I'Ll cover off the specs in my unit there's an Intel i7 88 50 H. Cpu, which can be overclocked NVIDIA, GTX, 1080, graphics and 16 gig of memory running a ddr4 2666 and dual channel it's also got a 144 hertz screen. So hopefully, with these powerful specs, we should be able to take advantage of the higher refresh rate panel. The RS x7 by default is running with the normal fence B profile and while running in this, the fans are at normal speeds, but the CPU was kept to a 40 watt TDP with the default clock speeds, I figure if you're buying a laptop with these specs You'Ll probably run it in the max fan profile instead, which boosts the max TDP to 55 watts and overclocks. All six calls to 4.3 gigahertz. So this is how I've done my testing. It is possible to further boost the power limit of the CPU and overclock higher, but I'll cover that in depth in the full review. As for now, I think what I've selected is a fair option that most people would probably end up using other than that. I was running Windows 10 with all updates applied, and these Nvidia drivers so let's see how well it runs for tonight was tested with the replay feature and definite epic settings. The average framerate was close to the refresh rate of the screen, with even the 1 low results, still above 100 FPS with even higher results at lower settings.

Although it ran perfectly smoothly at epic anyway, overwatch was tested playing in the practice range and once again, very high average frame rates, even an epic settings. Although the womp assembler results are quite low, comparatively there is still good overall and the 300 FPS cap could be hidden, medium and low settings. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the built in benchmark. I still haven't tested this out on too many laptops yet, but the average frame rates look pretty good here compared to the others. I have tried it on with 100 FPS and above that high setting, learn. Pub G was tested using the replay feature, and although this is a less optimized game, we're able to get some pretty good frame rates with above 100, FPS average is possible at high settings or below, and the lowest settings are actually allowing us to put the 144 Head'S display to use csgo was tested using the elliptical benchmark and the results are fairly high here for a laptop over 400 fps at minimum settings on 1080p, with the 1 low result, not too far behind the refresh rate of the display Rainbow six siege was tested With the built in bench mark and was another that ran well, but basically all setting levels with one percent lows at Ultra setting levels not far behind the refresh rate of the display, so even the dips in performance went bad Far. Cry 5 was also tested with the built in benchmark, and the results for this test are pretty good.

Almost averaging 100 FPS at Ultra settings with up to 120 seen at low settings. Assassin'S Creed origins is another game that I've tested using the built in benchmark and he was seeing pretty good results for this somewhat intensive test. Even at ultra high settings, the frame rates are pretty decent, as I don't personally think. This game needs a high frame rate to play. Dota 2 was tested using an intensive replay as of worst case scenario. These results do not represent real gameplay, which would perform while, but are comparable to my previous dota 2 benchmarks testing battlefield 1. In the first campaign, mission ran well at all setting levels, although the 1 low results were fair bit below the averages. However, I didn't personally really notice any dips in performance while playing and this doesn't really change much in lower settings anyway. Watchdogs 2 is a demanding game, although it doesn't really need a high frame rate to play. But despite this, even at Ultra settings, we've got pretty nice results and still very playable, with not too much of a difference as we drop the setting levels down. Durst recon is another demanding game and was tested using the built in benchmark and we just tabled average 60 fps and miss tested ultra settings so still playable, though a much better experience at pretty much any other selling level. The Witcher 3 was playing great at all. Setting levels, though I did have hair works disabled here above 100, FPS averages and ultra settings in this game are pretty nice results for a laptop, and these increase Abed bit as we step down in settings, doom was tested using Vulcan and, as usual, we're getting high Frame rates for this game, it read perfectly smoothly for me, while playing even on ultra settings with 1 lose still above 100 FPS and not too far below the refresh rate of the display.

Shadow of war was tested with a built in benchmark and yet again, pretty good results for the expects, with very high settings or below getting us past 100 FPS, with quite a big improvement. Seen at lower settings, ashes of the singularity was tested using the built in benchmark with DirectX 12 and was tested as a more CPU intensive game to try and show what to expect from these higher end. Laptop specs. All of the games tested are giving us pretty nice results. I think this is only the second or third laptop I've ever had with NVIDIA GTX, 1080 graphics and paired with an overclockable CPU we're. Seeing really good results, although performance does depend on the specific game and settings in use. So how do you guys think the Auris x7 gaming laptop did in these games as we've seen it's performing extremely well for a laptop even with max settings at most games? Thanks to the powerful 8850 h and GT x, 1080 combination and as we've got that 144 hertz display too it's providing an excellent gaming experience. Let me know what you guys thought about the laptops performance down in the comments and don't forget to subscribe for the full review of the Auris x7 gaming laptop as well as future tech.