ASUS U6V - Specifications and Summary
| ASUS U6V-A1 Specifications | |
| Processor | Core 2 Duo P8400 (2.26GHz 3MB 1066FSB) |
| Chipset | Intel PM45 + ICH9M |
| Memory | 2x2048MB DDR2-800 |
| Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce 9300M GS 256MB |
| Display | 12.1" WXGA (1280x800) Glossy LED Backlit |
| Hard Drive | 320GB 5400RPM 8MB |
| Optical Drive | 8x DVDR SuperMulti |
| Networking | Integrated Gigabit Ethernet Intel WiFi Link 5100 Bluetooth v2.0 |
| Audio | 2-Channel HD Audio (2.0 Speakers) |
| Battery | 3-Cell 26.5Whr 6-Cell 53Whr |
| Front Side | None |
| Left Side | 2 x USB 2.0 eSATA HDMI ExpressCard/54 WiFi On/Off Switch Power Connector Cooling Exhaust |
| Right Side | 1 x USB 2.0 Optical Drive (DVDRW) Headphone and Mic jacks Flash Reader (MS Pro, MMC, SD) Kensington Lock |
| Back Side | Ethernet VGA Modem (Optional) |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit |
| Dimensions | 11.81" x 8.66" x 1.0"-1.24" (WxDxH) |
| Weight | 3.45 lbs (3-cell battery) |
| Extras | Fingerprint Scanner 2.0MP Webcam Large Carrying Case with Strap Small Laptop Case Bluetooth Mouse Two Batteries Included TPM Express Gate by SplashTop |
| Warranty | 2-year ASUS Global 1-year Accidental Damage and Battery 30-day Zero Bright Dot LCD |
| Price | Starting at $1500 for U6V-A1 |
Given the smaller chassis, the component choices on the U6V are a step down in most areas relative to the other two notebooks. However, the step really isn't that large, and many of the parts are significantly more powerful - and more power-hungry - than what we found in the ASUS U2E. For example, rather than using an ultra low voltage Core 2 Duo chip running a paltry 1.33 GHz (or less), ASUS uses a standard 25W TDP P8400 running at 2.26 GHz. They also put in a 320 GB 5400 RPM hard drive instead of an SSD, and they max out the memory with 2x2GB of RAM. Unfortunately, ASUS chose to include Windows Vista Business 32-bit rather than a 64-bit OS, so you don't get full access to all of the memory. One compromise that might not be immediately apparent from looking at the specifications is that the LCD is clearly inferior to the LCD that was in the ASUS U2E. The native resolution is similar, and both provide LED backlighting. However, the contrast ratio on the U6V is very low at only 200:1.
Despite the smaller chassis, we had no difficulty using the keyboard on the ASUS U6V. Maybe it's just that we've encountered this same sort of keyboard layout on the other laptops, but we would actually prefer this keyboard layout to that of the G50V. It may not matter to some people, and most users will eventually adapt to whatever keyboard to use the most, but if you do a lot of typing such things do make a difference.
All of the features look good on paper, but sometimes the sum of the parts doesn't quite add up. We praised the build quality and stability of the G50V, but while the build quality of the U6V appears to be just as good, we did encounter a few glitches in the stability department. It was nothing we could specifically track down, but our test system locked up while sitting idle on the Windows desktop a couple times. If it happened only once, we would just chalk it up to one of "those things" that just happen on occasion; three times in as many weeks still isn't a huge issue, but it's now a blip on the radar. On the other hand, we also experienced periods of several days where the laptop didn't lock/crash, so the root cause is impossible to state with any certainty. All we know is that we had three occasions (so far) where we had to force reboot the system. It could be drivers, BIOS code, hardware related, or something else; it doesn't seem to be caused by heat, however, as we never experienced any crashes during stress tests.
We already mentioned that the LCD contrast ratio is much worse than we expected - we assumed that any LCD that bothered to use LED backlighting would be a higher quality panel, but in this case it appears we were wrong. Another area where performance has definitely dropped relative to the ASUS U2E is battery life; however, this isn't much of a surprise. More memory, a faster processor, and a standard hard drive all add up to a few more watts of power. With relatively small notebooks, every watt counts. It looks like the U6V ends up requiring about 25% more power than the U2E, so the small battery is only good for just over an hour of battery life in normal office tasks. The benefit of course is that the U6V is nearly twice as fast as the U2E, so that's probably compromise a lot of users are willing to make. If you really need battery life, you can always grab the 9-cell battery option that will still get you well over four hours of mobility, but that's an awfully big battery for a small laptop.
In the end, the U6V seems like it should be a really good laptop. It packs quite a bit of performance into a very small package, it looks nice, and while the price of $1500 certainly isn't cheap it's pretty good compared to some of the other ultraportable options. The stability issues we encountered are a minor concern (a few random locks on one sample isn't enough to draw any real conclusions), but the bigger concern for us has to be battery life. This isn't an issue specific to ASUS either, as we've seen the same problem with the other Windows Vista notebooks we've tested. Put simply: this is an ultraportable laptop in size and specifications, but battery life is only slightly better than the much larger G50V. We know that laptops exist that get over four hours with a ~55 Whr battery (hello, Apple MacBook/MacBook Pro/MacBook Air), and the U6V falls about 50% short of that mark. Why that's the case is difficult to say, but we simply can't recommend a $1500 12.1" laptop that can't run typical office tasks for at least four hours before the battery is dead. Apple has shown it's possible to provide all of that in a notebook that weighs less than 5 pounds and costs less than $1500, so their competitors need to match that level of performance - or at the very least come close.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
I chatted a bunch with ASUS on this; there was some confusion so I may have ended up with the wrong conclusion. (Yeah, marketing wasn't positive on the specs, and engineering didn't ever pass on the exact details.) I actually had a paragraph detailing the differences between the 9800M GTS and this supposed 9800M GS. Since I don't have one in my hands, I can't say one way or the other with certainty.The worst case would appear to be clock speeds equal to that of the 8800M GTS (500 core instead of 600 core on the 9800M GTS), which is still going to be a lot faster than these other notebooks. Since it's also limited to 1366x768, gaming performance should be no problem at native res... but there's a lot of headroom left untapped. Certainly, gaming performance won't be lower than the G50V tested here, unless the game happens to be CPU limited.
Enrox - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Take a look at the Gateway P-7811 battery's life: it's about 150 minutes regarless the task (DVD playback, web surfing, H.264 playback).That to me says only one thing: no power management in place.
Is that a Vista issue or a BIOS issue?
JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Oh, the P-7811 is definitely doing *something* - though idle battery life is lower than I'd expect relative to the others. Actually, I think it's more that the P-7811 is doing quite well in other tasks. Remember: 17" 1920x1200 LCD, 7200 RPM HDD, and a 9800M GTS put it at a much higher power envelope than most of the other laptops. Relative to the P-6831 and m15x, the results seem to be right where you'd expect. If only Gateway had implemented Hybrid Power....jonmcc33 - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Did you verify that with the Power Saver setting that EIST was working properly? Use CPU-Z or similar to see if the clock speed of the FSB and CPU does change as it should. Check the BIOS settings as well.CU - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Yes it would be interesting to know what the cpu, gpu, fsb, and ram clocks are at when in power saving mode for Vista and OSX.JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
CPU speed drops to a 6X multiplier, so at least that aspect is working. Looking at the voltages (according to CPU-Z), they're all at 1.083V except for the G50V, which runs at 1.338V most of the time. (I'm still trying to figure out what's going on there and will update when I know more.) I'm not as concerned with G50V battery life, though, since it's in a different class of performance and size; it's the U6V and similar notebooks that need to do a lot better.Regarding RAM, GPU, and FSB, the FSB stays locked at the base speed - 1066 MHz on the Centrino 2 notebooks. RAM likewise stays at a set speed, in this case 800 MHz. 2D GPU clocks (according to GPU-Z) are 169 MHz core, 200 MHz (100 base) VRAM on all three of these notebooks. GPU-Z also reports a memory clock of 800 MHz (400 base) for the HP dv5t, which seems wrong - I though the 9600M GT was supposed to be much faster RAM, but apparently not.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Update: The G50V was back on "High Performance" mode after rebooting (an issue with some of the ASUS software). Setting it back to "Balanced" or "Power Saver" dropped the CPU voltage to the expected voltage - though still slightly higher than the others at 1.063V.fabarati - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Asus is known for their crappy batterylife in the latest generation. When compared to equal or even better specced laptops, they fall flat on the ground. It's probably because of bad ACPI coding. My F8Sa has worse battery life than my old A8Js, despite having less powerhungry parts. And the A8Js had mediocre batterylife (I reached about 3½ hours, with hardware disabled). I can barely break 2 hours, and that's when I disable hardware.The HP DV5 seems to suffer from the same issue, at least that's the conclusion we came to when it was tested by NBR.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
I haven't tested a comprehensive selection of laptops by any means, but if you look at the specs for the various laptops and the resulting Minutes/Whr chart you can see that if this is bad ACPI coding the practice extends far beyond just ASUS and HP. If the MacBook Pro was around 3 or 4 Min/Whr, I'd think maybe it was just some fine tuning that was missing, but it's still literally double what the closest tested Vista laptop managed.The best result I've personally seen on Vista to date is the http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=328...">ASUS U2E, which manages 3.72 Min/Whr with the 86.5 Whr battery. That's a lot closer than the other laptops, but keep in mind that has a U7500 CPU (10W max TDP), X3100 IGP, and an SSD, plus an 11.1" LED LCD.
Another 15.4" laptop I'm currently testing with T7250 and X4500 graphics (plus 4GB RAM, 250GB 5400RPM HDD) manages 4.18 Min/Whr, which is closer to Apple. Still, that's a 50% advantage for the MacBook, so it's not really *that* close. (It gets 204 minutes of battery life in our web surfing test.)
nizanh - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Can't you just install Vista on one of the MacBooks?Sounds to me like the best testing methodology.