review asus ul80vt 14 inch notebook

Asus’ UL80Vt 14-inch notebook

Manufacturer Asus
Model UL80Vt-A1
Price (Street)
Availability Now

Regardless of what you think of netbooks, the surprise success of Intel’s Atom CPU has definitely had a positive impact on the mobile market. The popularity of sub-$400 Atom-based systems no doubt prompted the introduction of Intel’s Consumer Ultra-Low Voltage (CULV) processors, pulling previously premium ultra-low-voltage CPUs into budget ultraportable territory. These CULV CPUs offer much better performance than Atom processors while staying within a reasonably modest power envelope. The chips have made their way into cheap 11.6″ netbook killers, not to mention a slew of 13.3″ notebooks, including an Asus UL30A that costs $750-$800 yet still offers nearly 10 hours of real-world battery life.

New ultraportables simply weren’t available for around $800 a few years ago. In that price range, you were looking at 14-15″ systems that were relatively short on battery life and not exactly thin or light. Thanks to the advent of CULV processors, that’s no longer the case. Intel’s latest ultra-low-voltage mobile CPUs are migrating to affordable 14″ systems, bringing the promise of better battery life and slimmer enclosures to a segment of the market typically populated by portly, easily winded designs.

Asus’ UL70Vt is one of the first 14″ systems to feature a CULV processor. It also has the same eight-cell battery as the UL30A, but in a larger chassis with an optical drive and switchable GeForce graphics. Finally, here is a system with the potential to offer excellent battery life and play games.

CULV processors are typically paired with Intel’s GS45 Express chipset, whose integrated Graphics Media Accelerator X4500MHD offers abysmal gaming performance and spotty compatibility. Fortunately, the chipset has 16 lanes of second-generation PCI Express connectivity, which the UL80Vt links to a GeForce G210M discrete graphics processor. The G210M sits at the bottom of Nvidia’s mobile graphics chip lineup; it’s a DirectX 10.1-class GPU with 16 SPs running at 1.5GHz. The rest of the graphics chip runs at 625MHz, and it has a 64-bit path to 512MB of GDDR3 memory clocked at an effective 1.6GHz.

Although Nvidia has the G210M fabricated using 40-nm process technology, the chip’s thermal design power (TDP) is still rated at a healthy 14W. To put that into perspective, the UL80Vt’s dual-core, 1.3GHz Core 2 Duo SU7300 processor has just a 10W TDP. Additional power consumption is a big drawback for discrete notebook graphics, but Asus has mitigated the GeForce’s battery drain by allowing users to turn off the discrete GPU when it’s not needed. Toggling between the GeForce G210M and GMA X4500MHD is as easy as switching between power plans, which can be done with the touch of a button located above the keyboard. The process isn’t entirely seamless; the screen goes blank for a few seconds when you switch graphics modes. But that’s not a terrible hardship to endure.

Rebooting isn’t necessary to take advantage of the UL80Vt’s switchable graphics, but you will have to restart the system to invoke its turbo mode. The SU7300 processor normally runs at 1.3GHz on an 800MHz front-side bus. However, a turbo button in Asus’ Power4Gear Hybrid software pushes the FSB to 1066MHz, yielding a CPU clock speed of 1.73GHz. This turbo mode also kicks the memory bus from 800 to 1066MHz.

At the other end of the spectrum, the UL80Vt’s battery-saving power scheme takes advantage of the SU7300’s second P-state, which caps the processor speed at 800MHz. Entering battery-saving mode doesn’t require a reboot unless you’re switching out of turbo, making it easy for the user to shift into low-power mode on the fly.

Processor Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 1.3GHz
Memory 4GB DDR3-800 (2 DIMMs)
Chipset Intel GS45 Express
Graphics Integrated Intel GMA X4500MHD with 18MB
dedicated memory
Switchable Nvidia GeForce G210M with 512MB GDDR3 memory
Display 14″ TFT with WXGA (1366×768) resolution and
LED backlight
Optical Samsung TS-U633A DVD+/-RW+DL
Storage Seagate Momentus 5400.6 320GB 2.5″ 5,400-RPM
hard drive
Audio Stereo HD audio via Realtek codec
Ports 3 USB 2.0
1 RJ45 10/100/1000
Gigabit Ethernet via Atheros AR8131
1 analog headphone output
1 analog microphone input

Expansion slots


802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi via Atheros AR9285

Input devices “Full size” keyboard
Trackpad with
multi-touch scrolling
Internal microphone
Camera 0.3 megapixel webcam
Dimensions 13.3″ x 9.4″ x 0.55-1.06″ (338 mm x 240
mm x 14-26.8 mm)
Weight 4.4 lbs (2 kg)
Battery 8-cell Li-Ion 84Wh

The rest of the UL80Vt’s hardware looks about like what one might expect from a system in this price range. It’s great to see 4GB of memory coming standard with these types of systems, and 320GB of storage space should be plenty for folks who don’t need to carry around an extensive video library. Kudos to Asus for shipping the system with the x64 edition of Windows 7 Home Premium, too.

However, I’m less than impressed with the lack of Bluetooth support in the UL80Vt-A1 revision we have in for review. Bluetooth is listed as an optional feature, but none of the systems selling online appear to include it. 802.11n Wi-Fi is standard, at least, but the UL80Vt should really include both.

Really, it’s not that big
As a member of Asus’ UnLimited notebook series, the UL80Vt has a little more aesthetic flair than one might otherwise expect from such an inexpensive system. The star of the show is easily the brushed aluminum top panel, which is anodized black and looks quite stately, in an industrial sort of way. Plus, the textured surface won’t attract fingerprints and smudges like a glossy one would.

14″ systems aren’t considered a part of the ultraportable crowd, but the first thing I thought when unboxing the UL80Vt (sorry, I really should have captured that incredibly exciting moment in an exclusive unboxing video) is that it really isn’t all that big. I’ve reviewed a couple of 13.3″ notebooks lately, and while this particular Asus is definitely larger than all of them, the difference doesn’t amount to much. The UL80Vt measures 13.3″ x 9.4″ x 0.55-1.06″, which as you can see, makes is only marginally larger than Acer’s 13.3″ Aspire Timeline 3810.

The UL80Vt does weight a little more, but it only tips the scales at 4.4lbs, or exactly two kilos. That’s a pretty respectable weight considering the inclusion of an optical drive and an eight-cell battery.

Whether the UL80Vt can officially be considered a thin-and-light system will no doubt be the subject of some debate. Such distinctions are largely meaningless, though. The UL80Vt is easily portable, and it’s thinner than my Eee PC 1000HA. Of course, I can easily open the Eee PC in cramped quarters, including the tightly packed steerage class of most airlines these days. The UL80Vt is going to be a squeeze unless you can score a seat next to the emergency exit.

At the controls
While the brushed aluminum top panel makes the UL80Vt look and feel more expensive than it actually is, opening the lid quickly brings you back to reality. The system’s 14″ LED-backlit screen is ringed by glossy black plastic that’s not only highly reflective, but also a fingerprint magnet.

The screen is a transreflective unit, but not an overly reflective one. At least there’s enough brightness to overpower reflections in normal indoor lighting, which can’t be said of all glossy displays. Otherwise, the screen’s picture quality is largely average, which is becoming a common theme among budget notebooks. The viewing angles aren’t particularly good, and the colors are a little muted. Don’t worry about the blue tint in the picture above, though; that’s my camera not getting along with TR’s classic blue color scheme.

A 1366×768 display resolution with a 16:9 aspect ratio has become popular among budget notebooks, and you can add the UL80Vt to the growing list of models that have jumped on the bandwagon. This single-megapixel resolution is relatively low for a 14″ display, although the fact that on-screen text is quite large and easy to read should appeal to folks with poor eyesight. The lower resolution also makes life easier for the GeForce graphics chip, since games tend to look their best when played at an LCD’s native resolution.

Not content to just have the screen bezel mired with smudges, Asus also rings the keyboard with glossy black plastic. Matte finishes really make more sense for tactile surfaces that see constant handling, but manufacturers are seemingly obsessed with polished plastics, presumably because they look nice when all buffed up for product shots. At least the key surfaces ditch the gloss for a more practical flat black finish.

The keyboard is one of those new-age chiclet designs, and I quite like the layout. There’s a decent border around each key, making it easy to keep track of where one’s hands are without looking down. This attribute is particularly helpful when typing at speed in the dark, although an LED backlight for the keyboard would be even more useful.

Total keyboard area Alpha keys
Width Height Area Width Height Rough area
Size 298 mm 105 mm 31,290 mm² 169 mm 54 mm 9,126 mm²
Versus full size 104% 95% 99% 98% 95% 93%

Keyboard size generally isn’t a problem with 14″ systems, and the UL80Vt doesn’t disappoint—its array of chiclets has nearly the same dimensions as our full-size reference. Asus could’ve made the keyboard a little larger, I suppose, but it appears to have used the same keyboard as in the 13.3″ UL30A.

While I quite like the UL30A’s keyboard, the UL80Vt’s implementation isn’t quite right. There’s plenty of room to type, and key travel is adequate. However, the feel is a little muddled depending on which keys you’re hitting. On the right side, the keyboard feels like it’s backed with something significant. Keystrokes hit with a faint but satisfyingly dull thud. As you move left of center, that thud turns into more of a high-pitched click. There’s much more flex on the left side of the keyboard, too, which makes for frustratingly inconsistent tactile feedback.

Flex also infects the chassis, which makes me think the UL80Vt could use a more substantial subframe. Or maybe it just needs more aluminum. Yeah, definitely more brushed aluminum. The screen feels quite sturdy, though, and the hinge action is smooth and tight.

Like many new notebooks, the UL80Vt’s palm rests and touchpad surface are crafted from a single piece of plastic. Shallow dimpling defines the tracking area, making it easy to find without looking down. Although the effort to differentiate the tracking area is appreciated, Asus has done so with an inferior tracking surface. The dimples add some resistance, which isn’t always consistent, making tracking somewhat rougher and less precise than it could have been with a smooth surface. Dimpling might be slippery from an aerodynamic perspective, but that doesn’t translate to fingertips.

In the multi-touch department, the touchpad supports horizontal and vertical two-finger scrolling. That’s it for gestures, though—you can’t pinch zoom or two-finger swipe with this particular ELAN unit.

Connectivity and expansion options
The UL80Vt is the sort of system a lot of folks might consider using as their primary PC. To fill that role, it needs a healthy collection of expansion ports.

Asus obliges, endowing the system’s right edge with an increasingly commonplace memory card reader alongside USB and Gigabit Ethernet ports. And unlike with ultraportables, you get an optical drive, too.

The DVD burner is a Samsung unit that can write at speeds of up to 4X for dual-layer discs and up to 8X for single-layer media. A Blu-ray drive would’ve been a nice addition given that the integrated GeForce’s PureVideo HD decode engine can accelerate Blu-ray playback. This is still a budget system, though. Blu-ray remains somewhat of a luxury item in the notebook world, even as the price of 5.25″ readers plunges.

Around the left side of the system, the UL80Vt has two more USB ports, HDMI and VGA outputs, and a couple of analog audio jacks. I hooked the headphone output to the mic input and ran a quick RightMark Audio Analyzer loopback test, and the UL80Vt didn’t fare so well. RMAA scored the system as average overall, but rated its frequency response and stereo crosstalk as very poor. I ran the same test on a 13.3″ Aspire Timeline that also has a Realtek audio codec, and RMAA settled on a good overall score, which is one tick up from average in the application’s scoring scale. The Aspire did much better in the frequency response and stereo crosstalk tests, though.

In addition to various jacks and plugs, the left edge is home to the primary exhaust port, whose associated fan is surprisingly discreet. Even when running in turbo mode, the UL80Vt produces little more than a low hum. In fact, the keyboard noise is actually more distracting than the fan.

Asus makes it easy to access the UL80Vt’s hard drive and memory slots, facilitating easy upgrades. I don’t imagine many folks will need more than the 4GB of memory that comes standard in the A1 revision we’re looking at today. However, the ability to swap in a new hard drive will probably prove useful in the long run.

The UL80Vt’s battery looks very similar to the eight-cell unit in the UL30A. Both are rated for 84Wh, which Asus claims translates to 11.5 hours of run time. There’s reason to be optimistic here, considering that the UL30A squeezed just under 10 hours of web browsing from the same battery.

Our testing methods
Today, we’ll see how the UL80Vt fares against another CULV-equipped notebook: Acer’s 13.3″ Aspire Timeline 1380T. The Timeline doesn’t have a discrete graphics option, but it does sport a faster 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo SU9400 processor. No turbo button, though.

To illustrate the range of performance and battery life offered by the Asus’ different operating modes, we’ve tested the system in two configurations. First, we ran through our suite with the system in high-performance mode, with turbo enabled alongside the discrete GeForce graphics chip. Next, we dropped back to battery-saving mode, which uses the Intel integrated graphics and caps the CPU clock speed at 800MHz.

With the exception of battery life, all tests were run three times, and their results were averaged.


Acer Aspire AS3810-6415 Timeline

Asus UL80Vt-A1
Processor Intel Core 2 Duo SU9400
Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300
System bus 800 MT/s
800 MT/s
North bridge Intel GS45 Intel GS45
South bridge Intel ICH9M Intel ICH9M
Memory size 4GB (2 DIMMs) 4GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type DDR3 SDRAM at 800MHz DDR3 SDRAM at 800MHz
CAS latency
6 6

RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)
6 6
RAS precharge
6 6
Cycle time
15 15
Audio codec Realtek codec
with drivers
Realtek codec with drivers
Graphics Intel GMA X4500MHD with drivers Intel GMA X4500MHD with drivers
Nvidia GeForce G210M with drivers

Hard drive

500GB 5,400 RPM
Seagate Momentus 5400.6
500GB 5,400 RPM

Operating system

Windows 7 Home Premium

Windows 7 Home Premium

We used the following versions of our test applications:

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

Application performance
WorldBench kicks off our new collection of notebook tests, providing some insight on how each system deals with a varied collection of common desktop applications.

As one might expect, performance very much depends on clock speed. When overclocked in turbo mode, the UL80Vt’s processor is running at 1.73GHz—a full 333MHz faster than the Timeline. That translates to an eight-point lead in WorldBench’s overall score. Drop the Asus’ CPU down to 800MHz, and its WorldBench score falls by 41%.

I’d wager that most PC users spend the majority of their computing time browsing the interwebs. To test browser performance, we started with FutureMark’s Peacekeeper benchmark, which the company says tests JavaScript functions commonly used on websites like YouTube, Facebook, Gmail, and others. To test Flash performance, we used the Flash component of the GUIMark rendering benchmark.

No surprises here: the UL80Vt’s turbo mode is much quicker than the battery-saving config and a little faster than the Aspire.

7-Zip’s built-in benchmark is nicely multithreaded, which should give each of the CULV cores something to crunch. We ran this test to 10 iterations.

All hail the turbo button. Asus has effectively shipped the UL80Vt with a 1.73GHz Core 2 Duo, which is obviously quite a bit faster than the 1.4GHz chip inside the Aspire. Curiously, the battery-saving mode is much slower here than one might expect from its 800MHz CPU clock. Although the turbo mode roughly doubles the battery-saving mode’s clock speed, its 7-Zip throughput is three to four times higher.

Our video encoding tests make another good case for the UL80Vt’s turbo mode. A handful of extra frames per second might not look like much, but multiply that out over the length of the sort of movies you’d like to encode, and it adds up.

For our gaming tests, we used the 1366×786 native resolution common to both systems. Left 4 Dead 2 was run with medium in-game detail levels, while Call of Duty 4 had most of its visual eye candy disabled. Neither game was configured with antialiasing or anisotropic filtering enabled.

Oddly, the battery-saving Asus config scores a little higher than the Aspire in Left 4 Dead 2. There’s no comparison to the performance of the turbo config, though. The GeForce G210M really pulls its weight here, delivering more than 40 frames per second in each game. Intel’s GMA integrated graphics core doesn’t produce frame rates that even approach playable in either game.

Video playback
Our next batch of tests highlights the UL80Vt’s video playback performance. The chart below includes approximate CPU utilization percentages gleaned from the Windows 7 Task Manager alongside subjective impressions of actual playback.

I used Windows Media Player to handle all playback tests and Firefox for our windowed YouTube HD test. The new version of Windows Media Player built into Microsoft’s latest OS supports the video-decoding capabilities of the GeForce G210M and Intel’s GMA X4500MHD, so the UL80Vt gets hardware assist in both battery-saving and turbo modes.

UL80Vt (Turbo) UL80Vt (Battery
CPU utilization Result CPU utilization Result
Star Trek QuickTime 480p 0-7% Perfect 0-9% Perfect
Star Trek QuickTime 720p 0-6% Perfect 1-11% Perfect
Hot Fuzz
QuickTime 1080p
0-10% Perfect 1-13% Perfect
DivX PAL SD 0-9% Perfect 2-20% Perfect
YouTube HD windowed 33-46% Perfect 36-61% Perfect

Thank you, Microsoft, for bringing good video decoding support to Windows Media Player. The UL80Vt has no problem providing buttery-smooth video playback up to 1080p with minimal CPU utilization, even in battery-saving mode. Only Flash-based YouTube HD video offers a real challenge, and even then, the UL80Vt’s battery-saving mode proves more than up to the task. The new Flash 10.1 beta supports GPU acceleration, and it should lower CPU utilization even further.

Battery life
Each system’s battery was run down completely and recharged before each of our battery life tests. We used a 50% brightness setting for the Timeline, which is easily readable in normal indoor lighting and is the setting we’d be most likely to use ourselves. That setting is roughly equivalent to the 40% brightness level on the UL80Vt, which is what we used for both of that notebook’s configurations.

For our web surfing test, we opened a Firefox window with two tabs: one for TR and another for Shacknews. These tabs were set to reload automatically every 30 seconds over Wi-Fi, and we left Bluetooth enabled as well. Our second battery life test involves movie playback. Here, we looped a standard-definition video of the sort one might download off BitTorrent, using Windows Media Player for playback. We disabled Wi-Fi and Bluetooth for this test.

In its most frugal configuration, the UL80Vt offers more than eight-and-a-half hours of Wi-Fi web surfing time and seven hours of movie playback. That’s quite a bit better than the Aspire Timeline, whose battery life is only barely longer than what the Asus system achieves in turbo mode.

The Aspire only has a six-cell, 56Wh battery, so the deck is stacked in Asus’ favor here. Although, to be fair, Asus has stacked the deck in its favor by equipping the UL80Vt with a beefy battery as standard equipment.

External operating temperatures
External operating temperatures were measured with an IR thermometer placed 1″ from the surface of the system. Tests were conducted after the UL80Vt had run our web surfing battery life test for a couple of hours in turbo mode.

The UL80Vt runs nice and cool, ensuring that it won’t overheat your potential offspring should you use the system as an actual laptop.

On to some real games
Before taking a closer look at the UL80Vt’s gaming chops, there are a few things I need to gripe about: software bloat and Asus’ Power4Gear Hybrid power management software. Asus isn’t alone in loading its notebooks with extraneous trialware and other garbage that you’re probably better off uninstalling, but that doesn’t make it right. Removing all of the junk that comes pre-loaded on the UL80Vt could could take a good half hour or more.

One pre-installed app that you will want to keep is Power4Gear Hybrid. This program is the only way to activate the UL80Vt’s turbo mode, and you have to be running the app to toggle power-saving modes with the handy button located just above the top-left corner of the keyboard. However, Power4Gear doesn’t otherwise deviate from the power management options offered natively by Windows 7. One might expect the Asus app to be better tuned for the UL80Vt’s hardware, but it doesn’t have any awareness of the power states available in the SU7300 processor. Despite the fact that the chip can only run at 1.3GHz or 800MHz when not in turbo mode, Power4Gear still lets users define maximum and minimum processor states in ultra-fine 1% increments.

I’d like to see more explicit switchable graphics controls integrated into Power4Gear, as well. As it stands, users don’t have direct control over the graphics mode. The GeForce is enabled in high-performance and entertainment modes, while the other two fall back on the GMA.

Speaking of graphics, it’s time to delve a little deeper into the UL80Vt’s gaming potential. This is the first CULV-based system we’ve tested with a real graphics processor, and I was curious to see how the combo fared in some more recent games. These informal tests were conducted at 1366×768 with the system running in turbo mode. I used Fraps to approximate frame rates during each gameplay session.

We’ve run our Call of Duty benchmark already, but this time I was curious to see how far I could crank the in-game detail levels and still get playable frame rates. I was able to turn on all the eye candy, including anisotropic filtering, and still get frame rates between 20 and 40 FPS on the game’s first real level. Gameplay was sufficiently smooth, although antialiasing proved too demanding.

The UL80Vt already managed over 40 FPS with our benchmark timedemo, but the system can handle better than medium in-game detail levels. Left 4 Dead 2 ran smoothly with maximum details, oscillating between 30 and 40 FPS most of the time. Heavy action and smoke plunged frame rates into the 20s, but the game remained quite playable.

To be perfectly honest, all the travel and looting in Borderlands feels a little like work to me. And the game makes the UL80Vt work, too. Even with medium detail levels, Borderlands only ran between 20 and 30 FPS. During light action sequences, it spent most of its time in the 20s. That’s much better than the slideshow you’ll get on a GMA, of course, but it’s borderline for what I’d consider comfortably playable.

GRID is one of the better PC driving games out there, but it doesn’t run particularly well on the UL80Vt. Even with low in-game detail levels, you’re looking at frame rates in the mid-to-low 20s, which is pushing it for a driving game.

Of course, you can also wring higher frame rates from the UL80Vt by dropping to lower screen resolutions than we’ve used here. Just keep in mind that scaling is rarely good for image quality, especially if games don’t support lower resolutions that match the screen’s 16:9 aspect ratio.

According to our price search engine, the UL80Vt-A1 is currently selling for around $825 online. Amazon is also running a deal that’ll get you the system and a $100 gift card for $824, with free shipping to boot. Even with that pseudo discount, the UL80Vt isn’t among the cheapest 14″ systems you can buy. It is, however, one of the most versatile.

Unlike most CULV-powered notebooks, the UL80Vt’s switchable GeForce graphics can actually handle recent games. This is still far from a serious gaming rig, but there are a great many quality titles that will run quite smoothly on the system at its native resolution, even with detail levels turned up. The turbo mode’s a nice addition, as well, especially since it’s paired with a clock-throttling battery-saving mode. Asus has effectively covered both ends of the spectrum, allowing users to ramp up performance dramatically when they need it, but also fall into a low-power mode to conserve battery life.

Ah yes, sweet, sweet battery life. The UL80Vt-A1 delivered more than a working day’s worth of run time in our real-world Wi-Fi web surfing test, which is more than can be said for even most netbooks. There’s enough battery life to watch several full-length movies, as well. Never before have I seen a notebook this powerful and this affordable run for so long.

Of course, the UL80Vt also has its share of problems. The dimpled touchpad surface doesn’t track as smoothly as I’d like, and something is definitely up with the left side of the keyboard. Other online reviews have noted the clicky, flexy left side, so this appears to be a design flaw rather than a problem with one individual unit. The lack of Bluetooth support is also disappointing in a system in this price range. Heck, even sub-$400 netbooks come with Bluetooth as standard equipment.

Despite these flaws, the UL80Vt’s appeal really starts to sink in when you look at the big picture. Many folks are trading their desktops for notebooks these days, and the UL80Vt has the performance and features to serve effectively as a desktop replacement for a great many users. Plus, thanks to its incredible battery life and relatively thin and light chassis, the UL80Vt also makes a pretty good notebook.

Compromise usually rules out perfection at the budget end of the market, and the UL80Vt doesn’t defy that trend. But it demands a lot fewer compromises than one might expect from a 14″ notebook, and that makes it TR Recommended.

0 responses to “Asus’ UL80Vt 14-inch notebook

  1. do you think this laptop has enough power to run Photoshop CS3?
    photoshop says it needs at least 2.0Hw?
    im worried about getting a ULV with really great battery life (which i need for uni) that compensates performance?
    please help! 🙂

  2. Forgot to mention… The screen quality is also good. My previous two laptops Acer aspire and Sony Vaio had similar screens and I am used to it. So no complaints on that front.
    The boot speed and the battery life is as promised too.

  3. I would say this laptop is slightly overpriced at $823, as the build quality is not as good as it should be for the price. I wouldnt be surprised if the EEE PCs plastic was much firm and sturdy than the one in this.

    The squeaking sound near your left palm rest and the slight flex you see while the laptop is pressed says this laptop will definitely not survive an accidental drop on the floor.

    I have been using this laptop for a month now and trust me… the amount of finger prints this one catches amazes me. It takes a lot of pain to remove it too.

  4. Hmm, I think I might get this or the UL30Vt but I’m waiting to see which battery the other ends up with. I like the fact the other has a 500gb hd but I’m torn because right now it seems like it’ll have a smaller battery. Then again it weights less and is a touch smaller. Hard to decide!

  5. Its usually the same people with 50 bumper stickers ruining their cars paint jobs. It can much worse on laptops though when a lot of stickers are right where your hands rest.

    I have become an expert at using flat razor blades removing them without marring the laptop body…you also have to be careful with some adhesive removers not being as finish/color/plastic safe as they claim to be, especially ones meant for painted metal.

    On a mildly related note some folks at work took pictures of a mercedes or lexus or something SUV (don’t remember, but it wasn’t a cheap one and it was relatively new) that was literally covered from front to back with political stickers. It was funny and sad on so many levels. I don’t mean campaign stickers either, someone ruined their personal vehicle.

  6. Optical drive is another big difference. While less important than it used to be I’d say it’s very important for those who have a laptop such as this as their main or only computer.

  7. Why would someone buy this, when the UL30vt is soon to be release? Other than screen size – 14″ vs 13.3″ – what’s the benefit of having this one? The UL30vt also has BT I believe.

  8. I love these opinion-based arguments. I always read an implicit ‘for my ises’ in to the whole thread so I don’t see a reason to get worked up. The battery life is the huge difference and anyone looking at laptops ought to know where that tradeoff lies for them.

    The Asus isn’t all happy sunshine in any case. The keyboard is one obvious area that some people might not like.

  9. did you not read? I said right at the top the machine was $914 with the spcs listed.

    2.2Ghz (you don’t have to turbo that)
    500GB drive (did we mention it was 7200 rpm?)

    1080P LED panel /w camera (a larger panel with the same issues as a significantly smaller panel is still a better choice)

    Wireless N
    9 Cell battery (included when you select the ATi GFX option)
    4570 Graphics

    maybe reading before you reply might help you out here……

    so yeah the extra $99 (worse case price difference) it definately is worth it.

  10. Give us lower pixel counts! On a desktop, sure, I follow what you are saying.

    For a laptop? Games get more demanding every year, and laptop GPUs don’t keep pace.

    I miss my old GeForce-2 based laptop – it had a 1024×768 screen, which was sufficient for web-browsing but not too punishing for native-resolution gameplay.

  11. Yeah, I know the 8000 chips were failing, but I hadn’t heard anything about the more recent chips.

    Oh, duh, re: GT240M/GT210M. That’s what I get for posting comments at 3am. I still stand by the UL80Vt’s versatility giving it a big advantage, though.

  12. It did last year sometime, a lot of its integrated 8xxx chipsets were failing (giving Mac and Windows users a headache at that time), I haven’t heard anything similar with the 9400 IGP that’s so popular from them nowadays though.

    Edit: Also, you mentioned the GT240M, which is not in this machine, it’s the GT210M, which isn’t quite as potent as the 4570 IIRC. The former would destroy the UL80Vt’s battery life and be hampered by the CPU.

  13. Sigh, time to dismantle your points…

    First, a 9-cell battery is not an advantage. It is a disadvantage as it weighs more. No matter how much it helps your manhood knowing you’re carrying around more weight the only world where a system with the larger battery but inferior battery life is an advantage is a screwed up one. That world is currently populated solely by you. $45 to get this.

    Second, yes the Studio 15 has an option for a 1920×1080 option. However, both the Studio 15 and UL80Vt use TN-Film based panels. Meaning they both have poor viewing angles anyway. Is the UL80Vt’s worse than the Studio 15’s? No clue, reviews of both units I have read don’t paint good portraits of either. You have yet to cite any evidence, besides resolution, that the Studio 15 has the superior viewing angles or color reproduction. $75 for the resolution increase.

    Integrated camera? Did the spec sheet included in the Tech Report review seem to long for you to read? Both units include web cams…

    By default the Studio 15 has only Intel graphics. It cost $125 to improve those to the Radeon HD4570. Pushing the cheapest Core 2 Duo T6600 unit (you cite 2.2Ghz which is the T6600 and starts with the $699 Studio 15, though the cheapest Studio 15 uses a 2.1Ghz T4300) to $899 with that increased resolution screen. This is before battery increase.

    So, with the battery, screen and graphics increases from default we’re at $944. That backlight keyboard is another $25, so $969.

    Processor? Asus includes the Turbo33 feature clocking the SU7300 1.3Ghz to 1.73Ghz, which brings the performance much closer to the 2.2Ghz of the T6600. Also it should be noted that the SU7300 supports Intel’s virtualization technology where as the T6600 does not.

    So, the Studio 15 has some advantages and a number of disadvantages. You constantly cite performance but performance for what? I’m not going to be gaming on a laptop so the graphics improvements don’t much matter. The processor advantage isn’t as large and the T6600 actually prevents me from using a feature I use often (XP Mode in Windows 7) these days. The Studio 15 has significantly worse battery life (despite the larger battery).

    Maybe if you would actually be conscious that other people don’t have similar needs to you and that a unit with a CULV processor probably isn’t meant for someone so singularly focused on performance. It’s meant for someone wanting a laptop that has a wide range of potential uses, very long battery life and lower weight.

    Hell, I could point out the UL30Vt which is cheaper, ships with a 500GB hard drive, has the missing Bluetooth, and the same CPU and GPU with switching and auto overclocking. Plus the same battery life. All for $25 less. Oh, and it’s even lighter which means a lot (because despite needing to protect my manhood I can appreciate keeping my backpack load down for many reasons).

  14. So it has a 9-cell battery, which provides the same WHr as the UL80Vt’s 8-cell battery, and which won’t provide anywhere near as much battery life as the UL80Vt because the Dell Studio 15’s hardware consumes far more power.

    My UL80Vt is currently running at 2.133 GHz with the built-in turbo mode. The CPU in the Dell has more cache, but it’s not that significantly faster when the Asus is running in its performance profile setting. The Dell’s CPU does, however, consume significantly more power.

    Is nVidia even still having problems with their mobile chips failing in large numbers? I’m asking this legitimately, because I haven’t heard anything about it still being a problem and I’m genuinely curious. As far as performance goes, a quick Google search brings me to which shows the GT240M being about 65% faster than the Mobility 4570, which means the UL80Vt should easily spank the Dell Studio in gaming.

    I’ll give you that the display in the Dell Studio is likely vastly superior to the display in the UL80Vt (assuming the 1080p display is the same one that’s used in the Studio XPS), and a backlit keyboard would be nice to have. However, you have failed to convince me that the Dell Studio is a “MUCH BETTER MACHINE”. It’s better in some ways, but the UL80Vt is better in others, so it all comes down to what you want out of a laptop. It just so happens that the UL80Vt is much better suited to my usage patterns than the Dell Studio is. I gladly paid the $820 the UL80Vt cost me, and the Dell Studio wasn’t even in the running when I was making my purchasing decision, because it simply doesn’t offer what I want.

    There is no such thing as one laptop that’s the best for everyone.

  15. I just priced one out and it was $914 for

    9 Cell battery.

    1080p led display > 1336*768 led display and from what the review said, that unit’s display is pretty bad with horrible viewing angles….

    Intergrated camera

    500GB hdd >320GB hdd

    2.2Ghz CPU > 1.3Ghz and last time i checkd 2.2Ghz is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than 1.3….

    512MB 4570 graphics > Intel HD4X00 series +Nvidia anything in a latop top given their recent history….with mobile chip failures
    backlit keyboard

    like I said $100 more gets you a MUCH BETTER MACHINE. I really don’t care about it being slightly bigger as it will still fit in my backpack.

    btw I didn know men complained about slightly heavier batteries? but if better performance is not worth the slight weight increase, then that’s your cup of tea

    that machine is priced way too high for what you get $8XX is right next to kick ass laptop territory

  16. Just make sure you don’t smoke around your Apple or else it will be rejected for warranty service even with Applecare because it’s a ‘hazardous material.’

  17. Get a Consumer Reports subscription, which arguably has a good method of interviewing its tens of thousands of readers on product quality. (I’ve been interviewed, and damn I let Subaru know I was pissed!)

    Oh hey I have a subscription, I’ll look!

    Apple kicks everyone else’s asses in customer satisfaction and repair and support! ASUS isn’t even mentioned in the survey!

    They mentioned that Apple can cost more than twice the price as an equivalent PC with only a few additional features, so take that into consideration!

    Does that helpg{

  18. What do you recommend they do? Break it on purpose and call up the support? Or fake a problem? The first is illegal and the second far to time consuming. I can’t think of hardly any laptop reviews that look at support. There’s also limited value to a single sample size on a issue such as tech support. Your best bet is to research overall quality reports for manufacturers.

  19. Why doesn’t the review comment on Asus’s technical support and the warranty options that this notebook has?

    I am researching laptops for a family friend at the moment and his parents’ main concern is regarding support and warranty coverage, which is completely omitted.

  20. You know I agree, I don’t like batteries that stick out. That’s why I miss my bay battery. Lenovo still has them but Dell and HP went to giant battery docks.

  21. Better display? What direct comparison are you citing for this? They’re both using whatever TN based monitor is available. Maybe a higher resolution but that doesn’t equate to better screen unless your only criteria is resolution. To get the higher resolution option costs you $75 more.

    Bigger battery? You must be joking. That’s a NEGATIVE. It weighs more yet the unit as a whole delivers significantly worse battery life. I don’t consider having to lug around my M1330’s 9-cell as a positive over a flat fitting 8-cell on the UL80Vt. I MUCH rather have the UL80Vt’s battery if I could get anywhere near the same battery life.

    Your other points are completely laughable as well. To configure the system so it actually meets those points puts a Studio 15 over $1,000.

    So you have a heavier, larger, slightly faster processor, better graphics, significantly worse battery life system that costs a couple of hundred more. If you want that sure, but don’t be surprised we people weigh those options and see only one or two advantages the Studio 15 has and several disadvantages it has.

  22. Yeah, they look like NASCAR cars (and drivers) and for exactly the same reason: those are /[

  23. For me the differentiation between mainstream models and “ultraportables” is more about weight than screen size. And Netbooks is about computing horsepower (not enough to do anything but surf the net) not size or weight.

  24. for the difference in performance and features, I’s accept it..and that battery should be good for about 4 hours and considering what that battery runs, that’s great

  25. No and no. Of course, I was not implying and/or deamnding that they perform these tests. I was just expressing my thoughts. I could have rearranged the sentences to sound more like my thoughts than implying anything. So, forgive me for thinking.

    But to be honest with you, I think testing a laptop at maximum performance (turbo boost on) on battery is not a bad test. Their testing methods I have not a problem with. Just curious is all. So, all in all, I think you misread me or I didn’t write what I wanted to say right.

  26. Two questions:
    1. Do you know of a benchmarking site that can account for every usage scenario?

    2. Would you like TR to test out the myriad requests that people come up with, knowing that this would be a lot of effort on their time with little return except for those individuals?

    At some point there is a point of diminishing returns, and you have to expect the users to infer performance based on the information presented.

    I do think refreshing shack/TR in a web browser isn’t a very good indication of battery performance using a browser, but I’m unsure how they could get repeatable results otherwise without other factors coming into playg{<.<}g

  27. Are you asking me or them?

    Me, yes, I would certainly think the battery would last more than 2 hours otherwise something is why with the picture. That is why I said “several movies”. So, maybe 3 movies would be pushing it? That is my point, how do we know until someone tests it? But me being me, I would not take the risk and just buy a cigar lighter power brick to the laptop.

    In fact, the only time that I have ever use a laptop unplugged is going from one place to another (mostly client-to-client) cuz I didn’t want to bootup the machine.

  28. Can you not infer that it is somewhere between 7 and 8.6 hours, based on basic web surfing(low CPU, except for tr flash ads) and moderate video and video playback (High CPU)? Certainly much more than 2 hoursg{<.<}g

  29. Nice review. One typo in the spec sheet. 0.3 megapixel camera is way, way too powerful for this laptop. Maybe tone it down by specifying 1.3 or whatever megapixels.

    Of course, we are all picky about the tests. Like I mention earlier, it would have been nice to see a turbo mode without a wall plug-in, just to see what it can do for some heavy-duty use while outside.

    And of course, how was the web-cam? Can it perform well at Starbucks without a plug-in? I’m sure it does well with a little more battery drain, but I was wondering if the battery can hold up for a 2-hour teleconference in the aforementioned setting.

    Anyway, again great review and this is most definitely a notebook I like. Most of the settings that I go to has a keyboard and mouse hooked up, so that could live with the flimsy keyboard. I can also live without the bluetooth too as I have never had a need for one. Can anyone tell me the real-life benefits of a BT? The screen size again can been a little stronger, I mean, hell there is a little taskbar icon that can resize the screen on the fly. So, saving power in the GMA mode is understandable for the spec screen size, but using the 210, I would like a little more pixels especially in the height department. But then again, in most of my settings, I have a monitor hookup too, so I could live with it. As I’ve stated earlier times, that I would use this for traveling, great for the kids to watch a couple movies on a long drive.

    So, thanks for taking the time to do this, much appreciated!

  30. I’ve never heard of ‘Notebook’ and ‘Laptop’ being differentiated like that. And DTR systems are still referred to as a notebook or laptop. Frankly, I differentiate based on hardware and price, not physical screen size.

  31. I don’t think he is talking about “Battery-savings” mode, more like setting it in Turbo mode and then unplug the power and do a test.

    I agree that would be a cool addition to the benchmarks. Sometime are outside and bored to death, so we wanna play a quick game of L4D. That would be a good test to see just how long a battery can survive in this mode.

  32. There are to many different names for laptop’s nowadays why not just standardise like so.

    8.9″ – 10.2″ netbook
    11.1″ – 12.1″ ultraportable
    13.1″ – 14.1″ Notebook
    15.1″ – 16.1″ Laptop
    17.1″ plus desktop replacement

    I know there’s gaps but I’ve never seen any in-between sizes. This makes it so mush easier since screen size really does dictate everything else since super-sized bezels are so 1980’s.

    Of course just my opinion but there are so many different terms flying around it makes Nvidia’s and Intels naming strategies seem straightforward.

  33. Likely the same reason they come with trialware ‘bloat’ – some kind of kickback from the manufacturer for advertising. If not then it’s a simple way to show off specs at retail because all retailers don’t have nice little cards with specs.

  34. Interesting thing I’ve found out about laptop batteries, is that most of them consist of a series of Li-Ion 18650 3.7V batteries. An 18650 battery is nothing more then a giant AA battery, with a lot more voltage.

    Got an old Mac G4 laptop, and it couldn’t hold a charge. So I tore apart the battery to find eight 18650 2000 mAh batteries. Ordered eight 2800 mAh 18650 batteries off Ebay, and now the battery is better then ever. Well, besides the electrical tape surrounding the pack.

  35. The “Battery savings” mode is supposed to replicate what that setting is. Because there is no set “default” mode for laptops this is about as good as you’re gonna getg{<.<}g

  36. All of the stickers except the nVidia and Intel logos come off easily and don’t leave any residue. If you want to take the nVidia and Intel logos off, make sure you have some adhesive cleaner on hand.

  37. Yeah, I didn’t think you were being negative, I just wanted to clarify my perspective. And apparently I ramble when it’s past my bed time. 😉

  38. I know. I for one would have to go check that puppy out at a bestbuy or something to see if those stickers came off.

  39. Also physically larger with much worse battery life. You mustn’t forget those little details…

  40. Why are laptops increasingly festooned with cheap, permanent stickers for every component in it? Is this like subcompact cars: the more stickers, the faster it is??

  41. I’d rather get a Delll Studio 15″ for about $100 more

    better graphics
    better display
    bigger battery
    better cpu
    includes -[

  42. Why are there no battery (or other) benchmark tests for stock speeds? I for one would be very curious to know what the impact (if any) turbo mode has on battery life. I’ve heard from some people that it’s minimal, but I would really like it to be objectively tested.

  43. The size and clarity of your response is impressive. I would say you do fall into the category of simply being more aware of the shift given the display you look at on a normal basis is of very high quality. I wasn’t trying to be negative towards you in that regard, just thinking that *maybe* you were slightly out of the norm and looking for some more clarity on the issue. Which you’ve certainly helped provide. Thanks for your comment!

  44. Yeah, it’d be nice if it came with a higher-res screen. Thankfully, though, Windows 7’s taskbar actually works very well while positioned on the side of the screen. It’s much better than previous Windows taskbars in that regard. I have mine positioned on the left side, and that gives me enough vertical space to get by on, so the low screen resolution doesn’t bother me as much as it otherwise would.

  45. Yeah. I mean if they HAVE to force 16:9 down our throats, can we at least other options besides 1366×768 at every single screen size? I think the Acer Timeline series is one of the most annoying offenders. 13.3-inch, 14-inch, and 15-inch models, with only 1366×768 resolution for all three.

  46. I’m the commenter you’re referencing, and I suppose it’s possible I just don’t have enough experience with “budget” laptop LCDs to know what’s normal for them. My primary LCD is a Dell 2405FPW, which is a fantastic display. Of course I can’t, and didn’t, expect an $800 laptop’s LCD to look as good as a display that costs almost that much by itself, but it’s possible that it’s skewed my perspective. My previous laptop was a Sager (I don’t even remember the model # off the top of my head, but it was a Midern design) with a 17″ screen, which cost nearly twice as much as the UL80Vt back when I bought it a few years ago. Its screen wasn’t perfect, either (notably that it was very dim, and also had very poor contrast). Its color shift wasn’t nearly as bad as the UL80Vt’s, but again, that laptop cost nearly twice as much when it was new, so it’s also in a different class. I knew all of this going in, but even still, I’m starting to get the impression that my expectations were probably set too high.

    I might have made the screen sound worse than it really looks with my complaints about it, because I didn’t provide any positives to go along with all the negatives I mentioned. It does have VERY extreme color shift (especially compared to my Dell LCD), and I’ve found that it’s impossible to get a consistent image across the entire display no matter what angle I look at it from. The screen on my unit was also horribly out of calibration out of the box. It’s interesting to me that Geoff brushed off the blue tint in the photo at the top of page 3 as an artifact of the camera, because the display on my UL80Vt had an extreme blue tint prior to calibration. It didn’t look nearly as bad as the photo, but it was definitely very noticeable.

    With proper calibration, however, the colors actually look very good, though they’re obviously not very accurate due to the low contrast and high color shift. The image is very clear, the backlight is way more than bright enough (way too bright at the default brightness setting, actually), and now that I’ve gotten used to the color shift, the screen actually looks quite good for web browsing, gaming and watching movies. It’s just completely unusable for any kind of color-critical graphics work, but I suspect that this is generally true of any budget laptop LCD.

    All that said, it’s worth noting that in spite of my complaints about the screen, I’m still using this laptop, and I’m still loving it. The versatility it offers is unlike any other laptop I’ve ever seen or used before, and it really changes the entire way I think about using a laptop. Some people buy a gaming laptop that can’t get more than a couple hours of battery life, and then a second low-powered laptop or netbook to carry around with them on the go. I’m able to have the best of both worlds, in a single laptop. With the power settings configured properly, I don’t even have to think about it, either. I can unplug the laptop, and the CPU automatically clocks down and the nVidia GPU switches off, and it’s ready for a full day’s worth of web browsing and word processing on the go. Then I get home, plug it in, the CPU automatically clocks up, the nVidia graphics kick on, and it’s ready for some gaming action. If I want to do something that requires the faster CPU/GPU while I’m on the go, the high performance profile is just a button press away, as long as I’m willing to deal with having a shorter battery life while I’m running in that mode.

    I don’t think I’m ever going to be able to go back to a normal laptop after using this. As far as I’m concerned, laptops that don’t have the ability to instantly switch between discrete and integrated graphics, and high performance/battery saving modes like this one does have now been made obsolete, at least as far as my needs go.

  47. Uhh, no. Those now aging Dells, probably d620, d630’s with integrated graphics are much better in that university. They age better and take hits much, much better. The d630 had a faster processor, and the d620 may have had a slower or faster processor depending on the time it was made.

  48. Nope, that’s why in May when I purchased my latitude e6400 I made sure that it came with the 1440×900 led screen. Although a 1920×1080 on a 14 in would be very tiny text.

  49. Nice review but I have to admit I’m a little disappointed in the tested modes. I understand testing the more unique modes this laptop offers, underclocked and overclocked with NV graphics, but I’d really have liked to see what might be the most common ‘productivity’ power setting which would be standard CPU speed and GMA graphics. Any chance of a follow up for that mode, even if just for battery life?

  50. Holy christ. It’s 2009. It’s really, truly time to stop making laptops with 768 vertical pixels. I’m not a huge fan of 16:9, but if you’re going to do 16:9, at least do a 1600×900, or 1920×1080 screen. Especially given every single operating system’s generally upward trend in vertical space usage (Win7 taskbar is taller than vista’s, same for gnome over the last 4 years).

    Am I really the only one that values pixel count?

  51. I think this would be a good candidate for the University to replace their aging Dell laptops with these.

  52. Can I get a manufacturer to put these components inside a body worth a damn and include a higher resolution quality screen? I’d be willing to part with $1000 for it.

    Notes on the review… you didn’t hammer the screen like the comments in the UL30Vt news post did for the UL80Vt. The Anandtech review mentioned it in a similar light as this review. It seems to me that commenter either has a bad screen or is simply really sensitive to the shift.

    Overall I’m very impressed with this laptop. It is getting even closer to my ideal laptop. Now just to fix that damn chassis, screen, touchpad (why is this always ruined? My M1330 and MacBook units have had by far the best touch pads I’ve ever used, HP being EASILY the worst), and keyboard issues.