The ASUS ROG Flow x13 is a thin and light 13” gaming laptop with an 8 core Ryzen processor,
but just how well does it actually perform in games?
I’ve tested it in 13 different titles at all setting levels and also compared it against
other gaming laptops to show you the differences.
Despite the smaller size, the X13 is packing an 8 core Ryzen processor and GTX 1650 graphics
with dual channel memory.
It’s also available with a 1080p 120Hz screen or a 4K 60Hz screen, and I’ve tested the
response time of both.
ASUS specify the TDP on their website as 35 watts for the GTX 1650 graphics, but with
a 40 watt dynamic boost.
During a GPU only stress test in the Heaven benchmark though, I didn’t see mine go above
35 watts at any point.
The ASUS Armoury crate software lets you set performance modes.
I’ve done all testing in manual mode with the fans set to full speed and the CPU power
limit sliders set to maximum, and manual mode also applies the following overclocks to the
GPU by default.
Unfortunately it is not possible to disable optimus to get a speed boost, and there’s
no resizable BAR with the GTX 1650 graphics.
Now both of those screens that the X13 comes with have a 16:10 aspect ratio, so there’s
a bit more vertical space.
Despite this though, I chose to do all of my testing with 16:9 resolutions, and this
was just so that my results can be comparable with my previous videos.
16:10 gaming laptops are still a pretty new thing, and I just don’t have any other data
to compare with yet, but basically just expect slightly lower FPS to what I’m showing here
if you do play at the 16:10 resolution, as this will use more pixels.
In this video we’re just looking at how the games run on the 1650 graphics in the
X13 laptop by itself, but I am also testing the RTX 3080 in the XG Mobile external GPU,
so make sure you’re subscribed for that future video.
In this one though, we’re going to start out by testing 13 different games at all setting
levels at both 720p and 1080p resolutions, then afterwards I’ll show you how this laptop
compares against others and also check out the screen response time.
Cyberpunk 2077 was tested in little China with the street kid life path.
I’ve got the 1080p results shown by the red bars, and the 720p results shown by the
purple bars above, as well as all setting presets on the left with lowest down the bottom
and highest up top.
This is a resource heavy game, and 1080p just isn’t going too well, and this is why I
decided to test 720p too.
720p isn’t too bad though, even high settings at 720p is outperforming 1080p at low, and
honestly I think 720p isn’t too bad on a smaller 13” screen like this.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested with the games benchmark.
You need more than 4 gig of VRAM to run this test with all settings at ultra, which is
why I’ve got no data at ultra settings, the GTX 1650 is a limit there.
Based on the frame rates we’re seeing at high settings, I don’t think you’ll be
playing this one at ultra anyway, so not a big deal.
Again 720p is probably the way to go here to improve that frame rate.
Control is a fairly GPU heavy game, but 1080p was still playable at low settings.
Medium wasn’t too bad, but FPS could dip lower than this in more intense fights.
Honestly I think low settings still looks pretty good in this game, but you could drop
down to 720p and get around 60 FPS at medium settings.
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla was tested with the game's benchmark.
Higher setting levels are performing terribly with the 1650 regardless of resolution, not
too unexpected though.
A couple of levels down at high settings we’re getting a fairly large performance boost comparatively,
more than double the frame rate compared to very high settings just above it.
Heavier games like this are where you’re really going to benefit from the XG Mobile
eGPU, again make sure you’re subscribed for my upcoming testing with that.
Microsoft Flight Simulator was tested in the Sydney landing challenge, and it’s a similar
deal here.
Not very usable at max settings regardless of the resolution.
1080p and 720p were fairly similar with the low setting preset, then at any other level
the difference could be quite large.
Again for more intense games like this you’re probably going to want to consider the XG
Mobile.
Watch Dogs Legion was tested with the games benchmark.
Again lower results that I wouldn’t really want to be playing with at higher levels,
that said this is another where high FPS isn’t a hard requirement, it’s just nicer to have.
720p at high settings was able to hit the 60 FPS sweet spot, but 1080p at lower levels
should be ok too.
Battlefield V was tested in campaign mode.
This game is older than all those other titles just tested, so higher frame rates are generally
going to be expected.
1080p was only able to pass 60 FPS with low settings, however 720p was doing much better.
The performance at 720p ultra settings was extremely close to 1080p at low settings.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the games benchmark tool, and again similar
results for a now essentially last gen game.
1080p with low settings was needed for 60 FPS, but 720p with max settings was around
the same, with above 100 FPS possible using the lowest setting preset.
Fortnite was tested with the replay feature.
This is more of an esports test, so higher frame rates are possible here.
1080p high settings was able to surpass 60 FPS, but medium settings would probably be
a better match up for the 1080p 120Hz panel.
720p on the other hand could go well beyond 200 FPS at lower settings, with a 1% low at
medium settings that’s higher than the screen’s refresh rate.
CS:GO is another esports title, even 1080p is running above the refresh rate of the 1080p
screen at max settings, but you can also boost the dips in performance, as seen by those
1% lows with the lower 720p resolution.
Rainbow Six Siege also hits fairly high frame rates compared to those earlier titles covered.
1080p was still easily passing 60 FPS even with the highest ultra setting preset, in
fact the 1% lows were above this too, meanwhile the 1% lows from 720p were higher than even
the 120Hz refresh rate of the display.
Death stranding was tested walking around as that’s what the game is all about.
I don’t usually see too much of a performance difference between the different setting levels,
and that was the case here too.
1080p wasn’t running too bad, but if you’re after a higher frame rate, again 720p is clearly
the way to go.
The Witcher 3 is an older game that I still test so that you can compare with my older
videos.
1080p was able to hit 60 FPS even with high settings, and honestly I think the game still
looks pretty good even by today’s standards without maxing it out, though 720p could give
you a nice boost if higher FPS is preferable to you.
Now let’s find out how well this hardware compares against other gaming laptops.
Use these results as a rough guide only, as they were tested at different times with different
drivers.
I’ve tested Battlefield 5 in campaign mode at ultra settings, and the Flow X13 is highlighted
in red.
As expected, this is one of the lower results thanks to the 35 watt GTX 1650 graphics, but
remember I’m comparing 1080p max settings here, as we’ve seen earlier lower settings
or 720p can help a fair bit.
The average frame rate was actually better than a number of alternatives with 35 watt
1650s too, including most of the 13 inch razer blade stealths that I’ve tested.
The 1% low from the X13 was best out of them too, perhaps due to the 8 core processor.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider moves up one position and was the best result I’ve got from a
35 watt 1650, though just 1 to two FPS ahead of the Razer Blade Stealth.
It’s not a big change, but hey winning’s winning.
There’s a bit of a gap between the 35 watt 1650s and the 50 watt versions in the larger
and thicker laptops, but as far as portable 13” gaming laptops go the X13 is ahead of
the pack in this test.
Far Cry 5 was also tested with the games benchmark tool.
The X13 was down in terms of average FPS now, however compared to the next 4 to 5 results
above it there’s only a 1 to 2 FPS difference.
I’m sorting by average FPS here too, the 1% lows from the X13 are actually higher than
most of those other machines above it.
Generally this game depends more on the CPU than GPU, which I think is why the 1% low
is better compared to most of the others near it.
I’ll test the CPU out in more tests in the upcoming full review, but at the end of the
day I don’t think it’s the core count giving it an edge here.
Now let’s check out the screen response time.
I was lucky to get both the 1080p 120Hz and 4K 60Hz panel options, so I’ve got results
for both.
I’ve got a link in the description if you need a detailed explanation on what all of
these numbers mean.
Starting with the 1920 by 1200 120Hz panel, we’re looking at a 23.7ms average grey to
grey response time, so not great and I did notice the blur while playing through some
games, and I don’t think I’m someone that’s that sensitive to it.
Here’s how the 3840 by 2400 60Hz panel compares, and we’re looking at around a 1ms lower
response time.
I expected the higher refresh rate 1080p screen to do better, but that wasn’t the case in
my units, they were pretty similar.
Here’s how these response times compare against other laptops, so some of the lower
results.
To be fair though, the response times are a little better when compared to the only
other 13” gaming laptops I’ve tested, the Razer Blade Stealth, there just don’t
seem to be good response time panels of this size available
Overall, gaming performance is on the lower side due to the lower 35 watt 1650 graphics,
which is to be expected as that’s about all you can fit in a 13” laptop.
13 inch gaming laptops are still fairly uncommon, but even so many games at 1080p with lower
settings were still playable, but in many of the newer titles you would have to go to
720p if you wanted a chance at running with better settings.
If you want much better gaming performance from this laptop then you’ll definitely
want to consider the XG mobile, which is ASUS’s external GPU that connects to this laptop
with a direct PCIe connection.
I’ll show you the differences in games between the X13 with the 1650 and the RTX 3080 in
a future video, so make sure you’re subscribed for that one, and of course for the full review
on the X13.