Aorus 5 NA (GTX 1650) Gaming Laptop Benchmarks – 21 Games Tested!

Aorus 5 NA (GTX 1650) Gaming Laptop Benchmarks – 21 Games Tested!


The Aorus 5 is Gigabyte’s new entry level
gaming laptop, so let’s find out how well it performs in a bunch of different games,
compare it with some other laptops, and find out if it’s actually a budget friendly gaming
laptop you should consider. I’ve got NA version of the Aorus 5, so there’s
an Intel i7-9750H CPU, Nvidia GTX 1650 graphics, 16gb of memory in dual channel, and a 144Hz
1080p screen. You can find updated prices linked in the description. The Aorus Control Center software allows us
to define the CPU power limits in 5 stages, and 2 stages for the GPU. I’ve tested these
games at the highest limits for best performance, so the GPU does have a small overclock applied.
I’ve also tested with the fans at highest speed, along with all Windows updates and
latest Nvidia drivers. We’ll only be covering gaming performance
in this video, so if you’re new to the channel, you’ll definitely want to get subscribed for
the upcoming thermal testing and full review. Let’s start out by going through all 21
games at all setting levels, then afterwards we’ll see how the Aorus 5 compares with
some other laptops. Borderlands 3 is a new addition to my testing
suite, and it was tested with the built in benchmark and DX 11, as DX 12 is still in
beta. As this is the first time I’ve ever tested this game I have no other data to compare
against, but 60 FPS was possible in this test with medium settings. Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode,
and it was still playable at high settings which was just below the 60 FPS sweet spot,
though medium was able to get above this, with even higher possible at low settings,
ultra was a bit stuttery though. Battlefield 1 was also tested in campaign
mode, but this older title tends to perform better than the newer Battlefield 5 just shown.
Even ultra settings felt smooth enough, where the 1% low was still above 60 FPS. Apex Legends was tested with either all settings
at maximum, or all settings on the lowest possible values, as it doesn’t have predefined
setting presets. It still played pretty well even with everything maxed out, though a 50%
higher frame rate at minimum was possible which made better use of the 144Hz screen. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with
the built in benchmark, and even medium settings wasn’t able to get us 60 FPS here, lower
settings were required for that, but we’ll see how these results compare with other laptops
soon. Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the built
in benchmark, and as this is more of a CPU heavy test and we’ve still got an i7, the
results weren’t too low compared to other machines with higher tier graphics, 60 FPS
was still hit with low settings in this test. Far Cry 5 was also tested with the built in
benchmark, and the results were only just slightly ahead of the newer Far Cry New Dawn
results we just looked at. This is another game that we’ll use to compare with some
other laptops later. Fortnite was tested with the replay feature,
and as a less demanding game even epic settings was playing well with above 60 FPS averages,
while medium settings was able to take advantage of the 144Hz display. Overwatch is another well optimized game and
was tested in the practice range, again it was still playing well with max settings,
and even high settings were able to utilize the 144Hz screen, with far higher frame rates
possible at lower settings too. CS:GO was tested using the Ulletical FPS benchmark,
and as a game that depends primarily on CPU power the results aren’t really that much
lower compared to other laptops I’ve tested with the same i7 CPU but higher end graphics. Dota 2 was tested playing in the middle lane,
and as a primarily CPU driven game the results were still quite good here despite the 1650
graphics. Even ultra settings was scoring higher average FPS than the refresh rate of
the display, with up to 200 FPS at low settings. Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the built
in benchmark. Low settings was able to smash past the refresh rate of the display, while
high settings could still maintain 100 FPS in this test. Metro Exodus was tested using the built in
benchmark, most parts of the game perform a fair bit better than this, so don’t take
these results as a good indication of what to expect throughout the entire game, it’s
more of a worst case. The Division 2 was also tested with the built
in benchmark, and above 60 FPS averages were possible with medium settings, although double
this was achieved with the low setting preset. PUBG was tested using the replay feature,
and ultra settings was only just below a 60 FPS average, with the results from very low
settings not too far off the refresh rate of the screen as we’re much less GPU bound
here, the results aren’t too different at lower levels compared to other machines with
higher graphical power. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with
the built in benchmark, and although this is a CPU heavy test the frame rates were down
compared to having the same i7 CPU paired with better graphics, granted this title doesn’t
need a super high frame rate to play, 60 FPS was almost hit in this test at medium. Watch Dogs 2 is a resource heavy game, but
I think it still plays fine with a stable 30 FPS. I wasn’t quite getting this at ultra
settings, but very high was definitely playable, while medium settings and below was required
to get above 60 FPS. Ghost Recon Wildlands is another resource
intensive game, and as a result is another game that needs medium settings in order to
hit 60 FPS. The Witcher 3 played alright with high settings,
where I was still averaging around 60 FPS. It doesn’t need a really high frame rate
to play, so it’s definitely possible to play this GPU heavy game on the 1650. DOOM was tested with Vulkan, and this game
generally reaches high frame rates no problem. It was playing fine even with ultra settings,
the 1% low was quite high compared to the averages, and low settings was able to reach
120 FPS. Strange Brigade is another game that was tested
with Vulkan, but with the built in benchmark this time. In this test 60 FPS averages were
still achieved with ultra settings, and over 100 FPS was hit at low settings. Let’s also take a look at how this config
of the Aorus 5 NA compares with other laptops, use these results as a rough guide only as
they were tested at different times with different drivers. In Battlefield 5 I’ve got the Aorus 5 highlighted
in red near similarly specced machines. This game really wasn’t doing too well on this
machine, it’s worth considering that the Lenovo L340 below it only has single channel
memory as well as an i5 CPU. Despite this the Aorus 5 was still behind, I’m not too
sure why that was the case, I redid the testing three times to check and the results were
consistent. These are the results from Far Cry 5 with
ultra settings in the built in benchmark. This time the Aorus 5 was closer to where
I’d expect it to be, ahead of the i5 and single channel memory in the L340, but not
quite as good as the 1660 Ti based machines. I did think that it might come out ahead of
the Ryzen 3750H machines, as the i7 should demolish those, but it seems that at ultra
settings the better graphics are still winning. These are the results from Shadow of the Tomb
raider with the built in benchmark at highest settings. Again the results are down a fair
bit compared to other machines due to the 1650 graphics. It’s worth remembering these
comparisons are with max settings though, we’ve already seen that the Aorus 5 is better
geared towards low to medium settings in these sort of AAA games. Although the GTX 1650 is closer to an entry
level option, it was still able to handle these games well, though low to medium settings
were needed for the more graphically intensive titles. You might think it’s a bit strange
that it’s paired with a 144Hz screen, but I think it’s a good option for people that
play esports titles, like CS:GO, Dota 2, Fortnite, Overwatch and so on. I was hoping that this
would mean you don’t have to buy a more expensive machine if you’re just playing
these less demanding games. To be more of a budget gaming laptop pairing
it with an i5 could have made it a bit cheaper, but in the end I think the i7 was the right
choice considering the 144Hz screen, as typically higher CPU power is needed to hit high FPS
in those esports titles. In my 1650 vs 1660 Ti comparison video, I
found that the 1660 Ti performs 47% better on average, so it’s going to come down to
price difference. Personally if there was a 1660 Ti based laptop for a couple hundred
dollars extra I think it makes sense from a gaming performance perspective to get that,
it’ll give the machine a longer life span. In the US this configuration seems to be going
for $1150 USD at the time of recording, and apparently that’s on sale. I think that’s
a bit rough considering you could get an Acer Helios 300 with same specs for a similar amount
but with GTX 1660 Ti graphics. As we saw in the comparison graphs just before it was performing
a fair bit better. If the Aorus 5 was cheaper it could be a more
competitive option, especially for those that want to play esports titles with a 144Hz screen,
but at the current price there are cheaper options that perform better. This might change
in the future though, you can check up to date prices linked in the description. Let me know what you thought of the gaming
performance from the Aorus 5 gaming laptop down in the comments, we’ll test out thermals
in depth in an upcoming video and the full review is still to come, so if you’re new
to the channel consider getting subscribed for those as well as future tech videos like
this one.

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *