ASUS UL80Vt and G51J: Going for the Gold
by Jarred Walton on December 15, 2009 1:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
ASUS G51J Gaming Performance
3DMark shows more of a theoretical potential for the various GPUs, before CPU performance becomes a potential bottleneck. Granted, most of these laptops have CPUs that are plenty fast, but just as no two games show identical requirements, 3DMark is at best one additional test to run rather than a replacement for gaming benchmarks.
We do have G51Vx results, which are missing in the gaming tests, and two of the 3DMark versions (03 and 06) show less than a 5% difference between the G51J and G51Vx. 3DMark05 and Vantage on the other hand show the G51J leading the G51Vx-A1 by 24% and 14%, respectively. In our limited gaming tests on the G51Vx, we didn't encounter any performance issues that were different from what we see on the G51J; at 1680x1050 or 1920x1080, the GTX 260M GPU is the major bottleneck on either system.
Gaming performance shows just how well the G51J does for the price. The W870CU is about 25% faster, but it's pretty much all from the GPU in these tests. That's about in line with the minimum price difference to upgrade to a notebook with GTX 280M (currently those start at around $1800). In the vast majority of games, either you can run at max detail settings without trouble or you'll need to turn down some settings on both the GTX 260M and the GTX 280M. If that's not acceptable, you could look at SLI GTX 280M solutions, but they're a big step up in price and we're still stuck with Core 2 models in that case.
Outside of antialiasing, we maxed out the settings for all of the games we test. Dark Athena, Crysis, Empire: Total War and STALKER: Clear Sky are too demanding for mobile GPUs at those settings, but Medium to High detail will work fine, even at 1080p. If you're one of those people that feel a need to max out every game setting, perhaps gaming laptops aren't the best idea. For most, the difference between High and Max is going to be relatively small in practice, and there are many titles (i.e. not Crysis) where even maximum detail will work well.
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.