Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarAcer Swift 5 Laptop Review: An all-round improvement for the 14-inch ultrabook
The new 14-inch Swift 5 has been put through its paces in our series of tests. Inside, it is equipped with a new processor and a slightly stronger graphics unit - the predecessor was criticized for its extreme throttling, which even prevented it from keeping up with its own predecessor, let alone its competition.
The manufacturer also seems to have taken some other points of criticism into consideration. For example, Acer has now given the device a larger battery. The Swift looks much the same on the outside - the real changes are in the details.
Similarly to its predecessor, the new Swift weighs less than 1 kg, which beats most of the competition. We will be comparing our test unit with its predecessor, the Acer Swift 7, available for double the price, and the Acer TravelMate X514, as well as the LG Gram and the Asus ZenBook 14.
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86.3 % | 01/2020 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U i5-1035G1, UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) | 943 g | 14.95 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 84.3 % | 06/2018 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620 | 930 g | 15 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 84.2 % | 11/2019 | Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR i7-8500Y, UHD Graphics 615 | 890 g | 9.95 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 83.9 % | 11/2019 | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620 | 980 g | 15 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 84.8 % | 02/2019 | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620 | 1.2 kg | 15.9 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 85 % | 04/2019 | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620 | 994 g | 15.2 mm | 14.00" | 1920x1080 |
Case - changes in the details of the Acer ultrabook
At first glance, there don't seem to be any visual differences between the last Swift 5 and the current test unit. However, if you take a closer look, you will see some changes in the details - and that is good. After all, we criticized the gap dimensions on the display bezel and the badly positioned ports on the predecessor.
The former now seems to have been dealt with - the panel sits tight in its frame and we didn't notice any gaps - the workmanship appears to be of higher quality. The hinges have also changed, although the new ones have the slight disadvantage that the device can no longer be opened to 180 degrees.
The bezels are now even slimmer and the worrisome creaking of the predecessor has been dealt with. The case seems to be solid and stable. The battery is not accessible from the outside and the bottom cover is secured with torx screws.
Compared to the "old" Swift 5, the new model has shrunk further - albeit without reaching the size of the record-breaking Swift 7. Due to a lack of competition (except for the LG Gram), the Swift 5 continues to be one of the smallest and in particular lightest 14-inch ultrabooks with an active cooling fan available.
Connectivity - stingy Swift with better port positioning
The lacking port selection remains the same. Instead, Acer has dealt with the issue of bad port positioning. On the predecessor, almost all ports were positioned on the right side and were therefore bothersome for right-handed users using a mouse. Now there is only one USB Type-A slot and the audio jack on this side - the other two USB slots have been moved to the left side, which makes the distribution of ports more even. The device continues to lack a LAN connector, only offering Wi-Fi. Unfortunately, the card reader is still missing and we would welcome the current USB Type-A port being exchanged for a 3.1 slot in the next version. At least the USB slot now supports Thunderbolt.
Communication
Thanks to the new Intel modem that supports Wi-Fi 6, our test unit can now offer increased internet speeds. The new version is twice as fast at sending data as its predecessor and more than three times as fast when receiving. However, we also recorded several big spikes in both directions. Bluetooth is included in version 5.0.
Security
The device has a Kensington lock as well as TPM and a fingerprint sensor, which is positioned below the arrow keys, just like with the predecessor.
Accessories
Acer is not very generous in terms of accessories, including only the usual components.
Maintenance
The bottom cover is held in place by 11 torx screws. Luckily, removing the cover after unscrewing the screws is a lot easier than it is on most of the competition. Once this is done, users will have access to the battery, the single cooling fan, the SSD etc. Unfortunately, the 8-GB RAM module cannot be exchanged or upgraded as it is firmly soldered on.
Warranty
The manufacturer gives users a two-year warranty including a mail-in service (at least for the first year).
Input Devices - everything remains the same
Keyboard
We criticized several aspects of the predecessor's keyboard - but not much has changed. The layout has remained the same, including the very narrow arrow keys that have to share their spot with the Page up/down and Pos1/End keys, the reversed brightness symbols, and the integrated power key next to delete.
We were pleased with the noticeable pressure point and the fact that typing is easy and quick. The typing noise seems to have improved and is now thoroughly acceptable with only the space bar being a little louder. The base unit remains stable while typing and hardly gives way. We are also pleased with the backlighting, which now offers two brightness levels.
Touchpad
The touchpad has good gliding properties and is sufficiently large. It easily recognizes the various gestures.
However, the integrated keys continue to be slightly difficult to use and comparably loud.
Touchscreen
The laptop can also be used via its touchscreen. This is very intuitive and easy to use. The only criticism we had last time was that the laptop tended to tilt backwards when inputs were made with increased pressure. We no longer noticed this issue while testing the new model. The hinges now give way more easily under strong pressure, leaving the base unit in place.
Display - new Acer is brighter and better
The predecessor's display wasn't bad, although it did have a few weaknesses in terms of brightness. Again, Acer has chosen to use a panel from AU Optronics. However, this new model has a matte surface rather than a reflective one.
The brightness has also improved: The device's average brightness is now the second best in the entire comparison field - only the LG Gram is brighter by around 5%. Luckily, this does not have a negative impact on other aspects. The brightness distribution continues to be good at 84% (predecessor had 86%).
We did notice some slight backlight bleeding around the edges. However, this is rather weak and will only be noticeable in very dark surroundings and with black content.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 84 %
Center on Battery: 320 cd/m²
Contrast: 1387:1 (Black: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.53 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5, calibrated: 2.67
ΔE Greyscale 2.22 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
95% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
62% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
69.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
94.7% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
68.6% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.54
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U AU Optronics AUO253D, IPS, CineCrystal, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY AU Optronics AUO203D, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR AU Optronics B140HAN06.0, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q Chi mei CMN14D5, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 LG Philips LP140WF7-SPG1, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T AU Optronics B140HAN03.2, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 3% | 3% | 0% | -4% | -6% | |
| Display P3 Coverage | 68.6 | 69.7 2% | 69.9 2% | 67 -2% | 64.7 -6% | 63.5 -7% |
| sRGB Coverage | 94.7 | 97.1 3% | 99.4 5% | 98.9 4% | 94.3 0% | 90.9 -4% |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 69.2 | 71 3% | 71 3% | 68.6 -1% | 66 -5% | 64.6 -7% |
| Response Times | 25% | -6% | 16% | 14% | 12% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 47 ? | 37 ? 21% | 55 ? -17% | 40 ? 15% | 36.8 ? 22% | 42 ? 11% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 32 ? | 23 ? 28% | 30 ? 6% | 27 ? 16% | 30 ? 6% | 28 ? 12% |
| PWM Frequency | 250 ? | |||||
| Screen | -25% | 3% | -6% | -23% | -46% | |
| Brightness middle | 319 | 254 -20% | 296 -7% | 295 -8% | 333.8 5% | 321 1% |
| Brightness | 292 | 231 -21% | 272 -7% | 276 -5% | 307 5% | 282 -3% |
| Brightness Distribution | 84 | 86 2% | 79 -6% | 82 -2% | 83 -1% | 77 -8% |
| Black Level * | 0.23 | 0.25 -9% | 0.095 59% | 0.215 7% | 0.4 -74% | 0.2 13% |
| Contrast | 1387 | 1016 -27% | 3116 125% | 1372 -1% | 835 -40% | 1605 16% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.53 | 3.85 -52% | 3.1 -23% | 2.6 -3% | 3.54 -40% | 6.35 -151% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.5 | 7.05 -28% | 6.2 -13% | 5.6 -2% | 5.8 -5% | 12.2 -122% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 2.67 | 3.66 -37% | 2.36 12% | 1.88 30% | ||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.22 | 4.1 -85% | 4.5 -103% | 3.4 -53% | 4.7 -112% | 8.35 -276% |
| Gamma | 2.54 87% | 2.43 91% | 2.15 102% | 2.08 106% | 2.14 103% | 2.51 88% |
| CCT | 6381 102% | 7369 88% | 7277 89% | 7192 90% | 6261 104% | 8227 79% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62 | 63 2% | 65 5% | 63 2% | 61.2 -1% | 59 -5% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 95 | 97 2% | 99 4% | 99 4% | 94.7 0% | 91 -4% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 1% /
-14% | 0% /
2% | 3% /
-2% | -4% /
-15% | -13% /
-32% |
* ... smaller is better
The black value and the contrast have both increased, although they cannot keep up with the Swift 7. We were also pleased with the grayscale and color deviation values: The latter are the lowest in our comparison.
We weren't quite as impressed with the panel's response rate.
Acer has dealt with all weaknesses that made it difficult for buyers of the predecessor to work outdoors. The display in the current test unit is sufficiently bright, the matte surface deals with the issue of disturbing reflections, and the black value and contrast have been further improved.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 32 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 18 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 14 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. » 84 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 47 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 26 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 78 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 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 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
The viewing-angle stability is as good as one would expect from an IPS panel. Content is clearly visible even from wide angles and without losing too much brightness or contrast.
Performance - Acer Swift deals with its performance aversion
The Swift 5 runs on an Intel Core i5-1035G1 with an integrated UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) which is still rather unknown. It also includes a 512-GB SSD from Kingston and 8 GB of RAM. Acer has finally used DDR4 RAM (unlike in the predecessor). Although the RAM continues to be firmly soldered on, at least it runs in dual-channel mode.
This makes the slim and light Swift 5 mainly suitable for office work and browsing, although the new processor including the new graphics unit does promise a little more performance than what the throttled predecessor had to offer. Users will not be able to play demanding games or do any intensive video-editing with this little Acer device, though.
The software LatencyMon gives good results for the Swift - it did not measure any significant latencies.
Processor
The processor in this device is the relatively new Intel Core i5-1035G1 - a particularly efficient quad-core CPU based on Ice Lake with a TDP that can be configured between 7.5 and 25 watt. The base clock rate is low at only 1 GHz, but the CPU can reach up to 3.6 GHz depending on the TDP configuration or 3.2 GHz for all four cores simultaneously. The chip now also includes several AI features as well as Wi-Fi 6 and Thunderbolt 3.
We noticed several things during the 30-minute Cinebench loop: First, the starting point is almost the same as with the predecessor, but the performance of the new Swift remains stable after the first few rounds rather than dropping like it did in the old Swift 5. Second: The predecessor had a short drop in performance around halfway that we never really knew how to explain. This can't have been a coincidence - the same happened with the new model.
Despite having started the loop right after turning on the device when it was still cold, the Swift 5 reached 560 instead of 518 points on battery. This indicates that the performance is not completely stable - after all, running the test on battery usually causes a drop in performance.
All in all the Swift 5 cannot outpace most of its competition despite their older CPUs although it did beat its predecessor and the Swift 7. The ZenBook 14 (Core i5-8265U) made first place. This indicates that there remains some throttling and that the Swift cannot make full use of its potential.
| Cinebench R10 | |
| Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (11845 - 82102, n=6, last 2 years) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U | |
| Average Intel Core i5-1035G1 () | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (13726 - 70566, n=6, last 2 years) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U | |
| Average Intel Core i5-1035G1 () | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
System Performance
The new Swift 5 offers good system performance. It easily beats its strongly throttled predecessor in the PCMark benchmarks and even makes first place in many scenarios. However, the competition (equipped with older CPUs) is usually not far behind. Nonetheless, there is a clear improvement in terms of system performance compared to the 2018 version of the Swift 5. Subjectively, we can confirm that all important everyday tasks run smoothly.
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3590 points | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4950 points | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 3807 points | |
Help | ||
Storage Device
The Swift uses a Kingston SSD with 512 GB of storage. This SSD is currently positioned at number 93 in our list of top storage devices. However, it does surprisingly well in our tests and manages to be placed at the top of our comparison table. Even the model in the Swift 7, which is twice as expensive as our test unit, cannot keep up according to our measurements. This must be one of the reasons for the good system performance results.
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ1 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR SK Hynix BC501 HFM512GDJTNG | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1 | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 SK Hynix SC313 HFS256G39TNF | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | Average Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6 | -29% | -33% | -10% | -54% | -7% | -9% | |
| Write 4K | 107.8 | 98 -9% | 48.38 -55% | 122.3 13% | 74.7 -31% | 99.9 -7% | 87.6 ? -19% |
| Read 4K | 45.42 | 33.88 -25% | 28.98 -36% | 45.51 0% | 14.89 -67% | 40.03 -12% | 40.3 ? -11% |
| Write Seq | 990 | 585 -41% | 743 -25% | 667 -33% | 502 -49% | 973 -2% | 941 ? -5% |
| Read Seq | 1129 | 1149 2% | 1027 -9% | 713 -37% | 498.6 -56% | 1111 -2% | 1070 ? -5% |
| Write 4K Q32T1 | 490.9 | 161.6 -67% | 94.6 -81% | 411.8 -16% | 214.3 -56% | 424.6 -14% | 418 ? -15% |
| Read 4K Q32T1 | 518 | 289.5 -44% | 300 -42% | 559 8% | 225.5 -56% | 255.9 -51% | 428 ? -17% |
| Write Seq Q32T1 | 1033 | 578 -44% | 870 -16% | 892 -14% | 505 -51% | 1300 26% | 1035 ? 0% |
| Read Seq Q32T1 | 1644 | 1563 -5% | 1640 0% | 1639 0% | 560 -66% | 1723 5% | 1629 ? -1% |
| AS SSD | -39% | -13% | -7% | -43% | -8% | -9% | |
| Seq Read | 1454 | 1382 -5% | 1437 -1% | 1222 -16% | 476.1 -67% | 1389 -4% | 1398 ? -4% |
| Seq Write | 939 | 576 -39% | 689 -27% | 775 -17% | 487.4 -48% | 795 -15% | 848 ? -10% |
| 4K Read | 54.6 | 24.72 -55% | 42.64 -22% | 54.8 0% | 30.57 -44% | 37.3 -32% | 45.1 ? -17% |
| 4K Write | 100.8 | 90.8 -10% | 112.8 12% | 114.4 13% | 66.1 -34% | 130.8 30% | 82.2 ? -18% |
| 4K-64 Read | 954 | 274.6 -71% | 488 -49% | 896 -6% | 352.9 -63% | 653 -32% | 852 ? -11% |
| 4K-64 Write | 707 | 192.2 -73% | 475.7 -33% | 604 -15% | 263.1 -63% | 605 -14% | 654 ? -7% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.075 | 0.054 | 0.092 | 0.114 | 0.04167 ? | ||
| Access Time Write * | 0.044 | 0.041 7% | 0.034 23% | 0.044 -0% | 0.055 -25% | 0.028 36% | 0.05333 ? -21% |
| Score Read | 1154 | 438 -62% | 674 -42% | 1073 -7% | 431 -63% | 829 -28% | 1037 ? -10% |
| Score Write | 902 | 341 -62% | 657 -27% | 796 -12% | 378 -58% | 815 -10% | 821 ? -9% |
| Score Total | 2635 | 969 -63% | 1653 -37% | 2411 -9% | 1040 -61% | 2048 -22% | 2372 ? -10% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 655 | 504 -23% | 873 33% | 514 -22% | 601 -8% | 655 ? 0% | |
| Copy Program MB/s | 262.2 | 226.7 -14% | 236 -10% | 259.3 -1% | 246.8 -6% | 262 ? 0% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 542 | 372.8 -31% | 572 6% | 521 -4% | 549 1% | 542 ? 0% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -34% /
-35% | -23% /
-21% | -9% /
-8% | -49% /
-47% | -8% /
-8% | -9% /
-9% |
* ... smaller is better
GPU Performance
The Acer Swift does not have a dedicated GPU, although the fairly new Intel UHD Graphics G1 is supposed to be faster than the usual UHD Graphics units.
The GPU did a remarkably good job in the synthetic 3DMark benchmark and is clearly faster than the competition equipped with the UHD Graphics 620. The lead amounts to 36% in 3DMark 11 with the ZenBook taking second place. The difference between our test unit and the old Swift 5 was a whole 77%. The results are similar in the Fire Strike test but the differences are a little smaller in Cloud Gate.
We did not notice any particular loss in performance when the device was running on battery.
| 3DMark 06 1280x800 Score | 12136 points | |
| 3DMark Vantage P Result | 8750 points | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 2730 points | |
| 3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score | 55398 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 9444 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 1614 points | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 512 points | |
Help | ||
Gaming Performance
Even if Intel has managed to get a little more performance out of its UHD Graphics G1, the Swift will never be ideal for gaming. Users will be able to play undemanding games at medium settings at the most. More-demanding titles such as The Witcher 3 can hardly be displayed smoothly even at the lowest settings. The Swift reaches an average of 27 fps using these settings although the high variability of the frame rate make the subjective gaming experience hardly appear smooth.
Rocket League is a little more promising. Users could potentially even manage to play it at Full HD with medium details. BioShock can also be displayed at medium details although the resolution would have to be reduced to 1366x768.
Again, the competition cannot keep up. The difference to the old Swift 5 is 50% in most cases (Rocket League) or even 100% (The Witcher 3). This makes the comparison with the AMD Vega more interesting.
| The Witcher 3 | |
| 1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (37 - 249, n=53, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) (26.8 - 35, n=6) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U | |
| Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| 1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (29 - 264, n=46, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) (16.4 - 21.6, n=5) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY | |
| Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR | |
| 1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) | |
| Average of class Subnotebook (11.2 - 92, n=56, last 2 years) | |
| Average Intel UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) (7 - 11.5, n=5) | |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U | |
| low | med. | high | ultra | |
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 75.9 | 42.1 | 33.6 | 12.9 |
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 27 | 17.9 | 7 | |
| Rocket League (2017) | 54.8 | 37 | 24 |
Emissions - Calm and cool ultrabook
System Noise
The new Swift 5 remains nicely calm throughout our tests. While it isn't silent, the cooling fans are hardly noticeable even under load. But then that is what business users would expect and all competitors in today's field are similarly quiet. We did not notice any beeping or other noises coming from our test unit.
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), i5-1035G1, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ1 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, SK Hynix SC313 HFS256G39TNF | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q UHD Graphics 620, i5-8265U, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1 | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T UHD Graphics 620, i5-8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | -1% | 2% | -1% | 0% | |
| off / environment * | 30.3 | 30.3 -0% | 28.2 7% | 30.4 -0% | 30.5 -1% |
| Idle Minimum * | 30.3 | 30.3 -0% | 28.4 6% | 30.4 -0% | 30.5 -1% |
| Idle Average * | 30.3 | 30.3 -0% | 28.4 6% | 30.4 -0% | 30.5 -1% |
| Idle Maximum * | 30.6 | 31.2 -2% | 28.4 7% | 30.4 1% | 30.9 -1% |
| Load Average * | 32 | 33.1 -3% | 35.7 -12% | 34.1 -7% | 32.7 -2% |
| Load Maximum * | 33.7 | 34.4 -2% | 34.2 -1% | 34.4 -2% | 31.5 7% |
* ... smaller is better
Noise Level
| Idle |
| 30.3 / 30.3 / 30.6 dB(A) |
| Load |
| 32 / 33.7 dB(A) |
 | ||
30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance) environment noise: 30.3 dB(A) | ||
Temperature
The surface temperatures are at room temperature while idling. When the device is put under maximum load, its temperatures reach a maximum value of 42 °C on the bottom - the top remains slightly cooler. This surface temperature should not prevent users from placing the device on their lap at any time. The competition can get a little hotter. The wrist rests, which are very important for everyday use, remain cool even under load with the heat development occurring mainly towards the back, near the display. Even there the heat is well distributed along the entire width of the device.
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), i5-1035G1, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ1 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR UHD Graphics 615, i7-8500Y, SK Hynix BC501 HFM512GDJTNG | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q UHD Graphics 620, i5-8265U, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1 | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, SK Hynix SC313 HFS256G39TNF | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T UHD Graphics 620, i5-8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | -9% | -18% | -6% | -7% | -1% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 40 | 42.9 -7% | 55 -38% | 44.9 -12% | 45.2 -13% | 41 -3% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 42.1 | 44.9 -7% | 51.4 -22% | 44.2 -5% | 41.4 2% | 41.4 2% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 25.4 | 28.4 -12% | 27.1 -7% | 26.3 -4% | 26.8 -6% | 26.1 -3% |
| Idle Bottom * | 26.1 | 28.5 -9% | 27.1 -4% | 26.6 -2% | 29 -11% | 25.8 1% |
* ... smaller is better
Our one-hour stress test had a similar result as that of the predecessor: The Acer already starts off at below its base clock rate - only this time the base rate is no longer 1.6 GHz but 1 GHz and therefore the deviation is not quite as dramatic. After one hour the clock rates drop by another 100 MHz. Overall, Acer's new Swift 5 continues to throttle quite strongly, although the new CPU seems to deal with this fairly well - at least compared to the processor in the old Swift 5. Future competitors could be more powerful - provided they experience less throttling. The core temperatures still have a little breathing space and reach around 70 - 75 °C.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 35.9 °C / 97 F, ranging from 21.4 to 59 °C for the class Subnotebook.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 42.1 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 39.4 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.7 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 30.7 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 30 °C / 86 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (-1.7 °C / -3.1 F).
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), i5-1035G1, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ1 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7 | Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR UHD Graphics 615, i7-8500Y, SK Hynix BC501 HFM512GDJTNG | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q UHD Graphics 620, i5-8265U, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1 | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U, SK Hynix SC313 HFS256G39TNF | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T UHD Graphics 620, i5-8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | -9% | -18% | -6% | -7% | -1% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 40 | 42.9 -7% | 55 -38% | 44.9 -12% | 45.2 -13% | 41 -3% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 42.1 | 44.9 -7% | 51.4 -22% | 44.2 -5% | 41.4 2% | 41.4 2% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 25.4 | 28.4 -12% | 27.1 -7% | 26.3 -4% | 26.8 -6% | 26.1 -3% |
| Idle Bottom * | 26.1 | 28.5 -9% | 27.1 -4% | 26.6 -2% | 29 -11% | 25.8 1% |
* ... smaller is better
Speakers
The speakers do a very good job at reproducing highs but leave room for improvement for other frequencies. The volume of the stereo speakers is too low overall and bass tones are hardly audible. Mids are balanced but uninspiring. Of course, speakers in a case of this size tend to have a hard time anyway, but the MacBook Pro shows that there are better solutions out there.
External audio devices can be connected via USB or the combined audio jack.
Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (69.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 82% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 74% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% 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
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Energy Management - more stamina despite higher demands
Power Consumption
The Swift 5 subnotebook does not require a lot of power in general but still doesn't compare well with its competitors. It has a higher consumption while idling and its predecessor was 30% more economical on average. Only the Asus has a similar level of power consumption.
Peak loads remain below 30 watt, which means that the 65-watt AC adapter provides more than enough power for this device.
| Off / Standby | 0.43 / 0.47 Watt |
| Idle | 4.3 / 7.5 / 8.9 Watt |
| Load |
29 / 29.4 Watt |
   
| |
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U i5-1035G1, UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), Kingston RBUSNS8154P3512GJ1, IPS, CineCrystal, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR i7-8500Y, UHD Graphics 615, SK Hynix BC501 HFM512GDJTNG, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620, Kingston RBUSNS8154P3256GJ1, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, SK Hynix SC313 HFS256G39TNF, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G, IPS, 1920x1080, 14.00 | Average Intel UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) | Average of class Subnotebook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 30% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% | -9% | -45% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 4.3 | 2.8 35% | 2.7 37% | 2.3 47% | 2.7 37% | 2.7 37% | 4.13 ? 4% | 4.9 ? -14% |
| Idle Average * | 7.5 | 4.8 36% | 4.9 35% | 4.6 39% | 6 20% | 5.8 23% | 7.07 ? 6% | 8.36 ? -11% |
| Idle Maximum * | 8.9 | 6.3 29% | 5.8 35% | 5.8 35% | 6.5 27% | 10.2 -15% | 8.36 ? 6% | 10.4 ? -17% |
| Load Average * | 29 | 21 28% | 15.7 46% | 22.4 23% | 32.5 -12% | 34.9 -20% | 30.6 ? -6% | 45.9 ? -58% |
| Load Maximum * | 29.4 | 23 22% | 21.7 26% | 29 1% | 35.5 -21% | 35 -19% | 45.6 ? -55% | 66 ? -124% |
* ... smaller is better
Battery Life
The battery has a capacity of 56 Wh and is supposed to last 12 hours. Acer had installed a 36-Wh battery in the last model, which had a negative impact on the battery life. Fortunately, we've got the larger capacity back this time.
The laptop managed at least 2 h 14 m in the synthetic tests (all power guzzlers turned on, high load) and a maximum of 14 h 45 m (minimum brightness, all power-saving options turned on, minimum load).
The Swift lasted almost 8 hours in the more important Wi-Fi test (performance set to two-thirds, brightness to 150 cd/m², browsing the web). The predecessor only managed just over 5 hours, so this is a clear improvement.
The video test (minimum performance, brightness set to 150 cd/m², H.264-encoded video in a loop) lasted just over 8 hours on our new Swift.
The improved battery life is only really noticeable in our Wi-Fi test - after all, the new model also consumes almost 30% more power. That was probably one of the main reasons Acer decided to switch back to a larger battery. Of the other competitors only the TravelMate does worse with a difference of around 11%. The Swift 7 manages around 26% longer runtimes despite having a smaller battery (31 Wh).
| Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U i5-1035G1, UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), 56 Wh | Acer Swift 5 SF514-52T-59HY i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 36 Wh | Acer Swift 7 SF714-52T-76MR i7-8500Y, UHD Graphics 615, 31.9 Wh | Acer TravelMate X514-51-511Q i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620, 36 Wh | LG Gram 14Z980-U.AAW5U1 i5-8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 72 Wh | Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T i5-8265U, UHD Graphics 620, 50 Wh | Average of class Subnotebook | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -4% | 26% | -11% | 75% | 20% | 31% | |
| Reader / Idle | 885 | 962 9% | 1273 44% | 1075 21% | 2238 153% | 1252 ? 41% | |
| H.264 | 485 | 466 -4% | 631 30% | 794 ? 64% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 468 | 313 -33% | 526 12% | 378 -19% | 720 54% | 563 20% | 629 ? 34% |
| Load | 134 | 150 12% | 160 19% | 88 -34% | 159 19% | 115.4 ? -14% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - good upgrade from Acer
We must compliment Acer for accepting and responding to criticism. The manufacturer has made many changes in the right places - and the result is impressive.
Most importantly, Acer has finally managed to get the performance right again. Our test unit was able to easily keep up with its competition - unlike its highly throttled predecessor. We are also pleased with the display that is finally brighter and has a matte surface. The increased brightness does not impact the contrast ratio, which has improved as well. Another positive change is the return to a larger battery and thus a longer battery life for the system. We were also surprised by the good SSD and general system performance as well as the 3D performance, which can beat the competition equipped with older Intel UHD Graphics chips. The faster Wi-Fi and the integration of Thunderbolt 3 complete the list of positives.
There is not much we can criticize about the current Swift 5. The USB 2.0 port could have been swapped for a more modern USB standard and the card reader is missing again. The port selection is also more limited than on other ultrabooks. We would also like to mention that the RAM is soldered on, which means that it cannot be exchanged or expanded. The power consumption has increased, which means that the battery life is average at best despite the larger battery capacity. The performance itself has improved, but the device still doesn't manage to make the most out of its CPU. But this can be put down to the usual necessary compromise between performance and cooling, which Acer has solved quite well for the Swift 5.
A lot of praise and hardly any criticism for the new Swift 5. The 14-inch ultrabook is small and light, has a good touch screen and it offers the right performance. It seems to have been given a useful all-round upgrade compared to its predecessor.
Considering these results, we are happy to recommend the new Acer, which is currently available for around $900.
Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U
-
01/09/2020 v7
Christian Hintze
More articles related to this device
Acer Swift 5 SF514-54T-501U (Swift 5 SF514 Series)Related Articles
Pricecompare
