Notebookcheck

No Intel Required: Asus TUF FX505DT Laptop Review with Ryzen 7 and GeForce GTX 1650

Allen Ngo 👁, 07/04/2019

An Intel Core i5 alternative. As it turns out, mid-range Nvidia GPUs pair very well with AMD's latest Ryzen H-series of CPUs. Asus is doubling down on even more Intel-less gaming laptops that gamers on tight budgets ought to consider.

In our review of the Asus TUF FX505DY, we criticized the OEM for debuting AMD's latest mobile H-series CPU with a three generations old Polaris GPU instead of a newer Pascal or Turing Nvidia GPU. Fast forward a couple of months and Asus has right this wrong with the TUF FX505DT that more appropriately pairs a Ryzen 7 H-series CPU with the modern Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 GPU.

The TUF series is home to Asus' bottom-of-the-barrel gaming laptops that sit well below the flagship ROG series to appeal to gamers on tight budgets. Its focus on value means users shouldn't expect most luxurious features like metal alloy surfaces, per-key RGB lighting, or Thunderbolt 3. Direct competitors in this space include other entry-level 15.6-inch gaming laptops like the Dell G5 15, Lenovo Legion Y530, HP Pavilion Gaming 15, Acer Nitro 5, Aorus 15, and the MSI GP/GL/GF series.

Our specific configuration can be found on Xotic PC for about $900 USD with 8 GB of single-channel RAM, 512 GB NVMe SSD, and a 120 Hz IPS panel. Two other SKUs are currently available as well (FX505DD and FX505DU) that differ in GPU as detailed on the Asus product page here. We recommend checking out our existing reviews on the 15.6-inch TUF FX505DY and 17.3-inch TUF FX705DY as the FX505DT shares the exact same external chassis design and features. Thus, many of our same comments about the chassis, keyboard, clickpad, ports, serviceability, and speakers apply here for the FX505DT.

More Asus reviews:

Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 (TUF FX505 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop) - 4096 MB, Core: 1395 MHz, Memory: 2001 MHz, GDDR5, 430.86, Optimus
Memory
8192 MB 
, DDR4-2666, Single-Channel, SK Hynix, 17-17-17-39
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, Panda LM156LF-GL, IPS, NCP0036, 120 Hz, glossy: no
Mainboard
AMD Promontory/Bixby FCH
Storage
Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8, 512 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 (10/100/1000/2500/5000MBit/s), Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), 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 LifeSafe, Asus Armoury Crate, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
2.23 kg ( = 78.66 oz / 4.92 pounds), Power Supply: 417 g ( = 14.71 oz / 0.92 pounds)
Price
900 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Our comments about the chassis of the FX505DY apply here on the FX505DT. In short, the plastic base and lid are stiffer than the competing Legion Y530 and on par with the Acer Nitro 5. Pushing down on the keyboard center will moderately flex the surface while the lid is even more flexible as on most laptops. The hinges in particular don't leave strong first impressions because of the slight creaking and teetering when adjust the display angle. These characteristics are common amongst budget gaming laptops and so we can't knock Asus too much for these shortcomings. Nonetheless, the visual and tactile experience is night and day when compared to Asus' firmer, denser, and pricier ROG Strix GL504 alternative.

The narrow bezels make the FX505DT comparable to the Acer Nitro 5 and MSI GF63 in terms of dimensions while the MSI is still the much lighter option by about 300 g. The last generation FX504 was over 24 mm wider because of its now-outdated "thick bezel" design. It's good to see more narrow bezel designs on budget laptops as these were previously exclusive to higher-end models only.

"Cut" corners for a sharper and more gamer-y aesthetic
"Cut" corners for a sharper and more gamer-y aesthetic
Textured brushed aluminum-like surfaces add flavor to an otherwise plain plastic chassis
Textured brushed aluminum-like surfaces add flavor to an otherwise plain plastic chassis
Lid opened to maximum angle
Lid opened to maximum angle
"Chin" bezel is still somewhat thick
"Chin" bezel is still somewhat thick
384 mm / 15.1 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 25 mm / 0.984 inch 2.3 kg5.07 lbs363 mm / 14.3 inch 255 mm / 10 inch 27 mm / 1.063 inch 2.2 kg4.76 lbs360.4 mm / 14.2 inch 262 mm / 10.3 inch 26.8 mm / 1.055 inch 2.2 kg4.92 lbs359 mm / 14.1 inch 254 mm / 10 inch 21.7 mm / 0.854 inch 1.9 kg4.1 lbs360 mm / 14.2 inch 252 mm / 9.92 inch 19 mm / 0.748 inch 2.1 kg4.55 lbs

Connectivity

We can forgive the FX505DT for having a limited selection of ports since it is a budget gaming laptop, but its strange port positioning deserves a mention. Having all ports along the left edge only will clutter the left side of the laptop while leaving the right side empty. Depending on your desk setup or mouse preferences, this may be unfavorable. Competing systems distribute their ports more eveny around the edges of the chassis.

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

M.2 WLAN module hidden underneath the M.2 storage drive
M.2 WLAN module hidden underneath the M.2 storage drive

The FX505DT carries a faster Realtek RTL8822BE module compared to the Realtek 8821CE on the cheaper FX505DY. Note that Asus incorrectly advertises Bluetooth 5 on the official specifications sheet as this particular Realtek module integrates Bluetooth 4.2 only. We otherwise experienced no connectivity issues during our time with the test unit.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
680 MBit/s ∼100% +16%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
671 MBit/s ∼99% +15%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
657 MBit/s ∼97% +12%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter
586 MBit/s ∼86%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
324 MBit/s ∼48% -45%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
684 MBit/s ∼100% +11%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
683 MBit/s ∼100% +11%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter
617 MBit/s ∼90%
Asus FX504GD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
614 MBit/s ∼90% 0%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Realtek 8821CE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
267 MBit/s ∼39% -57%

Maintenance

Gaming laptops should be easy to service and the FX505DT is no exception. Thankfully, the bottom panel pops off fairly easily after removing 11 screws to make upgrading straightforward. Owners have access to two storage bays, two SODIMM slots, and the BIOS battery. The M.2 storage drive must first be removed to access the WLAN module below it.

Accessories and Warranty

There are no extras in the box which is to be expected from a budget gaming laptop. Still, a velvet cleaning cloth would have been appreciated.

The standard one-year limited warranty applies. Asus will add in one year of accidental damage protection for free if you register your new purchase online.

Input Devices

Keyboard and Touchpad

The keyboard and clickpad are essentially unchanged from the FX505DY, FX705DT, and FX705DY. Our existing comments therefore apply here on the FX505DT including the light-moderate clatter, slightly soft feedback, and moderately deep travel of the keyboard keys. Keep in mind that the NumPad and Arrow keys are smaller than the main QWERTY keys and are subsequently softer and more cramped to use.

In contrast to the keyboard, the Precision-enabled clickpad has a firmer and louder feedback with shallow travel when pressed. It's actually quite good as far as integrated mouse keys go, but we still prefer dedicated mouse keys for more accuracy. The clickpad surface is unfortunately not that great for cursor control with its bumpy glide at slow-medium speeds.

Identical layout to the FX705
Identical layout to the FX705
Decent size clickpad (~10.3 cm x 7.3 cm) with poor gliding properties
Decent size clickpad (~10.3 cm x 7.3 cm) with poor gliding properties
Single-zone RGB lighting
Single-zone RGB lighting
Small NumPad and Arrow keys
Small NumPad and Arrow keys

Display

Slightly grainy matte subpixel array
Slightly grainy matte subpixel array

The 120 Hz display on our FX505DT is a notable improvement over the 60 Hz display on the older FX505DY. Aside from the smoother refresh rate, the panel is 33 percent brighter with slightly faster black-white and gray-gray response times all while maintaining nearly the same contrast ratios and color spaces. These improvements are perceptible both in and out of games for an overall better user experience. As we've mentioned before, it can be tough to go back to 60 Hz displays once you become accustomed to displays with very high native refresh rates.

The main drawbacks to the panel are its inaccurate colors and narrow color space. Both of these characteristics combine to create shallow colors that are not nearly as deep or precise as flagship Ultrabooks or higher-end gaming laptops.

Another drawback are the average black-white and gray-gray response times for noticeably more ghosting especially when compared to the newer 3 ms or 5 ms panels on pricier laptops like the MSI GS65. The AU Optronics panel on the Zephyrus S GX502, for example, is far smoother and with a wider gamut as well. The 120 Hz panel of our FX505DT is therefore a mid-range offering as it doesn't quite have the same deep colors or fast response times as the higher-end alternatives.

It's worth noting that HWiNFO labels this IPS panel as a Panda LM156LF-GL. Older versions of the software incorrectly labeled Panda panels as Sharp panels like what we discovered on the TUF FX505DY and Zephyrus G GA502.

No edge-to-edge glass, 4K UHD, or touchscreen options
No edge-to-edge glass, 4K UHD, or touchscreen options
Very minor uneven backlight bleeding along the bottom edge
Very minor uneven backlight bleeding along the bottom edge
283.7
cd/m²
274.6
cd/m²
274.8
cd/m²
258.4
cd/m²
286.2
cd/m²
257
cd/m²
240.5
cd/m²
274.1
cd/m²
252.5
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
Panda LM156LF-GL
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 286.2 cd/m² Average: 266.9 cd/m² Minimum: 16.7 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 286.2 cd/m²
Contrast: 867:1 (Black: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.45 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6.1, calibrated: 4.47
ΔE Greyscale 5.3 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
59.1% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 37.6% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.1
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
Panda LM156LF-GL, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
AU Optronics B156HAN08.2 (AUO82ED), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus FX504GD
AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, 15.6, 1920x1080
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
LG LP156WFC-SPD1 (LGD0563), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus TUF FX505DY
Panda LM156LF-CL03, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
MSI GF63 8RC
AU Optronics B156HAN02.1, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
72%
4%
-18%
-30%
-4%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
30.4 (14, 16.4)
7.2 (3.8, 3.4)
76%
41.6 (19.6, 22)
-37%
42 (20.8, 21.2)
-38%
44.8 (18.8, 26)
-47%
33.2 (15.2, 18)
-9%
Response Time Black / White *
27.6 (17.6, 10)
8.8 (4.4, 4.4)
68%
15.2 (10, 5.2)
45%
26.8 (16, 10.8)
3%
30.8 (17.6, 13.2)
-12%
27.2 (15.6, 11.6)
1%
PWM Frequency
20830 (30)
Screen
31%
-20%
13%
6%
0%
Brightness middle
286.2
286
0%
260
-9%
238
-17%
211.5
-26%
266.6
-7%
Brightness
267
275
3%
241
-10%
226
-15%
200
-25%
257
-4%
Brightness Distribution
84
90
7%
85
1%
83
-1%
82
-2%
89
6%
Black Level *
0.33
0.37
-12%
0.55
-67%
0.27
18%
0.23
30%
0.29
12%
Contrast
867
773
-11%
473
-45%
881
2%
920
6%
919
6%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.45
2.19
60%
7
-28%
4.11
25%
3.92
28%
5.93
-9%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
18.08
4.4
76%
22.52
-25%
6.89
62%
17.63
2%
16.28
10%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.47
2.27
49%
5.27
-18%
3.76
16%
4.16
7%
3.6
19%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.3
2.2
58%
6.1
-15%
1.78
66%
3.1
42%
6.8
-28%
Gamma
2.1 105%
2.41 91%
1.97 112%
2.41 91%
2.23 99%
2.43 91%
CCT
7679 85%
6405 101%
7894 82%
6311 103%
6578 99%
7192 90%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
37.6
59
57%
35.5
-6%
36
-4%
38.1
1%
37.6
0%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
59.1
91
54%
61
3%
57
-4%
60
2%
59.3
0%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
52% / 37%
-8% / -16%
-3% / 9%
-12% / 0%
-2% / -0%

* ... smaller is better

Color space covers only 59 percent and 38 percent of the sRGB and AdobeRGB standards, respectively, to be indicative of a budget IPS panel. Higher-end IPS panels as found on most flagship Ultrabooks tend to cover over 95 percent of sRGB for deeper and generally more accurate colors than our FX505DT. The pricier Zephyrus S GX502GW, for example, offers both a wider gamut and an even faster native refresh rate of 144 Hz.

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

Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter reveal inaccurate colors and grayscale out of the box with average DeltaE values of 5.3 and 5.45, respectively. The color blue in particular is represented significantly more inaccurately than other colors especially at higher saturation levels. Our calibration attempts improve grayscale and colors across the board, but blue remains shallow and inaccurate. Colors still become less accurate at higher saturation levels since color space is so narrow.

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
27.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17.6 ms rise
↘ 10 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 58 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.1 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
30.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 14 ms rise
↘ 16.4 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. » 18 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (40 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9428 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is better than on the FX505DY since the backlight is brighter, but it's still not bright enough to be used comfortably when under sunlight or on a bright day. As usual, we recommend working under shade if possible to avoid squinting and washed out colors. Viewing angles are wide yet again with noticeable contrast and color changes only if viewing from extreme or atypically wide angles.

Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors on overcast day
Wide IPS viewing angles
Wide IPS viewing angles

Performance

Latencymon running for 5 minutes
Latencymon running for 5 minutes

The quad-core Ryzen 5 3550H and Ryzen 7 3750H are designed to compete directly with quad-core Intel Core H-series CPUs like the Skylake Core i7-7700HQ, Coffee Lake 8th gen Core i5-8300H, or 9th gen Core i5-9300H. For a budget gaming laptop, a Core i5-like CPU is sufficient since the target audience will generally not be aiming for super-fast frame rates above 60 FPS. Nevertheless, our benchmarks below will show that the difference between AMD's mobile Ryzen 5 and mobile Ryzen 7 is minimal at best.

Graphics options include the GTX 1050 with 3 GB of VRAM (FX505DD), GTX 1650 with 4 GB of VRAM (FX505DT), and GTX 1660 Ti with 6 GB of VRAM (FX505DU). Optimus comes standard no matter the option to automatically precludes any G-Sync features from the series.

Keep in mind that our configuration comes equipped with just 8 GB of single-channel DDR4 RAM whereas most gaming laptops have at least 16 GB of dual-channel RAM. This will impact our benchmark results slightly.

Latencymon shows no issues with real-time audio recording even when the WLAN is enabled.

Processor

Unlike the jump from the quad-core Core i5 to hexa-core Core i7, core count between the quad-core Ryzen 5 3550H and Ryzen 7 3750H is the same. The CPU performance difference between a Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 gaming laptop is therefore much narrower than what you would get if choosing between a Core i5 or Core i7 gaming laptop. CineBench benchmarks rank our Ryzen 7 3750H only 4 to 8 percent faster than the Ryzen 5 3550H in the TUF FX505DY. The marginal benefits are not enough to propel it to the level of a Core i7 despite what its name may otherwise suggest. Much like the Ryzen 5 3550H, overall performance is thus closer to the Core i5-8300H or Core i5-9300H.

Running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop results in very similar behavior to the Ryzen 5 3550H in the FX505DY but just 2 to 4 percent faster after accounting for throttling as shown by our graph below. In truth, the performance difference is so small that it becomes tough to recommend the Ryzen 7 over the Ryzen 5 since real-world applications will run at about the same speed between them. To its credit, the FX505DT is marginally better at maintaining Turbo clock rates for longer than most budget gaming laptops powered by an Intel Core CPU.

See our dedicated page on the Ryzen 7 3750H for more technical information and benchmarks.

CineBench R15
CineBench R15
CineBench R20
CineBench R20
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820830Tooltip
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73 GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø741 (732.32-778.15)
Asus TUF FX505DY Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø725 (718.93-754.96)
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2 GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø707 (700.72-757)
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø823 (815.58-828.24)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Alienware m17 P37E
Intel Core i9-8950HK
191 Points ∼88% +22%
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
189 Points ∼87% +20%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
Intel Core i7-9750H
177 Points ∼81% +13%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Core i5-9300H
176 Points ∼81% +12%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Core i7-8565U
174 Points ∼80% +11%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H
173 Points ∼79% +10%
MSI GF63 8RC
Intel Core i5-8300H
170 Points ∼78% +8%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
157 Points ∼72%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
156 Points ∼72% -1%
Average AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
  (144 - 157, n=2)
151 Points ∼69% -4%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
145 Points ∼67% -8%
CPU Multi 64Bit
MSI GE75 9SG
Intel Core i9-9880H
1721 Points ∼39% +115%
Alienware m17 P37E
Intel Core i9-8950HK
1238 Points ∼28% +55%
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
Intel Core i7-9750H
1182 Points ∼27% +48%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H
1116 Points ∼26% +40%
Average AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
  (799 - 805, n=2)
802 Points ∼18% 0%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H
799 Points ∼18%
MSI GF63 8RC
Intel Core i5-8300H
777 Points ∼18% -3%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H
757 Points ∼17% -5%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Core i5-9300H
757 Points ∼17% -5%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
733 Points ∼17% -8%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Core i7-8565U
651 Points ∼15% -19%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
157 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
799 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
85.75 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Help

System Performance

The FX505DT is on relatively equal footing with budget Intel gaming laptops including the Acer Nitro 5 and Lenovo Legion Y730. Results are consistently ahead of the FX505DY as well likely due to the combination of a faster CPU, GPU, and storage solution. Higher-end gaming laptops with hexa-core Intel CPUs and RTX graphics will still handily outscore our inexpensive Asus.

We experienced no software or hardware issues during our time with the unit. Note, however, that system performance is tied to the pre-installed Asus Armoury Crate software and not the regular Windows Power Profile settings. This is not very obvious because there are no icons to launch Armoury Crate and so many users will be left unaware of the software.

PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10
Digital Content Creation
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H, 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0)
6936 Points ∼62% +31%
Average of class Gaming
  (1764 - 11191, n=189)
6303 Points ∼56% +19%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
5282 Points ∼47%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5178 Points ∼46% -2%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD
4665 Points ∼42% -12%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4528 Points ∼40% -14%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3843 Points ∼34% -27%
Productivity
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H, 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0)
7661 Points ∼79% +18%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
7310 Points ∼75% +12%
Average of class Gaming
  (4175 - 8968, n=190)
7161 Points ∼74% +10%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
6518 Points ∼67%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
6446 Points ∼67% -1%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD
6385 Points ∼66% -2%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
5927 Points ∼61% -9%
Essentials
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H, 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0)
9231 Points ∼84% +10%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
8819 Points ∼80% +6%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD
8457 Points ∼77% +1%
Average of class Gaming
  (4892 - 10668, n=191)
8433 Points ∼77% +1%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
8355 Points ∼76%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
7949 Points ∼72% -5%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
6583 Points ∼60% -21%
Score
Asus Zephyrus S GX502GW
GeForce RTX 2070 (Laptop), 9750H, 2x Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8 (RAID 0)
5654 Points ∼73% +19%
Average of class Gaming
  (2603 - 7171, n=192)
5190 Points ∼67% +10%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4973 Points ∼64% +5%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4732 Points ∼61%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD
4527 Points ∼58% -4%
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4405 Points ∼57% -7%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3808 Points ∼49% -20%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
5223 Points ∼80% +11%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD
5208 Points ∼80% +11%
Average of class Gaming
  (2484 - 6515, n=376)
5023 Points ∼77% +7%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
5018 Points ∼77% +7%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
4701 Points ∼72%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus TUF FX505DY
Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4560 Points ∼75% +16%
Average of class Gaming
  (3638 - 6093, n=394)
4247 Points ∼70% +8%
Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8300H, Intel Optane 16 GB MEMPEK1J016GAL + HGST ST1000LM049 1 TB HDD
3931 Points ∼65% 0%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
3917 Points ∼64%
Asus FX504GD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172
3909 Points ∼64% 0%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3917 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4701 points
Help

Storage Devices

Users have the option to choose between M.2 PCIe storage, 2.5-inch SATA III storage, or both. Our particular unit comes equipped with a 512 GB Intel 660p PCIe SSD in contrast to the 256 GB Western Digital SN520 NVMe SSD on the older FX505DY. Performance is otherwise quite similar between these two entry-level SSDs with sequential read and write rates averaging about 900 to 1000 MB/s each. Higher-end gaming laptops tend to ship with the pricier Samsung PM981 instead for significantly faster transfer rates. For the target budget gamer, however, even "slow" NVMe SSDs will be more than sufficient.

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

CDM 5.5
CDM 5.5
AS SSD
AS SSD
Primary M.2 2280 PCIe slot
Primary M.2 2280 PCIe slot
Empty 2.5-inch SATA III tray for secondary storage
Empty 2.5-inch SATA III tray for secondary storage
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
Asus TUF FX505DY
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-53PU
Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Lite-On CA3-8D256-Q11
AS SSD
7%
11%
-53%
5%
Copy Game MB/s
866.7
480.25
-45%
239.44
-72%
1029.3
19%
Copy Program MB/s
444.49
506.75
14%
141.68
-68%
485.8
9%
Copy ISO MB/s
942.16
1166.32
24%
321.28
-66%
1595.45
69%
Score Total
1717
1899
11%
1663
-3%
850
-50%
1495
-13%
Score Write
992
730
-26%
514
-48%
388
-61%
487
-51%
Score Read
472
762
61%
763
62%
305
-35%
679
44%
Access Time Write *
0.047
0.034
28%
0.038
19%
0.063
-34%
0.063
-34%
Access Time Read *
0.065
0.087
-34%
0.085
-31%
0.069
-6%
4K-64 Write
787.44
501.87
-36%
273.64
-65%
276.74
-65%
281.49
-64%
4K-64 Read
321.49
618.95
93%
536.48
67%
236.2
-27%
477.27
48%
4K Write
115.48
110.59
-4%
97.03
-16%
72.21
-37%
103.4
-10%
4K Read
48.22
37.55
-22%
46.1
-4%
19.47
-60%
40.03
-17%
Seq Write
888.5
1179.95
33%
1429.35
61%
390.22
-56%
1017.09
14%
Seq Read
1019.04
1058.74
4%
1808.33
77%
490.6
-52%
1616.93
59%

* ... smaller is better

Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1732 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 958.8 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 340.7 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 237.4 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1564 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 983.8 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 56.96 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 137.5 MB/s

GPU Performance

Thank goodness Asus dropped the Radeon RX 560X in favor of the GTX 1650. Raw graphics performance is approximately 50 percent and 100 percent faster in DX11 and DX12 titles, respectively, over the ancient AMD Polaris GPU. Turing GPUs benefit greatly from DX12 over previous generations and so the performance delta is much wider on DX12-enabled games. Impressively, 3DMark benchmarks rank the mobile GTX 1650 to be within 2 to 3 percent of our desktop GTX 1650 reference. Users who want the GTX 1660 Ti SKU (FX505DU) will see up to a 60 percent gain over the GTX 1650.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Ice Storm Extreme
Ice Storm Extreme
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Fire Strike Ultra
Fire Strike Ultra
Time Spy
Time Spy
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
7732 Points ∼54% +117%
Aorus 15 W9
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 8750H
6007 Points ∼42% +68%
Aorus 15-SA
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
5931 Points ∼42% +66%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
4867 Points ∼34% +36%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
3572 Points ∼25% 0%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H
3568 Points ∼25%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (3353 - 3700, n=11)
3510 Points ∼25% -2%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
3492 Points ∼25% -2%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
2536 Points ∼18% -29%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
1790 Points ∼13% -50%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
1597 Points ∼11% -55%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
862 Points ∼6% -76%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
19338 Points ∼48% +105%
Aorus 15 W9
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 8750H
15501 Points ∼38% +64%
Aorus 15-SA
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
15164 Points ∼37% +61%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
13355 Points ∼33% +42%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
11483 Points ∼28% +22%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H
9428 Points ∼23%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (8532 - 9536, n=11)
9246 Points ∼23% -2%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
9195 Points ∼23% -2%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
7791 Points ∼19% -17%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
6356 Points ∼16% -33%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
6327 Points ∼16% -33%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
2874 Points ∼7% -70%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
13742 Points ∼61% +101%
Aorus 15-SA
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
11914 Points ∼53% +74%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
11707 Points ∼52% +71%
Aorus 15 W9
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 8750H
9981 Points ∼44% +46%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (6528 - 12056, n=10)
8986 Points ∼40% +31%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
8540 Points ∼38% +25%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
7696 Points ∼34% +13%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
7025 Points ∼31% +3%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H
6838 Points ∼30%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
6644 Points ∼29% -3%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
6447 Points ∼29% -6%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
3707 Points ∼16% -46%
1280x720 Performance GPU
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop), 2700X
26413 Points ∼52% +95%
Aorus 15-SA
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Laptop), 9750H
20862 Points ∼41% +54%
Aorus 15 W9
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop), 8750H
20464 Points ∼40% +51%
Asus ROG GA502DU
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q, 3750H
17170 Points ∼34% +26%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ
14550 Points ∼29% +7%
Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Desktop), 2700X
13759 Points ∼27% +1%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 3750H
13575 Points ∼27%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (12388 - 13575, n=12)
13206 Points ∼26% -3%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 8750H
9466 Points ∼19% -30%
Asus TUF FX505DY
AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 3550H
8181 Points ∼16% -40%
Asus FX504GD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H
7133 Points ∼14% -47%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
3560 Points ∼7% -74%
3DMark 11 Performance
10963 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
21151 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
8154 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
3559 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Real-world performance in games is a mixed bag. First, the good: the FX505DT performs nearly as well as the Acer Nitro 5 with the Core i5-9300H and same GTX 1650 GPU on High 1080p settings. Shadow of the Tomb Raider is 7 percent slower on the Asus while results are neck-to-neck when running Witcher 3.

When running games on lower resolutions and settings, however, performance becomes slower than expected. As an example, running Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 720p on the lowest graphical settings averages 62 FPS compared to 63 FPS on the Asus TUF FX705GE with the Core i7-8750H and slower GTX 1050 Ti graphics. In contrast, running this same game at 1080p Ultra settings shows the FX505DT outperforming the FX705GE by 32 percent. Even a Ryzen 7 2700U laptop manages to average 54 FPS at 720p on the lowest settings. This suggests a CPU bound scenario which will make reaching a stable 120 FPS more difficult on the Ryzen-powered FX505DT.

It's important to remember that you don't have to reach a stable 120 FPS when gaming to take advantage of a 120 Hz display. While that would be ideal, users can still game in lower frame rates with reduced tearing because of the faster refresh rate. Engaging v-sync at 40 FPS in particular will be possible without any tearing on a 120 Hz display in contrast to only 30 FPS or 60 FPS on a 60 Hz display.

The resolution setting 1366 x 768 is disabled by default on this machine. Users will have to force the resolution through the GPU or just use 1280 x 720 instead.

See our dedicated page on the GeForce GTX 1650 for more technical information and benchmarks. Running Witcher 3 shows no recurring dip in frame rates to suggest no interrupting background activity when gaming.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider
1920x1080 Highest Preset AA:T
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
90 fps ∼100% +120%
Alienware 17 R4
Intel Core i7-7820HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
79 (min: 52) fps ∼88% +93%
CUK Model Z GK5CQ7Z
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
78 fps ∼87% +90%
Zotac GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Desktop)
76.7 fps ∼85% +87%
MSI GL73 8SE-010US
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
65 fps ∼72% +59%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
49 fps ∼54% +20%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
44 (min: 9) fps ∼49% +7%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (34 - 46, n=5)
42 fps ∼47% +2%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
41 fps ∼46%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
31 fps ∼34% -24%
Asus GL753VD
Intel Core i7-7700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
26 (min: 3) fps ∼29% -37%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)
23 fps ∼26% -44%
1280x720 Lowest Preset
CUK Model Z GK5CQ7Z
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
134 fps ∼100% +116%
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
133 fps ∼99% +115%
Zotac GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Desktop)
126.8 fps ∼95% +105%
Alienware 17 R4
Intel Core i7-7820HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Laptop)
95 (min: 65) fps ∼71% +53%
MSI GL73 8SE-010US
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
93 fps ∼69% +50%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (57 - 128, n=4)
89.5 fps ∼67% +44%
Asus GL753VD
Intel Core i7-7700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
71 (min: 48) fps ∼53% +15%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
63 fps ∼47% +2%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
62 fps ∼46% 0%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
62 fps ∼46%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)
54 fps ∼40% -13%
The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+)
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z 6G
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Desktop)
72.7 (min: 61, max: 82) fps ∼100% +101%
CUK Model Z GK5CQ7Z
Intel Core i7-9750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q
63 fps ∼87% +74%
Zotac GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (Desktop)
62 (min: 43, max: 74) fps ∼85% +71%
MSI GL73 8SE-010US
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (Laptop)
55.1 fps ∼76% +52%
Asus ROG GA502DU
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
48.8 fps ∼67% +35%
Asus TUF FX505DT-EB73
AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
36.2 fps ∼50%
Acer Aspire Nitro 5 AN515-54-53Z2
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
35.4 (min: 28) fps ∼49% -2%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)
  (33.1 - 37.7, n=10)
35.2 fps ∼48% -3%
Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T
Intel Core i7-8750H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop)
25.8 fps ∼35% -29%
Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)
20.6 fps ∼28% -43%
010203040506070