Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Portátil Asus TUF FX505DY (Ryzen 5 3550H, Radeon RX 560X)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 82 %
iluminação com acumulador: 211.5 cd/m²
Contraste: 920:1 (Preto: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.92 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5, calibrated: 4.16
ΔE Greyscale 3.1 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
60% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
38.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
41.4% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
60.2% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
40.04% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.23
| Asus TUF FX505DY Panda LM156LF-CL03, IPS, 15.60, 1920x1080 | MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US Chi Mei CMN15F4 (N156HHE-GA1 CMN), TN LED, 120 Hz, 15.60, 1920x1080 | Asus FX504GD AU Optronics B156HTN03.8, TN LED, 15.60, 1920x1080 | Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH LG Display LP156WFG-SPB2, IPS, 15.60, 1920x1080 | Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 AU Optronics B156HAN06.0 (AUO60ED), IPS, 15.60, 1920x1080 | Gigabyte Sabre 15G ID: LGD0533, Name: LG Display LP156WF6-SPK3, IPS, 15.60, 1920x1080 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 101% | -7% | 55% | 53% | -3% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 40.04 | 91.5 129% | 37.09 -7% | 62.5 56% | 63.4 58% | 38.97 -3% |
| sRGB Coverage | 60.2 | 100 66% | 55.8 -7% | 93 54% | 87.4 45% | 58.2 -3% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 41.4 | 85.9 107% | 38.34 -7% | 63.8 54% | 64 55% | 40.3 -3% |
| Response Times | 48% | 29% | 66% | -7% | 14% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 44.8 ? | 24 ? 46% | 41.6 ? 7% | 15 ? 67% | 48.4 ? -8% | 32 ? 29% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 30.8 ? | 8.4 ? 73% | 15.2 ? 51% | 11 ? 64% | 32.8 ? -6% | 25.6 ? 17% |
| PWM Frequency | 20830 ? | 26040 ? 25% | 20000 ? -4% | |||
| Screen | -5% | -34% | 10% | 19% | -25% | |
| Brightness middle | 211.5 | 368.5 74% | 260 23% | 305 44% | 299 41% | 248.4 17% |
| Brightness | 200 | 341 71% | 241 21% | 284 42% | 284 42% | 241 21% |
| Brightness Distribution | 82 | 87 6% | 85 4% | 83 1% | 88 7% | 84 2% |
| Black Level * | 0.23 | 0.34 -48% | 0.55 -139% | 0.52 -126% | 0.24 -4% | 0.3 -30% |
| Contrast | 920 | 1084 18% | 473 -49% | 587 -36% | 1246 35% | 828 -10% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.92 | 8.91 -127% | 7 -79% | 3.63 7% | 4.98 -27% | 7.5 -91% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 17.63 | 14.39 18% | 22.52 -28% | 8.18 54% | 7.67 56% | 25.2 -43% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 4.16 | 2.87 31% | 5.27 -27% | 1.31 69% | 3.7 11% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.1 | 12 -287% | 6.1 -97% | 4.77 -54% | 4.58 -48% | 6.5 -110% |
| Gamma | 2.23 99% | 1.825 121% | 1.97 112% | 2.54 87% | 2.55 86% | 2.19 100% |
| CCT | 6578 99% | 11519 56% | 7894 82% | 7500 87% | 6397 102% | 7852 83% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 38.1 | 85.94 126% | 35.5 -7% | 59 55% | 57 50% | 37 -3% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 60 | 99.98 67% | 61 2% | 93 55% | 87 45% | 57.9 -3% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 48% /
23% | -4% /
-21% | 44% /
25% | 22% /
22% | -5% /
-14% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 30.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 81 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 44.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 26 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 73 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 20830 Hz | ≤ 30 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 20830 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 20830 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
| Cinebench R15 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Dell Precision 7530 | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US | |
| Gigabyte Sabre 15G | |
| Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 | |
| Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Asus GL702ZC-GC104T | |
| Honor Magicbook | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| Asus GL702ZC-GC104T | |
| Dell Precision 7530 | |
| MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Gigabyte Sabre 15G | |
| Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| Honor Magicbook | |
| Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4560 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5223 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 4405 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Asus TUF FX505DY WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ | Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 SK Hynix HFS128G39TND | Gigabyte Sabre 15G Liteonit CV3-8D128 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | -60% | -1% | -119% | -60% | |
| Seq Read | 1059 | 504 -52% | 1808 71% | 470.8 -56% | 516 -51% |
| Seq Write | 1180 | 462.9 -61% | 1429 21% | 126.8 -89% | 479.8 -59% |
| 4K Read | 37.55 | 21.88 -42% | 46.1 23% | 23.64 -37% | 28.3 -25% |
| 4K Write | 110.6 | 60.8 -45% | 97 -12% | 54.5 -51% | 53.8 -51% |
| 4K-64 Read | 619 | 253 -59% | 536 -13% | 203.1 -67% | 257 -58% |
| 4K-64 Write | 502 | 137.8 -73% | 273.6 -45% | 127.1 -75% | 132.2 -74% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.087 | 0.155 -78% | 0.085 2% | 0.121 -39% | 0.141 -62% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.034 | 0.072 -112% | 0.038 -12% | 0.269 -691% | 0.073 -115% |
| Score Read | 762 | 325 -57% | 763 0% | 274 -64% | 337 -56% |
| Score Write | 730 | 245 -66% | 514 -30% | 194 -73% | 234 -68% |
| Score Total | 1899 | 742 -61% | 1663 -12% | 600 -68% | 752 -60% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 1166 | 690 -41% | 446.8 -62% | ||
| Copy Program MB/s | 507 | 328.1 -35% | 195.3 -61% | ||
| Copy Game MB/s | 480.3 | 220.7 -54% | 323.5 -33% |
* ... smaller is better
| 3DMark | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX531GM | |
| Asus GL702ZC-GC104T | |
| Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H | |
| SCHENKER XMG P506 | |
| Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 | |
| Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Asus GL552VW-DK725T | |
| Honor Magicbook | |
| 2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX531GM | |
| Asus GL702ZC-GC104T | |
| Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| 3DMark 11 | |
| 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Asus GL702ZC-GC104T | |
| Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX531GM | |
| SCHENKER XMG P506 | |
| Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H | |
| Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 | |
| Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Asus GL552VW-DK725T | |
| Honor Magicbook | |
| 1280x720 Performance Combined | |
| Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK | |
| Asus GL702ZC-GC104T | |
| SCHENKER XMG P506 | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H | |
| Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| Asus Zephyrus S GX531GM | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE | |
| Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 | |
| Asus GL552VW-DK725T | |
| Honor Magicbook | |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 25730 pontos | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 7714 pontos | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 57356 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 18476 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 5515 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 1925 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
| MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US | |
| Asus GL702ZC-GC104T | |
| Intel Hades Canyon NUC8i7HVK | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Lenovo Legion Y730-15ICH i5-8300H | |
| SCHENKER XMG P506 | |
| Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G | |
| Asus TUF FX505DY | |
| Asus FX504GD | |
| Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE | |
| Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 | |
| Asus GL552VW-DK725T | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 134.3 | 118 | 114 | 53.1 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 108.8 | 70.3 | 38.5 | 22.7 |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 108.6 | 65.7 | 35.3 | 26.6 |
| Asus TUF FX505DY Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R5 3550H, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ | Asus FX504GD GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i5-8300H, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172 | Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, i7-8750H, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), R7 2700U, SK Hynix HFS128G39TND | Gigabyte Sabre 15G GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, i7-7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -6% | 1% | -2% | 1% | -9% | |
| off / environment * | 28.2 | 28.4 -1% | 28.1 -0% | 30.2 -7% | 29 -3% | 28.2 -0% |
| Idle Minimum * | 28.2 | 32.8 -16% | 29 -3% | 30.9 -10% | 29 -3% | 33 -17% |
| Idle Average * | 28.2 | 32.8 -16% | 29.2 -4% | 30.9 -10% | 31 -10% | 33.3 -18% |
| Idle Maximum * | 28.2 | 33 -17% | 29.7 -5% | 31.6 -12% | 32 -13% | 34.7 -23% |
| Load Average * | 43.9 | 35.8 18% | 44.3 -1% | 42.3 4% | 36 18% | 44.5 -1% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 49 | 51 -4% | 40.7 17% | 44 10% | 49.2 -0% | |
| Load Maximum * | 50.6 | 52.3 -3% | 47.7 6% | 40 21% | 46 9% | 52.8 -4% |
* ... smaller is better
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 28.2 / 28.2 / 28.2 dB |
| Carga |
| 43.9 / 50.6 dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm de distância) environment noise: 28.2 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 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 49.4 °C / 121 F, compared to the average of 43.2 °C / 110 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.2 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(+) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.4 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 33.8 °C / 93 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 27.4 °C / 81.3 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.9 °C / 84 F (+1.5 °C / 2.7 F).
Asus TUF FX505DY audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (31.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 97% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 18%, worst was 132%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 9% 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%
| desligado | 0.42 / 0.86 Watt |
| Ocioso | 5.2 / 7.5 / 9.4 Watt |
| Carga |
73 / 120.7 Watt |
   
| |
| Asus TUF FX505DY R5 3550H, Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60 | MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, Samsung PM871b MZNLN128HAHQ, TN LED, 120 Hz, 1920x1080, 15.60 | Asus FX504GD i5-8300H, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LX015-1U7172, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.60 | Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60 | Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 R7 2700U, Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), SK Hynix HFS128G39TND, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60 | Gigabyte Sabre 15G i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Liteonit CV3-8D128, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -52% | -18% | -42% | -30% | -19% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 5.2 | 7.99 -54% | 7.2 -38% | 7.3 -40% | 7 -35% | 8 -54% |
| Idle Average * | 7.5 | 12.15 -62% | 10.2 -36% | 11.1 -48% | 10 -33% | 10.9 -45% |
| Idle Maximum * | 9.4 | 13.4 -43% | 10.9 -16% | 12.6 -34% | 18 -91% | 11 -17% |
| Load Average * | 73 | 103.62 -42% | 93.3 -28% | 109 -49% | 79 -8% | 76.7 -5% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 90 | 156.1 -73% | 95.8 -6% | 98 -9% | 94.9 -5% | |
| Load Maximum * | 120.7 | 164.29 -36% | 102.5 15% | 168 -39% | 128 -6% | 106.4 12% |
* ... smaller is better
| Asus TUF FX505DY R5 3550H, Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 48 Wh | MSI GP63 Leopard 8RE-013US i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, 51 Wh | Asus FX504GD i5-8300H, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 48 Wh | Lenovo Legion Y530-15ICH i7-8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, 52 Wh | Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42-R6V0 R7 2700U, Radeon RX 560X (Laptop), 48 Wh | Gigabyte Sabre 15G i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 47 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -24% | -29% | -36% | 4% | -15% | |
| Reader / Idle | 520 | 451 -13% | 449 -14% | 495 -5% | 493 -5% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 327 | 286 -13% | 223 -32% | 228 -30% | 340 4% | 261 -20% |
| Load | 97 | 52 -46% | 56 -42% | 26 -73% | 77 -21% |
Pro
Contra
O TUF FX505DY é o portátil de jogos AMD mais balanceado que já testamos. Considerando a incompatibilidade do Strix GL702ZC junto com uma CPU de gama alta com uma GPU de gama média e o FX550IU junto com uma CPU de gama baixa com uma GPU de gama média, o FX505DY combina com sucesso um Ryzen 5 3550H de gama média com a Radeon RX 560X de gama média, para jogar em 1080p com um preço econômico. O desempenho geral é muitas vezes a par com o laptop de jogos orçamento comum alimentado por um Intel Core i5-8300H e GeForce GTX 1050 enquanto se vende a um preço recomendado pelo fabricante, mais baixo, o que é exatamente o que a AMD e a Asus tem como alvo para este novo sistema TUF.
O principal problema aqui é o tempo. Portáteis com uma GTX 1050 e inclusive GPUs 1050 Ti foram baixando em preço para dar espaço para os portáteis RTX. Não é difícil encontrar esses sistemas à venda hoje por $700 para anular a vantagem de desempenho por dólar que os sistemas da AMD normalmente têm. Se o FX505DY tivesse sido lançado um ano antes, quando a GTX 1050 era mais nova e mais cara, ele teria contribuído para uma alternativa mais atraente.
Devido ao mencionado anteriormente, o FX505DY não tem nenhuma grande vantagem sobre a concorrência, mas também não é uma escolha inferior. Ela está cara-a-cara com ofertas de orçamento da Intel-Nvidia, o que é dizer muito para um portátil todo AMD. Como o primeiro portátil para jogos Zen+ no mercado, ele se mostra muito promissor sobre o que os futuros portáteis para jogos Ryzen podem trazer para a mesa. Ainda estamos cruzando os dedos para os portáteis Ryzen-Nvidia realmente consigam afetar o domínio da Intel.
Estreia potente do Ryzen Zen+, mas um pouco atrasado para a festa. O Asus TUF FX505DY é uma boa alternativa à habitual alternativa Intel Core i5-8300H e GTX 1050. Espera-se que o sistema pavimente o caminho para os portáteis de jogos Ryzen-Turing em um futuro próximo, o que quase certamente enfraquecerá a Intel-Turing em termos de preço de varejo.
Asus TUF FX505DY
-
03/08/2019 v6(old)
Allen Ngo
Pricecompare
