Asus Memo Pad FHD 10
Average of 18 scores (from 23 reviews)
Reviews for the Asus Memo Pad FHD 10
High-resolution x86 Android. An FHD resolution and the still uncommon for Android x86 processor lets the Memo Pad FHD stick out of the crowd. But how will the device fare when examined closely?
Source: Tablet PC2 - Heft 4/2014
Das Experiment, ein Intel-basiertes Tablet mit Android-Betriebssystem zu bestücken, ist Asus mit dem MeMO Pad FHD10 perfekt gelungen. Elegant kann sich das Tablet jetzt aufs Siegerpodest schwingen.
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 07/01/2014
Rating: Total score: 98%
Source: Laptop Mag
ASUS' $329 MeMO Pad FHD 10 offers an attractive design, some useful apps and utilities, and excellent battery life. Unfortunately, its 1920 x 1200-pixel display is disappointingly dim, and its Intel Atom processor can be sluggish during everyday use.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 09/16/2013
Rating: Total score: 60%
Source: PC Advisor
The ASUS MeMO Pad FHD 10 runs the Android 4.2 Jelly Bean version of Android though ASUS does pre-load a number of its own apps. These include SuperNote Lite, and the ASUS Studio photo editing utility. There's also the addition of Miracast compatibility, which allows video to be streamed wirelessly to a compatible TV.
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 08/23/2013
As a budget tablet, the Memo Pad HD 7 perfectly fits the bill. It's fast enough, has all the features you'd expect and a particularly vibrant screen. It's keenly priced and generally offers an excellent user experience. It's also light enough to use comfortably for extended periods. There's no 3G or 4G version of the HD 7 available, so if accessing the internet on the move is a priority, the Asus FonePad is probably the most viable option, despite its lack of camera and slightly inferior performance and audio/visual quality.
Single Review, online available, Very Long, Date: 01/17/2013
Rating: Total score: 70% price: 80% performance: 60% features: 80% workmanship: 60%
Source: SFT - Heft 3/2014
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 02/01/2014
Rating: Total score: 92%
Source: Chip (Print) - Heft 2/2014
Review Type Unknown, , Very Short, Date: 01/01/2014
Rating: Total score: 87% features: 79% display: 90% mobility: 79% emissions: 84%
Source: Computerbild - Heft 24/2013
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 11/16/2013
Rating: Total score: 98%
Source: Stiftung Warentest - Heft 12/2013
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 11/01/2013
Rating: Total score: 88%
Source: Cyberbloc DE→EN
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/02/2013
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Mobicroco DE→EN
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 10/01/2013
Rating: Total score: 81% features: 81% workmanship: 78% ergonomy: 83%
Source: SFT - Heft 10/2013
Single Review, , Length Unknown, Date: 09/01/2013
Rating: Total score: 93%
Source: Onlinekosten.de DE→EN
Positive: low priced tablet; high quality workmanship; fast handling Negative: mediocre camera; low brightness
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/11/2013
Rating: Total score: 70%
Source: Netzwelt DE→EN
Positive: successful allround package; good display; very good internet connection
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 08/29/2013
Source: Onlinekosten.de DE→EN
Positive: very good display; clear resolution and colours; device made for users who read frequently
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 08/08/2013
Rating: Total score: 90%
Source: Hispazone ES→EN
Comparison, online available, Very Long, Date: 08/28/2013
Source: Techzilla.it IT→EN
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 04/01/2014
Rating: Total score: 79% price: 80% performance: 70% display: 90% mobility: 90% workmanship: 80% ergonomy: 80%
Source: PCM NL→EN
Single Review, online available, Very Short, Date: 10/22/2013
Rating: Total score: 80%
Source: Tablety PL→EN
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 09/30/2013
Rating: Total score: 83%
Source: PC Lab.pl PL→EN
Positive: Good speakers; good GPS; good design. Negative: Mediocre glossy display; relatively short battery life; no HDMI.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 01/23/2014
Source: Zoom RU→EN
Positive: Very good ergonomics, performance, quality, and screen.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 12/25/2013
Source: Wikitech HU→EN
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 11/27/2013
Rating: Total score: 80% workmanship: 100% ergonomy: 100%
Source: Geeks.hu HU→EN
Positive: Very powerful hardware and extra software; colors and viewing angles of the display.
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 11/12/2013
The Asus Memo Pad FHD 10 is the latest 10 inch tablet offering from Asus. The plastic casing is well designed and sturdy, managing to give off an impression of quality. Weighing in at 0.57 kg, this is a light device for its class, but its dimensions are quite bulky despite low weight. Dual core Intel Atom Z2560 with a clock speed of 0.933 GHz and generous 2 GB of memory makes for decent performance, though the PowerVR SGX544 responsible for graphics is less than one might hope for at this price. Most tasks should run smoothly, with only a few minor instances of lag, but the most demanding games will tax this system just slightly beyond its capabilities.
A plastic stand is included with the device, for those who wish to display their devices on a desk. Weight and design of the cheaply made stand causes it to be precarious if used in portrait mode. The display is a 10.1 inch, 16:10 resolution with 1920x1200 pixels. 10 point multi touch is supported and it works smoothly, but unfortunately the automatic orientation switching can be a little stilted and slow. While 240 dpi is a pixel density that falls behind compared to similar devices out there on the market, the visuals are rendered well, with nice blacks and good contrast by this IPS screen. The battery life is on the tolerable side, lasting approximately 7 hours of light to moderate use. Overall, this is a decent device, but nothing really makes it stand out above other similarly priced devices.PowerVR SGX544MP2: OpenGL ES 2.0 compatible with 8 pixel and 4 vertex shaders These graphics cards are not suited for Windows 3D games. Office and Internet surfing however is possible. » Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Graphics Cards and the corresponding Benchmark List.
Intel Atom: The Intel Atom series is a 64-Bit (not every model supports 64bit) microprocessor for cheap and small notebooks (so called netbooks), MIDs, or UMPCs. The speciality of the new architecture is the "in order" execution (instead of the usual and faster "out of order" execution). Therefore, the transistor count of the Atom series is much lower and, thus, cheaper to produce. Furthermore, the power consumption is very low. The performance per Megahertz is therfore worse than the old Pentium 3M (1,2 GHz on par with a 1.6 GHz Atom).
Z2560: SoC with an integrated dual-core Atom based CPU clocked at 0.9 - 1.6 (short bursts), a 400 MHz PowerVR SGX 544MP2 graphics card, and a dual channel LPDDR2 memory controller.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
This is a typical display size for tablets and small convertibles.
Large display-sizes allow higher resolutions. So, details like letters are bigger. On the other hand, the power consumption is lower with small screen diagonals and the devices are smaller, more lightweight and cheaper.
This weight is typical for small tablets.
Asus: ASUSTeK Computer Incorporated, a Taiwanese multinational company, produces motherboards, graphics cards, optical drives, PDAs, computer monitors, notebook computers, servers, networking products, mobile phones, computer cases, computer components, and computer cooling systems. The company's 2007 revenues reached US$6.9 billion. ASUS also produces components for other manufacturers. The Eee PC initiated the netbook boom in 2008.
In the notebook sector, Asus had a global market share of about 11% from 2014-2016, making it the fourth largest laptop manufacturer. In the smartphone sector, Asus is not among the Top 5 and has only a small market share (as of 2016).
82.61%: This rating should be considered to be average. This is because the proportion of notebooks which have a higher rating is approximately equal to the proportion which have a lower rating.
» Further information can be found in our Notebook Purchase Guide.