limited to 600 MB/s).

In terms of overall capacity, this 17.3-incher has you covered - also to be found in the laptop next to the SSD is a 2.5-inch HDD (1TB, 5400 RPM).

Storage requirements are taken care of with a 2.5 inch HDD

CrystalDiskMark 3.0

CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6

AS SSD

WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G

Sequential Read: 1408 MB/s

Sequential Write: 1297 MB/s

512K Read: 986 MB/s

512K Write: 593 MB/s

4K Read: 37.74 MB/s

4K Write: 130.3 MB/s

4K QD32 Read: 316.8 MB/s

4K QD32 Write: 233.2 MB/s

	Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	MSI GF75 8RD-001 Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1	Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Toshiba KBG30ZMT128G	Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Hynix HFS128G39TND	Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ	Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T SK hynix BC501 HFM128GDJTNG-831	Asus TUF FX705GM WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G	Dell G3 17 3779 SK hynix SC311 SATA	Average WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6		-23%	-56%	-63%	-10%	-36%	-4%	-60%	-5%
Write 4K	145	72.1 -50%	71.4 -51%	61.9 -57%	107.7 -26%	90.3 -38%	104.2 -28%	62.8 -57%	118.5 ?(81.7 - 172.9, n=13) -18%
Read 4K	45.28	28.12 -38%	29.98 -34%	22.78 -50%	36.5 -19%	37.03 -18%	41.46 -8%	24.63 -46%	42 ?(34.4 - 47.9, n=13) -7%
Write Seq	1301	746 -43%	129.6 -90%	136.1 -90%	988 -24%	320.3 -75%	1295 0%	203.9 -84%	1123 ?(645 - 1302, n=13) -14%
Read Seq	1362	834 -39%	843 -38%	490.1 -64%	1115 -18%	1012 -26%	1325 -3%	550 -60%	1208 ?(803 - 1388, n=13) -11%
Write 4K Q32T1	249.1	313.7 26%	88.9 -64%	136.2 -45%	334.9 34%	196.8 -21%	282.8 14%	160.1 -36%	324 ?(187.6 - 461, n=13) 30%
Read 4K Q32T1	342.1	348.7 2%	196.4 -43%	208.4 -39%	360.8 5%	271.5 -21%	321.3 -6%	184.3 -46%	322 ?(231 - 506, n=13) -6%
Write Seq Q32T1	1301	854 -34%	130.5 -90%	136 -90%	1008 -23%	268.8 -79%	1301 0%	235 -82%	1091 ?(518 - 1302, n=13) -16%
Read Seq Q32T1	1732	1587 -8%	1037 -40%	553 -68%	1609 -7%	1595 -8%	1704 -2%	554 -68%	1729 ?(1688 - 1751, n=13) 0%

GPU

The TUF Gaming FX705DT is equipped with a GeForce GTX 1650 GPU From NVidia. This GPU belongs to the upper-midrange and is based on the Turing architecture. Compared to other GPUs from the Turing lineup such as the RTX 2000 series, the GTX 1650 does not feature any raytracing support or Tensor cores.

The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 and has a base clock rate of 1,395 MHz. This is able to boost up to 1,560 MHz. This value is however able to be exceeded if power and temperature conditions allow and do not exceed set parameters. We registered a maximum of 1,980 MHz, although this was only achieved for a short time. Our Witcher 3 benchmarking resulted in the GPU running at a constant 1,700 MHz. The GTX 1650 is paired with 4 GB of GDDR 5 RAM.

The 3D Mark benchmarks showed performance in line with expectations for this GPU. As the successor to the GTX 1050, it exceeds that model's performance significantly. The more powerful GTX 1050 Ti is able in less demanding benchmarks such as Sky Diver and Cloud Gate, to keep up with the GTX 1650, but in more intensive benchmarks such as Fire Strike and Time Spy, it falls behind. In terms of where the GTX 1650 falls in the charts, it can be considered to be in-between the GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1060.

3DMark 05 Standard		24001 points
3DMark 06 Standard Score		23061 points
3DMark Vantage P Result		27719 points
3DMark 11 Performance		10635 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score		58789 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score		16079 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score		7942 points
3DMark Time Spy Score		3437 points
Help

... in comparison

3DMark 11 | 3DMark

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Average of class Gaming (1029 - 72070, n=233, last 2 years)	36470 Points ∼100% +173%
Asus GL704GM-DH74 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	15436 Points ∼42% +16%
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	14569 Points ∼40% +9%
Asus TUF FX705GM NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	13722 Points ∼38% +3%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Dual-Channel)	13417 Points ∼37% +1%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	13337 Points ∼37%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H	13125 Points ∼36% -2%
Acer Nitro 5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H	13004 Points ∼36% -2%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (10885 - 13575, n=30)	12797 Points ∼35% -4%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	9466 Points ∼26% -29%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i5-8300H	9147 Points ∼25% -31%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Intel Core i7-8750H	8741 Points ∼24% -34%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	8220 Points ∼23% -38%
Dell G3 17 3779 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Intel Core i5-8300H	7761 Points ∼21% -42%

3DMark
1280x720 Sky Diver Graphics
Average of class Gaming (8527 - 180365, n=23, last 2 years)	85573 Points ∼100% +225%
Acer Nitro 5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H	31779 Points ∼37% +21%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (26305 - 33601, n=12)	31333 Points ∼37% +19%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Dual-Channel)	28187 Points ∼33% +7%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	26305 Points ∼31%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	25557 Points ∼30% -3%
Dell G3 17 3779 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Intel Core i5-8300H	20412 Points ∼24% -22%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	19091 Points ∼22% -27%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Average of class Gaming (781 - 53059, n=240, last 2 years)	26988 Points ∼100% +191%
Asus GL704GM-DH74 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	12281 Points ∼46% +32%
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	11640 Points ∼43% +26%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Dual-Channel)	9332 Points ∼35% +1%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H	9292 Points ∼34% 0%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	9274 Points ∼34%
Acer Nitro 5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H	9235 Points ∼34% 0%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (7741 - 9810, n=32)	9195 Points ∼34% -1%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	7860 Points ∼29% -15%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	7791 Points ∼29% -16%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i5-8300H	7610 Points ∼28% -18%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Intel Core i7-8750H	7324 Points ∼27% -21%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	6331 Points ∼23% -32%
Dell G3 17 3779 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Intel Core i5-8300H	6228 Points ∼23% -33%
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Average of class Gaming (224 - 22547, n=241, last 2 years)	10715 Points ∼100% +206%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	3506 Points ∼33%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (Dual-Channel)	3496 Points ∼33% 0%
Acer Nitro 5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, Intel Core i5-9300H	3433 Points ∼32% -2%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (2900 - 3700, n=31)	3430 Points ∼32% -2%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel Core i7-8750H	2536 Points ∼24% -28%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), AMD Ryzen 5 3550H	1789 Points ∼17% -49%

3DMark 11 | 3DMark

Gaming Performance

The hardware configuration of the Asus TUF is able to play all games in our database fluidly - generally full HD and middle-to-high quality settings can be selected, and in some cases this can also be raised a notch. For resolutions above full HD (for which an external monitor is required) the GPU is not suitable. Only games with very low hardware requirements are able to be played at these resolutions.

Through activation of dual-channel memory mode (by installing another RAM module) further performance gains are possible. An overall estimation of the possible performance gain cannot be made however, as the increase differs from game to game, which resolution is used and the quality settings. The comparison chart shows how much performance gain was realised in the games that we tested. For frequent gamers, investing in a second memory module definitely makes sense.

Our database indicates that the FX705DT produces significantly lower frame rates than the Acer Nitro 5 that is equipped with the same GPU. There are two reasons for this - firstly, the Nitro has two memory modules and runs in dual-channel mode and secondly, it has a stronger CPU. By activating dual-channel mode the gap between the two models narrows noticeably. The higher performance of the CPU in the Nitro 5 is most noticeable at lower resolutions and quality settings.

	low	med.	high	ultra
StarCraft 2 (2010)	267.9	125	123.7	102.2
Diablo III (2012)	139.5	123.7	122.9	103.3
Counter-Strike: GO (2012)	200.8	182.6	162.1	130
BioShock Infinite (2013)	184.2	160	149	77
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor (2014)	136	123.1	84.2	69.3
GTA V (2015)	99.1	93.6	67.7	38.2
The Witcher 3 (2015)	134.9	97.9	59.1	33.3
Batman: Arkham Knight (2015)	90	86	68	45
Dota 2 Reborn (2015)	75.8	69.1	63.3	58.5
World of Warships (2015)	124.7	105.9	84.6	84.2
Ashes of the Singularity (2016)	46.4	40.6	36.5
Civilization VI (2016)	111.4	83	59.4	53.7
Team Fortress 2 (2017)	92	85	77	75
Destiny 2 (2017)	85.4	75.1	72.7	62.4
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018)	67	47.7	33.6
X-Plane 11.11 (2018)	56.9	50.5	44.5
World of Tanks enCore (2018)	256.5	131.6		69.5
Far Cry 5 (2018)	64	48	49	44
Forza Horizon 4 (2018)	84	64	65	48
Assassin´s Creed Odyssey (2018)	45	38	35	22
Darksiders III (2018)	96.8	64.8	57.4	52.3
Far Cry New Dawn (2019)	59	47	44	40
Metro Exodus (2019)	67.7	40.5	30.4	24.9
Dirt Rally 2.0 (2019)	145.7	81.4	68.9	42.1
The Division 2 (2019)	81	54	46	35
Anno 1800 (2019)	49.2	45.2	38	21.7

The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
Average of class Gaming (8.61 - 216, n=239, last 2 years)	102.7 fps ∼100% +208%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q	43 (39^min - 46^max) fps ∼42% +29%
Asus TUF FX705GM Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile	36.5 fps ∼36% +10%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (29.9 - 40.3, n=31)	35.6 fps ∼35% +7%
Acer Nitro 5 Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	35.5 (28^min) fps ∼35% +7%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2 Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	35.4 (28^min) fps ∼34% +6%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (Dual-Channel)	34.2 fps ∼33% +3%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	33.3 fps ∼32%
Acer Predator Helios 300 PH317-52-51M6 Intel Core i5-8300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile	26 fps ∼25% -22%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile	26 fps ∼25% -22%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile	25.8 fps ∼25% -23%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)	21.7 fps ∼21% -35%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile	21.6 (13^min - 26^max) fps ∼21% -35%

BioShock Infinite - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF)
Average of class Gaming (last 2 years)	162.9 fps ∼100% +112%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (68.5 - 99.4, n=18)	86.4 fps ∼53% +12%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (Dual-Channel)	77.8 fps ∼48% +1%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	77 fps ∼47%
Lenovo Legion Y730-17ICH, i7-8750H Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile	74.5 fps ∼46% -3%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile	72.2 fps ∼44% -6%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile	64.3 fps ∼39% -16%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)	53 fps ∼33% -31%

Far Cry 5 - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:T
Average of class Gaming (14 - 167, n=149, last 2 years)	114.1 fps ∼100% +159%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (Dual-Channel)	53 fps ∼46% +20%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (44 - 57, n=9)	51.4 fps ∼45% +17%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	44 fps ∼39%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile	42 fps ∼37% -5%
Dell G3 17 3779 Intel Core i5-8300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile	33 (29^min - 38^max) fps ∼29% -25%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)	33 fps ∼29% -25%

Dota 2 Reborn - 1920x1080 ultra (3/3) best looking
Average of class Gaming (22 - 194.7, n=250, last 2 years)	132.6 fps ∼100% +127%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (58.5 - 119, n=20)	93.2 fps ∼70% +59%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (Dual-Channel)	68.9 fps ∼52% +18%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)	60.7 fps ∼46% +4%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	58.5 fps ∼44%

Anno 1800 - 1920x1080 Medium Graphics Quality (DX11)
Acer Nitro 5 Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	69.8 (60^min) fps ∼100% +54%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (Dual-Channel)	60.8 fps ∼87% +35%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (43.3 - 69.8, n=5)	56.7 fps ∼81% +25%
Average of class Gaming (7.88 - 88, n=2, last 2 years)	47.9 fps ∼69% +6%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	45.2 fps ∼65%

Assassin´s Creed Odyssey - 1920x1080 High Preset
Acer Nitro 5 Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	53 (28^min) fps ∼100% +51%
Asus TUF FX705GM Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile	52 fps ∼98% +49%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (Dual-Channel)	47 fps ∼89% +34%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (35 - 53, n=4)	45.8 fps ∼86% +31%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile	40 fps ∼75% +14%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	35 fps ∼66%

Far Cry New Dawn - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset
Average of class Gaming (67 - 131, n=11, last 2 years)	86.4 fps ∼100% +116%
Acer Nitro 5 Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	56 (44^min) fps ∼65% +40%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2 Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	53 (37^min) fps ∼61% +33%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (40 - 56, n=6)	49.8 fps ∼58% +25%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile (Dual-Channel)	48 fps ∼56% +20%
MSI GF75 8RD-001 Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q	43 (33^min - 53^max) fps ∼50% +8%
Asus TUF FX705DT-AU068T AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile	40 fps ∼46%
Asus TUF FX705DY-AU072 AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)	33 fps ∼38% -17%

In order to test whether or not the laptop is capable of keeping frame rates in games at a constant level, we run the game "The Witcher 3" for around 60 minutes in full HD and at maximum quality settings. During the entire test, the player character is not moved. We did not notice any drop in performance over this time.