If you like the size of the ONEXPLAYER and want an AMD powered device instead of Intel, then this is the one to consider. If you want a higher performance AMD handheld then we recommend the AYA NEO Pro.
User Review( votes)
- Massive 8.3 inch full-fit FHD IPS touch screen @ 2560×1600 resolution
- Responsive, high quality analogue sticks, D-Pad and buttons
- Happily runs AAA Windows games at great settings
- Plays higher end console emulation
- Two USB Type-C ports WiFi 6 and Bluetooth 5 for fast data transfer
- It is very large, it’s not going to fit in your pocket!
- Not as powerful as the ONEXPLAYER 1S or AYA NEO Pro
In our ONEXPLAYER AMD Review we will be unboxing them and checking out the features. Then we will run some system and gaming benchmarks to see their performance, and compare them to other Windows gaming consoles.
ONEXPLAYER AMD Review Video
ONEXPLAYER AMD Unboxing
Lets get started with unboxing. Up first is the ONEXPLAYER AMD which we will show in more detail shortly. There is a user manual which is in Chinese and English. Inside the box is a charger, we will include the correct adaptor for your country. And a USB Type- C charge cable.
The ONEXPLAYER AMD model is essentially the same as the Intel model. It measures 11.3 x 5.1 x 0.8 inches ( 28.8 x 13 x 2.1 cm) and weighs 820g.
The display is a 8.3 inch full-fit IPS screen, with a default resolution of 2560×1600. It supports 10 point touch, and also supports the One Netbook Stylus which is available to buy separately.
On the left is the Back button, clickable left analogue stick, classic d-pad, desktop button and left speaker. On the right is the Start button, four gaming buttons and the clickable right analogue stick.
Below are two buttons. The first is the Keyboard & Mouse button which when pressed shows an on screen keyboard. When held down it switches to mouse and vice versa, Below that is a Turbo Mode button, this increases the TDP to provide more performance.
On the top, on either side there are touch-click bumper and linear analogue trigger buttons.
In the middle area are a 3.5mm headphone jack, two USB Type-C ports, a USB 3 port and Micro SD Card slot.
ONEXPLAYER AMD Technical Specifications
Here are the technical specs for both the 4800U and 5700U AMD models
|ONEXPLAYER AMD 4800U||ONEXPLAYER AMD 5700U|
|CPU||AMD Ryzen 7 4800U with 8 cores 16 threads||AMD Ryzen 7 5700U with 8 cores 16 threads|
|GPU||AMD Radeon Graphics @ 1750 Mhz||AMD Radeon Graphics @ 1900 Mhz|
|RAM||16GB LPDDR4x @ 4266Mhz – Dual Channel||16GB LPDDR4x @ 4266Mhz – Dual Channel|
|STORAGE||1TB PCIe Gen 4.0 NVMe 1.4||1TB PCIe Gen 4.0 NVMe 1.4|
Full load: 2 hours
Idle: 7.5 hours
Full load: 2 hours
Idle: 7.3 hours
|FAN NOISE||57db with fan at full speed, with some|
background noise in the office
|57db with fan at full speed, with some|
background noise in the office
In our original article there was an issue with the 4800U sample model in particular. It was reporting it was running at 20W TDP but it looks like it was running in the area of 12W. This gave inaccurate benchmark results which is why we have retested both models and confirmed they are running at 20W. We are not sure what caused this issue, but we will be checking the retail versions once they are available.
We start our system benchmarks with PassMark. It stress tests the CPU, GPU RAM and storage fto the maximum or an artificial performance score.
The ONEXPLAYER AMD 4800U model scores 4,990
The ONEXPLAYER AMD 5700U model scores 4,980
Next is PCMark which tests your day to day tasks. These include everything from web browsing, media consumption, working with large office documents and image editing.
The 4800U model scores 5,249
The 5700U model scores 5,183
3DMark tests the CPU and GPU together for its graphics performance which can be used for video editing, media consumption and of course gaming.
The AMD 4800U model scores 1,323
The AMD 5700U model scores 1,367
Forza Horizon 4
We start the gaming benchmarks with Forza Horizon 4 running at 1280×720 with Ultra graphics settings.
The ONEXPLAYER 4800U model scores a decent 44 frames per second.
The ONEXPLAYER 5700U model scores a higher 45 frames per second.
Street Fighter V
In our Street Fighter V benchmark we are testing the average FPS by the end of the first match. We are running at 1920×1080 on the Maximum graphics settings.
The AMD 4800U model scores 30.2 FPS on average and the AMD 5700U model scores 31.2 FPS on average. In the ONEXPLAYER AMD review video you can see the difference in performance as the 5700U nudges ahead of the 4800U despite starting at the same time.
Final Fantasy XIV
In our Final Fantasy XIV benchmark we are running at 1920×1080 on the High Desktop graphics setting.
The ONEXPLAYER AMD 4800U model scores 2,779 and the ONEXPLAYER AMD 5700U model scores 3,221
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Our last benchmark is Shadow of the Tomb Raider running at 1280×720. We run two tests, one on the lowest graphics and the second on the highest settings, to see the difference in performance.
The AMD 4800U model scores 56 fps on lowest and 28 on highest.
The AMD 5700U model scores 57 on lowest and 29 on the highest.
Lets first compare the two ONEXPLAYER AMD models benchmark results to see the differences in performance.
|FORZA HORIZON 4||44 FPS||45 FPS||2.2 %|
|STREET FIGHTER V||30.2 FPS||31.2 FPS||3.2 %|
|FINAL FANTASY XIV||2,779||3,261||2.2 %|
|SHADOW OF THE TOMB RAIDER||Lowest Graphics: 56 FPS|
Highest Graphics: 28 FPS
|Lowest Graphics: 57 FPS|
Highest Graphics: 29 FPS
|Lowest Graphics: 1.7%|
Highest Graphics: 3.5%
For system performance there is very little difference between the two, with 0.2 and 1.2 %. There is a slightly larger difference in 2D and 3D performance, ranging from 1.2% up to 3.5%. Putting both models side by side you would barely notice a difference, for example with Street Fighter V.
ONEXPLAYER 1S vs ONEXPLAYER AMD vs AYA NEO Pro
|AYA NEO PRO|
|FORZA HORIZON 4||40 FPS||47 FPS||44 FPS||45 FPS|
|STREET FIGHTER V||44 FPS||32.5 FPS||30.2 FPS||31.2 FPS|
|FINAL FANTASY XIV||4297||3372||3188||3261|
In our original article we had a much larger gap and now the issue is resolved, the gap is closer but still in some cases a fair bit behind. This could be due to a number of things such as memory speed, the design of the hardware. You could also take into account slightly newer versions of AMD graphics drivers and system benchmark software for example.
We are not trying to make excuses, but we want to be fully transparent. You can run benchmarks several times in a row and get different results for better or worse. But either way, the ONEXPLAYER AMD models, when run at 20W in our tests, fall behind other models.