Notebookcheck

Asus VivoBook 14 (i5-8265U, MX230, FHD) Laptop Review

Nino Ricchizzi, 👁 Sebastian Jentsch, T. Hinum (translated by Stephanie Chamberlain), 04/29/2019

Pascal is pulling out all the stops. The new all-rounder from Asus arms itself with a mid-range graphics card to tackle the multimedia world. The new VivoBook is not only slim and sleek but is also fast. However, the Asus product must admit defeat in certain aspects of the competition.

The Asus VivoBook series is expanded with a 14-inch slim ultrabook equipped with a dedicated Nvidia GeForce MX230 graphics unit. Inside we can find an economical Intel Core i5-8265U. Furthermore, our review device comes with 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD and a matte Full HD display. The price point for this configuration is around 800 Euros (~$896). The exterior of the Asus laptop is similar to the Asus ZenBook series that we already thoroughly tested (Asus ZenBook 14 UX433FA (i5-8265U, SSD, FHD)Asus ZenBook 14 UX433F (i7-8565U)). Similar components are also to be found inside, which is why the comparison will be drawn again and again over the course of this review.

Whether the new VivoBook is good, we'll find out by comparing it to the competition. The HP ProBook 430 G6 is available for a similar price, but it has no dedicated graphics unit. At this point, the question of whether the dedicated GPU adds value is raised. In addition, we want to compare the new built-in graphics unit with older generation models like the Nvidia GeForce 940MX and MX150.

Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T (VivoBook 14 Series)
Processor
Intel Core i5-8265U, 4 cores, 15 Watts TDP
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce MX230 - 2048 MB, Core: 1510 MHz, Memory: 1502 MHz, GDDR5, 25.21.14.1735 (NVIDIA 417.35)
Memory
8192 MB 
, Dual-Channel (4GB soldered + 4GB), 1/1 slots occupied
Display
14 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 157 PPI, AU Optronics AUO403D B140HAN04.0, IPS, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel Cannon Lake-U PCH-LP Premium
Storage
Kingston RBU-SNS8180DS3512GJ, 512 GB 
, M.2 SSD
Soundcard
Intel Cannon Lake-LP - cAVS
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: Combo audio, Card Reader: MicroSD, 1 Fingerprint Reader
Networking
Realtek 8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 19 x 322 x 212 ( = 0.75 x 12.68 x 8.35 in)
Battery
37 Wh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo speakers, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
1.46 kg ( = 51.5 oz / 3.22 pounds), Power Supply: 200 g ( = 7.05 oz / 0.44 pounds)
Price
800 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case and connectivity

For a price of 800 Euros (~$896), customers get a plastic case with a sandblasted aluminum look. Nevertheless, the dark aluminum finish manages to look classy. The workmanship and feel are satisfactory due to the rounded corners. The only gripe is that the back of the display can be pressed with little effort. When opening the lid, the hinges feel sturdy. The screen does not bounce too much and the keyboard becomes slightly raised, which has a positive effect on the typing experience. In short, the case here can be considered as the plastic equivalent of the metal case found on the ZenBooks.

Thanks to its compact construction and a weight of only 1,460 grams, the Asus VivoBook is a pleasant companion for all occasions.

There are no special hatches available for maintenance. In order to be able to take a look at the interior, the whole bottom cover must be removed. The fact that the manufacturer did not intend this for end users is proved by the inclusion of a concealed screw that isn't directly accessible.

The built-in SD card reader shows, as on the ZenBook series, considerable weaknesses. The review device reaches with read speeds of 25 MB/s around a third of the average seen on laptops from the same category.

On the other hand, the Wi-Fi module (Realtek chip RTL8822BE) is fast. According to the datasheet, gross rates of up to 866 Mb/s are reached. The VivoBook 14 attained values of over 600 Mb/s in our practical tests.

The VivoBook looks familiar.
The VivoBook looks familiar.
The design is inspired on the more expensive ZenBook products.
However, budget offerings...
... only use plastic.
The workmanship is nonetheless solid.

Size comparison

328 mm / 12.9 inch 229 mm / 9.02 inch 17.6 mm / 0.693 inch 1.6 kg3.53 lbs322 mm / 12.7 inch 212 mm / 8.35 inch 19 mm / 0.748 inch 1.5 kg3.22 lbs323 mm / 12.7 inch 221 mm / 8.7 inch 16 mm / 0.63 inch 1.4 kg3.18 lbs319 mm / 12.6 inch 199 mm / 7.83 inch 15.9 mm / 0.626 inch 1.2 kg2.62 lbs319 mm / 12.6 inch 199 mm / 7.83 inch 15.9 mm / 0.626 inch 1.2 kg2.6 lbs308.5 mm / 12.1 inch 231 mm / 9.09 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.4 kg3.17 lbs

Ports configuration

Right: SD card reader, 1x USB 2.0, Kensington lock
Right: SD card reader, 1x USB 2.0, Kensington lock
Left: power connector, HDMI connector, 1 x USB 3.0 Type-A, 1 x USB 3.0 Type-C, combo audio
Left: power connector, HDMI connector, 1 x USB 3.0 Type-A, 1 x USB 3.0 Type-C, combo audio
SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Dell Latitude 14 5495
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
116.6 MB/s ∼100% +574%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
75.6 MB/s ∼65% +337%
Average of class Multimedia
  (11.2 - 190, n=174)
57 MB/s ∼49% +229%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB)
36 MB/s ∼31% +108%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB)
17.3 MB/s ∼15%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Dell Latitude 14 5495
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
203.2 MB/s ∼100% +706%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
81.8 MB/s ∼40% +225%
Average of class Multimedia
  (10.2 - 253, n=171)
73.2 MB/s ∼36% +190%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB)
25.8 MB/s ∼13% +2%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB)
25.2 MB/s ∼12%
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
669 (min: 636, max: 689) MBit/s ∼100% +9%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
Realtek 8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
616 (min: 569, max: 634) MBit/s ∼92%
Honor Magicbook
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
540 (min: 268, max: 550) MBit/s ∼81% -12%
Dell Latitude 14 5495
Atheros/Qualcomm QCA6174
452 (min: 329, max: 553) MBit/s ∼68% -27%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
448 (min: 248, max: 548) MBit/s ∼67% -27%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
Realtek 8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
675 (min: 561, max: 737) MBit/s ∼100%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
659 (min: 585, max: 715) MBit/s ∼98% -2%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
653 (min: 322, max: 702) MBit/s ∼97% -3%
Honor Magicbook
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
628 (min: 281, max: 654) MBit/s ∼93% -7%
Dell Latitude 14 5495
Atheros/Qualcomm QCA6174
541 (min: 318, max: 616) MBit/s ∼80% -20%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø616 (569-634)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø675 (561-737)

Input devices

The VivoBook comes with a chiclet keyboard that shows keys with strongly rounded corners. The flat keys are 15 mm wide and are therefore smaller than the ones on the MacBook Pro 13, for example, that has keys that are around 17 mm wide. The pressure point is uniform and precise on all keys. Due to the soft and short hub, fast inputs feel spongy. Nonetheless, the Asus ultrabook is adequate for the occasional writing sessions of everyday life. Furthermore, the keyboard is also backlit and provides three levels of lighting.

The touchpad is with 10.5 x 6.1 cm sufficiently large. The fingerprint scanner is also included in this area, which can be bothersome at times. Gestures and inputs were processed without any issues during our testing time and were even recognized effortlessly in the corner areas. The lower area houses the buttons, which are integrated into the whole touchpad. The clicking experience and the depth of the click vary with the horizontal position.

Overall and despite some minimal flaws, we could reach the base level for a multimedia laptop in everyday use.

Input devices
Input devices

Display

Subpixel
Subpixel

A matte Full HD display with stable viewing angles is expected from the new Asus VivoBook in the 14-inch category. However, the brightness, which reached an average of only 257 cd/m², is out of line. We also found this shortcoming in the VivoBook S series. It's equally unfortunate that our comparison devices perform at a similar level. The Asus ZenBook, for instance, showed an exemplar display in our review. Depending on the chosen configuration, the Asus alternative model comes with a considerably higher price tag than our review device. The ZenBook versions start at 900 Euros (~$1,008) without a dedicated GPU.

254
cd/m²
244
cd/m²
266
cd/m²
248
cd/m²
267
cd/m²
248
cd/m²
268
cd/m²
254
cd/m²
262
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
AU Optronics AUO403D B140HAN04.0
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 268 cd/m² Average: 256.8 cd/m² Minimum: 14 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 267 cd/m²
Contrast: 1335:1 (Black: 0.2 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.79 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6.1, calibrated: 4.71
ΔE Greyscale 1.49 | 0.64-98 Ø6.3
59% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 38% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.48
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
AU Optronics AUO403D B140HAN04.0, , 1920x1080, 14
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
AU Optronics B140HAN03.2, , 1920x1080, 14
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
CMN1375, , 1920x1080, 13.3
Dell Latitude 14 5495
CMN14C9, , 1920x1080, 14
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
AU Optronics B140HAN03.2, , 1920x1080, 14
Response Times
-9%
-4%
-3%
-1%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
40 (19, 21)
44 (24, 20)
-10%
40.8 (22.8, 18)
-2%
41 (24, 17)
-3%
42 (21, 21)
-5%
Response Time Black / White *
29 (17, 12)
31 (18, 13)
-7%
30.4 (16.4, 14)
-5%
30 (19, 11)
-3%
28 (16, 12)
3%
PWM Frequency
26040 (40)
25000 (30)
Screen
-32%
-28%
-20%
-34%
Brightness middle
267
330
24%
255
-4%
212
-21%
321
20%
Brightness
257
285
11%
238
-7%
200
-22%
282
10%
Brightness Distribution
91
78
-14%
88
-3%
89
-2%
77
-15%
Black Level *
0.2
0.23
-15%
0.18
10%
0.23
-15%
0.2
-0%
Contrast
1335
1435
7%
1417
6%
922
-31%
1605
20%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.79
5.77
-52%
5.4
-42%
4.34
-15%
6.35
-68%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.18
10.46
-28%
19.5
-138%
9.01
-10%
12.2
-49%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.71
3.18
32%
4.1
13%
1.88
60%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.49
7.61
-411%
3.8
-155%
2.81
-89%
8.35
-460%
Gamma
2.48 89%
2.46 89%
2.41 91%
2.22 99%
2.51 88%
CCT
6659 98%
7485 87%
7100 92%
6286 103%
8227 79%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
38
57
50%
39.4
4%
39
3%
59
55%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
59
88
49%
62.5
6%
61
3%
91
54%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-21% / -28%
-16% / -24%
-12% / -17%
-18% / -29%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
29 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17 ms rise
↘ 12 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 68 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.1 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19 ms rise
↘ 21 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 45 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (40 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9418 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

According to our CalMAN test, the reproduction of colors and grayscales is good, as is expected thanks to the IPS panel. The color-space coverage within the "small" sRGB-space falls short for professional use with a value of 59%. The coverage of the AdobeRGB space is 38%.

There is some light screen bleeding on the edges.

Under weak lighting, the Asus VivoBook is aided by its matte display, so that no reflections hinder the workflow. Things are unfortunately different outdoors: The matte display alone is not able to compensate for indirect or direct sunlight. For outdoor use, shade is recommended.

Color-space coverage (sRGB)
Color-space coverage (sRGB)
CalMAN ColorChecker without calibration
CalMAN ColorChecker without calibration
CalMAN grayscales without calibration
CalMAN grayscales without calibration
CalMAN saturation sweeps without calibration
CalMAN saturation sweeps without calibration
Color-space coverage (AdobeRGB)
Color-space coverage (AdobeRGB)
Indirect sunlight
Indirect sunlight
Direct sunlight
Direct sunlight

Performance

LatencyMon
LatencyMon
Difficult access to the interior
Difficult access to the interior

The Asus VivoBook is available in black, blue and silver. At the time of writing, there are no other configurations offered regarding components. There is a 256 GB SSD in all devices. In addition, 8 GB RAM in dual-channel mode is to be found. The centerpiece is the quad-core Intel Core i5-8265U. The recently released dedicated Nvidia GeForce MX230 GPU is considered to be the special feature here. This one still comes with the Pascal architecture. This whole package currently costs 800 Euros (~$896).

Processor

We were already able to examine the CPU in the new VivoBook 14 in our review of the ZenBook series. The Intel Core i5-8265U processor is built using the Whiskey Lake architecture and has a clock speed of up to 3.9 GHz (3.7 GHz with all four cores). According to the datasheet, the energy requirement is rated at 15 Watts. The performance of this CPU is sufficient for standard usage and even offers more power for slightly more-demanding software and games. To determine the potential of this performance reserve, we take a look at the CPU's clock speeds during prolonged load using Cinebench R15. 

With a loop of the benchmark, we can see that the results fall by 120 points/20% after just a few runs. The observation of the clock frequencies sheds some light on this. The high clock speeds can only be sustained for a short period. After the second run, the CPU varies between 2.2 and 2.4 GHz, which is why the score is lower. Nonetheless, it performs above its base speed of 1.6 GHz and does not throttle throughout the test.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660Tooltip
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel Core i5-8265U: Ø503 (492.9-621.35)
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T Intel Core i7-8565U, Intel Core i7-8565U: Ø456 (442.93-580.91)
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel Core i5-8265U: Ø504 (494.08-654.12)
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel Core i5-8265U; BIOS 204: Ø571 (557.17-647.21)
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel Core i5-8265U: Ø554 (547.53-598.04)

Our review device achieved 623 points in Cinebench R15. This result corresponds to the expected level of the processor in use. We must make the negative observation that the current VivoBook with the Nvidia GeForce MX230 performed considerably worse than the HP ProBook 430 G6 on the prolonged test (CB15 loop). It should also be noted that the reported maximum score of over 600 points can only be reached after a cold boot. Whether there will be a BIOS fix like with the ZenBook still remains to be seen.

For further comparison with different laptop processors, refer to our CPU benchmarks page.

Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
Intel Core i5-8265U
161 Points ∼74%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
Intel Core i5-8265U
154.25 Points ∼71% -4%
Lenovo Ideapad S530-13IWL
Intel Core i5-8265U
154 Points ∼71% -4%
Average Intel Core i5-8265U
  (111 - 163, n=23)
154 Points ∼71% -4%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
Intel Core i7-8565U
153 Points ∼70% -5%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
Intel Core i5-8265U
149 Points ∼68% -7%
Dell Latitude 14 5495
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
148 Points ∼68% -8%
Honor Magicbook
Intel Core i5-8250U
145 Points ∼67% -10%
Average of class Multimedia
  (36 - 201, n=362)
127 Points ∼58% -21%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Lenovo Ideapad S530-13IWL
Intel Core i5-8265U
679 Points ∼16% +9%
Dell Latitude 14 5495
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
670 Points ∼15% +8%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
Intel Core i5-8265U
654 Points ∼15% +5%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
Intel Core i5-8265U
647 Points ∼15% +4%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
Intel Core i5-8265U
623 Points ∼14%
Average Intel Core i5-8265U
  (483 - 750, n=25)
606 Points ∼14% -3%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
Intel Core i5-8265U
598 (min: 547.53, max: 598.04) Points ∼14% -4%
Honor Magicbook
Intel Core i5-8250U
590 Points ∼13% -5%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
Intel Core i7-8565U
581 Points ∼13% -7%
Average of class Multimedia
  (73 - 1550, n=378)
483 Points ∼11% -22%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
161 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
623 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
82.11 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Help

System Performance

The combination works. Fast storage and modern computing performance are combined in the 14-inch Asus laptop. The results of PCMark 10 are not so positive in all areas. The small setback in the "Digital Content Creation" could probably be attributed to issues with heat development, as seen on the processor section. Overall, the final result is satisfactory.

PCMark Monitoring
PCMark Monitoring
PCMark 10
Digital Content Creation
Average of class Multimedia
  (1001 - 7161, n=93)
3681 Points ∼33% +37%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
GeForce MX150, 8565U, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
3194 Points ∼29% +19%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
2985 Points ∼27% +11%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
2902 Points ∼26% +8%
Average Intel Core i5-8265U, NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (2685 - 2986, n=2)
2836 Points ∼25% +6%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
GeForce MX230, 8265U, Kingston RBU-SNS8180DS3512GJ
2685 Points ∼24%
Productivity
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
GeForce MX230, 8265U, Kingston RBU-SNS8180DS3512GJ
6755 Points ∼70%
Average Intel Core i5-8265U, NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (6380 - 6755, n=2)
6568 Points ∼68% -3%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
6279 Points ∼65% -7%
Average of class Multimedia
  (1407 - 8020, n=94)
6105 Points ∼63% -10%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
GeForce MX150, 8565U, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
6072 Points ∼63% -10%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
5939 Points ∼61% -12%
Essentials
Average Intel Core i5-8265U, NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (7981 - 8113, n=2)
8047 Points ∼73% +1%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
GeForce MX230, 8265U, Kingston RBU-SNS8180DS3512GJ
7981 Points ∼73%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
7656 Points ∼70% -4%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
7618 Points ∼69% -5%
Average of class Multimedia
  (2891 - 9701, n=94)
7410 Points ∼67% -7%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
GeForce MX150, 8565U, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
7117 Points ∼65% -11%
Score
Average of class Multimedia
  (1144 - 5469, n=94)
3905 Points ∼50% +4%
Average Intel Core i5-8265U, NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (3764 - 3847, n=2)
3806 Points ∼49% +1%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
GeForce MX230, 8265U, Kingston RBU-SNS8180DS3512GJ
3764 Points ∼48%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3753 Points ∼48% 0%
Honor Magicbook
GeForce MX150, 8250U, Samsung SSD PM871b MZNLN256HAJQ
3740 Points ∼48% -1%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
GeForce MX150, 8565U, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
3704 Points ∼48% -2%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3643 Points ∼47% -3%
PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
Honor Magicbook
GeForce MX150, 8250U, Samsung SSD PM871b MZNLN256HAJQ
3741 Points ∼61%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3733 Points ∼61%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
GeForce MX150, 8565U, Intel SSD 660p SSDPEKNW512G8
3691 Points ∼61%
Average Intel Core i5-8265U, NVIDIA GeForce MX230
 
3609 Points ∼59%
Average of class Multimedia
  (1371 - 4693, n=297)
3377 Points ∼55%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
UHD Graphics 620, 8265U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3342 Points ∼55%

Storage

A 256 GB SSD is used as storage option. The M.2 drive performed within common values of its design and connection type (SATA 3.2).

Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
Kingston RBU-SNS8180DS3512GJ
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
Dell Latitude 14 5495
Intel SSDSCKKF256G8
Average Kingston RBU-SNS8180DS3512GJ
 
Average of class Multimedia
 
CrystalDiskMark 5.2 / 6
148%
160%
7%
9%
99%
Write 4K
55.04
99.9
82%
101.8
85%
48.45
-12%
59.8 (55 - 64.5, n=2)
9%
87.7 (0.76 - 200, n=104)
59%
Read 4K
28.79
40.03
39%
41.35
44%
25.11
-13%
26.9 (24.9 - 28.8, n=2)
-7%
29.3 (0.29 - 57.2, n=104)
2%
Write Seq
307.5
973.1
216%
928.5
202%
341.2
11%
380 (308 - 453, n=2)
24%
764 (64.8 - 2910, n=104)
148%
Read Seq
430
1111
158%
1388
223%
520.6
21%
427 (425 - 430, n=2)
-1%
922 (65.9 - 2820, n=104)
114%
Write 4K Q32T1
149.5
424.6
184%
453.5
203%
202
35%
204 (150 - 258, n=2)
36%
277 (0.84 - 1707, n=104)
85%
Read 4K Q32T1
207.2
255.9
24%
286.2
38%
243.5
18%
204 (200 - 207, n=2)
-2%
312 (0.417 - 1015, n=104)
51%
Write Seq Q32T1
389.2
1300
234%
1302
235%
320.8
-18%
447 (389 - 504, n=2)
15%
874 (65.6 - 3349, n=104)
125%
Read Seq Q32T1
497.1
1723
247%
1751
252%
555.2
12%
478 (460 - 497, n=2)
-4%
1521 (65.7 - 3540, n=104)
206%
Write 4K Q8T8
572.3
247.5
284
986 (98 - 1814, n=7)
Read 4K Q8T8
825.8
253.4
301
682 (209 - 1023, n=7)
AS SSD
204%
157%
27%
43%
-9%
Copy Game MB/s
549.22
796.19
260.04
151
343 (12 - 1824, n=164)
Copy Program MB/s
246.84
376.43
152.14
106
205 (8.81 - 984, n=164)
Copy ISO MB/s
600.52
1116.67
441.25
546
556 (10 - 3182, n=165)
Score Total
782
2048
162%
1706
118%
751
-4%
966 (782 - 1150, n=2)
24%
1332 (20 - 5355, n=216)
70%
Score Write
153
815
433%
600
292%
288
88%
345 (153 - 537, n=2)
125%
473 (7 - 2992, n=216)
209%
Score Read
411
829
102%
745
81%
309
-25%
407 (403 - 411, n=2)
-1%
585 (8 - 2132, n=216)
42%
Access Time Write *
0.4
0.028
93%
0.03
92%
0.101
75%
0.287 (0.174 - 0.4, n=2)
28%
2.09 (0.021 - 34, n=245)
-423%
Access Time Read *
0.432
0.114
74%
0.107
75%
0.128
70%
0.27 (0.108 - 0.432, n=2)
37%
2.55 (0.04 - 33, n=246)
-490%
4K-64 Write
87.19
605.06
594%
408.2
368%
225.18
158%
264 (87.2 - 440, n=2)
203%
311 (0.27 - 2716, n=250)
257%
4K-64 Read
325.38
652.98
101%
567.08
74%
238.42
-27%
325 (324 - 325, n=2)
0%
419 (0.36 - 1823, n=250)
29%
4K Write
26.46
130.83
394%
119.73
352%
34.58
31%
44 (26.5 - 61.6, n=2)
66%
63.6 (0.24 - 176, n=250)
140%
4K Read
36.4
37.3
2%
40.67
12%
19.76
-46%
33.7 (30.9 - 36.4, n=2)
-7%
25.8 (0.23 - 61, n=250)
-29%
Seq Write
392.72
794.94
102%
725.53
85%
286.49
-27%
372 (351 - 393, n=2)
-5%
494 (29.7 - 2604, n=250)
26%
Seq Read
487.61
1388.77
185%
1373.07
182%
507.15
4%
487 (485 - 488, n=2)
0%
832 (48.7 - 2860, n=250)
71%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
176% / 180%
159% / 159%
17% / 18%
26% / 28%
45% / 36%

* ... smaller is better

Graphics card

The VivoBook on hand boasts an Nvidia GeForce MX230, which should be able to handle everyday use. The dedicated graphics unit is built using the Pascal architecture from Nvidia and is thus not a descendant of the new Turing architecture, despite the graphics card having been presented at the beginning of 2019. In this configuration, the GPU comes with 2 GB of DDR5 memory. The clock speed is 1519 MHz (1531 MHz after Boost). The GeForce MX230 should perform at a similar level as the GeForce 930MX/940MX. This is also confirmed by the different benchmarks. The GeForce MX230 performs around 10% above the 940MX, but 20-40% below the GeForce MX150.

As soon as the laptop is disconnected from a power source, the graphics unit starts working at about 16% less performance according to 3DMark 11. As a result, the complete performance potential cannot be reached when using the laptop in an unplugged state.

Further comparisons with different graphics units, as well as further reviews, can be found in our mobile GPU benchmarks page.

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Lenovo IdeaPad 330-17IKB 81DM
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i7-8550U
4792 Points ∼100% +44%
Huawei MateBook 13 i7
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i7-8565U
4514 Points ∼94% +36%
Asus Zenbook UX3430UN-GV174T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i5-8250U
4191 Points ∼87% +26%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (3318 - 3582, n=4)
3407 Points ∼71% +3%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, Intel Core i5-8265U
3318 Points ∼69%
Average of class Multimedia
  (352 - 20837, n=632)
2952 Points ∼62% -11%
HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, Intel Core i7-8565U
2908 Points ∼61% -12%
Lenovo IdeaPad 520s-14IKB 80X200C1GE
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i5-7200U
2535 Points ∼53% -24%
HP ProBook 440 G4-Y8B51EA
NVIDIA GeForce 930MX, Intel Core i7-7500U
2206 Points ∼46% -34%
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Average of class Multimedia
  (142 - 4734, n=58)
1601 Points ∼100% +125%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (710 - 786, n=2)
748 Points ∼47% +5%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, Intel Core i5-8265U
710 Points ∼44%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Lenovo IdeaPad 330-17IKB 81DM
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i7-8550U
3698 Points ∼100% +56%
Huawei MateBook 13 i7
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i7-8565U
3586 Points ∼97% +51%
Asus Zenbook UX3430UN-GV174T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i5-8250U
3389 Points ∼92% +43%
Average of class Multimedia
  (337 - 16100, n=406)
2848 Points ∼77% +20%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (2287 - 2729, n=4)
2488 Points ∼67% +5%
HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, Intel Core i7-8565U
2383 Points ∼64% +1%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, Intel Core i5-8265U
2369 Points ∼64%
Lenovo IdeaPad 520s-14IKB 80X200C1GE
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i5-7200U
2132 Points ∼58% -10%
HP ProBook 440 G4-Y8B51EA
NVIDIA GeForce 930MX, Intel Core i7-7500U
1621 Points ∼44% -32%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
Huawei MateBook 13 i7
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i7-8565U
21260 Points ∼100% +39%
Lenovo IdeaPad 330-17IKB 81DM
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i7-8550U
19545 Points ∼92% +28%
Asus Zenbook UX3430UN-GV174T
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i5-8250U
18513 Points ∼87% +21%
Average of class Multimedia
  (2468 - 77755, n=409)
16679 Points ∼78% +9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (15299 - 17999, n=4)
16223 Points ∼76% +6%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, Intel Core i5-8265U
15299 Points ∼72%
HP ProBook 450 G6-5TJ93EA
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, Intel Core i7-8565U
13776 Points ∼65% -10%
Lenovo IdeaPad 520s-14IKB 80X200C1GE
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i5-7200U
13775 Points ∼65% -10%
HP ProBook 440 G4-Y8B51EA
NVIDIA GeForce 930MX, Intel Core i7-7500U
9056 Points ∼43% -41%
3DMark 11 Performance
3570 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
61160 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
10178 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
2202 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
797 points
Help

Gaming performance

The Nvidia GeForce MX230 is not a typical gaming graphics card. Nevertheless, some games can be enjoyed on the VivoBook. Current games (2019, 2018) are mostly only playable at a lower quality level. Older hits should pose no issues on higher settings. Overall, it can be concluded that the dedicated graphics unit used here is a tad faster than an Nvidia GeForce 940MX.

For more games that can be played with this GPU and their corresponding settings, refer to our separate article: Computer games on laptop graphics cards.

BioShock Infinite
1920x1080 Ultra Preset, DX11 (DDOF)
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX150
30 fps ∼100% +7%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (27.4 - 31.2, n=3)
28.9 fps ∼96% +3%
Average of class Multimedia
  (3.62 - 149, n=219)
28.3 fps ∼94% +1%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
Intel Core i5-8265U, NVIDIA GeForce MX230
27.96 fps ∼93%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
Intel Core i7-8550U, NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
19.8 fps ∼66% -29%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel UHD Graphics 620
9.9 fps ∼33% -65%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel UHD Graphics 620
7.36 fps ∼25% -74%
1366x768 High Preset
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX150
81.1 fps ∼100% +16%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX230
  (70.2 - 79.2, n=3)
74 fps ∼91% +5%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
Intel Core i5-8265U, NVIDIA GeForce MX230
70.18 fps ∼87%
Average of class Multimedia
  (36.3 - 277, n=253)
63.3 fps ∼78% -10%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
Intel Core i7-8550U, NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
53.2 fps ∼66% -24%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel UHD Graphics 620
31 fps ∼38% -56%
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
Intel Core i5-8265U, Intel UHD Graphics 620
24.32 fps ∼30% -65%
#ff7777;">7 (DirectX11)7
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 151.4682.870.1827.96fps
GTA V (2015) 71.5164.526.910.6fps
Overwatch (2016) 9078.335.916.6fps
Rocket League (2017) 152.677.772.7fps
Playerunknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG) (2017) 58.523.82117.3fps
Destiny 2 (2017) 44.923.92217.5fps
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) 2611.47.4fps
Kingdom Come: Deliverance (2018) 31.513.811.67fps
Monster Hunter World (2018) 34.112.910.98.3fps
F1 2018 (2018) 48231812fps
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) 321010 (DirectX11)fps
FIFA 19 (2018) 80.558.652.652.2fps
Forza Horizon 4 (2018) 46211612fps
Assassin´s Creed Odyssey (2018) 2613106fps
Call of Duty Black Ops 4 (2018) 36.818.913.811.7fps
Hitman 2 (2018) 29.313.410.79.9fps
Battlefield V (2018) 38.320.21612fps
Farming Simulator 19 (2018) 122.348.623.817.6fps
Darksiders III (2018) 69.319.815.913.4fps
Just Cause 4 (2018) 30.917.412.710.9fps
Apex Legends (2019) 45.817.814.412.4fps
Far Cry New Dawn (2019) 32151312fps
Metro Exodus (2019) 25.94.83.34.5fps
Anthem (2019) 22.712.311.19.8fps
Dirt Rally 2.0 (2019) 7122.917.510.4fps
The Division 2 (2019) 4313106fps

Emissions and energy

Noise emissions

Fan noise levels
Fan noise levels

The slim laptop becomes noticeable only under load. But the loudness is still within a moderate range in this case with 38 dB(A). The HP ProBook 430 G6 remains more silent, for example, but it comes without a dedicated graphics unit and requires therefore less cooling.

Noise Level

Idle
30 / 30 / 30 dB(A)
Load
33.5 / 38 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 29.9 dB(A)
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.433.730.93436.42531.434.532.334.131.43132.733.636.333.732.74036.630.432.532.336.65033.333.730.629.633.36330.130.831.427.530.18028.625.927.324.628.610027.526.926.426.727.51252627.125.124.82616025.224.524.124.525.220024.22423.223.924.225023.522.823.122.623.531523.823.221.721.523.840022.521.820.720.522.550023.622.319.820.123.663024.522.519.719.124.580026.422.819.318.526.4100030.426.219.418.530.4125028.423.618.517.728.4160028.522.918.417.728.5200027.322.218.117.627.3250026.321.61818.126.3315025.320.318.218.425.3400021.91918.418.321.95000211918.618.521630019.718.918.818.719.7800019.219191919.21000019.119.119.21919.11250019.119.119.119.119.11600019.519.519.419.219.5SPL37.833.931.130.837.8N2.51.81.41.32.5median 24.2median 22.3median 19.3median 19median 24.2Delta2.421.51.52.4hearing rangehide median Fan NoiseAsus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T

Temperature

Whether in idle usage or under load, there is always a concern that the Asus laptop will become too hot. The hotspot is, under absolute full load, at 45 °C (113 °F). Something annoying: This maximum is reached on the upper left side of the keyboard. The corresponding power supply gets a bit hot at around 50 °C (122 °F) and should not be covered under pillows or blankets.

Our stress test is particularly of interest, as it measures the core temperatures and clock speeds on the inside during full load. In order to simulate such a scenario, we use Furmark and Prime95. Already after a few minutes, the CPU must throttle heavily and undercuts its base speed immensely. That is to say, the CPU remains at a frequency of 700 MHz. This is due to the maximum core temperature being reached, which exceeds the 90 °C (194 °F) limit. The CPU can then remain at a level below 75 °C (167 °F) through the decreased clock speeds. Note that the 75 °C (167 °F) threshold was determined too low by the manufacturer. There could probably be a BIOS update from the manufacturer, similar to the one that the Asus ZenBook series received, in order to increase this value. Generally, a scenario posing such degree of load would happen rarely in everyday usage and only in the context of very demanding games.

As soon as we stop the stress test after around an hour, 3530 points is reached in 3DMark 11, which is equivalent to a cold boot.

Conducting a stress test...
Conducting a stress test...
...results in...
...results in...
...the VivoBook 14...
...the VivoBook 14...
...decreasing its base clock speed (throttling).
...decreasing its base clock speed (throttling).
Max. Load
 45.4 °C
114 F
44 °C
111 F
30.1 °C
86 F
 
 41.1 °C
106 F
40.3 °C
105 F
29 °C
84 F
 
 26.6 °C
80 F
27.9 °C
82 F
27 °C
81 F
 
Maximum: 45.4 °C = 114 F
Average: 34.6 °C = 94 F
26.1 °C
79 F
44.4 °C
112 F
44 °C
111 F
29.7 °C
85 F
40.5 °C
105 F
43 °C
109 F
27.2 °C
81 F
28.4 °C
83 F
27.5 °C
82 F
Maximum: 44.4 °C = 112 F
Average: 34.5 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  49.3 °C = 121 F | Room Temperature 23.1 °C = 74 F | FIRT 550-Pocket
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.6 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 30.9 °C / 88 F for the devices in the class Multimedia.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.4 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 36.5 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 44.4 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 38.8 °C / 102 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.2 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 30.9 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 27.9 °C / 82.2 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 29.1 °C / 84.4 F (+1.2 °C / 2.2 F).
Idle: Keyboard
Idle: Keyboard
Idle: Bottom
Idle: Bottom
Load: Keyboard
Load: Keyboard
Load: Bottom
Load: Bottom

Speakers

The provided stereo speakers are adequate for the occasional YouTube session or video-call. Sound quality is a bit thin for music playback. There's room for improvement when it comes to low tones particularly.

Pink noise
Pink noise
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2037.43437.42534.734.134.73139.133.739.14032.832.332.8503129.6316329.427.529.48029.924.629.910035.526.735.512542.724.842.716045.824.545.82004523.9452505422.65431561.121.561.140064.120.564.15006420.16463064.319.164.380073.918.573.910007318.57312506917.769160068.717.768.7200072.517.672.5250070.118.170.1315070.518.470.5400069.818.369.850007318.573630073.818.773.8800074.11974.11000074.41974.41250077.219.177.21600077.819.277.8SPL8430.884N551.355median 69.8median 19median 69.8Delta81.5835.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084TApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.79 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 31% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 19%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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 (9.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 8%, average was 20%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy consumption

When idle, the Asus VivoBook 14 is not especially power-hungry. It requires between 3.7 and 8.3 Watts for operation. Under full load (stress test), this increases up to 61.6 Watts, which comes really close to the 65-Watt limit of the power supply. Under medium load and while running 3DMark, we observe that the power consumption drops from 43 Watts (maximum) to 31 Watts (average). Clock speeds are already being throttled here.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.29 / 0.45 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 3.7 / 6.1 / 8.3 Watt
Load midlight 43 / 61.6 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy

Battery life

The hardware inside the ZenBook 14 sees an upgrade with the VivoBook 14 through the use of a dedicated graphics card. This extra power has a toll on the battery. But instead of being equipped with a 50 Wh battery like the ZenBook, the VivoBook only comes with a 37 Wh battery. The difference can be seen in our practical Wi-Fi test, which simulates browsing the web. Our review device powers off after 5.5 hours. In comparison, the more-expensive ZenBook and the HP ProBook 430 G6 lasted 9.5 hours.

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing 1.3
HP ProBook 430 G6-5TJ89EA
8265U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh
569 min ∼22% +72%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FA-A6018T
8265U, UHD Graphics 620, 50 Wh
563 min ∼21% +70%
Dell Latitude 14 5495
2700U, Vega 10, 61 Wh
562 min ∼21% +70%
Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T
8565U, GeForce MX150, 50 Wh
499 min ∼19% +51%
Average of class Multimedia
  (96 - 942, n=247)
359 min ∼14% +8%
Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T
8265U, GeForce MX230, 37 Wh
331.3 min ∼13%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
5h 31.3min

Pros

+ low weight and height
+ keyboard backlighting
+ fast operating system
+ matte IPS display

Cons

- case made solely of plastic
- complicated maintenance
- dim display
- short battery life
- CPU not used to its full potential

Verdict

The Asus VivoBook 14, provided by
The Asus VivoBook 14, provided by

In order to meet the daily needs for office, multimedia and gaming, Asus offers with the VivoBook 14 a complete package for 800 Euros (~$896). The Asus laptop looks classy despite it being made solely out of plastic. The case is overall solidly constructed and has a good feel to it. The provided input devices are good enough for the occasional day-to-day office use. Regarding the keyboard, we found that it felt a bit spongy when doing particularly fast inputs. Likewise, the display can't be rated so positively. Even though Asus has provided a display with stable viewing angles, good color accuracy and a matte panel, its low brightness was a thorn in our side.

When it comes to the components, we found the combination to be good. The added value of the Nvidia GeForce MX230 is also noticeable. The sound volume and heat development of our review device remained within acceptable levels too. It's a shame that throttling and an early reduction of the boost speed disrupt the overall experience. There is definitely more potential here.

There is also room for improvement in the battery department. The VivoBook performs overall somewhat below its laptop category. Competitors like the HP ProBook 430 G6 last a lot longer.

Despite some weaknesses, the Asus VivoBook proved to be a solid all-rounder for everyday use.

Before deciding to buy, a look should be taken at competitors like the HP ProBook 430 G6. Furthermore, you can refer to our detailed search function for more information.

Asus VivoBook 14 F412FJ-EB084T - 04/28/2019 v6
Nino Ricchizzi

Chassis
79 / 98 → 81%
Keyboard
80%
Pointing Device
86%
Connectivity
45 / 81 → 55%
Weight
70 / 20-67 → 100%
Battery
85%
Display
88%
Games Performance
72 / 85 → 85%
Application Performance
84 / 92 → 91%
Temperature
91%
Noise
93 / 95 → 98%
Audio
65%
Average
78%
85%
Multimedia - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 2 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Asus VivoBook 14 (i5-8265U, MX230, FHD) Laptop Review
Nino Ricchizzi, 2019-04-29 (Update: 2019-05- 2)