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.