ASUS UL80Vt First Look: Mobility Redefined
by Jarred Walton on October 24, 2009 8:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
ASUS UL80Vt Design
Okay, we've covered the specifications and features, so let's see what the laptop actually looks like.
As good as the features and specifications are on the UL80Vt, ASUS also made sure that they didn't skimp on the design elements. Here it's not quite as clear of a victory, but there's plenty to like with the UL80Vt aesthetics. For one, ASUS has added a brushed aluminum cover on the top of the chassis. That alone is enough to make us drool, but unfortunately the aluminum surfaces end there. Open up the laptop, and you'll find that the LCD bezel and palm rest are still glossy plastic -- a double whammy considering the black color scheme. Fingerprints? Yes, we have those in abundance.
As usual, the LCD is also of the glossy variety. We haven't conducted in-depth testing of the LCD, but we did run a quick test of brightness and contrast ratio. Maximum brightness is good at nearly 240 nits, but the black level is an equally high 1.16 nits resulting in a poor contrast ratio of only 204:1. After we were so impressed by the 1200:1 contrast ratio of the $400 ASUS Eee 1005HA, it's disappointing to see a laptop that costs twice as much get the short shrift when it comes to LCD panels. We are continually baffled by the way companies choose to cut corners on such an important component for laptops; after all, the LCD is what you actually look at the whole time you're using the computer.
We can't blame ASUS too much, though, since virtually all companies are using the same sort of LCD panels. The common explanation is that margins are so low on LCD panels and laptops that they don't have the ability to use a more expensive display. Personally, I'd happily spend significantly more money on a laptop (at least $100) if it meant I could get a high quality display. And for the record: high quality means it needs a high contrast ratio along with a good color gamut; I'd love something other than a TN panel in a laptop, but I'm beginning to think that hope is in vain.
Besides the glossiness, we have few complaints with the design of the UL80Vt. It has a nice, slim form factor and a sleek, businesslike aesthetic. This is definitely the type of laptop you could take into a board meeting and not feel out of place. The touchpad is a bit unusual, in that ASUS has a bumpy area on the palm rest rather than the normal recessed touchpad. This is similar to the touchpad they used on the ASUS 1005HA, only it's larger and subjectively it works better. The touchpad also supports multi-touch, so you can use two fingers and swipe to quickly scroll through documents, right-click, etc. We definitely like the multi-touch aspect of the touchpad, and it's nice to see more companies going that route.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
7Enigma - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
I'll do it for you. Using an old review from April09 where they posted the min/WHr:MacBook2008 got a 6.36
Asus gets a 6.32 (531min / 84 WHr)
It is important however to note if the testing methodology (ie websites used/etc.) have changed significantly since the 2008 Macbook review and if so in which direction (my guess would be more draining now).
If they are directly (or closely) comparible then you have to factor in weight difference and price, and of course CPU/GPU performance differences. Since the price is $150 cheaper, the weight difference IMO would have to be significantly lighter for the MacBook to justify (build-quality, OS, intangibles aside).
JarredWalton - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
All I know for certain is that the old results had Apple at 6.36 (as mentioned), but the tests are not the same as the ones I used for the Windows laptops. Anand has the new Internet tests I'm using (I ran them on Linux, so they should run fine on OS X), so when he's had a chance to run numbers we can make the comparison. The UL80Vt is twice the relative battery life of most Windows laptops, and over three times the relative battery life of higher-spec units. I can't say for certain whether it has matched or surpassed the latest MacBook, but it should be very close if not better.Pirks - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
"32% in DivX encoding, and xxx% in CINEBENCH R10"xxx%? Really?! Are you hiding something from us Jarred? ;)))
JarredWalton - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
LOL... sorry, I was still running tests at the time and obviously missed that. It's 12% BTW; text updated.mczak - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
I'm wondering why asus uses a overclocked ULV chip. Presumably they increase voltage a bit when overclocked to guarantee stable operation right? So in this case power should be very similar to LV chips (+30% for higher clock plus something additional for more voltage - ULV chips are 10W, LV 17W). So why not get a non-overclocked LV chip like the SL9600 in the first place? 2.133Ghz, 6MB cache, should cost about the same as the SU7300.JarredWalton - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
CPU-Z reports the voltage as 0.875V -- at the overclocked 1.73GHz setting. The ULV parts are essentially CPUs that work well with very low voltages, and they usually have better overclocking headroom. Anyway, it appears that even overclocked, the SU7300 isn't consuming more than perhaps 12-13W. (I'll have to do more testing to verify that figure for the full review.) When you have a laptop that uses 9.5W on average for Internet surfing, an extra 3W is a big deal.mczak - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Those 0.875V are presumably at idle? Would be way below published VID range under load (hopefully cpu-z reports this correctly even for mobile cpus).I just doubt a ULV chip is really any better if you overclock it to the level of a LV chip. Unless you're courageous and don't overvolt it to the same level, though you could just undervolt a LV chip instead...
In any case, I'd be very interested in the voltage adjustments (if any) under idle/load for OC/-nonOC setting - of course those chips have a VID range and hence could vary by chip but in practice they don't vary that much and the asus overclocking would presumably add a fixed voltage increase (if any).
mschira - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
Amazing, the most interesting new laptops at the moment are all cheap ones.Like the acer Timelines, the Asus"WTF have they been thinking with that name", the Dell Studio 14z etc.
They are all very nice, but they have compromises to keep em cheap. Not too bad compromises, but still.
Why doesn't Asus make a Lambougini version of this little nice buddy? Ditch the CD drive - who needs those - give us a nice screen, give us an expensive light, great case.
I'll happily pay the premium - it's not going to be that much anyway.
M.
KikassAssassin - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
Wow, with the exception of the screen, this thing is almost exactly what I've been looking for in a laptop. I've been really disappointed in the seeming non-existence of an affordable, highly-portable laptop with a dual-core ULV processor, non-Intel graphics, and a high-Wh battery. Put a high-quality display with a matte overlay (WhyTF is almost every laptop using freaking glossy nowadays?), and a toggle-able back-lit keyboard on this thing, and it would be my perfect laptop to a T.I also really like the idea of the ability to toggle between low-power integrated graphics and higher-performing discreet graphics, and I wish more laptops would include this feature. I have a feeling nVidia's going to be pushing hard for this once Arrandale comes out.
hybrid2d4x4 - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
One request for the game testing section: add an older title s/a Half-life 2 in addition to the usual new new games. I'm more interested in what it can run than the obvious "well, there you have it- it won't run the latest titles, get a desktop for that".Looking forward to the review!!