ASUS TUF Gaming A18 review

Frame rates

1920×1080, High preset, upscaling off. Averages 120fps across the 5 core benchmark games.

Measured on this machine. Source: Notebookcheck, 2025-11-21.

In use

The short version

The ASUS TUF Gaming A18 is a large, plainly specified machine that does one thing predictably and several things badly for the money. Notebookcheck's measurements put it at 120fps averaged across the five games in our scoring suite at 1920x1080 on High with upscaling switched off, which is a perfectly respectable number and comfortably above the threshold where a game stops feeling like a slideshow and starts feeling like a game. The problem is what sits either side of that average: an RTX 5070 held to 115W with only 8GB of VRAM, an 18in panel running at 1920x1200, and a UK price of £1,489.

Those three facts pull against each other in a way that defines the whole machine. The low panel resolution is the reason the frame rates look as healthy as they do — this GPU would struggle far more with a denser display. The 8GB frame buffer is the reason one of the eleven measured games falls off a cliff while the other ten look fine. And the price is the reason it is hard to recommend, because the benchmark data shows this machine trading blows with RTX 5060 laptops rather than pulling away from them.

Buy it if you specifically want an 18in screen, you play the kind of games that sit in the upper half of the chart below — competitive shooters, older titles, story-driven RPGs — and you find it discounted. Do not buy it if you want a screen that looks sharp for work, if you intend to keep it running the most demanding new releases for the next four or five years, or if you ever want to carry it further than the next room. At £1,489 this is poor value, and the frame rates in the next section show exactly where the money isn't going.

Performance

All the numbers below come from Notebookcheck, measured at 1920x1080 on High presets with upscaling disabled, published 21 November 2025. That last detail matters more than it usually does on a machine with an 8GB frame buffer, and we'll come back to it. Nothing here is a projection or a manufacturer claim.

What 115W actually buys

The single most important number in the specification isn't the GPU name, it's the 115W power limit. Mobile graphics chips of the same model ship in wildly different states of tune depending on what the chassis can cool and what the power delivery can supply, and the gap between a well-fed part and a constrained one is large enough that the model number on the box tells you far less than buyers assume. 115W is a serious allocation — it is not a thin-and-light configuration — but it is a ceiling, and the measured frame rates are the shape of that ceiling.

What a fixed power limit does in practice is compress the difference between GPU tiers. A higher-tier chip has more silicon, but if you cap the power it can draw, it cannot use all of that silicon at high clocks simultaneously. It runs wider and slower rather than narrower and faster, which helps in some workloads and helps very little in others. The consequence shows up starkly in the rival comparisons later on: this 115W RTX 5070 is averaging within a handful of frames of RTX 5060 machines in our database, in one case losing to one. That is not a fault in the measurements. It is what happens when the power budget, not the chip, is the binding constraint.

For a buyer, the practical read is this: you should treat the A18 as delivering roughly the frame rates the chart shows, and you should not assume that the 5070 designation will age better than a 5060 designation would. The power limit and the frame buffer will both bite first.

The top of the chart

Strange Brigade at 260fps is the outlier and it should be read as a synthetic result rather than a representative one. It's a Vulkan title with an efficient renderer that has always flattered laptop GPUs, and its value in a benchmark suite is as a measure of raw throughput when nothing else is in the way — no heavy CPU simulation, no enormous texture pool, no ray tracing. What 260fps tells you is that the GPU at 115W has real capability when it is allowed to just draw triangles. It does not tell you what any game released in the last three years will do.

GTA V at 159fps and F1 25 at 152fps are the two results that genuinely clear the panel's 144Hz refresh rate with room to spare. GTA V is an old game with a light per-frame GPU cost that runs into CPU limits long before it runs into GPU limits on hardware like this, so 159fps is arguably telling you more about the Ryzen 7 260 than about the graphics chip. F1 25 is more interesting: it's a current title, it looks modern, and it's hitting a figure that would let you run the display at its native refresh with headroom for dips in a wet race start with a full grid. If racing is your genre, this machine is genuinely well matched to its own screen.

Dota 2 at 131fps sits just under the refresh ceiling, which is a slightly awkward result. Dota 2 is not a demanding game in the modern sense; it is an engine that leans on single-threaded CPU performance and on driver overhead more than on shader throughput. A machine that can push F1 25 to 152fps and only manages 131fps in Dota 2 is telling you where its processor sits. That's still a very playable figure — 131fps with a 144Hz panel is a good experience and the frame pacing in a game like this is usually the more important variable anyway — but anyone buying a gaming laptop primarily for competitive MOBA or shooter play should note that the CPU, not the GPU, is likely to be their limiter, and this is not a flagship CPU.

The middle: where most of your games will live

Baldur's Gate 3 at 127fps and Final Fantasy XV at 123fps are the two results that best describe what this machine feels like in ordinary use. Both are large, visually rich games that are not built around cutting-edge rendering techniques, and both land comfortably above 120fps at the panel's native pixel count. In Baldur's Gate 3 in particular, that figure gives real margin — the game's frame rate collapses in dense city scenes with many NPCs far more than it does in open combat, and starting from 127fps means those dips land somewhere still comfortable rather than somewhere annoying. This is the single most reassuring number in the set for a buyer who mostly plays big single-player RPGs.

Cyberpunk 2077 at 104fps is the result I'd point to as the honest summary of the machine's capability in a modern, demanding, but non-pathological title. Cyberpunk on High at 1080p without upscaling is a real workload — it is one of the few games in the suite that will genuinely saturate a mid-tier GPU — and clearing 100fps is a good outcome for a 115W part. Note what this figure does not include: ray tracing is not in the preset here, and path tracing certainly isn't. Turn either of those on and the number will fall substantially, and it will fall further than the raw shader cost implies because ray tracing also consumes VRAM, which brings us to the machine's real problem.

Assassin's Creed Shadows at 77fps and Anno 117: Pax Romana at 66fps are the two results that show the machine starting to work. Neither is a bad number. 77fps in an open-world Ubisoft title on High is fine, and if you're playing on a controller you would struggle to distinguish it from 100fps in normal play. Anno at 66fps is more nuanced: city builders degrade differently from action games, because the frame rate at the start of a save file bears very little relationship to the frame rate 40 hours in, when there are thousands of simulated goods moving across a full map. A 66fps average in a benchmark run of a builder should be read as a warning that late-game performance in that genre will be considerably lower, and it will be lower for CPU reasons that no graphics setting will fix.

X-Plane 11 at 81fps belongs in the same conversation. Flight simulators are notoriously bound by processor and API overhead rather than by the graphics chip, and 81fps from a machine that pushes 260fps in Strange Brigade is a clean illustration of that. It is a perfectly usable number for a simulator — nobody flies an approach at 144fps — but it is another data point suggesting the Ryzen 7 260 sets the ceiling in simulation-heavy workloads.

The bottom of the chart, and the 8GB question

Indiana Jones and the Great Circle at 39fps is the number that should decide whether you buy this laptop. Everything else in the suite sits between 66fps and 260fps. This one result sits far below the next lowest, at a resolution and preset that the rest of the chart handles without difficulty. That is not a gradual falloff. That is a wall.

The wall is the 8GB frame buffer. Indiana Jones is built on an engine that streams large, high-resolution texture sets and that allocates a substantial texture pool up front; when the pool doesn't fit in video memory, the system starts moving data across the PCIe bus during rendering, and the frame rate does not degrade gracefully — it falls off, and it takes frame consistency with it. A 39fps average in a game where the rest of the suite runs at triple that is the signature of a memory limit rather than a compute limit. The GPU here is not too slow for that game at 1080p. It simply does not have enough memory attached to it.

This matters far beyond one title, and it is the reason I'd hesitate over this machine even if the price were better. The number of releases that expect more than 8GB at high texture settings has been rising steadily, and the rise is not driven by resolution — it's driven by texture budgets, by ray tracing structures that live in video memory, and increasingly by frame generation, which needs to hold additional buffers. All three of those trends push in the same direction. A machine bought in 2025 with 8GB is a machine that will be turning texture settings down in new releases well before its GPU runs out of shader performance, and turning textures down is the single most visible compromise you can make to an image.

There's a second-order point here about the benchmark methodology that works in your favour and against it simultaneously. These numbers are measured with upscaling off, which is the right way to benchmark because it isolates the hardware, but it is not how most people will play. Enabling DLSS renders the game at a lower internal resolution, which reduces both the shader load and — importantly — some of the memory pressure. So the real-world experience in the heavier titles will be better than these figures suggest. But we don't have measured upscaled figures for this machine, so I am not going to guess at what they'd be, and I'd note that upscaling does not rescue a genuinely memory-starved title as cleanly as it rescues a compute-limited one. Frame generation, which is the other lever people reach for, makes VRAM pressure worse rather than better.

Reading the spread

Pull back from the individual games and the eleven measured results form three distinct groups, and understanding which group your library falls into is more useful than the headline average.

• Above the panel's refresh rate (Strange Brigade, GTA V, F1 25): older titles, efficient renderers, and racing. Three of eleven. If this is what you play, the machine is well matched to its display and you'll never see it struggle.
• Between roughly 100 and 144fps (Dota 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Final Fantasy XV, Cyberpunk 2077): the bulk of a normal library. Excellent experience, not quite saturating the panel, plenty of margin for the dips that averages hide. Four of eleven, and the four most representative results in the set.
• Between 60 and 100fps (X-Plane 11, Assassin's Creed Shadows, Anno 117): demanding current games and CPU-heavy simulation. Perfectly playable, but you're now choosing between visual settings rather than getting everything for free. Three of eleven.
• Below 60fps (Indiana Jones and the Great Circle): one title, and it's a memory limit rather than a performance limit. One of eleven — but the one that tells you most about the machine's future.

The mean of 120fps across the five scoring-suite titles is a fair summary of the middle of that distribution, and it's a genuinely decent figure for a machine at this GPU power level. What the mean cannot express is that the distribution is asymmetric: the upside is capped by a 144Hz panel that only three games reach, while the downside is uncapped and gets deeper every time a new release ships with a bigger texture budget. That asymmetry is the strongest argument against paying £1,489 for this configuration.

CPU, memory and storage

The Ryzen 7 260 is not a specification I'd get excited about in a machine at this price, and while we don't have CPU benchmark data to cite here, the game results give you a reasonable inference. The titles that lean hardest on the processor — Dota 2, X-Plane 11, GTA V, Anno 117 — all land lower relative to the GPU-bound results than you'd expect from a machine with this much graphics power. That's not a disaster. It is a note that the machine's balance tilts towards the GPU, and that simulation, strategy and competitive titles will hit their ceiling sooner than the graphics chip's capability implies.

16GB of DDR5 is now the floor rather than a feature, and it interacts badly with an 8GB frame buffer. When video memory overflows, the overflow goes into system memory, and system memory is also holding the game, the operating system, a browser and whatever else you left open. 16GB will work. It will work with less margin than it would on a machine with a larger frame buffer. If the memory in this chassis is user-accessible — and the fact sheet doesn't tell us whether it is — a 32GB upgrade would be the single highest-value change you could make to the machine, and I'd want to confirm that before buying.

1TB of SSD storage is adequate and no more. Modern installs are large enough that a handful of them will fill this, and the practical consequence is that you'll be managing a library rather than keeping everything installed. At this price I'd have expected more, though 1TB is at least the point at which the machine is usable out of the box rather than requiring an immediate upgrade.

The screen

The display is where this machine's compromises are most visible, and it's the component that would make me look elsewhere even before considering the price.

Resolution and pixel density

An 18in panel running at 1920x1200 is the least dense arrangement in common circulation on a gaming laptop today. Spreading roughly two megapixels across a diagonal that large means individual pixels are physically big, and there is no setting, driver or scaling option that changes that. In games, the effect is a persistent softness — edges have visible stair-stepping that anti-aliasing smooths rather than removes, and fine detail at distance mushes together. In desktop use it's more obvious still: text has visible structure, UI elements look chunky, and anything involving reading for extended periods is noticeably less pleasant than on a denser display.

Whether that matters depends entirely on how you sit relative to the screen. At the sort of distance an 18in laptop naturally imposes — further back than a 14in machine, because the panel is bigger and you push the whole thing away — the coarseness is less objectionable than it sounds on paper. And there is a genuine constituency for this configuration: people who want a physically large image without the eye strain of small text, which is a real accessibility consideration and one that expensive high-resolution panels often serve badly because everything renders tiny by default. If you have been squinting at a 15in 1440p display, an 18in 1200p one may be an upgrade in the way that matters to you.

The other honest defence of this panel is that it is the reason the frame rates are as high as they are. Every result in the performance section was measured at 1920x1080, essentially this panel's native pixel count. Put a 2560x1600 display in front of this GPU and the whole chart moves down substantially — Cyberpunk would no longer be near 100fps, Assassin's Creed Shadows would no longer be near 77fps, and Anno would be in genuinely uncomfortable territory. The 8GB frame buffer would also come under pressure in more titles, not fewer. So the low-resolution panel is doing real work here, keeping a mid-tier GPU in its comfort zone. It's a coherent design decision, even if it produces a machine I don't personally want to look at.

Refresh rate and whether the GPU keeps up

144Hz is a sensible target and a modest one. It's fast enough that motion looks clearly better than on a 60Hz panel, and it's not so fast that it becomes a marketing number the hardware can never approach. But look at how the measured results line up against it: of eleven games, three clear 144fps, four land between 100 and 144fps, three land between 60 and 100fps, and one lands well below 60fps.

That's a reasonable match, not a perfect one. The panel is well specified for esports, older titles and racing, where you'll actually see the benefit of the refresh rate. It's over-specified for the demanding single-player games most people will spend most of their time in, where you'll be running somewhere in the 70–130fps band and the panel's headroom is going unused. Nothing is wasted exactly — variable refresh, if fitted, smooths out that mismatch, though the fact sheet doesn't confirm adaptive sync support and I'm not going to assume it — but nobody should buy this machine because of the 144Hz figure. The panel's defining characteristic is its size and its low density, not its speed.

What we don't know about it

The specification tells us it's an IPS panel, which sets some expectations: good viewing angles, generally accurate colour by default, and the contrast limitation inherent to the technology — blacks that look grey in a dark room, and no meaningful HDR performance regardless of what any badge claims. Beyond that, the fact sheet gives us nothing measured. We don't have brightness figures, so I can't tell you whether it's usable near a bright window. We don't have colour gamut coverage, so I can't tell you whether it's suitable for photo or video work. We don't have response time measurements, so I can't tell you how much motion blur or overshoot you'll see in fast games — a figure that matters a good deal more on a 144Hz panel than a 60Hz one, because a slow panel simply cannot resolve frames at that rate.

Those gaps are worth taking seriously rather than glossing over. Panel quality varies enormously between machines that share a resolution and refresh figure on paper, and a low-density display that is also dim or slow would be a considerably worse proposition than one that is merely low-density. If you're seriously considering this machine, that is the specific thing to go and find measurements for before committing.

Build, size and portability

We're working from published specifications here rather than from having handled the machine, so I'll be precise about what the numbers do and don't tell you.

2.6kg is the headline, and it's a figure that reads very differently depending on the context you put it in. For an 18in machine, 2.6kg is genuinely light — large-format gaming laptops routinely land well above that, and ASUS deserves credit for keeping this one down. Judged as a laptop in the abstract, 2.6kg is heavy. It is roughly double what a thin-and-light ultraportable weighs, and you will feel it in a bag over a walk of any length.

But weight is the less important constraint on a machine this size, and the more important one is footprint. An 18in laptop has a physical area that most laptop bags simply cannot accommodate. Backpacks sized for 15in and 16in machines will not take it, many 17in-rated bags will be marginal, and the practical outcome is that owning this laptop means owning a bag specifically for this laptop. That's a real cost and a real friction, and it changes how the machine gets used far more decisively than the 2.6kg does. Add the power brick — and a machine feeding a 115W GPU plus a CPU needs a substantial one — and the travelling weight is meaningfully higher than the quoted figure.

The fact sheet doesn't give us chassis dimensions or thickness, so I can't tell you how it compares to specific rivals on desk footprint, and it doesn't give us battery capacity or measured runtime, so I can't tell you how long it lasts unplugged. On a machine of this class I'd expect the answer to be "not long while gaming", because a 115W GPU cannot be fed from a laptop battery for any meaningful period, but that's a general observation about the physics rather than a measurement of this specific machine, and I'm not going to dress it up as one.

What the size and weight together tell you is what this machine is: a desktop replacement. It's a laptop in the sense that it folds shut and has a battery, not in the sense that you'd take it to a café. The realistic use pattern is that it lives on a desk or a table, plugged in, and occasionally moves to another room or into a car for a weekend away. If that's how you'd use it, the large screen is an asset and the weight is irrelevant. If you were hoping for a machine you take to lectures or the office, this is emphatically the wrong shape, and the money would be far better spent on a 14in or 16in chassis — including, as it happens, one of the rivals below with the same GPU at the same power limit.

One point in the machine's favour that follows from its size: an 18in chassis has room for cooling, and a GPU allowed to draw 115W needs it. Larger chassis generally sustain their power limits better and run their fans at lower speeds to do it. We don't have measured temperature or noise data for this machine, so I can't confirm that it delivers on that potential — but the frame rates in the performance section are consistent with a GPU that is holding its power limit rather than being throttled back, which is the outcome you want.

How it compares

Our database holds five machines close enough to this one to compare directly, and the comparisons are made only on games both machines have measured results for. All of these averages come from Notebookcheck's published figures, and none of these rivals has a confirmed UK price in our data — which means I can tell you how they perform relative to the A18, but I cannot tell you whether any of them is better value. That's a genuine limitation on this section and you should weigh it accordingly.

Razer Blade 14 — RTX 5070 at 115W

Across ten shared games, the A18 averages one frame per second slower than the Blade 14. That is not a difference. Same GPU, same power limit, same performance, full stop — and the one-frame gap is well inside the margin you'd expect from run-to-run variation and driver revisions.

This is the single most useful comparison in the set, because it isolates what the A18's chassis contributes: nothing, performance-wise. A 14in Razer and an 18in TUF with identically configured graphics produce identically performing machines. So the entire buying decision between them comes down to everything else — screen, size, build, warranty and price. The Blade 14 is a dramatically more portable machine in a considerably more expensive class of construction. Without a confirmed UK price I can't tell you what that costs, but the performance argument for choosing the larger machine is precisely zero, and buyers should stop assuming that a bigger gaming laptop is a faster one. On this evidence, it isn't.

Asus ProArt P16 — RTX 5070

Across nine shared games, the A18 averages one frame per second faster. Again: identical. The ProArt is a creator-focused 16in machine rather than a gaming one, and it's a reminder that a chassis marketed at video editors and a chassis marketed at gamers can deliver exactly the same in-game results when the graphics configuration matches.

The relevant comparison here isn't the frame rates, which are a wash, it's the panel. Creator machines typically ship displays with far higher pixel density and better measured colour performance than the A18's 1200p IPS. If you'd get any use at all from a sharp screen — for photo work, for video, or just for reading text without wincing — a machine like the ProArt gives you the same gaming performance on a much better display. The trade is that the same GPU driving a denser panel at native resolution will produce lower frame rates than the numbers in this review, which were all measured at 1080p. That's the honest counterpoint, and it's a real one.

Lenovo Yoga Pro 9 16IAH G10 RTX — RTX 5060

Across nine shared games, the A18 averages two frames per second faster than a machine with a tier-lower GPU. Two frames. This is the comparison that makes the value case against the A18 most sharply, because the entire premium you'd expect to pay for stepping from a 5060 to a 5070 has evaporated into the power limit.

Some of that is because the Yoga's 5060 is presumably well fed in its own right, and some of it is because these averages are computed across a shared game list that includes titles where neither machine is GPU-bound. But the conclusion holds: on the measured evidence, the graphics tier printed on this machine's specification sheet is not translating into a performance advantage over cheaper hardware, and buyers should price it accordingly.

HP Omen 16-ap0091ng — RTX 5060

Across eight shared games, the A18 averages three frames per second slower than an RTX 5060 laptop. It loses. Not by much — three frames is within the range where I wouldn't want to make grand claims from a mean — but a 5070 machine at £1,489 losing on average to a 5060 machine is the clearest possible statement that you are not paying for frame rates here.

The likely explanation is a combination of factors: the Omen's CPU may be stronger in the CPU-bound titles that pull the A18's average down, and the specific eight-game overlap may weight those titles heavily. That's a caveat worth stating rather than burying, because a mean across eight games can hide a large win in one title and a large loss in another. But it cuts both ways — the A18's advantage over the two machines it beats is equally susceptible to the same effect, and equally small.

Lenovo Legion 5 15AHP G10 — RTX 5060 at 115W

Across nine shared games, the A18 averages four frames per second faster. This is the machine's biggest measured margin against any rival in our database, and it's four frames, against a machine with a lower-tier GPU at the same power limit.

That result is the cleanest possible demonstration of the argument I made at the top of the performance section: when two GPUs of different tiers are held to the same 115W, the difference between them shrinks to near-nothing. The extra silicon in the higher-tier part cannot be exploited without extra power to feed it. If you take one thing away from this review, take that — because it applies to every gaming laptop purchase, not just this one, and it means the power limit figure is worth hunting down before you buy anything.

What the comparison set adds up to

Five rivals, five results between minus three and plus four frames per second. This machine is, in performance terms, entirely typical of its class, and its class includes machines with cheaper GPUs. What it offers that they don't is an 18in screen, and what it charges for that is £1,489. Whether that's a reasonable trade depends on how much you value screen size — but nobody should buy this expecting it to be faster than the alternatives, because on the measured evidence, it isn't.

Who it's for

I want to be concrete about this rather than hedging, because the machine has a genuine constituency and it's a narrow one.

Buy it if

• You specifically want an 18in screen and you want it to be the machine's defining feature. Not a compromise you accept, a reason you're buying. If you play sitting back on a sofa or at a desk without an external monitor, and a physically large image genuinely improves the experience for you, this is one of relatively few ways to get one without going above 2.6kg.
• You find small text hard to read. This is the strongest positive case for a low-density 18in panel and it doesn't get made often enough. Everything renders large by default. For some buyers that's worth more than sharpness.
• Your library sits in the upper half of the measured chart. Competitive shooters, MOBAs, racing games, older titles, and story-driven RPGs that aren't built on the newest engines. Baldur's Gate 3 at 127fps, F1 25 at 152fps and Cyberpunk at 104fps describe a machine that handles that library very comfortably.
• You find it discounted. Everything I've said about this machine's performance is fine, and everything I've said about its value is not. Those are separable. At a materially lower price the calculation changes, because the frame rates don't get worse when the price does.
• It genuinely never leaves the house. The size penalty is only a penalty if you pay it.

Buy something else if

• You want this machine to last five years on new releases. The 8GB frame buffer is the constraint, and Indiana Jones at 39fps in a suite where nothing else drops below 66fps is the evidence. That gap is a memory limit, and it will show up in more games over time, not fewer. At this price I would want a larger frame buffer, and I'd be prepared to accept a lower-tier GPU to get one, because the comparison data above shows how little the tier is worth when the power limit is the same.
• You want a sharp screen. 1920x1200 across 18in is the coarsest common configuration on sale. If you'll do any work on this machine — writing, spreadsheets, photo editing, anything involving text for hours — you will notice, and you will keep noticing.
• You travel with your laptop. Not "occasionally move it" — travel. The footprint problem is worse than the weight problem and it isn't solvable. The Razer Blade 14 comparison is the relevant one: same GPU, same power limit, statistically identical frame rates, a fraction of the size. If portability matters at all, the performance argument for the larger machine collapses entirely.
• You want to run ray tracing or path tracing. The measured Cyberpunk figure of 104fps is without them, and enabling them costs both shader performance and video memory — the second of which this machine does not have to spare. Frame generation, the usual mitigation, makes the memory situation worse.
• You're buying primarily on frame rate per pound. £1,489 for a machine that averages within a few frames of RTX 5060 laptops in our database is a hard sell, and the comparison section is the whole argument. If raw performance for money is your priority, look at what the 5060 machines cost and ask what the extra buys you here. On this evidence, an 18in screen and not much else.

The honest limits of this assessment

Everything above is drawn from published measurements and specifications, and there are things those don't cover. We have no measured brightness, contrast, colour or response time figures for the panel, which means a meaningful part of the screen's real quality is unknown. We have no battery runtime data, no temperature data and no noise data, so I can't tell you what this machine is like to sit next to under load — a question that matters on any laptop feeding a 115W GPU. We have no confirmed UK prices for any of the five rivals, so every value judgement here is about the A18's own price rather than a direct comparison. And the rival comparisons are means across shared game lists of eight to ten titles, which is enough to establish that these machines are all in the same performance band but not enough to make fine distinctions between them.

What the data does support, clearly, is this: the ASUS TUF Gaming A18 performs as a 115W RTX 5070 laptop performs, which is well, and it charges a price that its measured frame rates don't justify against cheaper hardware. The 8GB frame buffer is a real limit on its future and there is one game in the measured suite already demonstrating it. If the 18in screen is what you're buying, buy it on discount. If it isn't, there are better-shaped machines delivering the same numbers.

How it compares