Lenovo has refreshed the popular L340 as the IdeaPad Gaming 3, but now it has an AMD Ryzen 4000 option, so just how well does it perform in games? I’ve tested the 1650 Ti model in 22 games at all setting levels and also compared it against other laptops to find out the difference.
Let’s jump straight into the results from those 22 titles, then the comparisons after. Microsoft Flight Simulator wasn’t great at high settings, and ultra was a no-go, medium was alright but there were less noticeable dips with the low-end setting preset. Death Stranding was around 60 FPS with the highest setting preset, it was running ok and there wasn’t all that much of an improvement comparatively with the lower settings. Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested using the game’s built in benchmark tool, it’s not possible to run at ultra settings due to the 4 gig VRAM limit of the GTX 1650 Ti graphics, otherwise the results are only just ahead of the 1650 in the Nitro 5 I recently tested. Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode, high settings was just able to get us 60 FPS, though the 1% low received a nice 52% boost here when compared to the highest ultra preset. I’ll compare this laptop against others in this game soon. Control was tested with RTX disabled as we’ve just got GTX hardware here. I don’t think this one needs a super high frame rate to play, but the low setting preset was needed if you want an above 60 FPS experience. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the built-in benchmark, medium settings were needed to hit 60 FPS in this test, but we could surpass this by a fair bit if you’re willing to run at lower levels, this is another title I’ll use to compare on other laptops shortly. 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 was playing fine at max settings, but we could better utilize the screen’s 120Hz refresh rate with lower settings. Call of Duty Modern Warfare was tested in campaign mode with either max or min settings for the same reason, but this time even with everything at the lowest possible settings we’re just a little above 60 FPS. Fortnite was tested with the replay feature, and as a less demanding game even the highest settings were above 60 FPS, while medium would put the frame rate above the screen’s refresh rate, then low settings boosted even the 1% low above this. CS:GO was tested with the ulletical FPS benchmark, the game runs on basically anything and the frame rates are definitely acceptable, so moving on. Dota 2 was tested playing in the middle lane with bots, interestingly the results at ultra were a fair bit lower than the 1650 in the Nitro 5 I recently tested with the same CPU, but again either way still no problems at all running it. Overwatch was tested running through the practice range. This is another less demanding esports title, so ultra settings is still able to hit average FPS above the screens refresh rate, while high settings was near that 120 point for the 1% low. Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the built-in benchmark using Vulkan, there’s only minor performance difference between the two top presets, while the averages from high are still about the same, still though easily past 100 FPS without issue. 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 that can be compared against my other data. The Division 2 was also tested with the built-in benchmark and is fairly resource heavy too. Medium settings were needed to pass 60 FPS in this test, though low was doing much better should you want to prefer higher frame rates over looks. Monster Hunter World was tested running through the main town. Mid settings were around that 60 FPS point, and the 1% lows aren’t that far behind the averages, which means more consistent results. Borderlands 3 was tested using the game’s built in benchmark, and like many of the other more demanding games, medium settings were required for that 60 FPS sweet spot. Ghost Recon Breakpoint was also tested with the benchmark tool, VRAM limits were being hit at the higher levels, but again medium was around that 60 FPS point. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is another that was tested with the games benchmark, and yet again 60 FPS at medium settings. The Witcher 3 was playing well at high settings, which sees a fairly big jump up from ultra without looking too different in visual quality in my opinion. F1 2019 was tested with the benchmark tool and sees similar behavior, a nice jump dropping down just one level from max and this would better take advantage of the 120Hz screen. Far Cry New Dawn was also tested with the games benchmark, not that big of a difference between the presets, and high settings was still above 60 FPS.
Now let’s take a look at how the Ryzen based IdeaPad Gaming 3 compares against other 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 IdeaPad is highlighted in red. Interestingly it’s a fair bit behind the ASUS TUF A15 with the same CPU and GPU combination two spots ahead of it, this is only my second 1650 Ti laptop though so not too much else in the way of direct comparison yet, but at least it is above all of the 1650 results.
These are the results from Far Cry 5 with ultra settings in the built-in benchmark. This time the IdeaPad was ahead of the TUF, so it could just be a bad result in BF5. It’s also beating the 5500M in the Alpha 15, granted that machine does also have the much worse 3750H processor, otherwise it’s a bit of a jump up to the next tier, being the 1660 Ti Max-Q.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was also tested with the games benchmark tool with the highest setting preset. The TUF with the same CPU and GPU was a couple of frames ahead, so nothing major, but still it’s ahead in two of the three games we’ve compared, at least in terms of raw gaming performance anyway. Speaking of a couple of frames, that’s the same amount the IdeaPad was ahead of the cheaper Nitro 5 with 1650, so not all that different.
In many games we needed medium settings to hit that 60 FPS sweet spot, which is also something I’ve noticed when testing GTX 1650 laptops previously, it doesn’t seem like the Ti really offers that much of a performance boost. I’m still trying to get two of the exact same laptop with those two GPUs, so I can do a fair comparison. It of course depends on the game, esports titles for instance do much better, but for say AAA games for a good experience you’ll need to sacrifice some graphical settings, or otherwise instead consider something that’s more of a step up, like the 1660 Ti, budget permitting of course.
Unlike the Nitro 5 or even more expensive RP-15, the IdeaPad Gaming 3 does have FreeSync, with a 60 to 120Hz FreeSync range, so smooth tear free gameplay is an option. Here are the screen response time results for the 1080p 120Hz panel. The average grey-to-grey response time was around 15ms, so not ideal, we want to see an 8.33ms time for all transitions to occur within the refresh window.
I’ve only had two other 120Hz panels for testing since buying the tools to measure screen response time. Both the ASUS G14 and Razer Blade Stealth 13 had slower response times, but 14 and 13” gaming panels are also far more limited compared to 15 inches, anyway this definitely isn’t as bad as those, it’s just nothing amazing. I hope this has been useful, Lenovo wasn't able to provide me with this laptop, so I ended up buying it due to a high number of requests. Shout out to the Patreon members who help me cover popular models like this that you all want to see, I’ll leave a link in the description if you want to join us in discord or check out some behind the scenes videos.
Anyway let me know what you thought of the Lenovo IdeaPad Gaming 3 gaming performance down in the comments.