ASUS UL80Vt and G51J: Going for the Gold
by Jarred Walton on December 15, 2009 1:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
Testing Overview
We're going to separate the performance results of the UL80Vt and G51J as they're not competing laptops. For the UL80Vt, we'll be comparing it against similarly priced notebooks (and a couple netbooks), which you can read about in our previous Studio 14z review. As for the G51J, we'll compare it with high-end offerings, some of which cost over three times as much! You can find the test configurations for the high-end notebooks in our High-End (Clevo) Roundup. Here are the test configurations for the two ASUS notebooks.
| ASUS UL80Vt-A1 Test System | |
| Processor | Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 (2x1.3GHz, 45nm, 3MB L2, 800FSB, 10W) Turbo33 @ 1.73GHz/1066FSB |
| Memory | 2x2GB DDR3-1066 (Max 2x4GB) |
| Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce G210M 512MB Driver Version: 186.88 Intel GMA 4500MHD IGP |
| Display | 14.0" LED Glossy 16:9 768p (1366x768) |
| Hard Drive(s) | 320GB 5400RPM HDD |
| Optical Drive | 8x DVDR SuperMulti |
| Battery | 8-Cell, 15V, 5600mAh, 84Wh |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit |
| ASUS G51J Test System | |
| Processor | Intel Core i7-720QM (4x1.6GHz+ HTT, 45nm, 4x256KB L2, 6MB L3, 2.5GT/s QPI, 45W) Overclock @ 1680MHz (base speed) |
| Memory | 2x2GB DDR3-1066 (Max 2x4GB) |
| Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M Driver Version: 195.62 |
| Display | 15.6" Glossy Full HD 1080p (1920x1080) |
| Hard Drive(s) | 2 x 320GB 7200RPM 16MB HDD (Non-RAID) |
| Optical Drive | 8x DVDR SuperMulti |
| Battery | 6-Cell, 11.1V DC, 4800mAh, 53.28Wh |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit |
Our tests will use standardized application benchmark suites like PCMark along with individual application results. Our in-house application tests place more weight on CPU performance, as we look at video encoding and 3D rendering performance. We'll provide any additional commentary related to application performance concerns if necessary. We will provide results from the UL80Vt with and without Turbo33 enabled. On the G51J, we only enabled the maximum overclock for heavily threaded workloads, as otherwise it didn't provide any noteworthy boost and often resulted in lower performance. Unlike the UL80Vt, the overclocking modes on the G51J can be enabled/disabled on-the-fly.
For gaming, our high-end tests standardize on performance at 1680x1050 with maximum detail settings (sans 4xAA) in a variety of games. Since the native resolution of the G51J is 1080p, we will also provide 1080p results. For the UL80Vt, nearly all of the competing notebooks use 1366x768 LCD panels, but many of the laptops are unable to run most games at that resolution, even at minimum detail settings, so we standardize on 800x600 minimum detail performance. With the G210M enabled, the UL80Vt doesn't have any difficulties at those settings, so we will also look at performance at 1366x768 with low, medium, and in a few instances high detail - basically, we'll show where the G210M runs out of steam at the native resolution. We did not perform gaming tests on the UL80Vt with the IGP enabled - why use a candle when you already have a flashlight?
Battery life testing will follow the same pattern, with both laptops set to "ideal" settings for improving battery life. With the launch of Windows 7 we have decided to showcase the best that laptops are able to offer in terms of mobility. If you run using a "Balanced" profile instead of "Power Saver", you can expect 5-15% less battery life, depending on the laptop. We tested the UL80Vt in several configurations: without Turbo33 and running IGP and G210M, and with Turbo33 with IGP and G210M.
Finally, we will combine the results for Windows power on/off and LCD quality, as the differences aren't as large for those tests. We'll also include power requirements on the combined results page.
We'll begin with the UL80Vt results, and we'll try not to get into too much detail on the following pages unless there's something truly noteworthy. By and large the tables tell the performance tale.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
tpurves - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
14" monitor and only 768 vertical pixels? what the hell is up with that?my WXGA 12" laptop has 800 vertical pixels and would still be usable with even slightly higher DPI if it was possible.
What is the point of carrying around the extra pounds and inches of a 14" screen if you have fewer useful pixels if you are not doing at least better than wxga.
I already think wxga at 13" (like on macbooks) is a waste of space.
A 14" should be at least 1440x900 (or the HD aspect-ratio equivalent) or what's the point of hauling that much computer and screen around?
iamezza - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link
One business I installed a new PC at a while back complained they couldn't read the new 19" screen. Once I showed them how to change the resolution they changed the res to 800x600.iamezza - Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - link
One business I installed a new PC at a while back complained they couldn't read the new 19" screen. Once I showed them how to change the resolution they changed the res to 800x600.JarredWalton - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
Ah, youth... ;-)Do you know how many 40+ people I've had COMPLAIN to me when I set a laptop to the native resolution? There are competing views on LCD resolutions. Older users with less than perfect eyesight prefer larger pixels, in which case the 1366x768 14" LCD is a good compromise. Younger enthusiasts often prefer crazy pixel pitch like 1600x900 in a 14" LCD.
Heck, I did some work for a dentist building PCs and gave the receptionists 22" 1680x1050 displays. Guess what they run them at: 1280x800! Ugh.... Anything higher than that and they complain that it's too hard to read.
For reference:
1366x768 14" is .227 pixel pitch
1280x1024 14" is .217 pitch
1440x900 at 14" is .209
1600x900 at 14" is .194
Personally, I'm good to about .200 pixel pitch, but older folks will often want more like a .250 pitch. On desktops, 1920x1200 on a 27" LCD is fine (.300), on a 24" it's "okay" (.270), and native resolution on 30" requires me to use magnification or set a higher DPI in windows (.252).
Of course, I'd also be happier with 16:10 aspect ratio displays on laptops instead of 16:9 (or possibly even 4:3, though that's debatable). First, though, give me a contrast ratio that doesn't suck.
fabarati - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
1440x900 is quite nice on a 14" screen. I'd even like a higher resolution.But the displays used on old Asus 14" laptops (I've had a A8Js and i presently use a F8Sa) leave a lot to be desired. Though you should know that, as you tested the A8Js a few years back.
On the other hand, you do get used to it. It's only when you see better displays (like my brothers SR Macbook pro or our old FSC Amilo 1437g - not to speak of the very nice S-IPS displays at my summer job) that you feel dissapointed.
pkkevin - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
I second that, I remember my dad always adjusting his native 1360*768 13.3 inch laptop to a resolution of 800X600... it is all distorted and blurry to me, but he like it that way just so he can see clearly.Great review by the way, Great informations.
darwinosx - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
What a hunk of plastic junk. The current laptop i7 is a joke as is the cheap plasticky Asus. Editors choice? You have got to be kidding me.The0ne - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
I really have to say that most of you speaking about quality have little to no clue what you're actually referring to or talking about. I've worked in various engineering discipline to know that most of the "opinions" of this subject matter is in fact a personal one.At least do some research and/or go out and TOUCH the materials before making such comments. There's Walmart and Best Buy almost everywhere so it shouldn't be too difficult.
Yes, I realize that ingrained perceptions are very difficult to overcome but man, so people are just dense.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
Which of course is posted by a Mac fanboy. Thanks, darwinOSX for being so open to other options.Would I prefer a nicer aluminum body? Sure I would! But that would also increase costs substantially. I would rather have a better LCD first, then a better construction. At that point we're looking at $1000, just like the aluminum MacBook, but it would still have substantially faster graphics and better battery life when you want it. Anyway, that's why the UL80Vt is a Silver and not a Gold.
As it stands, I have looked at dozens of laptops during the past year and these are both far better than competing models (i.e. similar pricing). We've praised MacBooks plenty, and they still have a place for anyone buying a laptop. If you don't want to run OS X, though, Apple has little to offer. "DUAL BOOT! And get 30% less battery life under Windows because we don't think anyone should even consider something other than OS X!" Thanks but no thanks.
darwinosx - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - link
I'll take the MacBook in a heartbeat over this. I've seen the aluminum MacBook at $1049 at MacConnection and the plastic Macbook at $849. No contest over this cheapo Asus.