Just quickly before we jump into the benchmark results, Oh cover off the specs in this laptop I've got that AMD configuration so it's got a risin, 5 2500 quad core CPU and Radeon rx 5, 60 X, graphics, it's got a 16 gig stick of memory running a Ddr4 2666 in single channel, although upgrading to dual channel, should help improve performance other than that I was running. Windows 10 with these drivers, so let's find out how well the ACE and nitro 5 performs Fortnite was tested with the replay feature ended epic in high settings. The performance wasn't great, I would definitely suggest playing at medium settings or lower, as this is able to get us around the 60 FPS mark. But more importantly, there was less stuttering, as illustrated by the 1 lows. Overwatch was tested playing in the practice range. It still felt playable for the most part at epic settings, but the overall experience was better at Ultra settings or lower. I didn't notice any issues with ultra settings, which was able to average above 60 FPS, while still looking great pub G was tested using the replay feature and is an example of what we start to see with more resource intensive or less optimised games. It was playable for the most part at very low settings. I wouldn't want to go any higher than that. Personally C s Goyer was tested using the elliptical benchmark and the results were a bit lower than I expected still high enough for a first person, shooter game and definitely playable but I'd.

Probably look for something with high aspects. If you want to go for her Rainbow, six siege was tested with the built in benchmark, and I found this test to generally run very well on old laptops, so even on this hardware were still seeing fairly good results. No real difference between ultra and very high settings and over 100 FPS average with a low presa dota 2 was tested using a fairly intensive replay. So this should be a worst case scenario. These results are not the same is actually playing the game in this test. The frame rates aren't excellent that even with these numbers, I think you can still play the game with that issue. Battlefield one was played during the first campaign mission and I was playing with no problems at all at medium older settings. If in high, an ultra will find most of the time, but I think for this type of game, you'd probably want to try and stick to a 60 FPS average or above watchdogs. 2 is a demanding game and I always say that this doesn't need a high frame rate to play, which was the case here. I found high settings or below to run perfectly fine, so it seems as long as you're getting 30 FPS. It should run alright. This just goes to show: it really depends on the game. Doom was tested using Vulcan and adult setting levels that played fairly smoothly, though there was some choppiness at times, which seems to be illustrated by the one percent low results being under 30.

Fps though this was nowhere near as low with low settings which did play noticeably better, The Witcher 3 played alright at medium and low settings, but it was noticeably slower at high. Oh all true settings so still playable, but you'll just need to stick to the lowest setting levels. I haven't been able to test some of my usual games, like Ghost Recon as a wouldn't load, shadow of the Tomb Raider was crashing on start and Far Cry 5 and Assassin's Creed Odyssey, didn't, recognize the rx, 5 6 DX and instead we're using the Vega 8 Graphics on the CPU, so barely reaching 10 FPS on minimum settings a bit strange when you consider there AMD supported titles, you could probably put in some workarounds and fix these issues, but I still think it's worth noting that these are more issues than I've ever had. While testing the same games on an Intel and NVIDIA combination, I did try manually changing the games using Vega graphics to the 560 ex, but it made no difference. The results are a fair bit lower than most of the other laptops I've tested. But the price point of it is also a fair bit lower than most others, so we need to readjust our expectations in the games. Tested it's still, definitely able to offer a playable experience. You just need to stick to medium all those settings for the most part, especially if you're planning on playing triple a games.

This is the first AMD laptop I've tested, but it does seem like you might be better off the Intel and NVIDIA configuration. Instead. I haven't tested it, but for around the same price you get the i5 8300 H, which seems to be the 2500 you in Cinebench, by a fair bit and it's got a gtx 1050 ti2, which also seems to beat the RX 5 6 DX. So how do you guys think the AMD version of the Aysen nitro 5 gaming laptop did in these games, as we saw it can run them quite well at medium settings of allure, not too bad. When you consider the price which you can check using the link in the description, you might be getting seriously high frame rates, but for light gaming or less demanding games it's a capable machine. Let me know what you guys thought down in the comments and don't forget to subscribe for the full review of the ACE and nitro 5 gaming laptop as well as future tech.