Debute do ScreenPad 2.0: Breve Análise do Portátil Asus VivoBook S15 S532FL
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F (Toshiba Exceria Pro UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F (Toshiba Exceria Pro UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 262.3 cd/m²
Contraste: 610:1 (Preto: 0.43 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.81 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91, calibrated: 5.36
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
55.6% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
35.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
38.35% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
55.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
37.12% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.15
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F LG Philips LP156WFC-SPD1, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD LQ156D1, IPS, 15.6", 3840x2160 | HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng Chi Mei CM15E9, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD BOE07D8, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L BOE NV156FHM-N48, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080 | Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T LP156WFC-SPD1, IPS LED, 15.6", 1920x1080 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 99% | 11% | 69% | 7% | 4% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 37.12 | 79.6 114% | 41.36 11% | 67.2 81% | 40.02 8% | 38.51 4% |
| sRGB Coverage | 55.9 | 98.4 76% | 62.2 11% | 88.4 58% | 58.5 5% | 57.9 4% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 38.35 | 79.7 108% | 42.74 11% | 64.6 68% | 41.34 8% | 39.79 4% |
| Response Times | -72% | -35% | -68% | -60% | -34% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 24.8 ? | 52.4 ? -111% | 40 ? -61% | 45 ? -81% | 45 ? -81% | 38.8 ? -56% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 24 ? | 31.6 ? -32% | 26 ? -8% | 37 ? -54% | 33 ? -38% | 26.8 ? -12% |
| PWM Frequency | 1000 ? | 25000 ? | 250 ? | |||
| Screen | 28% | 34% | 31% | 19% | 18% | |
| Brightness middle | 262.3 | 451.9 72% | 221 -16% | 311 19% | 278 6% | 262 0% |
| Brightness | 250 | 414 66% | 207 -17% | 303 21% | 271 8% | 256 2% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 81 -9% | 87 -2% | 81 -9% | 89 0% | 90 1% |
| Black Level * | 0.43 | 0.36 16% | 0.15 65% | 0.24 44% | 0.26 40% | 0.21 51% |
| Contrast | 610 | 1255 106% | 1473 141% | 1296 112% | 1069 75% | 1248 105% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.81 | 5.62 3% | 4.35 25% | 5.1 12% | 4.73 19% | 5.8 -0% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 14.7 | 19.1 -30% | 8.98 39% | 8.91 39% | 8.38 43% | 14.3 3% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 5.36 | 2.69 50% | 2.48 54% | 5.17 4% | 4.6 14% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.8 | 6.9 -146% | 3.09 -10% | 4.93 -76% | 2.59 7% | 2.5 11% |
| Gamma | 2.15 102% | 2.2 100% | 2.23 99% | 2.44 90% | 2.38 92% | 1.99 111% |
| CCT | 7016 93% | 6254 104% | 6068 107% | 7641 85% | 6160 106% | 6528 100% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 35.2 | 71.8 104% | 56 59% | 58 65% | 36 2% | 36.6 4% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 55.6 | 98.5 77% | 86 55% | 88 58% | 58 4% | 57.6 4% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 18% /
29% | 3% /
20% | 11% /
26% | -11% /
7% | -4% /
9% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 10 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 50 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 24.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 12.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 31 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| Cinebench R15 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8565U (138.3 - 193, n=51) | |
| HP Omen 15-dc1020ng | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB | |
| Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| HP Omen 15-dc1020ng | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API | |
| Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8565U (452 - 815, n=52) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB | |
| PCMark 10 | |
| Score | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T | |
| Essentials | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T | |
| Productivity | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T | |
| Digital Content Creation | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| PCMark 8 | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L | |
| Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3575 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4946 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 4148 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | 71% | 1% | 102% | 34% | |
| Seq Read | 1147 | 1320 15% | 2465 115% | 2469 115% | 1557 36% |
| Seq Write | 752 | 1500 99% | 1318 75% | 1991 165% | 1237 64% |
| 4K Read | 41.52 | 30.73 -26% | 42.97 3% | 54.3 31% | 42.56 3% |
| 4K Write | 149.7 | 94.4 -37% | 81.9 -45% | 99.8 -33% | 127.2 -15% |
| 4K-64 Read | 605 | 1453 140% | 1025 69% | 1823 201% | 1034 71% |
| 4K-64 Write | 453.2 | 1815 300% | 338.6 -25% | 1282 183% | 1186 162% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.073 | 0.061 16% | 0.077 -5% | 0.042 42% | 0.077 -5% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.025 | 0.044 -76% | 0.046 -84% | 0.039 -56% | 0.028 -12% |
| Score Read | 761 | 1616 112% | 1314 73% | 2125 179% | 1233 62% |
| Score Write | 678 | 2059 204% | 552 -19% | 1581 133% | 1437 112% |
| Score Total | 1821 | 4507 148% | 2488 37% | 4771 162% | 3291 81% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 1093 | 2577 136% | 700 -36% | 1313 20% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 775 | 515 -34% | 167.2 -78% | 334.6 -57% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 1196 | 1120 -6% | 370.4 -69% | 684 -43% |
* ... smaller is better
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 4946 pontos | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 12992 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 3308 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 1223 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) | |
| HP Omen 15-dc1020ng | |
| Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD | |
| Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U | |
| Asus GL552VW-DK725T | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250 (16.3 - 23.1, n=27) | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API | |
| Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE | |
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 191.8 | 109.2 | 88.3 | 33.7 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 66.9 | 36.8 | 19.1 | 10.7 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) | 24 | 7 |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng Vega 8, R5 2500U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP | Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-7700HQ, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ | Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G | Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -3% | -2% | -3% | -5% | -4% | |
| off / environment * | 28 | 28.2 -1% | 30.13 -8% | 30.3 -8% | 30.5 -9% | 29.9 -7% |
| Idle Minimum * | 28 | 28.5 -2% | 30.13 -8% | 30.3 -8% | 30.5 -9% | 29.9 -7% |
| Idle Average * | 28 | 28.6 -2% | 30.13 -8% | 30.3 -8% | 30.5 -9% | 29.9 -7% |
| Idle Maximum * | 30 | 28.8 4% | 30.13 -0% | 30.3 -1% | 30.5 -2% | 29.9 -0% |
| Load Average * | 41.4 | 36.2 13% | 38.8 6% | 39.3 5% | 40.8 1% | 41.7 -1% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 41.5 | 47.6 -15% | ||||
| Load Maximum * | 41.5 | 47.6 -15% | 38.8 7% | 39.6 5% | 41.8 -1% | 41.7 -0% |
* ... smaller is better
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 28 / 28 / 30 dB |
| Carga |
| 41.4 / 41.5 dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm de distância) environment noise: 28 dB(A) | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.4 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 36.9 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.6 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.6 °C / 96 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (32 °C / 89.6 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (-3.2 °C / -5.8 F).
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 40% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.36 / 4.2 Watt |
| Ocioso | 6 / 10.3 / 10.5 Watt |
| Carga |
69.1 / 88 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6" | HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng R5 2500U, Vega 8, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD i7-8565U, GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -44% | 31% | 8% | 14% | 23% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 6 | 7.1 -18% | 4.8 20% | 3.7 38% | 2.7 55% | 4.4 27% |
| Idle Average * | 10.3 | 13.6 -32% | 7 32% | 8 22% | 8 22% | 6.9 33% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10.5 | 14.1 -34% | 9.5 10% | 9.8 7% | 10.6 -1% | 9.9 6% |
| Load Average * | 69.1 | 103.9 -50% | 40.8 41% | 85 -23% | 74 -7% | 55 20% |
| Witcher 3 ultra * | 57.8 | 103 -78% | ||||
| Load Maximum * | 88 | 130.9 -49% | 44.3 50% | 92.4 -5% | 89 -1% | 63.4 28% |
* ... smaller is better
| Asus VivoBook S15 S532F i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, 42 Wh | Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 97 Wh | HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng R5 2500U, Vega 8, 55.8 Wh | Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 79 Wh | Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD i7-8565U, GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 73 Wh | Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, 48 Wh | Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 42 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 26% | 39% | 73% | 104% | 30% | 27% | |
| Reader / Idle | 655 | 899 37% | 1356 107% | 1587 142% | 773 18% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 306 | 514 68% | 426 39% | 588 92% | 519 70% | 414 35% | 388 27% |
| Load | 86 | 62 -28% | 102 19% | 171 99% | 117 36% |
Pro
Contra
Em nossa análise do ZenBook Pro 15 original com o ScreenPad 1.0, chamamos isso de inovação inerentemente útil, mas com muitos problemas de primeira geração, como a curva de aprendizado, a interface do usuário desajeitada, a tela granulada e a duração reduzida da bateria. O ScreenPad 2.0 alivia diretamente muitas de nossas reclamações com seu tamanho maior, tela táctil mais brilhante e IU revisada semelhante a Android para um portátil que custa apenas a metade do preço do ZenBook Pro 15. É comum para os usuários pularem produtos de primeira geração porque os modelos de segunda geração quase sempre serão significativamente melhores e mais baratos. Essa escola de pensamento não poderia se aplicar mais ao ScreenPad 2.0; Se você ficou intrigado com a tecnologia da Asus, mas decidiu esperar no ano passado, então o VivoBook acessível deste ano é o momento de finalmente pular para dentro.
ScreenPad 2.0 não é perfeita de forma alguma. A sobreposição mate ainda está no lado granulado, especialmente quando comparada às telas refletivas de smartphones nos nossos bolsos. A tela extra continua a afetar a duração da bateria e o Windows em si não está bem otimizado para uma tela com PPI tão alta. Talvez um ScreenPad que corresponda à resolução, contraste e cores nativos da tela principal tenha criado uma melhor sinergia entre eles.
Quanto ao portátil em si, a CPU é mais lenta que a média por causa de sua sustentabilidade limitada do Turbo Boost. Felizmente, isto não afeta o desempenho dos jogos, o que faz desse VivoBook uma boa solução para fins de produtividade e jogos casuais.
O ScreenPad não é uma novidade por ser diferente. Seu formato e propriedades inatas do segundo monitor tornam-no objetivamente mais útil do que a abordagem Touch Bar da Apple. Ainda há muitas dificuldades nas quais trabalhar, especialmente no que diz respeito à granularidade, mas é um enorme salto para a frente na direção certa sobre o ScreenPad 1.0 do ano passado.
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
- 07/23/2019 v6 (old)
Allen Ngo
Price comparison
