Notebookcheck

Recensione breve del portatile Asus FX550IU (FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460)

Il canto del cigno della Bristol Ridge. Quello che dovrebbe essere uno degli ultimi portatili gaming Bristol Ridge del 2017 prima di passare alla Ryzen di mostra perché i portatili AMD sono stati in effetti un fallimento. Un vecchio chassis in plastica, pannello TN economico, e CPU con prestazioni basse non danno alcun aiuto alla GPU Polaris.

Asus FX550IU-WSFX (FX Serie)
Processore
Scheda grafica
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop) - 4096 MB, Core: 1180 MHz, Memoria: 1250 MHz, GDDR5, 21.19.128.4
Memoria
8192 MB 
, 1200 MHz, 15-15-15-36, Dual-Channel, saldata
Schermo
15.6 pollici 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel 141 PPI, ID: AUO38ED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, lucido: no
Scheda madre
AMD CZ FCH
Harddisk
SK Hynix HFS128G32TND, 128 GB 
, Secondario: 1 TB Toshiba MQ01ABD100
Scheda audio
AMD Kabini - High Definition Audio Controller
Porte di connessione
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1, 1 VGA, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Connessioni Audio: 3.5 mm combo, Lettore schede: SD reader
Rete
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (ac), Bluetooth 4.0
Dimensioni
altezza x larghezza x profondità (in mm): 31.8 x 380 x 251
Batteria
44 Wh ioni di litio, removibile, 4-cell
Sistema Operativo
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Altre caratteristiche
Casse: Stereo, Tastiera: Chiclet, Illuminazione Tastiera: no, alimentatore AC, Crimson, Asus Smart Gesture, 12 Mesi Garanzia
Peso
2.45 kg, Alimentazione: 499 gr
Prezzo
700 USD

 

Front: SD card reader
Front: SD card reader
Left: AC adapter, VGA-out, HDMI, Gigabit RJ-45, 2x USB 3.0, 3.5 mm headset
Left: AC adapter, VGA-out, HDMI, Gigabit RJ-45, 2x USB 3.0, 3.5 mm headset
Rear: Removable battery
Rear: Removable battery
Right: USB 2.0, Unused optical bay, Kensington Lock
Right: USB 2.0, Unused optical bay, Kensington Lock
SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Asus G701VIK-BA049T
168 MB/s ∼100% +527%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
26.8 MB/s ∼16%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
22.2 MB/s ∼13% -17%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Asus G701VIK-BA049T
246 MB/s ∼100% +747%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
29.04 MB/s ∼12%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
27.2 MB/s ∼11% -6%
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
648 MBit/s ∼100% +89%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
343 MBit/s ∼53%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
240 MBit/s ∼37% -30%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
529 MBit/s ∼100% +139%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
319 MBit/s ∼60% +44%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
221 MBit/s ∼42%
230.1
cd/m²
226.4
cd/m²
232
cd/m²
205
cd/m²
231.9
cd/m²
212
cd/m²
207.8
cd/m²
221.2
cd/m²
218.8
cd/m²
Distribuzione della luminosità
X-Rite i1Basic Pro 2
Massima: 232 cd/m² Media: 220.6 cd/m² Minimum: 10.84 cd/m²
Distribuzione della luminosità: 88 %
Al centro con la batteria: 231.9 cd/m²
Contrasto: 515:1 (Nero: 0.45 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 12 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 14 | - Ø
54.8% sRGB (Argyll) 34.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.09
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
ID: AUO38ED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, 15.6, 1920x1080
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
CMN15E8 (N156HCE-EN1), IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
AU Optronics AUO38ED B156HTN 28H80, TN, 15.6, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
ID: LGD0533, Name: LG Display LP156WF6-SPK3, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
AUO42ED, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
1%
-12%
12%
-13%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
39.2 (21.2, 18)
38.8 (20.4, 18.4)
1%
36 (17, 19)
8%
32 (16.4, 15.6)
18%
43.2 (21.2, 22)
-10%
Response Time Black / White *
27.2 (22.8, 4.4)
27.2 (14.8, 12.4)
-0%
36 (19, 17)
-32%
25.6 (15.6, 10)
6%
31.2 (16.4, 14.8)
-15%
PWM Frequency
25910 (20)
20000 (99)
Screen
59%
-5%
25%
61%
Brightness
221
313
42%
235
6%
241
9%
289
31%
Brightness Distribution
88
83
-6%
75
-15%
84
-5%
86
-2%
Black Level *
0.45
0.27
40%
0.55
-22%
0.3
33%
0.26
42%
Contrast
515
1241
141%
447
-13%
828
61%
1169
127%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
12
4.7
61%
10.97
9%
7.5
37%
3.46
71%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
14
5.8
59%
14.25
-2%
6.5
54%
2.46
82%
Gamma
2.09 115%
2.06 117%
1.83 131%
2.19 110%
2.38 101%
CCT
16348 40%
6518 100%
11200 58%
7852 83%
6915 94%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
34.8
58.7
69%
35
1%
37
6%
59
70%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
54.8
90.1
64%
55
0%
57.9
6%
91
66%
Media totale (Programma / Settaggio)
30% / 47%
-9% / -6%
19% / 23%
24% / 46%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Tempi di risposta del Display

I tempi di risposta del display mostrano quanto sia veloce lo schermo a cambaire da un colore all'altro. Tempi di risposta lenti poccono creare sovrapposizioni negloi oggetti in movimento. Specialmente i giocatori patiti del 3D dovrebbero usare uno schermo con rempi di risposta bassi.
       Tempi di risposta dal Nero al Bianco
27.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22.8 ms Incremento
↘ 4.4 ms Calo
Lo schermo mostra tempi di risposta relativamente lenti nei nostri tests e potrebbe essere troppo lento per i gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 55 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (26.6 ms).
       Tempo di risposta dal 50% Grigio all'80% Grigio
39.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21.2 ms Incremento
↘ 18 ms Calo
Lo schermo mostra tempi di risposta lenti nei nostri tests e sarà insoddisfacente per i gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 41 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (42.6 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: 55 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9304 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 247500) Hz was measured.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
152 Points ∼21% +63%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
145 Points ∼20% +56%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
133 Points ∼18% +43%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
132 Points ∼18% +42%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
123 Points ∼17% +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
97 Points ∼13% +4%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
93 Points ∼13%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
86 Points ∼12% -8%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
72 Points ∼10% -23%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
69 Points ∼9% -26%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
738 Points ∼34% +145%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
543 Points ∼25% +80%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
538 (min: 467.61) Points ∼25% +79%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
503 Points ∼23% +67%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
464 Points ∼22% +54%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
328 Points ∼15% +9%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
301 Points ∼14%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
256 Points ∼12% -15%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
247 Points ∼11% -18%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
230 Points ∼11% -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
229 Points ∼11% -24%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.73 Points ∼21% +57%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
1.6 Points ∼20% +45%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
1.51 Points ∼18% +37%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
1.49 Points ∼18% +35%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
1.45 Points ∼18% +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
1.1 Points ∼13% 0%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
1.1 Points ∼13%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
1.03 Points ∼13% -6%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
0.94 Points ∼12% -15%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
0.81 Points ∼10% -26%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.14 Points ∼34% +124%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
6.11 Points ∼26% +68%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
5.81 Points ∼24% +60%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
5.32 Points ∼22% +46%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
3.67 Points ∼15% +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
3.64 Points ∼15%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
2.85 Points ∼12% -22%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
2.75 Points ∼12% -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
2.7 Points ∼11% -26%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
2.66 Points ∼11% -27%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
5877 Points ∼66% +94%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
5545 Points ∼63% +83%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
4975 Points ∼56% +64%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
4920 Points ∼55% +62%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
4815 Points ∼54% +59%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
3871 Points ∼44% +28%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
3714 Points ∼42% +22%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
3033 Points ∼34%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
2640 Points ∼30% -13%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
2277 Points ∼26% -25%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
21824 Points ∼44% +122%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
17618 Points ∼35% +79%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
16456 Points ∼33% +68%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
14148 Points ∼28% +44%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
11373 Points ∼23% +16%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
9822 Points ∼20%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
8718 Points ∼18% -11%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
8413 Points ∼17% -14%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
7420 Points ∼15% -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
7200 Points ∼14% -27%
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
656.927 s * ∼8% -108%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
644.6 s * ∼8% -104%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
489.402 s * ∼6% -55%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
470.94 s * ∼6% -49%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
415.484 s * ∼5% -32%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
315.907 s * ∼4%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
314.7 s * ∼4% -0%
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
225.617 s * ∼3% +29%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - ---
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
977.05 Seconds * ∼4% -12%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
870.396 Seconds * ∼4%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
863.551 Seconds * ∼4% +1%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
837.557 Seconds * ∼4% +4%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
817.6 Seconds * ∼4% +6%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
627.687 Seconds * ∼3% +28%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
611 Seconds * ∼3% +30%
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
561.342 Seconds * ∼2% +36%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
6157
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
9822
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
3033
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
3.64 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
42.05 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.1 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
93 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
98 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
57.24 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
301 Points
Aiuto
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5348 Points ∼82% +26%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
5068 Points ∼78% +19%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
5063 Points ∼78% +19%
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
5040 Points ∼77% +18%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
4260 Points ∼65%
Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4858 Points ∼81% +44%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
3850 Points ∼64% +14%
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
3832 Points ∼64% +13%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
3431 Points ∼57% +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
3384 Points ∼57%
PCMark 10
Essentials
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
8191 Points ∼85% +51%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
7542 Points ∼79% +39%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
5417 Points ∼56%
Score
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4861 Points ∼74% +87%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
4364 Points ∼66% +68%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
2603 Points ∼40%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3384 punti
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
4640 punti
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4260 punti
Aiuto
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Liteonit CV3-8D128
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
Hynix HFS128G39TND
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP
AS SSD
76%
79%
20%
247%
Copy Game MB/s
110.59
286.18
159%
323.54
193%
442.81
300%
Copy Program MB/s
70.78
224.01
216%
195.3
176%
326.34
361%
Copy ISO MB/s
150.75
425.43
182%
446.8
196%
1128.09
648%
Score Total
587
734
25%
752
28%
798
36%
1829
212%
Score Write
177
227
28%
234
32%
175
-1%
600
239%
Score Read
278
332
19%
337
21%
419
51%
849
205%
Access Time Write *
0.27
0.057
79%
0.073
73%
0.273
-1%
0.034
87%
Access Time Read *
0.145
0.094
35%
0.141
3%
0.119
18%
0.079
46%
4K-64 Write
114.47
118.34
3%
132.19
15%
97.01
-15%
428.18
274%
4K-64 Read
208.73
258.63
24%
257.03
23%
342.15
64%
628.03
201%
4K Write
50.56
66.58
32%
53.75
6%
65.47
29%
112.04
122%
4K Read
22.09
25.16
14%
28.3
28%
26.34
19%
35.84
62%
Seq Write
120.13
416.13
246%
479.79
299%
129.15
8%
601
400%
Seq Read
468.46
481.62
3%
515.92
10%
502.61
7%
1847.57
294%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
CDM 5 Read Seq Q32T1: 522.6 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq Q32T1: 128 MB/s
CDM 5 Read 4K Q32T1: 176.1 MB/s
CDM 5 Write 4K Q32T1: 128.3 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 516.7 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 128.1 MB/s
CDM 5 Read 4K: 31.13 MB/s
CDM 5 Write 4K: 78.3 MB/s
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
12186 Points ∼30% +141%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
6166 Points ∼15% +22%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
5863 Points ∼14% +16%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
5701 Points ∼14% +13%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
5062 Points ∼12%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points ∼10% -18%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (Laptop GT 1030), 7200U
3576 Points ∼9% -29%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
3574 Points ∼9% -29%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
1593 Points ∼4% -69%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
72213 Points ∼44% +131%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
39507 Points ∼24% +26%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
34892 Points ∼21% +11%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
34679 Points ∼21% +11%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
31294 Points ∼19%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
25986 Points ∼16% -17%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
22439 Points ∼14% -28%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (Laptop GT 1030), 7200U
19333 Points ∼12% -38%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
8385 Points ∼5% -73%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
10801 Points ∼68% +294%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
8447 Points ∼53% +208%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
7182 Points ∼45% +162%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
6707 Points ∼42% +145%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points ∼28% +63%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (Laptop GT 1030), 7200U
4156 Points ∼26% +52%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
4113 Points ∼26% +50%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
2742 Points ∼17%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
1770 Points ∼11% -35%
1280x720 Performance GPU
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
17919 Points ∼35% +130%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
8597 Points ∼17% +10%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
7903 Points ∼16% +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
7794 Points ∼15%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ
7731 Points ∼15% -1%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points ∼9% -38%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150 (Laptop GT 1030), 7200U
4575 Points ∼9% -41%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U
4251 Points ∼8% -45%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 7500U
2230 Points ∼4% -71%
3DMark 11 Performance
5537 punti
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
60282 punti
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
9968 punti
3DMark Fire Strike Score
3962 punti
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score
2148 punti
Aiuto
BioShock Infinite - 1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF)
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
61 fps ∼100% +47%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K, Intel SSD 530 Series SSDSC2BW240A
55.3 fps ∼91% +34%
Gigabyte P55K v5
GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U1T001122
52.4 fps ∼86% +27%
MSI GL72 6QF
GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ, Samsung SSD 950 Pro 256GB m.2 NVMe
49.9 fps ∼82% +21%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
41.4 fps ∼68%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U, Toshiba MQ01ABD100
35 fps ∼57% -15%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
GeForce MX150, 7200U, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
30.2 fps ∼50% -27%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
GeForce 940MX, 7500U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
13.5 fps ∼22% -67%
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017
Iris Plus Graphics 640, 7360U, Apple SSD AP0128
12.5 fps ∼20% -70%
Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
34.2 fps ∼100% +74%
Gigabyte P55K v5
GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U1T001122
28.3 fps ∼83% +44%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K, Intel SSD 530 Series SSDSC2BW240A
27.9 (min: 24) fps ∼82% +42%
MSI GL72 6QF
GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ, Samsung SSD 950 Pro 256GB m.2 NVMe
25.6 fps ∼75% +30%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
19.7 fps ∼58%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
GeForce MX150, 7200U, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
17.2 fps ∼50% -13%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U, Toshiba MQ01ABD100
16.9 fps ∼49% -14%
basso medio alto ultra
StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013) 175.348.7fps
BioShock Infinite (2013) 9641.4fps
Metro: Last Light (2013) 42.629.5fps
Thief (2014) 24.7fps
The Witcher 3 (2015) 71.729.617.2fps
Batman: Arkham Knight (2015) 4335fps
Fallout 4 (2015) 55.432.327.7fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 61.528.419.7fps
Ashes of the Singularity (2016) 24.221fps
Overwatch (2016) 10079.743fps
Prey (2017) 57.549.236.430.3fps
Dirt 4 (2017) 95.460.739.622.4fps
F1 2017 (2017) 37272420fps
01234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435Tooltip
The Witcher 3 high

Rumorosità

Idle
30.2 / 30.3 / 30.3 dB(A)
Sotto carico
41.6 / 45.3 dB(A)
 
 
 
30 dB
silenzioso
40 dB(A)
udibile
50 dB(A)
rumoroso
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   BK Precision 732A (15 cm di distanza)   Rumorosità ambientale: 28.2 dB(A)
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
Noise
-5%
-10%
-6%
-8%
off / environment *
28.2
30.3
-7%
28.2
-0%
30
-6%
30.8
-9%
Idle Minimum *
30.2
30.9
-2%
33
-9%
30
1%
32.9
-9%
Idle Average *
30.3
30.9
-2%
33.3
-10%
33
-9%
32.9
-9%
Idle Maximum *
30.3
31
-2%
34.7
-15%
37
-22%
33.5
-11%
Load Average *
41.6
46.5
-12%
44.5
-7%
41
1%
43.7
-5%
Witcher 3 ultra *
43.7
49.2
-13%
42
4%
46.2
-6%
Load Maximum *
45.3
46.8
-3%
52.8
-17%
50
-10%
47
-4%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Carico massimo
 37.8 °C41.2 °C28.4 °C 
 41.8 °C46.2 °C29.8 °C 
 30.8 °C35.8 °C34 °C 
Massima: 46.2 °C
Media: 36.2 °C
27 °C40.2 °C51.2 °C
28.2 °C42.6 °C44 °C
32.6 °C30 °C27 °C
Massima: 51.2 °C
Media: 35.9 °C
Alimentazione (max)  50 °C | Temperatura della stanza 23 °C | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2040.736.82536.835.63134354032.334.35031.335.36332.434.28031.431.310031.430.212529.429.91602831.320027.938.825027.943.231527.445.740025.650.250025.753.463025.15580025.353.9100024.949.5125024.652.7160024.455.5200024.257.5250023.860.3315023.859.3400023.859.4500023.659.7630023.666.4800023.765.71000023.760.31250023.757.71600023.859.6SPL36.572.2N2.727.5median 24.6Asus FX550IU-WSFXmedian 55Delta1.37.435.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHzmedian 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Asus FX550IU-WSFX audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (66.35 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.3% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 85% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% 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 9%, average was 19%, worst was 41%
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%

Consumo di corrente
Off / Standbydarklight 0.233 / 0.437 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.9 / 8.8 / 9.7 Watt
Sotto carico midlight 78.1 / 117 Watt
 color bar
Leggenda: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), SK Hynix HFS128G32TND, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 Gaming (Core i5-7300HQ, GTX 1050)
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Toshiba MQ02ABD100H, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Hynix HFS128G39TND, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
6500U, GeForce GTX 960M, SanDisk SD8SNAT256G1002, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Power Consumption
-13%
-56%
-101%
14%
9%
Idle Minimum *
5.9
9.1
-54%
14.6
-147%
18
-205%
4
32%
5
15%
Idle Average *
8.8
10.3
-17%
17.2
-95%
23
-161%
6.7
24%
8.9
-1%
Idle Maximum *
9.7
13
-34%
17.3
-78%
30
-209%
9.6
1%
11.8
-22%
Load Average *
78.1
75.6
3%
82.7
-6%
85
-9%
81
-4%
55
30%
Load Maximum *
117
115.2
2%
136.7
-17%
158
-35%
107
9%
93
21%
Witcher 3 ultra *
112.4
83.8
25%
107
5%
96
15%
90
20%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Autonomia della batteria
Idle (senza WLAN, min luminosità)
9ore 05minuti
Navigazione WiFi v1.3
4ore 07minuti
Sotto carico (max luminosità)
0ore 53minuti
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), 44 Wh
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 73 Wh
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook), 74 Wh
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 47 Wh
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 70 Wh
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 48 Wh
Autonomia della batteria
81%
107%
14%
-7%
20%
Reader / Idle
545
1061
95%
1174
115%
493
-10%
256
-53%
587
8%
WiFi v1.3
247
535
117%
622
152%
261
6%
198
-20%
360
46%
Load
53
70
32%
81
53%
77
45%
80
51%
56
6%
Witcher 3 ultra
68

Pro

+ prestazioni del processore nel complesso costanti
+ slot HDD accessibile così come quello RAM
+ bassi tempi di risposta bianco-nero
+ 2x slots per archiviazione; VGA-out
+ batteria removibile Li-Ion
+ relativamente economico
+ salda tastiera QWERTY

Contro

- scala di grigi molto scarsa prima della calibrazione; retroilliminazione bassa
- pannello TN scarso, contrasto medio, gamma di colore limitata
- economico chassis in plastica; design datato
- performance-per-Watt scarse
- prestazioni processore molto basse
- prestazioni di scrittura SSD basse
- bay ottico inutilizzato
- la tastiera si scalda sotto carico
- autonomia della batteria limitata
- difficile raggiungere lo slot SD
- tastiera non illuminata
- problemi con i driver
- cover lucida ed economica
- tastierino numerico morbido
- tasti rumorosi
In review: Asus FX550IU
In review: Asus FX550IU

L'FX550UI soffre degli stessi problemi dei vecchi portatili gaming AMD-based. In questo caso, l'APU FX-9830P con prestazioni basse è il collo di bottiglia rispetto alla decente GPU RX 460 e le performance-per-Watt del sistema sono nettamente inferiori rispetto a quanto offre attualmente Nvidia. I consumi sono simili ai portatili concorrenti con CPUs Intel HQ-class molto più potenti e scheda grafica GTX 1050. Pertanto, l'FX550UI non è più fresco, duraturo o silenzioso rispetto alle alternative Intel/Nvidia nonostante le prestazioni inferiori. 

L'incompatibilità tra Bristol Ridge e Polaris 11 non è l'unico punto debole. Il fatto che l'FX550UI è una versione alterata del vecchissimo FX550DM e sembra come ci fosse stato un ripensamento. Il vano ottico vuoto è una perdita di spazio e il display TN è sotto la media. AMD ha sicuramente hardware migliore nei simili Asus UX550 o ROG Strix G501. Iniziamo a vedere maggiori investimenti nei portatili AMD ora che è disponibile l'GL702ZC e speriamo che sia l'inizio di un nuovo corso.

Il prezzo continua ad essere il principale vantaggio dell'FX550UI rispetto alle alternative Nvidia. Con $700 USD, l'Asus è di circa $200 - $300 più economico rispetto ad un Pavilion 15 o un Sabre 15 con i7-7700HQ e scheda grafica GTX 1050. Coloro che vogliono investire in un sistema mainstream Nvidia avranno un netto vantaggio rispetto all'FX550UI, specialmente come potenza CPU.

E' dura raccomandare l'FX550UI a causa dell'economico chassis in plastica, il processore lento, e lo scarso display TN. I gamers che hanno un budget molto limitato farebbero meglio a risparmiare un paio di centinaia di euro in più per un portatile GTX 1050 più recente o un più vecchio o meno costoso portatile GTX 965M.

Nota: si tratta di una recensione breve, con alcune sezioni non tradotte, per la versione integrale in inglese guardate qui.

Asus FX550IU-WSFX - 09/16/2017 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
65 / 98 → 66%
Tastiera
68%
Dispositivo di puntamento
78%
Connettività
43 / 81 → 53%
Peso
60 / 66 → 89%
Batteria
76%
Display
77%
Prestazioni di gioco
77%
Prestazioni Applicazioni
77%
Temperatura
86 / 95 → 90%
Rumorosità
85 / 90 → 94%
Audio
50%
Fotocamera
34 / 85 → 40%
Media
67%
72%
Gaming - Media ponderata

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Recensioni e prove de portatili e telefoni cellulari > Recensioni e prove > Recensioni e prove > Recensione breve del portatile Asus FX550IU (FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460)
Allen Ngo, 2017-09-18 (Update: 2017-09-18)