Notebookcheck

Breve análisis del portátil Asus FX550IU (FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460)

Allen Ngo (traducido por Fernando Alvarez Ude), 09/20/2017

El canto de cisne de la plataforma Bristol Ridge. Lo que debería ser uno de los últimos portátiles de juegos Bristol Ridge de 2017 antes de que la llegada de la plataforma Ryzen muestra por qué los portátiles AMD han fracasado. Un anticuado chasis de plástico, un panel TN barato y un escaso rendimiento de la CPU no hacen ningún favor a la GPU Polaris.

Asus FX550IU-WSFX (FX Serie)
Procesador
Adaptador gráfico
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop) - 4096 MB, Núcleo: 1180 MHz, Memoría: 1250 MHz, GDDR5, 21.19.128.4
Memoría
8192 MB 
, 1200 MHz, 15-15-15-36, Doble canal, soldada a la placa
pantalla
15.6 pulgadas 16:9, 1920x1080 pixels 141 PPI, ID: AUO38ED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, lustroso: no
Placa base
AMD CZ FCH
Disco duro
SK Hynix HFS128G32TND, 128 GB 
, Secundario: 1 TB Toshiba MQ01ABD100
Tarjeta de sonido
AMD Kabini - High Definition Audio Controller
Conexiones
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0, 1 VGA, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Conexiones: 3.5 mm combo, Card Reader: Lector de tarjetas SD
Equipamento de red
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (ac), Bluetooth 4.0
Tamaño
Alto x ancho x profundidad (en mm): 31.8 x 380 x 251
Battería
44 Wh Litio-Ion, removeable, 4-celdas
Sistema Operativo
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Características adicionales
Altavoces: Stereo, Teclado: Chiclet, Luz de Teclado: no, Adaptador de corriente, Crimson, Asus Smart Gesture, 12 Meses Garantía
Peso
2.45 kg, Suministro de Electricidad: 499 g
Precio
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
Temperatura del cuarto
X-Rite i1Basic Pro 2
Máximo: 232 cd/m² Médio: 220.6 cd/m² Minimum: 10.84 cd/m²
iluminación: 88 %
Brillo con batería: 231.9 cd/m²
Contraste: 515:1 (Negro: 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 total (Programa/Opciones)
30% / 47%
-9% / -6%
19% / 23%
24% / 46%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

Tiempos de respuesta del display

Los tiempos de respuesta del display muestran lo rápido que puede cambiar la pantalla de un color al siguiente. Tiempos lentos de respuesta pueden llevar a imágenes persistentes alrededor de objetos en movimiento o a displays borrosos. Particularmente los aficionados a los juegos 3D frenéticos deberían usar una pantalla con tiempos de respuesta rápidos.
       Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco
27.2 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada↗ 22.8 ms subida
↘ 4.4 ms bajada
La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta relativamente lentos en nuestros tests pero podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones.
En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 240 (máximo) ms. » 55 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores.
Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es similar al dispositivo testado medio (26.7 ms).
       Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris
39.2 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada↗ 21.2 ms subida
↘ 18 ms bajada
La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta lentos en nuestros tests y podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones.
En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 636 (máximo) ms. » 41 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores.
Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es similar al dispositivo testado medio (42.8 ms).

Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Para atenuar el brillo de pantalla algunos portátiles están encendiendo y apagando la retroiluminación muy rápidamente. Esto se hace a una frecuencia que no debiera detectarse a simple vista. Si la frecuencia es demasiado lenta, la gente sensible podría experimentar problemas visuales, dolores de cabeza e incluso ver parpadeos.
Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM no detectado

Comparación: 57 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 6668 (mínimo: 43 - máxmo: 142900) Hz.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
152 Points ∼78% +63%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
145 Points ∼74% +56%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
133 Points ∼68% +43%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
132 Points ∼68% +42%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
123 Points ∼63% +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
97 Points ∼50% +4%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
93 Points ∼48%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
86 Points ∼44% -8%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
72 Points ∼37% -23%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
69 Points ∼35% -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 ∼78% +57%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
1.6 Points ∼72% +45%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
1.51 Points ∼68% +37%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
1.49 Points ∼67% +35%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
1.45 Points ∼66% +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
1.1 Points ∼50% 0%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
1.1 Points ∼50%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
1.03 Points ∼47% -6%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
0.94 Points ∼43% -15%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
0.81 Points ∼37% -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%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

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
ayuda
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 ∼87% +51%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
7542 Points ∼80% +39%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
5417 Points ∼58%
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 puntos
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
4640 puntos
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4260 puntos
ayuda
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%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
Sequential Read: 468.46 MB/s
Sequential Write: 120.13 MB/s
4K Read: 22.09 MB/s
4K Write: 50.56 MB/s
4K-64 Read: 208.73 MB/s
4K-64 Write: 114.47 MB/s
Access Time Read: 0.145 ms
Access Time Write: 0.27 ms
Copy ISO: 150.75 MB/s
Copy Program: 70.78 MB/s
Copy Game: 110.59 MB/s
Score Read: 278 Points
Score Write: 177 Points
Score Total: 587 Points
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 puntos
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
60282 puntos
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
9968 puntos
3DMark Fire Strike Score
3962 puntos
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score
2148 puntos
ayuda
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
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
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
17.2 fps ∼50% -13%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
GeForce GTX 950M, 7200U, Toshiba MQ01ABD100
16.9 fps ∼49% -14%
bajo 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

Ruido

Ocioso
30.2 / 30.3 / 30.3 dB(A)
Carga
41.6 / 45.3 dB(A)
 
 
 
30 dB
silencioso
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
ruidosamente alto
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   BK Precision 732A (15 cm de distancia)   environment noise: 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%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

 37.8 °C41.2 °C28.4 °C 
 41.8 °C46.2 °C29.8 °C 
 30.8 °C35.8 °C34 °C 
Máximo: 46.2 °C
Médio: 36.2 °C
27 °C40.2 °C51.2 °C
28.2 °C42.6 °C44 °C
32.6 °C30 °C27 °C
Máximo: 51.2 °C
Médio: 35.9 °C
Conector de corriente  50 °C | Temperatura del cuarto 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
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 10%, average was 18%, worst was 37%
Compared to all devices tested
» 0% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, 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
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Consumo de corriente
Off / Standbydarklight 0.233 / 0.437 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 5.9 / 8.8 / 9.7 Watt
Carga midlight 78.1 / 117 Watt
 color bar
Clave: 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%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

Tiempo de Ejecución de la Batería
Ocioso (sin WLAN, min brillo)
9h 05min
Navegando con WLAN v1.3
4h 07min
Carga (máximo brillo)
0h 53min
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
Duración de Batería
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

+ Equilibrado rendimiento del procesador
+ Ranuras de RAM y HDD accesible
+ Buen tiempo de respuesta blanco-negro
+ 2 ranuras de expansión; salida VGA
+ Batería Li-Ion extraible
+ Bastante barato
+ Firme teclado QWERTY

Contra

- Muy mala escala de grises antes de calibración, poco brillante
- El panel TN es mediocre; el contraste escaso; mala cobertura de color
- El chasis de plástico parece antiguo
- Escaso ratio rendimiento/Watt
- Muy bajo rendimiento del procesador
- Escaso rendimiento de la unidad SSD
- Ranura de unidad óptica no utilizada
- El teclado se calienta bajo funcionamiento intensivo
- Duración de batería poco destacable
- Ranura SD poco accesible
- Teclado no retroiluminado
- Problemas con los controladores de software
- Carcasa de apariencia barata
- Teclado numérico muy blando
- Teclado muy ruidoso
Análisis: Asus FX550IU
Análisis: Asus FX550IU

El FX550UI sufre muchos de los males de los viejos portátiles para juegos AMD. En este caso, el escaso rendimiento de la APU FX-9830P APU provoca un cuello de botella a la decente GPU TX 460 y el rendimiento por Watt del sistema es muy inferior a las ofertas de Nvidia. El consumo de corriente es comparable al de los portátiles de la competencia con CPUs Intel HQ más potentes y gráficas GTX 1050. Además, el FX550UI no funciona con menores temperaturas , más silenciosamente o durante más tiempo que las alternativas Intel/Nvidia a pesar de su rendimiento mucho más reducido.

La falta de sintonia entre Bristol Ridge y Polaris 11 no es lo único malo. El hecho de que el FX550UI esté basado en el ya antiguo FX550DM hace que todo el portátil parezca antiguo. La ranura para almacenamiento óptico vacía es espacio malgastado y la pantalla TN está por debajo de la media. AMD ciertamente se merece mejor hardware de Asus, similar a las gamas UX550 o ROG Strix G501. Estamos empezando a ver mayores inversiones en portátiles de AMD con portátiles como el GL702ZCy esperamos que esto se contagie a la gama media en el futuro.

El precio continua siendo la mayor ventaja del FX550UI sobre alternativas Nvidia. Con 700$, el Asus es entre 200$ y 300$ más barato que un Pavilion 15 o un Sabre 15 con i7-7700HQ y gráfica GTX 1050. Aquellos que inviertan en un portátil Nvidia obtendrán mucho mayor rendimiento, especialmente en potencia de CPU.

Es complicado recomendar el FX550UI debido al chasis de plástico barato, al escaso rendimiento del procesador y el panel TN de baja calidad. Los jugones con presupuesto ajustado harían mejor ahorrando un par de cientos de dólares e invertir en un portátil más moderno con gráfica GTX 1050 o comprar uno más antiguo con gráfica GTX 965M.

Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.

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

Acabado
65 / 98 → 66%
Teclado
68%
Ratón
78%
Conectividad
43 / 81 → 53%
Peso
60 / 66 → 89%
Battería
76%
Pantalla
77%
Rendimiento de juegos
77%
Rendimiento de la Aplicación
77%
Temperatura
86 / 95 → 90%
Ruido
85 / 90 → 94%
Audio
50%
Cámara
34 / 85 → 40%
Médio
67%
72%
Gaming - media ponderada

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análisis y pruebas de ordenadores portátiles y móviles teléfonos > Análisis > Breve análisis del portátil Asus FX550IU (FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460)
Allen Ngo, 2017-09-20 (Update: 2017-09-21)