Notebookcheck Logo

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

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
AMD FX-9830P 4 x 3 - 3.7 GHz, Bristol Ridge
Adaptador gráfico
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop) - 4 GB VRAM, Núcleo: 1180 MHz, Memoría: 1250 MHz, GDDR5, 21.19.128.4
Memoría
8 GB 
, 1200 MHz, 15-15-15-36, Doble canal, soldada a la placa
pantalla
15.60 pulgadas 16:9, 1920 x 1080 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/s), Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (ac = Wi-Fi 5/), 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
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

385 mm 258 mm 31 mm 2.4 kg389 mm 276 mm 25 mm 2.6 kg385 mm 275 mm 27 mm 2.8 kg380 mm 251 mm 31.8 mm 2.5 kg378 mm 267 mm 26.9 mm 2.5 kg365 mm 251 mm 18.9 mm 1.9 kg297 mm 210 mm 1 mm 5.7 g
SD Card Reader
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Asus G701VIK-BA049T
 
168 MB/s +527%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
 
26.8 MB/s
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
 
22.2 MB/s -17%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Asus G701VIK-BA049T
 
246 MB/s +747%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
 
29.04 MB/s
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
 
27.2 MB/s -6%
Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
529 MBit/s +139%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
319 MBit/s +44%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
221 MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
Dell XPS 15 9560 (i7-7700HQ, UHD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
648 MBit/s +89%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
343 MBit/s
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
240 MBit/s -30%
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
ID: AUO38ED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8 tested with X-Rite i1Basic Pro 2
Máximo: 232 cd/m² (Nits) 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 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 14 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
54.8% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
34.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
37.46% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
54.6% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
36.26% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.09
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
ID: AUO38ED, Name: AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, 15.60, 1920x1080
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
CMN15E8 (N156HCE-EN1), IPS, 15.60, 1920x1080
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
AU Optronics AUO38ED B156HTN 28H80, TN, 15.60, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
ID: LGD0533, Name: LG Display LP156WF6-SPK3, IPS, 15.60, 1920x1080
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
AUO42ED, IPS, 15.60, 1920x1080
Display
74%
0%
7%
75%
Display P3 Coverage
36.26
65.7
81%
36.42
0%
38.97
7%
65.8
81%
sRGB Coverage
54.6
90.3
65%
54.9
1%
58.2
7%
90.9
66%
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage
37.46
65.9
76%
37.62
0%
40.3
8%
66.5
78%
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
58%
-3%
19%
58%
Brightness middle
231.9
335
44%
246
6%
248.4
7%
304
31%
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 dE 2000 *
12
4.7
61%
10.97
9%
7.5
37%
3.46
71%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
21.6
8.1
62%
25.2
-17%
7.72
64%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
14
5.8
59%
14.25
-2%
6.5
54%
2.46
82%
Gamma
2.09 105%
2.06 107%
1.83 120%
2.19 100%
2.38 92%
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)
44% / 53%
-5% / -4%
13% / 16%
40% / 52%

* ... 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. » 64 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores.
Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (21.6 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados.
       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. » 54 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores.
Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (33.9 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados.

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: 53 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 18110 (mínimo: 5 - máxmo: 3846000) Hz.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
152 Points +63%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
145 Points +56%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
133 Points +43%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
132 Points +42%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
123 Points +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
97 Points +4%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
93 Points
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
86 Points -8%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
72 Points -23%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
69 Points -26%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
738 Points +145%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
543 Points +80%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
538 (467.61min - 538.34max) Points +79%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
503 Points +67%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
464 Points +54%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
328 Points +9%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
301 Points
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
256 Points -15%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
247 Points -18%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
230 Points -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
229 Points -24%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.73 Points +57%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
1.6 Points +45%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
1.51 Points +37%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
1.49 Points +35%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
1.45 Points +32%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
1.1 Points 0%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
1.1 Points
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
1.03 Points -6%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
0.94 Points -15%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
0.81 Points -26%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.14 Points +124%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
6.11 Points +68%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
5.81 Points +60%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
5.32 Points +46%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
3.67 Points +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
3.64 Points
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
2.85 Points -22%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
2.75 Points -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
2.7 Points -26%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
2.66 Points -27%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
21824 Points +122%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
17618 Points +79%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
16456 Points +68%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
14148 Points +44%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
11373 Points +16%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
9822 Points
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
8718 Points -11%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
8413 Points -14%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
7420 Points -24%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
7200 Points -27%
Rendering Single 32Bit
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
5877 Points +94%
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
5545 Points +83%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
4975 Points +64%
Acer Aspire V17 Nitro BE VN7-793G-52XN
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
4920 Points +62%
HP Omen 17-w100ng
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
4815 Points +59%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
3871 Points +28%
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
3714 Points +22%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
3033 Points
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
2640 Points -13%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
2277 Points -25%
wPrime 2.10 - 1024m
Medion Akoya E6422
Intel Core i3-6100U
657 s * -108%
Lenovo Thinkpad 13-20J1001BUS
Intel Core i3-7100U
645 s * -104%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X3N-K01US
Intel Core i5-7200U
489.4 s * -55%
HP Pavilion 15z-bw000
AMD A10-9620P
470.9 s * -49%
HP Pavilion 17z 1EX13AV
AMD A12-9720P
415.5 s * -32%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD FX-9830P
315.9 s *
Acer Spin 5 SP513-52N-566U
Intel Core i5-8250U
314.7 s * -0%
Eurocom Q5
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
225.6 s * +29%

* ... 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
57.2 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
301 Points
ayuda
PCMark 8
Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, i7-7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4858 Points +44%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
3850 Points +14%
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
3832 Points +13%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
3431 Points +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
3384 Points
Work Score Accelerated v2
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, i7-7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
5348 Points +26%
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
5068 Points +19%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
5063 Points +19%
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
5040 Points +18%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
4260 Points
PCMark 10
Essentials
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, i7-7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
8191 Points +51%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
7542 Points +39%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
5417 Points
Score
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, i7-7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4861 Points +87%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
4364 Points +68%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
2603 Points
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3384 puntos
PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2
4640 puntos
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4260 puntos
PCMark 10 Score
2603 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%
19%
246%
Copy Game MB/s
110.6
286.2
159%
323.5
192%
442.8
300%
Copy Program MB/s
70.8
224
216%
195.3
176%
326.3
361%
Copy ISO MB/s
150.8
425.4
182%
446.8
196%
1128
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
114.5
118.3
3%
132.2
15%
97
-15%
428.2
274%
4K-64 Read
208.7
258.6
24%
257
23%
342.1
64%
628
201%
4K Write
50.6
66.6
32%
53.8
6%
65.5
29%
112
121%
4K Read
22.09
25.16
14%
28.3
28%
26.34
19%
35.84
62%
Seq Write
120.1
416.1
246%
479.8
300%
129.1
7%
601
400%
Seq Read
468.5
481.6
3%
516
10%
503
7%
1848
294%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 523 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 128 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 176.1 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 128.3 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 517 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 128.1 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 31.13 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 78.3 MB/s
3DMark
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
72213 Points +131%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ
39507 Points +26%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
34892 Points +11%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
34679 Points +11%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
31294 Points
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
25986 Points -17%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, i5-7200U
22439 Points -28%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i5-7200U
19333 Points -38%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, i7-7500U
8385 Points -73%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
12186 Points +141%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ
6166 Points +22%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
5863 Points +16%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
5701 Points +13%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
5062 Points
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points -18%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i5-7200U
3576 Points -29%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, i5-7200U
3574 Points -29%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, i7-7500U
1593 Points -69%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance GPU
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
17919 Points +130%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
8597 Points +10%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
7903 Points +1%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
7794 Points
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ
7731 Points -1%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points -38%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i5-7200U
4575 Points -41%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, i5-7200U
4251 Points -45%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, i7-7500U
2230 Points -71%
1280x720 Performance Combined
AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Reference
AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop), 4790K
10801 Points +294%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K
8447 Points +208%
HP Omen 17-w010ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ
7182 Points +162%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ
6707 Points +145%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points +63%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i5-7200U
4156 Points +52%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, i5-7200U
4113 Points +50%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
AMD Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P
2742 Points
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, i7-7500U
1770 Points -35%
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 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
61 fps +47%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K, Intel SSD 530 Series SSDSC2BW240A
55.3 fps +34%
Gigabyte P55K v5
GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U1T001122
52.4 fps +27%
MSI GL72 6QF
GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ, Samsung SSD 950 Pro 256GB m.2 NVMe
49.9 fps +21%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
41.4 fps
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
GeForce GTX 950M, i5-7200U, Toshiba MQ01ABD100
35 fps -15%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
GeForce MX150, i5-7200U, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
30.2 fps -27%
Samsung Notebook 9 NP900X5N-X01US
GeForce 940MX, i7-7500U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
13.5 fps -67%
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2017
Iris Plus Graphics 640, i5-7360U, Apple SSD AP0128
12.5 fps -70%
Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
34.2 fps +74%
Gigabyte P55K v5
GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U1T001122
28.3 fps +44%
XFX RX-460P4DFG5 Double Dissipation 4 GB
Radeon RX 460 (Desktop), 4790K, Intel SSD 530 Series SSDSC2BW240A
27.9 (24min - 31max) fps +42%
MSI GL72 6QF
GeForce GTX 960M, 6700HQ, Samsung SSD 950 Pro 256GB m.2 NVMe
25.6 fps +30%
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), FX-9830P, SK Hynix HFS128G32TND
19.7 fps
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
GeForce MX150, i5-7200U, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
17.2 fps -13%
Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D
GeForce GTX 950M, i5-7200U, Toshiba MQ01ABD100
16.9 fps -14%
bajo medio alto ultra
StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm (2013) 175.3 48.7
BioShock Infinite (2013) 96 41.4
Metro: Last Light (2013) 42.6 29.5
Thief (2014) 24.7
The Witcher 3 (2015) 71.7 29.6 17.2
Batman: Arkham Knight (2015) 43 35
Fallout 4 (2015) 55.4 32.3 27.7
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 61.5 28.4 19.7
Ashes of the Singularity (2016) 24.2 21
Overwatch (2016) 100 79.7 43
Prey (2017) 57.5 49.2 36.4 30.3
Dirt 4 (2017) 95.4 60.7 39.6 22.4
F1 2017 (2017) 37 27 24 20
01234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435Tooltip
The Witcher 3 high

Ruido

Ocioso
30.2 / 30.3 / 30.3 dB(A)
Carga
41.6 / 45.3 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
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 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, i7-7700HQ, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, 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
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.2 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F for the devices in the class Gaming.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.2 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 40.4 °C / 105 F, ranging from 21.2 to 68.8 °C for the class Gaming.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 51.2 °C / 124 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.6 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.7 °C / 96 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(±) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 36.2 °C / 97.2 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (-7.3 °C / -13.2 F).
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 24.6median 55Delta1.37.635.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.72.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus FX550IU-WSFXApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Asus FX550IU-WSFX audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (66.3 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 (29.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 94% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

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 (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

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
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), SK Hynix HFS128G32TND, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.60
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 Gaming (Core i5-7300HQ, GTX 1050)
i5-7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Toshiba MQ02ABD100H, TN, 1920x1080, 15.60
MSI GP62 7REX-1045US
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Toshiba NVMe THNSN5128GP, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.60
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Hynix HFS128G39TND, TN, 1920x1080, 15.60
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
6500U, GeForce GTX 960M, SanDisk SD8SNAT256G1002, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60
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%
Witcher 3 ultra *
112.4
83.8
25%
107
5%
96
15%
90
20%
Load Maximum *
117
115.2
2%
136.7
-17%
158
-35%
107
9%
93
21%

* ... más pequeño es mejor

Tiempo de Ejecución de la Batería
Ocioso (sin WLAN, min brillo)
9h 05min
WiFi Websurfing
4h 07min
Carga (máximo brillo)
0h 53min
Asus FX550IU-WSFX
FX-9830P, Radeon RX 460 (Laptop), 44 Wh
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 73 Wh
Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, 74 Wh
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 47 Wh
HP Omen 15-ce002ng
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 70 Wh
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 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(old)
Allen Ngo

Acabado
65 / 98 → 66%
Teclado
68%
Ratón
78%
Conectividad
43 / 81 → 53%
Peso
60 / 10-66 → 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)