Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarA Mini Multitasking Monster: Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482 Laptop Review
It has barely been a full year since we last checked out the dual-screen ZenBook Duo UX481 and Asus is already launching a full-in ZenBook Duo UX482 to succeed it. The latest model may look similar at first glance, but it actually introduces several significant improvements both inside and out. This review will focus on the differences between the UX482 and UX481 and what users can expect from Asus' 2021 dual-screen Ultrabook.
Configurations range from the Core i5-1135G7 CPU with 8 GB of fast LPDDR4X-4266 RAM up to the Core i7-1165G7 with 32 GB of RAM and discrete GeForce MX450 graphics. Our specific SKU retails for about $1300 USD. All configurations are otherwise fixed with a primary 14-inch FHD IPS display and secondary 12.6-inch 1920 x 515 ScreenPad. A larger 15.6-inch ZenBook Duo UX582 model is also available.
Competitors to the ZenBook Duo UX482 include other high-end 14-inch Ultrabooks like the MSI Prestige 14, Lenovo Yoga Slim 7, or Huawei MateBook 14. Of course, none come with the same secondary display feature that makes the UX492 so special.
More Asus reviews:
potential competitors in comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85.1 % | 01/2021 | Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA i7-1165G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.6 kg | 16.9 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 82.5 % | 12/2020 | MSI Prestige 14 Evo A11M-005 i7-1185G7, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.2 kg | 16 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 87.1 % | 12/2020 | Lenovo Yoga 9i 14ITL5 i5-1135G7, Iris Xe G7 80EUs | 1.4 kg | 15.7 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 84.1 % | 01/2021 | Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG i7-1165G7, GeForce MX450 | 1.3 kg | 16.9 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 80.7 % | 07/2020 | Asus VivoBook S14 S433FL i7-10510U, GeForce MX250 | 1.4 kg | 16 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 82.7 % | 05/2020 | Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL i7-10510U, GeForce MX250 | 1.8 kg | 19 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 |
Case
The metal chassis is mostly the same as on the UX481 but with a couple of major changes. Firstly, Asus has completely redesigned the zinc alloy hinges to be 30 percent smaller than the hinges on the UX481. The size reduction has allowed the chassis to be 3 mm thinner and consequently ~200 g lighter than the outgoing UX481. Hinge rigidity feels uniform at all angles and with minimal teetering, but we can still hear a bit of creaking when opening the lid.
The second major change relates to the ScreenPad as the entire display will now lift at an angle to improve both viewing angles and cooling. Asus calls it the Active Aerodynamic System (AAS+) which, when combined with the existing ErgoLift hinges, promises up tp 49 percent better airflow than on the previous model. This directly impacts performance as the manufacturer can now claim a sustainable 28 W CPU TDP which we will go into detail in our Performance sections below.
The new ZenBook is still noticeably heavier than traditional 14-inch laptops including Asus' own ZenBook 14 UX425/435 by about 300 g. The second screen adds to the overall weight albeit not by as much as last year's model.
Connectivity
Port options have changed from the preceding UX481 mostly for the better. The proprietary AC barrel port, for example, has been removed in favor of a second USB-C port which also improves the docking capabilities of the system. On the other hand, there is now just one USB-A port compared to two on last year's model. Both USB-C ports are compatible with Thunderbolt 4 devices.
SD Card Reader
For reasons unknown to us, Asus has downgraded its MicroSD card reader to be 3x slower than the same card reader on the older UX481. Moving 1 GB of pictures from our UHS-II test card to desktop takes about 41 seconds on our UX482 compared to 13 seconds on the UX481. Video or photo editors might find this change maddening.
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 32GB) | |
| Asus VivoBook S14 S433FL (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 32GB) | |
| Asus VivoBook S14 S433FL (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
Communication
Webcam
Maintenance
The bottom panel pops off easily assuming you have a T5 Torx wrench on hand. There are thankfully no screws hidden underneath the rubber feet unlike on some HP laptops. Unfortunately, only the M.2 SSD is upgradeable as both the WLAN and RAM modules are soldered.
Accessories and Warranty
The retail packaging includes a carrying sleeve, foldable stand, and an active stylus pen alongside the usual paperwork. A palm rest is not included unlike on the larger UX581.
The standard one-year limited warranty applies.
Input Devices
Keyboard
The typing experience remains identical to the UX481 including the shallow travel and relatively firm feedback. The upfront positioning works well on a spacious office desk, but it is definitely not as comfortable as a traditional laptop when workspace is tight such as on trains or airplanes.
A notable change to the layout of the keyboard is the elongated right Shift key at the expense of smaller arrow keys. This is a similar move that Razer implemented on its latest Blade laptops.
Touchpad
The touchpad and dedicated mouse buttons remain identical to the UX481. It's still small at only 5.5 x 7 cm while the buttons are just as quiet as before. It's worth noting that the secondary touchscreen can be turned into a giant touchpad for the primary display.
Display
The AU Optronics B140HAN06.8 IPS panel as found on our ZenBook Duo UX482 can also be found on the ZenBook 14 UX425 and Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 14. These three laptops share similar display characteristics as a result including the high contrast ratio and deep colors. Last year's ZenBook Duo UX481 came with a Chi Mei panel instead and so the switch to AU Optronics this year was unexpected. When compared to the Chi Mei, the newer AUO panel is brighter and with deeper black levels but at the cost of slower black-white/gray-gray response times for more noticeable ghosting.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 361.8 cd/m²
Contrast: 1292:1 (Black: 0.28 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.44 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2, calibrated: 1.24
ΔE Greyscale 1.3 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
99.3% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
64.9% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
71% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.1% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
69% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.15
| Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA AU Optronics B140HAN06.8, IPS, 14.00, 1920x1080 | MSI Prestige 14 Evo A11M-005 AUO B140HAN06.2 (AUO623D), IPS-Level, 14.00, 1920x1080 | Lenovo Yoga 9i 14ITL5 LG Display LP140WF9-SPE2, IPS, 14.00, 1920x1080 | Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG Au Optronics B140HAN03.2, IPS, 14.00, 1920x1080 | Asus VivoBook S14 S433FL Chi Mei CMN14D4, IPS, 14.00, 1920x1080 | Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL Chi Mei N140HCE-EN2, IPS, 14.00, 1920x1080 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 0% | -7% | -11% | -39% | -2% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 69 | 68.8 0% | 64.2 -7% | 60.9 -12% | 41.55 -40% | 67.1 -3% |
| sRGB Coverage | 99.1 | 99.4 0% | 94.2 -5% | 90.4 -9% | 62 -37% | 99.5 0% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 71 | 70.9 0% | 65 -8% | 62.3 -12% | 42.99 -39% | 68.9 -3% |
| Response Times | 12% | 14% | 35% | 44% | 45% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 56.4 ? | 59.6 ? -6% | 55.2 ? 2% | 39 ? 31% | 34 ? 40% | 31.2 ? 45% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 46 ? | 32.8 ? 29% | 34.4 ? 25% | 28 ? 39% | 24 ? 48% | 25.6 ? 44% |
| PWM Frequency | 250 ? | 24750 ? | ||||
| Screen | -33% | -43% | -86% | -126% | -14% | |
| Brightness middle | 361.8 | 293 -19% | 365 1% | 323 -11% | 220 -39% | 301 -17% |
| Brightness | 351 | 277 -21% | 346 -1% | 313 -11% | 204 -42% | 285 -19% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 89 -1% | 82 -9% | 80 -11% | 68 -24% | 89 -1% |
| Black Level * | 0.28 | 0.18 36% | 0.23 18% | 0.36 -29% | 0.155 45% | 0.42 -50% |
| Contrast | 1292 | 1628 26% | 1587 23% | 897 -31% | 1419 10% | 717 -45% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.44 | 2.95 -105% | 3.65 -153% | 4.86 -238% | 5.23 -263% | 1.01 30% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.3 | 6.03 -83% | 6.69 -103% | 7.52 -128% | 21.51 -552% | 3.42 -4% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.24 | 0.9 27% | 1.61 -30% | 3.64 -194% | 4.4 -255% | 0.97 22% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.3 | 4.2 -223% | 4 -208% | 4.83 -272% | 3.77 -190% | 2.2 -69% |
| Gamma | 2.15 102% | 2.099 105% | 2.33 94% | 2.64 83% | 2.35 94% | 2.19 100% |
| CCT | 6411 101% | 6622 98% | 6873 95% | 7405 88% | 6666 98% | 6605 98% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 64.9 | 71 9% | 60.1 -7% | 57.5 -11% | 40 -38% | 63.2 -3% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.3 | 93 -6% | 93.9 -5% | 90.3 -9% | 62 -38% | 99.5 0% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -7% /
-21% | -12% /
-29% | -21% /
-57% | -40% /
-88% | 10% /
-5% |
* ... smaller is better
Color space on the primary display covers all of sRGB and 65 percent of AdobeRGB to represent a high-end panel. The displays on most flagship Ultrabooks have similar ranges. For full AdobeRGB coverage or more, users should look at the larger ZenBook Pro 15 or Dell XPS 15 9570 series instead.
X-Rite colorimeter measurements reveal a well-calibrated display out of the box with average grayscale and color DeltaE values of just 1.3 and 1.44, respectively. An end-user calibration is not necessary.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 46 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 99 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 56.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 30 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 26.4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 92 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (35.1 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 19046 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Outdoor visibility is better than last year's model as Asus has upped the maximum brightness by about 20 percent. It's not enough to overcome sunlight or eliminate glare, but it helps for cloudy days or if working under shade.
ScreenPad
The UX482 ScreenPad uses a newer version of the IPS BOE panel from the UX481 (HF NV126B5M_N42 instead of the HF NV126B5M_N41). When compared to the older panel, the newer one is brighter (400 nits vs. 300 nits) and with a deeper contrast ratio (~1200:1 vs. ~800:1) but at the cost of slower black-white and gray-gray response times. Color space hasn't changed gen-to-gen at just 60 percent of sRGB compared to the 100 percent coverage of the main display which makes the ScreenPad unfit for editing where deeper colors are desired.
Visibility suffers greatly if outdoors despite the bump in brightness. Additionally, our test unit suffers from heavy uneven backlight bleeding along the top right corner as shown by the picture below.
Asus says any ScreenPad suggestions or potential app developers should contact [email protected]
| ScreenPad Plus | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% | 45.6 ms combined |
| Response Time Black / White * | 40.4 ms combined |
| Brightness Middle | 399.8 nits (354.4 if on battery power) |
| Contrast | 1176:1 |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 | 4.18 |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. | 8.86 |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated | 4.00 |
| Greyscale DeltaE2000 | 1.4 |
| Gamma | 2.22 |
| CCT | 6435 |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 37.9 percent |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 59.8 percent |
Performance
Configurations max out at the Core i7-1165G7 with no AMD Ryzen SKUs since this is an Intel Evo product. Nonetheless, the GeForce MX450 is optional should users want more graphics horsepower. It's interesting to see an Nvidia option but no Intel Xe Max option unlike on the recent Dell Inspiron 7506 2-in-1.
RAM is soldered and so buyers should select their configurations carefully.
Our system was set to Performance mode via the MyAsus application prior to running all performance benchmarks below for the highest possible scores. We recommend owners become familiar with the Asus software since almost all features and vendor updates can be toggled here.
Processor
CPU performance is better than expected at 15 percent higher than the average Core i7-1165G7 in our database. This delta is wide enough to outperform even the more expensive Core i7-1185G7 as found on the new MSI Prestige 14 Evo or Dell XPS 13 9310. Performance sustainability is also good with no major dips in clock rates over time as shown by our CineBench R15 xT loop graph below.
Note that the Core i5-1135G7 is only about 10 percent slower than the Core i7-1165G7 meaning users won't see that big of a CPU performance difference by going with the less expensive Core i5 option.
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 -mmt1 | 7z b 4
Geekbench 5.4: Single-Core | Multi-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 -mmt1 | 7z b 4
Geekbench 5.4: Single-Core | Multi-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
* ... smaller is better
System Performance
PCMark benchmarks are where we expect them to be relative to other laptops with the same Core i7-1165G7 CPU and integrated Iris Xe graphics. Though we didn't experience any software or hardware issues with our test unit, Asus has integrated a lot of software overlays and settings that users may not like. Wireless, for example, will automatically connect to any available network even if the "connect automatically" Windows box is unchecked.
| PCMark 8 | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-1165G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (3769 - 5686, n=17) | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA | |
| Lenovo Yoga 9i 14ITL5 | |
| Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA | |
| Lenovo Yoga 9i 14ITL5 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-1165G7, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (2431 - 3221, n=15) | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4413 points | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 3118 points | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 4957 points | |
Help | ||
DPC Latency
LatencyMon shows no DPC latency issues when browsing our homepage with multiple tabs open. When Prime95 is initiated, however, the interrupt to process latency would spike. 4K UHD video playback at 60 FPS is otherwise smooth and with no dropped frames during our minute-long YouTube test.
| DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL | |
| Lenovo Yoga 9i 14ITL5 | |
| MSI Prestige 14 Evo A11M-005 | |
| Asus VivoBook S14 S433FL | |
| Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA | |
| Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG | |
* ... smaller is better
Storage Devices
Though our test unit comes with a 512 GB SK Hynix PCIe 3 x4 NVMe SSD, users may receive Intel 660p or Samsung SSDs instead depending on the retailer or region. Benchmarks show this to be a high-end SSD with transfer rates reaching north of 3000 MB/s similar to the Samsung PM981a.
| Asus ZenBook Duo 14 UX482EA SK Hynix HFM512GD3JX013N | MSI Prestige 14 Evo A11M-005 Phison 512GB SM280512GKBB4S-E162 | Lenovo Yoga 9i 14ITL5 Samsung SSD PM981a MZVLB256HBHQ | Asus Zenbook 14 UX435EG Samsung PM981a MZVLB1T0HBLR | Asus VivoBook S14 S433FL Intel Optane Memory H10 with Solid State Storage 32GB + 512GB HBRPEKNX0202A(L/H) | Asus ZenBook Duo UX481FL Intel SSD 660p 1TB SSDPEKNW010T8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | 35% | -18% | 36% | -44% | -22% | |
| Seq Read | 2088 | 3760 80% | 2177 4% | 2861 37% | 957 -54% | 1237 -41% |
| Seq Write | 1311 | 2335 78% | 813 -38% | 2837 116% | 353.1 -73% | 1069 -18% |
| 4K Read | 58.2 | 66.8 15% | 53.2 -9% | 60.3 4% | 62.4 7% | 52.1 -10% |
| 4K Write | 128.4 | 184.3 44% | 180 40% | 164.2 28% | 122.8 -4% | 134.7 5% |
| 4K-64 Read | 1039 | 1801 73% | 531 -49% | 1598 54% | 386.2 -63% | 585 -44% |
| 4K-64 Write | 1238 | 1754 42% | 398.5 -68% | 1572 27% | 605 -51% | 854 -31% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.045 | 0.135 -200% | 0.052 -16% | 0.046 -2% | 0.107 -138% | 0.05 -11% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.088 | 0.018 80% | 0.058 34% | 0.021 76% | 0.046 48% | 0.117 -33% |
| Score Read | 1306 | 2244 72% | 802 -39% | 1945 49% | 544 -58% | 761 -42% |
| Score Write | 1497 | 2172 45% | 660 -56% | 2020 35% | 763 -49% | 1095 -27% |
| Score Total | 3446 | 5500 60% | 1822 -47% | 4966 44% | 1581 -54% | 2255 -35% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 2248 | 1962 -13% | 2414 7% | 1714 -24% | ||
| Copy Program MB/s | 559 | 522 -7% | 575 3% | 511 -9% | ||
| Copy Game MB/s | 1087 | 1258 16% | 1408 30% | 1187 9% | ||
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | 59% | 10% | 57% | 16% | 2% | |
| Write 4K | 72.1 | 248.4 245% | 139.6 94% | 211.8 194% | 124.9 73% | 140.7 95% |
| Read 4K | 41.1 | 56.4 37% | 37.3 -9% | 50.1 22% | 147.9 260% | 55.6 35% |
| Write Seq | 1949 | 2513 29% | 1827 -6% | 2938 51% | 753 -61% | 1415 -27% |
| Read Seq | 1989 | 2250 13% | 2253 13% | 2639 33% | 1223 -39% | 1516 -24% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 413.8 | 589 42% | 467.9 13% | 656 59% | 369.2 -11% | 474.5 15% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 384.2 | 696 81% | 366.7 -5% | 723 88% | 358.1 -7% | 403.4 5% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 2816 | 2515 -11% | 2349 -17% | 3022 7% | 1057 -62% | 1796 -36% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 3534 | 4915 39% | 3540 0% | 3561 1% | 2738 -23% | 1913 -46% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 47% /
45% | -4% /
-8% | 47% /
44% | -14% /
-19% | -10% /
-13% |
* ... smaller is better
Disk Throttling: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8
GPU Performance
Raw graphics performance is excellent according to 3DMark benchmarks with scores that are higher than the GeForce MX350. Nonetheless, actual gaming performance will vary wildly as we've already proven. This means that users upgrading to the optional GeForce MX450 will see better overall gaming performance than the Iris Xe even if their 3DMark numbers can be neck-to-neck.
Opting for the lesser Core i5-1135G7 SKU with the Iris Xe 80 EUs will entail a 15 to 20 percent GPU performance penalty from the Core i7-1165G7 Xe 96 EUs.
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 7379 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 18433 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 5008 points | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 1781 points | |
Help | ||