Notebookcheck

Asus X555DA (A10-8700P, FHD) Laptop Review

Slow and outdated. AMD's Carrizo platform has not aged well. Performance is slower than a U-class Intel processor while offering shorter battery life and an overall poorer experience.

The $400 to $500 USD price range is unsurprisingly home to some slow laptops. While this is not a major issue for the target audience, even we have standards on how slow a laptop can be before it becomes unacceptable and not recommendable. The X555DA and its AMD A10-8700P APU straddle that line with an under-performing processor and washed out 1080p display as our tests and measurements below will show.

The X555DA retains the core chassis and design features of the older X555LD and X555LN Intel SKUs, so we recommend checking out our two existing review pages for more information on the hardware. Other AMD APUs are also available on the X555DA series including the slower A8-8600P and the faster FX-8800P.

Asus X555DA-BB11 (X555 Series)
Processor
Graphics adapter
AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo) - 512 MB, Core: 626 MHz, Memory: 667 MHz, DDR3, 15.201.1101.1002
Memory
8192 MB 
, 4 GB soldered + 4 GB DDR3 SODIMM, Dual-Channel, 1066.7 MHz, 9-9-9-24
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, TN LED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, ID: AUO38ED, glossy: no
Mainboard
AMD CZ FCH
Storage
Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB, 1000 GB 
, 5400 rpm
Soundcard
AMD Kabini - High Definition 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, Card Reader: SD reader
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (ac), Bluetooth 4.0
Optical drive
TSSTcorp CDDVDW SU-228HB
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 25.8 x 382 x 256 ( = 1.02 x 15.04 x 10.08 in)
Battery
37 Wh Lithium-Polymer, 2-cell
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 0.3 MP
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: no, Avast SecureLine, Asus Smart Gesture, AMD Catalyst Control Center, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.132 kg ( = 75.2 oz / 4.7 pounds), Power Supply: 242 g ( = 8.54 oz / 0.53 pounds)
Price
420 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The case remains largely unchanged from the old X555LN with only minor visual updates. The plastic outer lid, for example, is now a glossy bright red with more rounded edges and corners. Other colors are available as well including green and gray with the same glossy sheen. While attractive when new and clean, the surface scratches easily and fingerprints accumulate very quickly.

Case quality is average as the plastic base creaks only slightly when twisting or depressing its surfaces. The chassis is a bit weaker on its right half and NumPad area due to the hollow optical bay underneath. The lid is perhaps the most disappointing as it flexes easily and even creaks simply by opening or closing. Its outer surface warps easily to pressure and the bar hinge teeters for far too long when adjusting the angle of the display. While it's unrealistic to expect a very sturdy lid from a notebook in this price range, it's the one aspect of the chassis that could use the most improvement.

The X555DA is middle-of-the-road when it comes to size and weight as it is not significantly heavier nor thinner than other inexpensive alternatives. After all, its affordable chassis is not designed to be super-thin or lightweight like the flagship Zenbook series.

378 mm / 14.9 inch 265 mm / 10.4 inch 30 mm / 1.181 inch 2.2 kg4.85 lbs382 mm / 15 inch 258 mm / 10.2 inch 26 mm / 1.024 inch 2.3 kg5.07 lbs382 mm / 15 inch 256 mm / 10.1 inch 25.8 mm / 1.016 inch 2.1 kg4.7 lbs382 mm / 15 inch 258 mm / 10.2 inch 25.5 mm / 1.004 inch 2.3 kg5.07 lbs382.5 mm / 15.1 inch 252.5 mm / 9.94 inch 24.4 mm / 0.961 inch 2.3 kg4.98 lbs379 mm / 14.9 inch 258 mm / 10.2 inch 23.95 mm / 0.943 inch 2.1 kg4.63 lbs

Connectivity

Available ports are identical to the 2014 X555LN. Ports are positioned close to the front of the side edges where they are easy to reach, but expect cables to take up valuable desk space as a result. Moving some features to the rear of the notebook, such as the Kensington Lock, would have benefited the Asus. USB Type-C is conspicuously missing as well.

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit Ethernet, VGA, HDMI, 2x USB 3.0, Kensington Lock
Left: AC adapter, Gigabit Ethernet, VGA, HDMI, 2x USB 3.0, Kensington Lock
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Right: SD reader, 3.5 mm combo audio, USB 2.0, Optical drive
Right: SD reader, 3.5 mm combo audio, USB 2.0, Optical drive

SD Card Reader

The integrated card reader is slow with a transfer rate of just 25 MB/s from our Toshiba UHS-II test card. Transferring 1 GB worth of photos from the card to desktop will take about 41 seconds.

The card reader is not spring-loaded and is poorly positioned on the right edge of the notebook. About half of the SD card will protrude when fully inserted and it is easy to accidentally knock or bend the card during use.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
 
71.2 MB/s ∼100% +186%
Asus X555DA-BB11
 
24.9 MB/s ∼35%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
 
22.7 MB/s ∼32% -9%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
 
90.4 MB/s ∼100% +237%
Asus X555DA-BB11
 
26.8 MB/s ∼30%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
 
26.6 MB/s ∼29% -1%

Communication

The Realtek 8821AE WLAN adapter is an upgrade from the Atheros adapters on our previous X555 units as the X555DA supports 802.11ac networks. While transmit is slow at under 200 Mbps, the system can receive at a more respectable 341 Mbps as is common for a 1x1 WLAN module. We experienced no connectivity issues during our time with the Asus test unit.

Bluetooth 4.0 is integrated on our particular configuration, but is otherwise optional on the X555 series.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
635 MBit/s ∼100% +86%
Asus X555DA-BB11
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
341 MBit/s ∼54%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
310 MBit/s ∼49% -9%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
532 MBit/s ∼100% +170%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
341 MBit/s ∼64% +73%
Asus X555DA-BB11
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
197 MBit/s ∼37%

Accessories

The retail box includes no extras beyond the warranty card and AC adapter, so the out-of-box experience is as barebones as it gets. Carrying cases and external mice are available from Asus.

Maintenance

A small hatch is provided for quick access to the single DDR3 SODIMM slot if needed. Beyond this, the bottom panel cannot be easily removed as many core components are attached to this panel. Instead, users must pop off the keyboard base to reveal the motherboard, hard drive, and system fan. The keyboard base is attached to the bottom base with more ribbons, so accessibility is not as easy as it could have been.

Warranty

The standard one-year limited warranty applies to both the notebook and its internal battery. Dead pixels are covered over a certain minimum as described by Asus' official warranty card.

Input Devices

Keyboard

The plastic keyboard keys are slightly roughened in texture and do not wiggle or clatter significantly when pressed. Travel is shallow as expected, but feedback is soft mainly because the keyboard base warps easily to pressure especially towards its center. Simply typing will bend the area around the keys slightly, so the chassis could have benefited from a more rigid base to improve the typing experience. There are no backlight options as is common on budget laptops.

Touchpad

The trackpad (~10.5 x 7.3 cm) feels much more solid than the keyboard with its smooth glide and responsiveness. The onscreen cursor will not jitter even at low speeds and multi-touch controls are generally reliable. The integrated mouse keys are shallow in travel with firm auditory feedback when pressed. Travel could have been more rigid, however, as there is some "give" to the touchpad surface before the system will register a click.

It's worth noting that the trackpad on our test unit is not completely flat; its surface sinks slightly more on the left half than the right half. This doesn't appear to impact the functionality of the trackpad, but it has us questioning the quality control of this particular aspect of the X555DA series.

Display

The 1080p panel on our X555DA is a stark improvement over the poor 768p panel on our older X555LN. Contrast and brightness are now more in line with what we expect from a notebook of this price range at around 500:1 and 230 nits, respectively. This AU Optronics B156HTN03.8 TN panel is common on many budget and mid-range 15.6-inch notebooks including the HP 250 G5 SP, Acer Aspire E5-574, and the TravelMate P257-M.

Subjectively, colors are muted and not nearly as vivid as the displays of most Ultrabooks. Contrast is still very weak and the backlight is sufficient only for indoor use. The low contrast and narrow color gamut make for an overall below average experience even if texts and images appear sharp resolution-wise.

Typical light bleed of a TN panel
Typical light bleed of a TN panel
Subpixel array (141 PPI)
Subpixel array (141 PPI)
223.2
cd/m²
235.9
cd/m²
222.4
cd/m²
216.4
cd/m²
242.7
cd/m²
220.9
cd/m²
241.6
cd/m²
243.6
cd/m²
244.8
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro Basic 2
Maximum: 244.8 cd/m² Average: 232.4 cd/m² Minimum: 10.74 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 242.7 cd/m²
Contrast: 467:1 (Black: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.9 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.1
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
52.5% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 33.5% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.34
Asus X555DA-BB11
TN LED, 15.6, 1920x1080
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
Toshiba, TN LED, 15.6, 1366x768
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
BOE NT156WHM-N32, TN LED, 15.6, 1366x768
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
AU Optronics AUO41ED, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus X555LN-XO112H
AU Optronics B156XW04 V6, TN LED, 15.6, 1366x768
Response Times
-39%
-21%
-14%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
42 (23.6, 18.4)
68 (32, 36)
-62%
58
-38%
44.4 (15.2, 29.2)
-6%
Response Time Black / White *
22.4 (14.4, 8)
26 (20, 6)
-16%
23
-3%
27.2 (6.8, 20.4)
-21%
PWM Frequency
217 (90)
200 (90)
Screen
-40%
-32%
-7%
-86%
Brightness middle
242.7
226
-7%
253
4%
209.7
-14%
189
-22%
Brightness
232
217
-6%
246
6%
193
-17%
184
-21%
Brightness Distribution
88
91
3%
86
-2%
75
-15%
92
5%
Black Level *
0.52
0.58
-12%
0.44
15%
0.19
63%
2.2
-323%
Contrast
467
390
-16%
575
23%
1104
136%
86
-82%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.9
9.84
-101%
9.2
-88%
7.8
-59%
7.77
-59%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
20.3
16.77
17%
17.68
13%
24.1
-19%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.7
11.1
-311%
11.05
-309%
7.3
-170%
8.82
-227%
Gamma
2.34 94%
2.35 94%
2.55 86%
2.39 92%
2.43 91%
CCT
6876 95%
11979 54%
11451 57%
5771 113%
9275 70%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
33.5
39
16%
36
7%
39.3
17%
48
43%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
52.5
61
16%
56
7%
56.5
8%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-40% / -40%
-27% / -30%
-11% / -8%
-86% / -86%

* ... smaller is better

The crux of the X555DA panel is its very limited color space. At just over half of the sRGB standard, colors have very little depth and saturation. Even subjectively, images and video playback look quite poor with muddy grays and bland colors.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. Lenovo IdeaPad 310
vs. Lenovo IdeaPad 310

Further measurements with a X-Rite spectrophotometer reveal generally accurate colors and grayscale out of the box - a rarity amongst inexpensive notebooks. A calibration improves the display just marginally as shown by our results below. Regardless, colors still become more inaccurate the higher the saturation level due to the narrow sRGB gamut of the panel. Blue and Red in particular are extremely inaccurate with the latter being far too light and almost dark Pink or Maroon.

Grayscale before calibration
Grayscale before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
ColorChecker before 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
22.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 14.4 ms rise
↘ 8 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. » 27 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.5 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23.6 ms rise
↘ 18.4 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. » 53 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to 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 not detected

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9705 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is subpar due to limited TN viewing angles and a relatively dim backlight. Colors become washed out even if under shade and with minimal glare. Nonetheless, these are all common characteristics of budget laptops.

Outdoors under direct sunlight
Outdoors under direct sunlight
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under direct sunlight
Outdoors under direct sunlight
TN viewing angles
TN viewing angles

Performance

The Carrizo-based A10-8700P APU with integrated Radeon R6 graphics is AMD's mainstream solution for notebooks. Unfortunately, as the benchmarks below will show, "mainstream" in AMD terms is entry-level or slower when compared to the Intel ULV class of Core ix processors. The performance and heat disadvantages of the quad-core AMD APU can be partly attributed to its 28 nm silicon fabrication process compared to 22 nm or smaller on Intel CPUs.

Processor

The A10-8700P occupies an awkward performance zone between the passively-cooled Intel Cherry Trail x5-Z8500 and the older Haswell i5-4200U. This makes the AMD processor very slow for general PC tasks but still at a level much higher than the Intel Atom. The entry-level Surface Pro 4 SKU with its Core m3-6Y30 CPU can still outperform our AMD APU in raw CPU tasks by as much as 15 to 40 percent according to CineBench benchmarks. This is made even more disappointing by the fact that the A10-8700P is a 12 W to 35 W cTDP APU compared to just 4.5 W for the Intel m3-6Y30.

To AMD's credit, the Asus system shows no signs of CPU performance throttling when running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread on a loop. The initial score of 180 points remains very steady after more than an hour of running the benchmark non-stop.

CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R10 32-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R11.5 64-bit
CineBench R15
CineBench R15
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel Core m7-6Y75
119 Points ∼55% +86%
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel Core i5-6200U
115 Points ∼53% +80%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
Intel Core i5-5200U
108 Points ∼50% +69%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
99 Points ∼45% +55%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
88 Points ∼40% +38%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
64 Points ∼29%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel Atom x5-Z8500
35 Points ∼16% -45%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
27 Points ∼12% -58%
CPU Multi 64Bit
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel Core i5-6200U
288 Points ∼7% +60%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
Intel Core i5-5200U
257 Points ∼6% +43%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel Core m7-6Y75
234 Points ∼5% +30%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
223 Points ∼5% +24%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
206 Points ∼5% +14%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
180 Points ∼4%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel Atom x5-Z8500
118 Points ∼3% -34%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
94 Points ∼2% -48%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel Core i5-6200U
1.33 Points ∼55% +60%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
Intel Core i5-5200U
1.28 Points ∼52% +54%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
1.14 Points ∼47% +37%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel Core m7-6Y75
1.08 Points ∼44% +30%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
0.98 Points ∼40% +18%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
0.83 Points ∼34%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel Atom x5-Z8500
0.43 Points ∼18% -48%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
0.35 Points ∼14% -58%
CPU Multi 64Bit
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel Core i5-6200U
3.19 Points ∼12% +39%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
Intel Core i5-5200U
2.81 Points ∼10% +22%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel Core m7-6Y75
2.62 Points ∼10% +14%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
2.49 Points ∼9% +8%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
2.3 Points ∼8%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
2.27 Points ∼8% -1%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel Atom x5-Z8500
1.42 Points ∼5% -38%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
1.17 Points ∼4% -49%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel Core i5-6200U
4359 Points ∼40% +99%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
Intel Core i5-5200U
4134 Points ∼38% +89%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
3725 Points ∼34% +70%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
3286 Points ∼30% +50%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
2192 Points ∼20%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel Atom x5-Z8500
1164 Points ∼11% -47%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
948 Points ∼9% -57%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel Core i5-6200U
9852 Points ∼20% +105%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
Intel Core i5-5200U
8672 Points ∼17% +80%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
7580 Points ∼15% +58%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
6994 Points ∼14% +45%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
4808 Points ∼10%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel Atom x5-Z8500
3563 Points ∼7% -26%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
2911 Points ∼6% -39%
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
790 s * ∼9% -56%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
787.585 s * ∼9% -55%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel Core m7-6Y75
698 s * ∼8% -38%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
507.427 s * ∼6%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - ---
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel Atom x5-Z8300
2252.64 Seconds * ∼10% -130%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD A10-8700P
977.893 Seconds * ∼4%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel Core m3-6Y30
898 Seconds * ∼4% +8%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
Intel Core i5-4200U
849 Seconds * ∼4% +13%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel Core m7-6Y75
640 Seconds * ∼3% +35%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
4055
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
4808
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
2192
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
14.45 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
2.3 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
0.83 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
98 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
19.23 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
180 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
64 Points
Help

System Performance

PCMark 8 ranks the X555DA behind inexpensive alternatives like the VivoBook F556 and the Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C. The combination of a slow HDD and budget-grade AMD processor does the Asus system no favors.

We otherwise experienced no software or hardware related issues during our time with the unit. Subjectively, applications launch with a notable delay in contrast to today's Ultrabooks with instant primary SSD access.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 8 Creative Accelerated
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D
GeForce 940MX, 6198DU, Toshiba MQ01ABF050
4231 Points ∼65% +30%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
HD Graphics 520, 6006U, TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075
3707 Points ∼57% +14%
Asus X555DA-BB11
Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P, Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB
3246 Points ∼50%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
2880 Points ∼44% -11%
Creative Score Accelerated v2
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
5275 Points ∼55% +85%
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D
GeForce 940MX, 6198DU, Toshiba MQ01ABF050
3343 Points ∼35% +17%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
HD Graphics 520, 6006U, TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075
3234 Points ∼34% +13%
Asus X555DA-BB11
Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P, Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB
2856 Points ∼30%
Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
4182 Points ∼69% +79%
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D
GeForce 940MX, 6198DU, Toshiba MQ01ABF050
3178 Points ∼52% +36%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
HD Graphics 520, 6006U, TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075
2937 Points ∼48% +26%
Asus X555DA-BB11
Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P, Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB
2335 Points ∼38%
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), A8-7410, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
1956 Points ∼32% -16%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
2335 points
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
2856 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
3246 points
Help

Storage Device

Our test unit is equipped with a single SATA III Seagate HDD with no other secondary internal storage options. Transfer rates average 78.8 MB/s according to HD Tune, which is average for a 5400 RPM drive and noticeably slower than most 7200 RPM HDDs where 95+ MB/s is common. The latest NVMe SSDs on newer Ultrabooks are over an order of a magnitude faster than what is offered here.

Upgrading the hard drive requires a Philips screwdriver and a flat edge, but the keyboard panel can be tricky to remove due to connecting ribbons underneath. The 2.5-inch slot accepts both 7 mm and 9.5 mm drives.

See our growing list of HDDs and SSDs for additional benchmarks and comparisons.

CDM
CDM
HD Tune
HD Tune
PCMark 8 Storage
PCMark 8 Storage
Asus X555DA-BB11
Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
Asus X555LN-XO112H
Toshiba MQ01ABF050
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
-12%
-13%
12909%
28%
Write 4k QD32
0.682
0.706
4%
0.473
-31%
140.2
20457%
1.099
61%
Read 4k QD32
0.694
0.595
-14%
0.921
33%
400.9
57667%
0.894
29%
Write 4k
0.636
0.836
31%
0.283
-56%
89.84
14026%
1.044
64%
Read 4k
0.373
0.342
-8%
0.372
0%
33.12
8779%
0.47
26%
Write 512
35.39
19.83
-44%
26.71
-25%
185.4
424%
44.85
27%
Read 512
32.28
20.82
-36%
32.94
2%
399.7
1138%
35.72
11%
Write Seq
97.48
77.93
-20%
88.49
-9%
476.6
389%
104
7%
Read Seq
106.9
96.48
-10%
92.05
-14%
522.1
388%
105.8
-1%
Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB
Transfer Rate Minimum: 41.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 111.6 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 78.8 MB/s
Access Time: 18.7 ms
Burst Rate: 140.7 MB/s
CPU Usage: 3.2 %

GPU Performance

While CPU performance is well below the Haswell i5-4200U, GPU performance is more on par with the HD Graphics 520 as found on many Intel Skylake CPUs. The integrated Radeon R6 performs similarly to the basic GeForce 820M according to 3DMark benchmarks and is significantly ahead of the integrated HD Graphics of Atom CPUs. In an embarrassment to AMD, the HD Graphics 515 on the passively-cooled Surface Pro 4 SKU still comes out ahead in synthetic benchmarks.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Ice Storm
Ice Storm
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Ice Storm Extreme
Ice Storm Extreme
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Fire Strike Extreme
Fire Strike Extreme
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
7270 Points ∼32% +744%
Asus X555LN-XO112H
NVIDIA GeForce 840M, 4210U
1769 Points ∼8% +105%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
AMD Radeon R5 M330, 5200U
1525 Points ∼7% +77%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y30
1370 Points ∼6% +59%
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6200U
1220 Points ∼5% +42%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
NVIDIA GeForce 820M, 4200U
1191 Points ∼5% +38%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y75
1179 Points ∼5% +37%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6006U
867 Points ∼4% +1%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P
861 Points ∼4%
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
AMD Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), A8-7410
850 Points ∼4% -1%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8500
441 Points ∼2% -49%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8300
361 Points ∼2% -58%
1280x720 Performance GPU
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
7564 Points ∼15% +487%
Asus X555LN-XO112H
NVIDIA GeForce 840M, 4210U
2341 Points ∼5% +82%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
AMD Radeon R5 M330, 5200U
1834 Points ∼4% +42%
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6200U
1376 Points ∼3% +7%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P
1288 Points ∼3%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
NVIDIA GeForce 820M, 4200U
1265 Points ∼2% -2%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y30
1206 Points ∼2% -6%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y75
1154 Points ∼2% -10%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6006U
1090 Points ∼2% -15%
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
AMD Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), A8-7410
899 Points ∼2% -30%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8500
411 Points ∼1% -68%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8300
342 Points ∼1% -73%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
6100 Points ∼15% +698%
Asus X555LN-XO112H
NVIDIA GeForce 840M, 4210U
1567 Points ∼4% +105%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
AMD Radeon R5 M330, 5200U
1010 Points ∼2% +32%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
NVIDIA GeForce 820M, 4200U
897 Points ∼2% +17%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y30
810 Points ∼2% +6%
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6200U
770 Points ∼2% +1%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P
764 Points ∼2%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y75
762 Points ∼2% 0%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8500
281 Points ∼1% -63%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8300
225 Points ∼1% -71%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
38748 Points ∼21% +861%
Asus X555LN-XO112H
NVIDIA GeForce 840M, 4210U
8744 Points ∼5% +117%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y30
6597 Points ∼4% +64%
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6200U
6426 Points ∼3% +59%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
NVIDIA GeForce 820M, 4200U
6106 Points ∼3% +51%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y75
5769 Points ∼3% +43%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
AMD Radeon R5 M330, 5200U
5592 Points ∼3% +39%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P
4033 Points ∼2%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8500
1928 Points ∼1% -52%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8300
1708 Points ∼1% -58%
1280x720 Ice Storm Standard Graphics
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ
116616 Points ∼16% +209%
Asus X555LN-XO112H
NVIDIA GeForce 840M, 4210U
85402 Points ∼11% +126%
Lenovo IdeaPad Z40-59422614
NVIDIA GeForce 820M, 4200U
68464 Points ∼9% +81%
HP 250 G4 T6P08ES
AMD Radeon R5 M330, 5200U
59371 Points ∼8% +57%
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y75
53318 Points ∼7% +41%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
Intel HD Graphics 515, 6Y30
51362 Points ∼7% +36%
HP ProBook 640 G2-T9X60ET
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6200U
51015 Points ∼7% +35%
Asus X555DA-BB11
AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P
37735 Points ∼5%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8500
23395 Points ∼3% -38%
Toshiba Satellite Click 10 LX0W-C-104
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8300
17603 Points ∼2% -53%
3DMark 11 Performance
1297 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
31586 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
3248 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
666 points
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score
337 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Gaming performance is slightly ahead of the HD Graphics 520 in the Toshiba Satellite Pro R50, but still far slower than the HD Graphics 620 in the ThinkPad L470. The Radeon R6 can barely push a solid 30 FPS when playing Dota 2 even on the lowest of graphical settings and resolutions, so users shouldn't expect any gaming capabilities with recent 3D titles. See our dedicated GPU page on the Radeon R6 Carrizo for more technical details and benchmarks.

4K video playback on YouTube is possible at 30 FPS with CPU usage hovering in the 50 to 60 percent range.

BioShock Infinite - 1280x720 Very Low Preset
Asus X555LD-XX283H
GeForce 820M, 4010U, Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 HTS545050A7E680
55.3 fps ∼100% +52%
Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3
HD Graphics 515, 6Y30, Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe
52.42 fps ∼95% +44%
Lenovo ThinkPad L470-20J5S00C00
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SanDisk X400 256GB, SATA (SD8SB8U-256G)
41.4 fps ∼75% +14%
Asus X555DA-BB11
Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P, Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB
36.3 fps ∼66%
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), A8-7410, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
34.6 fps ∼63% -5%
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
HD Graphics 520, 6006U, TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075
28.9 fps ∼52% -20%
HP Split x2 13-m210eg
HD Graphics 4200, 4210Y, Micron RealSSD C400 MTFDDAT064MAM-1J2 64 GB
24 fps ∼43% -34%
Dell Venue 10 Pro 5056
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8500, 128 GB eMMC Flash
20.1 fps ∼36% -45%
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 36.3fps
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) 28.2fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 17fps

Stress Test

We stress the notebook with synthetic benchmarks to identify for any throttling or stability issues. When under Prime95 stress, the CPU can be observed alternating between its base 1.8 GHz and Turbo 2.1 GHz clock rates. While the CPU does not drop below the base clock rate, it's disappointing that it can neither maintain consistent Turbo clock rates. Running both Prime95 and FurMark will throttle the CPU and GPU to 1.3 GHz and 433 MHz, respectively. The CPU temperature ceiling appears to be very reserved at the low 50 C range no matter the processing load.

Running on battery power will not limit CPU or GPU power. A 3DMark 11 run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores of 2172 and 1350 points, respectively, compared to 2069 and 1288 points when on mains.

Prime95 stress
Prime95 stress
FurMark stress
FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Unigine Valley stress
Unigine Valley stress
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress 1.8 - 2.1 -- 52
FurMark Stress -- 524 52
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 1.3 433 51
Unigine Valley Stress 1.3 - 2.1 479 51

Emissions

System Noise

(White: Background, Red: System idle, Blue: 3DMark, Green: Prime95+FurMark)
(White: Background, Red: System idle, Blue: 3DMark, Green: Prime95+FurMark)

The internal fan is always active no matter the onscreen load or system setting. What's worse is that it appears to pulsate in low ranges between 31.6 dB(A) and 32.4 dB(A) which makes an otherwise quiet machine more noticeable during use. A steady fan noise of 32.4 dB(A), for example, would have been preferable and less of an annoyance than a fan that is constantly changing in speeds.

More stressful conditions such as 3DMark or Prime95 will induce a louder fan noise in the 33.3 dB(A) to 35.5 dB(A) range. This is significantly quieter than the X555LN since the X555DA has no dedicated GPU to cool, so this is perhaps one area that the AMD SKU excels at. Nonetheless, similarly-sized competitors with Intel ULV solutions can run even quieter under similar conditions with less frequent pulsing.

Noise Level

Idle
31.6 / 32 / 32.4 dB(A)
Load
33.3 / 35.5 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   BK Precision 732A (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 28.9 dB(A)
Asus X555DA-BB11
Radeon R6 (Carrizo), A10-8700P, Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
HD Graphics 520, 6006U, TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), A8-7410, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
Asus X555LN-XO112H
GeForce 840M, 4210U, Toshiba MQ01ABF050
Asus Vivobook F556UQ-XO626D
GeForce 940MX, 6198DU, Toshiba MQ01ABF050
Noise
2%
3%
-13%
-8%
-6%
off / environment *
28.9
30.4
-5%
30.4
-5%
29.3
-1%
30.7
-6%
Idle Minimum *
31.6
31.8
-1%
30.9
2%
32.3
-2%
31.7
-0%
32
-1%
Idle Average *
32
31.8
1%
30.9
3%
32.3
-1%
31.7
1%
32
-0%
Idle Maximum *
32.4
31.8
2%
31
4%
32.4
-0%
31.8
2%
32.2
1%
Load Average *
33.3
31.9
4%
31.8
5%
44.4
-33%
40.8
-23%
37.3
-12%
Load Maximum *
35.5
31.8
10%
31.9
10%
49.2
-39%
43.2
-22%
42.6
-20%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Surface temperatures when idling are flat across the palm rests and right-hand side of the notebook. Most of the QWERTY keys, however, will feel comparatively warmer at about 30 C compared to 23 C or 24 C on the palm rests. Not coincidentally, the processor and heat pipe are directly underneath this zone. Maximum load with both Prime95 and FurMark will induce a surface temperature of almost 37 C on the keyboard keys, which is still a comfortable range for typing and not any warmer than the Intel-based Toshiba Satellite Pro 50-C when under similar loads. Waste heat exhausts through the ventilation grilles on the rear of the unit as shown by the very warm 47 C hinge on our temperature maps below. The RAM module becomes especially warm when under load at about 45 C.

Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (bottom)
Maximum load (bottom)
Max. Load
 32.6 °C
91 F
31 °C
88 F
26.4 °C
80 F
 
 33 °C
91 F
36.8 °C
98 F
26.4 °C
80 F
 
 26.8 °C
80 F
26.8 °C
80 F
30 °C
86 F
 
Maximum: 36.8 °C = 98 F
Average: 30 °C = 86 F
27.8 °C
82 F
40 °C
104 F
31.2 °C
88 F
27.8 °C
82 F
36.4 °C
98 F
45 °C
113 F
32.2 °C
90 F
27.6 °C
82 F
28.6 °C
83 F
Maximum: 45 °C = 113 F
Average: 33 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  32.4 °C = 90 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30 °C / 86 F, compared to the average of 30.9 °C / 88 F for the devices in the class Multimedia.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.8 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 36.5 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 38.8 °C / 102 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 30.9 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 30 °C / 86 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 29.1 °C / 84.4 F (-0.9 °C / -1.6 F).

Speakers

The internal stereo speakers offer poor bass and suffer from the "tin tan" quality commonly found on cheaper tablets and netbooks. Treble is exaggerated while lower frequencies are not represented nearly as well. One redeeming quality is that the speakers are loud when set to maximum volume with minimal reverberation, but balance suffers and quality becomes worse. Dedicated earphones are recommended if using the notebook for multimedia playback.

Asus X555DA (Red: System idle, Pink: Pink noise)
Asus X555DA (Red: System idle, Pink: Pink noise)
HP Pavilion 15t
HP Pavilion 15t
HP Spectre x360 13
HP Spectre x360 13
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2038.939.42534.534.83131.833.94031.6325032.632.96332.233.28033.33410031.731.512529.830.116029.230.820028.839.125027.748.431526.755.3400265650025.251.163024.957.180025.761.110002652.4125024.760.6160024.266200023.970250023.662.5315023.361.5400023.264.4500023.376.4630023.374.2800023.271.91000023.363.11250023.460.81600023.557.9SPL36.481.2N2.743.3median 24.7median 60.6Delta1.76.135.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus X555DA-BB11Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Asus X555DA-BB11 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.36 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (14.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (14.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 90% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 8% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 18%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 78% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 16% 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
» 2% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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

Energy Management

Power Consumption

The outdated Carrizo platform is not nearly as efficient as even the older Asus X555LN with the ULV Haswell i5-4210U CPU. Idling on desktop will draw 8.3 W up to as much as 13 W when idling on the High Performance profile. 3DMark loads will demand about 31 W compared to 19 W on the Toshiba Satellite Pro with the HD Graphics 520 GPU or 35 W on the older Asus X555LN model with the superior GeForce 840M GPU.

Maximum load with both Prime95 and FurMark will draw 44 W from the small 65 W power adapter (7.5 x 7.5 x 3.0 cm). 

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.2 / 0.6 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 8.3 / 8.6 / 13.1 Watt
Load midlight 31.2 / 43.9 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus X555DA-BB11
A10-8700P, Radeon R6 (Carrizo), Seagate Momentus SpinPoint M8 ST1000LM024 HN-M101MBB, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
6006U, HD Graphics 520, TOSHIBA MQ01ABD075, TN LED, 1366x768, 15.6
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
A8-7410, Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035, TN LED, 1366x768, 15.6
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus X555LN-XO112H
4210U, GeForce 840M, Toshiba MQ01ABF050, TN LED, 1366x768, 15.6
Power Consumption
29%
35%
-68%
19%
Idle Minimum *
8.3
6
28%
5.4
35%
8.29
-0%
4.2
49%
Idle Average *
8.6
8.7
-1%
6.8
21%
8.9
-3%
6.3
27%
Idle Maximum *
13.1
9.2
30%
7.3
44%
10.2
22%
7.1
46%
Load Average *
31.2
18.6
40%
21.1
32%
77.1
-147%
35.2
-13%
Load Maximum *
43.9
23.8
46%
25.5
42%
136.6
-211%
49.2
-12%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Runtimes are very disappointing at just under 3 hours of real-world WLAN use when on the Balanced profile setting and on a screen brightness of 150 nits (setting 75/10). The Satellite Pro R50-C can last for over twice as long under the same conditions and even the Lenovo Ideapad 110 can outlast our Asus with a much smaller internal battery capacity. We recommend running on the Power Saver profile if only using the system for media playback or general word processing in order to extend battery life as much as possible.

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

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
7h 15min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
2h 56min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 12min
Asus X555DA-BB11
A10-8700P, Radeon R6 (Carrizo), 37 Wh
Toshiba Satellite Pro R50-C-16V
6006U, HD Graphics 520, 44 Wh
Lenovo Ideapad 110-15ACL 80TJ00H0GE
A8-7410, Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), 24 Wh
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 63.3 Wh
Asus X555LN-XO112H
4210U, GeForce 840M, 37 Wh
Battery Runtime
102%
14%
101%
Reader / Idle
435
961
121%
WiFi v1.3
176
356
102%
201
14%
389
121%
Load
72
115
60%
WiFi
256

Pros

+ accurate grayscale without calibration
+ attractive glossy design
+ low core temperatures
+ no CPU throttling
+ HDMI and VGA
+ inexpensive

Cons

- narrow color gamut; shallow colors
- keyboard keys could be more rigid
- slow CPU and GPU performance
- average backlight brightness
- system fan always active
- poor battery life
- no USB Type-C

Verdict

In review: Asus X555DA-BB11-RD
In review: Asus X555DA-BB11-RD

The X555DA is a difficult recommendation especially when the older Intel-equipped X555LN or X555LD SKUs can outperform and outlast our AMD equivalent. Normally when the hardware is slower and cheaper, users are more likely to expect longer battery life and lower core temperatures to compensate. The X555DA is the worst of both worlds as both performance and battery life are below average.

Outside of the slow AMD APU, the Asus hardware suffers from its own series of issues. The lid and keyboard base flex too easily for our liking and the 1080p TN display has very poor color reproduction. Interested users will be better off with previously released ULV Broadwell or even Haswell notebooks than what Asus has to offer in this AMD SKU.

This notebook fails as an inexpensive primary consumer PC because of its short battery life, poor display, and slow performance. Intel alternatives dating as far back as three or four years will still give more bang for the buck on nearly every aspect there is to offer.

Asus X555DA-BB11 - 04/13/2017 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
72 / 98 → 74%
Keyboard
70%
Pointing Device
81%
Connectivity
61 / 81 → 75%
Weight
62 / 20-67 → 90%
Battery
69%
Display
73%
Games Performance
54 / 85 → 63%
Application Performance
55 / 92 → 60%
Temperature
92%
Noise
89 / 95 → 93%
Audio
40%
Camera
40 / 85 → 47%
Average
66%
73%
Multimedia - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 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 X555DA (A10-8700P, FHD) Laptop Review
Allen Ngo, 2017-04-13 (Update: 2017-04-13)
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.