Breve Análise do Portátil Asus FX553VD (7700HQ, GTX 1050)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 (jseb) | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 (jseb) | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 (jseb) | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 (jseb) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 227 cd/m²
Contraste: 489:1 (Preto: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.94 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.68 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
57% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
36% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
39.24% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
57.1% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
37.98% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.35
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T BOE, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | MSI GL62M 7RD-077 Chi Mei N156HGE-EAL, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV AU Optronics AUO41ED, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 LG Philips LGD0550 / LP156WF6-SPK4, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 AU Optronics AUO38ED B156HTN 28H80, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | Asus FX502VM-AS73 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 105% | -0% | 2% | -4% | 1% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 37.98 | 85.4 125% | 38.03 0% | 38.88 2% | 36.42 -4% | 38.28 1% |
| sRGB Coverage | 57.1 | 100 75% | 56.5 -1% | 58.2 2% | 54.9 -4% | 56.9 0% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 39.24 | 83.8 114% | 39.29 0% | 40.2 2% | 37.62 -4% | 39.47 1% |
| Response Times | -83% | -75% | -30% | -106% | -35% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 43 ? | 44 ? -2% | 44.4 ? -3% | 22 ? 49% | 36 ? 16% | 28.4 ? 34% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 11 ? | 29 ? -164% | 27.2 ? -147% | 23 ? -109% | 36 ? -227% | 22.4 ? -104% |
| PWM Frequency | 198 ? | |||||
| Screen | -42% | -37% | 2% | -72% | -27% | |
| Brightness middle | 225 | 258 15% | 209.7 -7% | 281 25% | 246 9% | 209.5 -7% |
| Brightness | 215 | 234 9% | 193 -10% | 257 20% | 235 9% | 205 -5% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 79 -13% | 75 -18% | 85 -7% | 75 -18% | 92 1% |
| Black Level * | 0.46 | 0.54 -17% | 0.19 59% | 0.32 30% | 0.55 -20% | 0.69 -50% |
| Contrast | 489 | 478 -2% | 1104 126% | 878 80% | 447 -9% | 304 -38% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.94 | 9.74 -147% | 7.8 -98% | 5.16 -31% | 10.97 -178% | 4.7 -19% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.83 | 14.6 -114% | 24.1 -253% | 9.09 -33% | 19.7 -188% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.68 | 11.59 -332% | 7.3 -172% | 4.57 -71% | 14.25 -432% | 1.8 33% |
| Gamma | 2.35 94% | 2.19 100% | 2.39 92% | 2.59 85% | 1.83 120% | 2.23 99% |
| CCT | 6709 97% | 11851 55% | 5771 113% | 6931 94% | 11200 58% | 6975 93% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 36 | 76 111% | 39.3 9% | 37 3% | 35 -3% | 36.2 1% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 57 | 100 75% | 56.5 -1% | 58 2% | 55 -4% | 56.6 -1% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -7% /
-18% | -37% /
-34% | -9% /
-2% | -61% /
-62% | -20% /
-23% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 11 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 26 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 43 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 19 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 68 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected | ≤ 90 % brightness setting |  | |
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8719 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| Cinebench R11.5 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3832 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5040 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T Hynix HFS128G39TND | MSI GL62M 7RD-077 HGST Travelstar 7K1000 HTS721010A9E630 | HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP | Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 Toshiba MQ01ABD100 | Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 Intel SSDSCKKF256H6 | Asus FX502VM-AS73 SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | -80% | 44% | -84% | 50% | -3% | |
| Write 4k QD32 | 136.4 | 1.234 -99% | 140.2 3% | 0.893 -99% | 255.1 87% | 99.7 -27% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 348.2 | 1.088 -100% | 400.9 15% | 0.718 -100% | 279.6 -20% | 369.9 6% |
| Write 4k | 76.8 | 1.122 -99% | 89.8 17% | 0.846 -99% | 85.4 11% | 70.9 -8% |
| Read 4k | 29.74 | 0.494 -98% | 33.12 11% | 0.327 -99% | 27.11 -9% | 29.36 -1% |
| Write 512 | 136.9 | 57 -58% | 185.4 35% | 28.31 -79% | 304 122% | 137.8 1% |
| Read 512 | 340.9 | 43.19 -87% | 399.7 17% | 28.33 -92% | 338.9 -1% | 343.5 1% |
| Write Seq | 136.2 | 107.3 -21% | 476.6 250% | 100.6 -26% | 422.8 210% | 138.2 1% |
| Read Seq | 504 | 112.4 -78% | 522 4% | 101.5 -80% | 485.8 -4% | 503 0% |
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| 3DMark | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Score | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Score | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 7471 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 19501 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 5508 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| The Witcher 3 | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| 1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) | |
| Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider | |
| 1920x1080 Very High Preset AA:FX AF:16x | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX AF:4x | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1366x768 Medium Preset AF:2x | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1024x768 Lowest Preset | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| MSI GL62M 7RD-077 | |
| Doom | |
| 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AA:SM | |
| Asus FX502VM-AS73 | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AA:FX | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1920x1080 Medium Preset | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1366x768 Medium Preset | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| 1280x720 Low Preset | |
| Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 91 | 62.7 | 35.6 | 23 |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 120 | 66 | 38 | 32 |
| Doom (2016) | 103 | 72 | 44 | 43 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 32.9 / 32.9 / 33.5 dB |
| HDD |
| 32.9 dB |
| Carga |
| 43.7 / 47 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: 30.8 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.2 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 36.9 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.8 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.8 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(-) The palmrests and touchpad can get very hot to the touch with a maximum of 41.4 °C / 106.5 F.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (-12.6 °C / -22.7 F).
| desligado | 0.5 / 0.6 Watt |
| Ocioso | 4 / 6.7 / 9.6 Watt |
| Carga |
81 / 107 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Hynix HFS128G39TND, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6" | MSI GL62M 7RD-077 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, HGST Travelstar 7K1000 HTS721010A9E630, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Toshiba MQ01ABD100, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, Intel SSDSCKKF256H6, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Asus FX502VM-AS73 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A, TN LED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -75% | -34% | -38% | -3% | -105% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 4 | 10.6 -165% | 8.29 -107% | 7 -75% | 4.4 -10% | 14.9 -273% |
| Idle Average * | 6.7 | 14.5 -116% | 8.9 -33% | 10.2 -52% | 6.8 -1% | 15.1 -125% |
| Idle Maximum * | 9.6 | 15 -56% | 10.2 -6% | 14 -46% | 8.3 14% | 15.2 -58% |
| Load Average * | 81 | 90 -11% | 77.1 5% | 78 4% | 81 -0% | 105.8 -31% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 90 | |||||
| Load Maximum * | 107 | 135 -26% | 136.6 -28% | 127 -19% | 127 -19% | 148.8 -39% |
* ... smaller is better
| Asus FX553VD-DM249T i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 48 Wh | MSI GL62M 7RD-077 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 41 Wh | HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, 63.3 Wh | Acer Aspire VX5-591G-75C4 VX15 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, 52.5 Wh | Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile, 74 Wh | Asus FX502VM-AS73 i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile, 64 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -33% | 59% | -5% | 73% | -16% | |
| Reader / Idle | 587 | 387 -34% | 961 64% | 322 -45% | 1174 100% | 363 -38% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 360 | 225 -37% | 389 8% | 302 -16% | 622 73% | 277 -23% |
| Load | 56 | 41 -27% | 115 105% | 81 45% | 81 45% | 64 14% |
| H.264 | 217 | 455 |
O Asus FX553 é, na verdade, um portátil multimídia de gama alta, mas também é o dispositivo de jogos de nível de entrada da Asus. O FX553 se sai melhor na avaliação como um portátil multimídia, motivo pelo qual o vemos nessa categoria, preferentemente. Na área multimídia, o aparelho pode ganhar 2 pontos a mais, sento um poli funcional. Puramente em termos de desempenho, o aparelho não apresenta fraquezas, e o hardware integrado cumpre o que é prometido no papel. Mas todos os outros componentes permanecem médios, no máximo.
Nossos pontos de crítica mais fortes vão, mais que nada, para a carcaça com a tampa esponjosa e para o teclado flexível sob pressão, depois também para a tela pobre em contraste, e finalmente, a problemática distribuição de calor na parte esquerda da superfície.
Por outro lado, você não se engana muito ao adquiri-lo. Você está recebendo um acessível portátil multimídia e de jogos que pode exibir todos os jogos atuais sem problemas e não esquenta muito, nem faz muito barulho ao fazê-lo. Claro que você tem que avaliar se deseja obter um gamer "real" com o irmão FX502 com a GTX 1060, apenas ligeiramente mais caro. Isso é quase duas vezes mais rápido em jogos, mas infelizmente também mais barulhento e mais quente. Por isso, é uma decisão de compromisso entre o desempenho, por um lado, e da temperatura/volume/peso, por outro.
o Asus FX553VD é um poli funcional poderoso e atraente, mas tecnicamente nada excepcional.
Comparado com os concorrentes equipados de forma similar, o FX553 chega em uma gama inferior. É mais comparável com o MSI; os outros aparelhos como o modelo da HP ou da Dell são um pouco melhores. Em termos do que é oferecido, achamos que o preço de ao redor de 1.100 Euros (~$1.177) alto demais. Os concorrentes podem ser comprados por um pouco menos de 1000 Euros (~$1070) em alguns casos e não se saem nada mal. Inclusive o FX502 do mesmo fabricante custa apenas cerca de 100 a 200 Euros (~$107 a $214) a mais, e está equipado com 16 GB de RAM e uma GTX 1060.
Com o modelo atual aqui, a "busca do incrível" se torna difícil. O design e o baixo consumo de energia talvez sejam suas melhores qualidades; todos os outros valores terminam na enjoada gama média. A audiência alvo, portanto, consiste de pessoas que desejam um portátil multimídia razoavelmente poderoso, mas que não se importam muito sobre a boa qualidade ou os ajustes finos. O Asus FX553 não é muito caro, nem muito pesado, nem muito barulhento e nem muito quente. Ele é veloz, mas não um aparelho de gama alta.
Pro
Contra
The Asus FX553 is actually a multimedia notebook of the upper mid-range, but it is also Asus' entry-level gaming device. The FX553 fares better in the rating as a multimedia notebook, for which reason we see it in that category, preferably. In the multimedia area the device can earn 2 points more, being an all-rounder. Purely in terms of performance, the device offers no weaknesses, and the built-in hardware keeps what it promised on paper. But all the other components remain average at most.
Our strongest points of criticism go foremost to the casing with the spongy lid and the keyboard giving in under pressure, then also the dark and contrast-poor display, and finally the troublesome heat distribution on the left surface.
On the other hand, you do not go much wrong purchasing it. You are getting an affordable gaming and multimedia laptop that can display all the current games smoothly and does not get too hot or loud doing it. Of course you have to weigh up whether to get a "real" gamer with the just slightly more expensive FX502 sibling with the GTX 1060. That is almost twice as fast in gaming, but unfortunately also louder and hotter. So it is a compromise decision between performance on the one hand and temperature/volume/weight on the other.
The Asus FX553VD is a powerful, visually attractive, but technically unremarkable all-rounder.
Compared to the similarly equipped competitors, the FX553 comes in at the lower mid-field. It is mostly comparable to the MSI; the other devices such as the HP or Dell model are a little better. In terms of what is offered, we find the price of around 1100 Euros (~$1177) almost too high. The competitors can be purchased for a little under 1000 Euros (~$1070) in some cases and do not fare worse at all. Even the FX502 from the same manufacturer costs only about 100 to 200 Euros (~$107 to $214) more and is equipped with 16 GB of RAM and a GTX 1060.
With the actual model here, the "search for the incredible" becomes difficult. The design and low power consumption qualify perhaps the most; all the other values end up in the unremarkable mid-range. The target audience therefore consists of people who want a reasonably powerful multimedia notebook, but do not care too much about good quality or fine tuning. The Asus FX553 is not too expensive, too heavy, too loud, or too hot. It is fast, but no high-end device.
Asus FX553VD-DM249T
- 04/19/2017 v6 (old)
Christian Hintze
Price comparison
