ASUS UL80Vt First Look: Mobility Redefined
by Jarred Walton on October 24, 2009 8:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
ASUS UL80Vt Benchmarked - General Performance
This is a first look and we have not yet had a chance to run all of our performance tests. Battery life testing in particular is going to take a long time -- which is a good thing, outside of the testing aspect. We have only had the UL80Vt for two days now, but we have been duly impressed with its features, design, and performance. It may not be the best-looking laptop on the planet, it may not have every feature under the sun, and it certainly isn't the fastest laptop. However, it does everything a typical laptop user could need, it does it at an affordable price point, and it truly manages to redefine what we can expect in terms of mobility from Windows laptops. Here are a few preliminary benchmarks we've run.
We conducted tests using the "moderate battery saving" and "maximum performance" profiles in ASUS' Power4Gear software. Turbo mode (overclocking) was enabled in all testing so far; honestly, we don't see much point in disabling it (which requires a reboot), but we'll test battery life without Turbo mode for the full review; that may add another 5-10% battery life, although the laptop already lasts a full day so it's not a critical concern. The SU7300 CPU has two P-states, 800MHz and 1300MHz; the overclocked FSB results in the SU7300 running at 1066MHz or 1733MHz (using a 4X or 6.5X multiplier). CPU-Z does not report clock speeds correctly (it always showed an 8X multiplier for some reason), but ASUS provided an updated version of Intel's Thermal Analysis Tool that reports the correct speed.
After a few initial tests, we discovered that the only way to get the CPU to run at the 6.5X multiplier is to select "Maximum Performance" in the Power4Gear software, with the maximum CPU speed set to at least 62%; otherwise the CPU will always run at the 4X multiplier. Since we already had a bunch of results for 1066MHz, we decided to report those -- it will make for an interesting comparison with the Intel Atom at least. The 1733MHz results will be in bright green and the 1066MHz results are in dark green in the following charts. We'll start with general performance results using PCMark as well as a few CPU intensive tasks like video encoding and 3D rendering.
The general performance delivered by the UL80Vt is certainly impressive. It's not the fastest laptop on the market by any means, but application performance is better than the majority of AMD-based laptops currently available. The overclocked SU7300 outperforms the Athlon QL-64 (2.1GHz) by 7% in PCMark05, 47% in PCMark Vantage, 12% in the second x264 encoding pass (the first pass is relatively simple by comparison, depending more on the hard drive and platform than on the CPU), 32% in DivX encoding, and 12% in CINEBENCH R10. The latest 45nm AMD parts like the Turion II Ultra M640 will regain the lead, certainly, but we still have to account for power draw. We'll get to that in a moment, but suffice it to say that it's going to be difficult to beat the overclocked SU7300.
Comparing the UL80Vt to netbooks shows just how slow the Intel Atom is. Even at 1066MHz, the UL80Vt is typically at least twice as fast as the ASUS 1005HA, and at 1733MHz it's 150-250% faster. Sure, it also costs twice as much, but we would make a strong argument that netbooks are only "fast enough" if your demands are low. The bigger selling point for netbooks is their small size and weight, and 14" laptops costing close to $800 certainly encroach on that territory. Netbooks work far better as a second (or third…) PC than as your primary system, while something like the UL80Vt can fill all roles reasonably well. If the general application performance makes netbooks look bad, wait until we look at graphics performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
gohilurvish - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
I like the article and also the battery life figure by particular Asus model but I dont agree to compare it with MacBook (I am not Apple fan-boy).From what I know is, all 9400M based MacBook/pro has C2D Penryn processors and with <55WHr battery it provides 6-7Hrs of battery life with wireless productivity.
If these lineup moves to ULV processor and 80+WHr I am sure it can deliver 15+hrs or battery life.
I think its OS and other hardware that helps giving longer battery life for MacBook.
For winodows PC, this is my choice now (obviously not for computational heavy work).
fk49 - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
This is a great first look and much more in depth than most of the previews that come out. I did notice that the main CPU comparison was with the P8600 of the 14z which is definitely meant for a higher price point. For the full review, could you include benchmarks comparing the SU7300 to more CPUs? Especially in the gaming benchmarks, as the G210m will definitively beat the integrated solutions available but what's not clear is how CPU-limited games might be when the UL80vt competes against laptops with dedicated GPUs. Thanks and again, great review!darwinosx - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
Since everything is compared to the Mac laptops that is obviously the gold standard. That should tell you something. For a minor amount more you get a dramatically better laptop build, screen, cpu, multi-touch trackpad, and of course OS. Not to mention support. Put one of these next to a MacBook at your local Fry's or wherever. The Mac Book walks all over it. Yes Windows 7 is decent. But I want a lot more than decent when it comes to my notebook or desktop computers. I make quite a good living as an IT Architect and I don't have time or interest in buying the lowest common denominator to save a little money.simas - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Mac Book /OSX = No games.and buying overpriced laptop label just to by Microsoft OS to be able to play a game is too wasteful. There isn't anything OSX delivers in the laptop that I can not get from Windows 7 so why pay the premium?
for Asus - they are close, dual core CPU, switchable graphics, 4+ GB of ram, decent CPU speed and good battery life. Get a better LCD and I would buy it.
Kelv00n - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
Quoting: "I make quite a good living as an IT Architect and I don't have time or interest in buying the lowest common denominator to save a little money."1) You're clearly an Apple fanboi; ergo anything not Apple is the lowest common denominator; ergo your comments add nothing to a proper evaluation of this machine and are therefore useless to other readers who are not facetious like you.
2) No one cares about how big your wallet (and what it compensates for) is, and as many commentators here have observed, this laptop fills a nice role for people like non-trust fund college kids who have to a) consider weight and performance since they have to lug the piece around, and b) work to pay their own way through college.
Asus has been making lots of right moves lately. They just need to ditch the glossy trend and work on their build quality. This laptop is hitting the sweet spot for the holy trinity of weight, performance and price. I'm going to wait for the next iteration, which hopefully will have a better LCD, but it looks like my new laptop will be ASUS-branded.
fk49 - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
Even so, comparisons to Mac performance is something some of us would like to see. The Macbook does cross the $1000 line and as a student, the price difference with the UL80 is meaningful. About half the kids at my school have Macs while Asus has a pretty niche market, so it would be interesting to see if an aggressively designed and priced product aimed at the tech-savvy can beat the mainstream "standard".Voo - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
Well I won't be using Mac OS X any time soon and I don't think many Apple fans would even consider it.So the interesting comparision would be a MacBook with Win7 against this one.
Voo - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
Argh.."and I don't think many Apple fans would even consider using this notebook."
MournSanity - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
If I may make a feature request for the full review...I heard that this laptop can also be overclocked from the BIOS. Can you look into this feature and tell us how/if it works in conjunction with the Turbo33 setting? Thanks.
MournSanity - Sunday, October 25, 2009 - link
I ask this because I recall seeing on a taiwanese review of this laptop a picture of it overclocked to something like 2133 mhz(8x266?). It would be very cool if this machine can be stably overclocked that high for when you want to do some heavy lifting.