Notebookcheck

Asus VivoBook 15 K570UD (i7-8550U, GTX 1050) Laptop Review

Allen Ngo 👁, 07/22/2018

Lightweight performer. The new Vivobook is lighter and thinner than most 15.6-inch laptops equipped with the same GeForce GTX 1050 GPU. The keyboard and poor serviceability, however, bring down an otherwise great multimedia machine.

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Currently wanted: 
News Editor - Details here

Unlike the premium Zenbook series or gaming-centric ROG series, the affordable Vivobook series appeals to multimedia users on tighter budgets not unlike the Dell Inspiron, HP Pavilion, Lenovo Ideapad, or Acer Aspire. The latest Vivobook is the X570UD that combines an 8th gen Intel U-class CPU with a GeForce GTX 1050 GPU for about $1000 USD.

Current SKUs include the i5-8250U or i7-8550U with FHD or 4K UHD panels, HDD and SSD storage options, and 4 GB to 32 GB of DDR4 RAM. Direct competitors are numerous in the 15.6-inch category such as the MSI GL63, HP Envy 15, Dell G5, Lenovo Ideapad 720, Gigabyte Sabre 15, and Asus' own TUF FX504 series.

Depending on the region, this model may be listed as the Vivobook X570UD or Vivobook K570UD.

Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD (VivoBook 15 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop) - 2048 MB, Core: 1354 MHz, Memory: 7008 MHz, GDDR5, 388.57, Optimus
Memory
32768 MB 
, DDR4 PC4-19200, 1200 MHz, 17-17-17-39, Dual-Channel
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, AU Optronics B156HAN06.1, IPS, AUO61ED, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel Kaby Lake-U iHDCP 2.2 Premium PCH
Storage
SK hynix PC300 HFS512GD9MND,  GB 
, Secondary: 1 TB Seagate ST1000LM035
Soundcard
Intel Kaby Lake-U/Y PCH - High Definition Audio
Connections
2 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo, Card Reader: MicroSD, 1 Fingerprint Reader
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.1
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 21.9 x 374.6 x 256 ( = 0.86 x 14.75 x 10.08 in)
Battery
48 Wh Lithium-Polymer, 3-cell
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: VGA
Additional features
Speakers: 2 W stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, McAfee LiveSafe, Asus Giftbox, Asus Battery Health Charging, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
1.9 kg ( = 67.02 oz / 4.19 pounds), Power Supply: 536 g ( = 18.91 oz / 1.18 pounds)
Price
1000 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The chassis design is a derivative of the higher-end Zephyrus series. The rear ventilation grilles and sharp corners along the lid are reminiscent to the pricier ROG GX501 or GU501 series. For our Vivobook, however, expect plastic from top to bottom for a budget impression more in line with what one would expect from a Pavilion 15 or Ideapad 530 series. Both the base and hinges are sufficiently rigid while the lid is more susceptible to warping from its corners and down the center. The "Lightning Blue" accent marks along the perimeter is a nice visual touch to help distinguish the Vivobook from the more powerful red and orange ROG alternatives.

Build quality is excellent with no creaking or unintended gaps between materials. The rough faux brushed aluminum surfaces help in hiding fingerprints and scratches.

The Vivobook is relatively small and light for a 15-inch notebook with GTX 1050 graphics. Competing systems like the Legion Y520 and Gigabyte Sabre 15G are thicker and a few hundred grams heavier without necessarily being any faster.

Connectivity

Ports are easy to reach and evenly distributed along the left and right edges. It's interesting to see a MicroSD reader instead of a full-size SD reader given the screen size, though it's certainly better than having no card reader at all. Note that native 4k60 output is not possible because of the lack of both HDMI 2.0 and mini-DisplayPort features.

Right: MicroSD reader, USB Type-C Gen. 1, HDMI 1.4, USB 3.0, RJ45, AC adapter
Right: MicroSD reader, USB Type-C Gen. 1, HDMI 1.4, USB 3.0, RJ45, AC adapter
Left: Kensington Lock, 2x USB 2.0, 3.5 mm combo audio
Left: Kensington Lock, 2x USB 2.0, 3.5 mm combo audio

SD Card Reader

Average transfer rates from the MicroSD reader are about 80 MB/s when using our Toshiba UHS-II test card. It's important to note that the card reader is not spring-loaded and a fully inserted card will still protrude by about 2 mm. Bending is a possibility if the card is not removed before transporting.

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Dell XPS 15 2018 i5 FHD 97Wh
 
123 MB/s ∼100% +68%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78.76 MB/s ∼64% +8%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II)
73.1 MB/s ∼59%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
67.1 MB/s ∼55% -8%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Dell XPS 15 2018 i5 FHD 97Wh
 
199.7 MB/s ∼100% +132%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
86.53 MB/s ∼43% 0%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II)
86.2 MB/s ∼43%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
85.3 MB/s ∼43% -1%

Communication

We experienced no issues with the wireless when connected to an 802.11ac network. More info on the Realtek RTL8822BE can be found here.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter
623 MBit/s ∼100%
Dell XPS 15 2018 i5 FHD 97Wh
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
542 MBit/s ∼87% -13%
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
485 MBit/s ∼78% -22%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
240 MBit/s ∼39% -61%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
Realtek RTL8822BE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCIe Adapter
589 MBit/s ∼100%
Dell G5 15 5587
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
582 MBit/s ∼99% -1%
Dell XPS 15 2018 i5 FHD 97Wh
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
539 MBit/s ∼92% -8%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
319 MBit/s ∼54% -46%

Maintenance

The bottom panel is secured by a set of 11 Philips screws. Unfortunately, The X570UD is designed in such a way that some motherboard components are also attached to the bottom panel with multiple ribbon cables connecting the panel to the rest of the laptop. Serviceability is not easy because the fragile cables must be detached and then reattached with additional tools.

The poor serviceability is a shame since there are 2x expandabile SODIMM slots and 2x storage bays available.

Warranty

The standard one-year limited manufacturer warranty applies when purchased in North America.

Input Devices

Keyboard and Touchpad

The keyboard could have been better in terms of feedback. Keys are light, shallow in travel, and have a cheap plastic impression. The Space and Enter keys in particular are spongy and could have been firmer.

The integrated NumPad is very small and far too cramped for comfortable use. We would have preferred omitting it altogether in return for a better overall typing experience on the main QWERTY keys.

The smooth plastic trackpad (10.5 x 7.5 cm) feels very similar to the ones found on the FX503 or FX504. Glide is uniform when moving at moderate speeds while the finger tends to stick when moving more slowly. Unlike the rest of the notebook, the matte surface is more susceptible to grease buildup over time. Performing mouse clicks on the integrated keys is on the spongy side as well.

Display

RGB subpixel array
RGB subpixel array

The 1080p matte display is crisp without any major graininess issues. Its AU Optronics B156HAN06.1 IPS panel can also be found on the Asus FX503VM and a number of budget Acer laptops like the Spin 5 SP515. Consequently, our Vivobook shares many of the same display characteristics as the aforementioned laptops. Contrast is good albeit with average brightness levels and black-white response times.

Our unit exhibits minor uneven backlight bleeding on the bottom corners that is fortunately unnoticeable during day-to-day loads.

239.5
cd/m²
232.7
cd/m²
233.5
cd/m²
230.7
cd/m²
240.1
cd/m²
230.6
cd/m²
224
cd/m²
243.7
cd/m²
222.9
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 243.7 cd/m² Average: 233.1 cd/m² Minimum: 12.9 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 240.1 cd/m²
Contrast: 1044:1 (Black: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.25 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2, calibrated: 4
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
57.8% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 36.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.3
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
AU Optronics B156HAN06.1, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Dell G5 15 5587
LGD053F, 156WF6, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
ID: LGD0533, Name: LG Display LP156WF6-SPK3, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
LG Philips LP156WF6-SPK6, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
LG Philips LGD0533, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080
Response Times
8%
6%
7%
-12%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
32 (19.2, 12.8)
33 (16, 17)
-3%
32 (16.4, 15.6)
-0%
33.6 (16.8, 16.8)
-5%
42 (22, 20)
-31%
Response Time Black / White *
29.2 (17.2, 12)
24 (14, 10)
18%
25.6 (15.6, 10)
12%
24 (13.2, 10.8)
18%
27 (17, 10)
8%
PWM Frequency
20000 (99)
24900 (90)
Screen
-21%
-30%
-12%
-17%
Brightness middle
240.1
229
-5%
248.4
3%
286.5
19%
243
1%
Brightness
233
224
-4%
241
3%
258
11%
231
-1%
Brightness Distribution
91
87
-4%
84
-8%
82
-10%
87
-4%
Black Level *
0.23
0.28
-22%
0.3
-30%
0.34
-48%
0.24
-4%
Contrast
1044
818
-22%
828
-21%
843
-19%
1013
-3%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.25
6.1
-44%
7.5
-76%
5.57
-31%
6.36
-50%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
17.84
12.2
32%
25.2
-41%
16.8
6%
12.76
28%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4
6.12
-53%
4.16
-4%
6.51
-63%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.8
5.68
-103%
6.5
-132%
4.6
-64%
5.63
-101%
Gamma
2.3 96%
2.4 92%
2.19 100%
2.15 102%
2.47 89%
CCT
6503 100%
6989 93%
7852 83%
7564 86%
7411 88%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
36.8
36
-2%
37
1%
37.4
2%
38
3%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
57.8
57
-1%
57.9
0%
58.9
2%
59
2%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-7% / -16%
-12% / -24%
-3% / -9%
-15% / -17%

* ... smaller is better

Color space is only 58 percent and 37 percent of the sRGB and AdobeRGB standards, respectively, which is representative of a budget panel. Users who want deeper and more accurate colors may want to consider the ZenBook series instead where 100 percent sRGB options are common.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB

Further measurements with an X-Rite spectrophotometer reveal generally accurate colors and grayscale. Nonetheless, color accuracy is limited by the narrow gamut and we can observe that colors become increasingly inaccurate at higher saturation levels. Our calibration attempts improve the display just marginally.

Grayscale before calibration
Grayscale before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration

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
29.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17.2 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. » 70 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
32 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19.2 ms rise
↘ 12.8 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. » 18 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8943 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is below average because of the mediocre display backlight. The wide IPS viewing angles and matte display do little to alleviate the dim screen and washed out colors.

Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors on overcast day
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Wide IPS viewing angles
Wide IPS viewing angles

Performance

The X570UD is rather unique because of its combination of a U-class i7-8550U CPU and a GeForce GTX 1050 GPU. While both processors are common, they are not often found together because most notebooks prefer to pair GTX graphics with Intel HQ-class processors instead. Optimus is included by default for switching to the UHD Graphics 620 when desired.

No other GPU options are available for now other than the GeForce GTX 1050.

Processor

CineBench R15
CineBench R15

CPU performance is good but not perfect. When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, the initial high score of 708 points is unsustainable because subsequent runs return lower scores in the 550 range as shown in our graph below. While the 22 percent performance drop is disappointing, users can still expect a rough 50 percent increase over the last generation i7-7500U.

See our dedicated Core i7-8550U CPU page for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
MSI GT63 Titan 8RG-046
Intel Core i7-8750H
174 Points ∼81% +1%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
Intel Core i7-8550U
172 Points ∼80%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
162 Points ∼76% -6%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (108 - 172, n=67)
160 Points ∼75% -7%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
156 Points ∼73% -9%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
146 Points ∼68% -15%
Asus VivoBook 15 X542UF-DM143T
Intel Core i5-8250U
146 Points ∼68% -15%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
141 Points ∼66% -18%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
138 Points ∼64% -20%
Asus Zenbook UX310UQ-GL011T
Intel Core i7-6500U
130 Points ∼61% -24%
CPU Multi 64Bit
MSI GT63 Titan 8RG-046
Intel Core i7-8750H
1091 Points ∼25% +65%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
798 Points ∼18% +20%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
733 Points ∼17% +11%
Asus VivoBook 15 X542UF-DM143T
Intel Core i5-8250U
730 Points ∼17% +10%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
Intel Core i7-8550U
663 Points ∼15%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (301 - 761, n=69)
575 Points ∼13% -13%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
530 Points ∼12% -20%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
516 Points ∼12% -22%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
338 Points ∼8% -49%
Asus Zenbook UX310UQ-GL011T
Intel Core i7-6500U
327 Points ∼7% -51%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (1.43 - 1.95, n=32)
1.834 Points ∼75%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.83 Points ∼75%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
1.78 Points ∼73%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
1.58 Points ∼65%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
1.56 Points ∼64%
Asus Zenbook UX310UQ-GL011T
Intel Core i7-6500U
1.48 Points ∼61%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.17 Points ∼30%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
7.48 Points ∼28%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (4.38 - 8.56, n=32)
6.28 Points ∼23%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1060
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
5.93 Points ∼22%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
5.88 Points ∼22%
Asus Zenbook UX310UQ-GL011T
Intel Core i7-6500U
3.15 Points ∼12%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (4202 - 8211, n=30)
6332 Points ∼58%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
6115 Points ∼56%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
5939 Points ∼55%
Asus VivoBook 15 X542UF-DM143T
Intel Core i5-8250U
5538 Points ∼51%
Asus Zenbook UX310UQ-GL011T
Intel Core i7-6500U
4904 Points ∼45%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
4515 Points ∼42%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Asus VivoBook 15 X542UF-DM143T
Intel Core i5-8250U
22097 Points ∼44%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
21978 Points ∼44%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
21752 Points ∼44%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (11694 - 24180, n=30)
17908 Points ∼36%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
13729 Points ∼28%
Asus Zenbook UX310UQ-GL011T
Intel Core i7-6500U
10897 Points ∼22%
wPrime 2.0x - 1024m
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
490.184 s * ∼6%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (258 - 435, n=11)
351 s * ∼4%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
268.14 s * ∼3%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
231.67 s * ∼3%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
205.94 s * ∼2%
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - ---
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (1.4 - 7795, n=81)
1212 Seconds * ∼5%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
697.5 Seconds * ∼3%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
615.331 Seconds * ∼3%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
590.45 Seconds * ∼3%
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
Intel Core i5-8300H
558.56 Seconds * ∼2%

* ... smaller is better

Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
172 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
663 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
112.34 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Help

System Performance

PCMark scores are within single-digit percentages from entry-level gaming notebooks like the MSI GL63 and Gigabyte Sabre 15G. We experienced no software or hardware hiccups during our time with the test unit.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
4940 Points ∼81% +18%
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H, SK hynix SC311 M.2
4331 Points ∼71% +3%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
Radeon RX 560 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
4257 Points ∼70% +2%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK hynix PC300 HFS512GD9MND
4188 Points ∼69%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (3505 - 4245, n=6)
3938 Points ∼65% -6%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
3927 Points ∼64% -6%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
3431 Points ∼56% -18%
PCMark 10 - Score
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H, SK hynix SC311 M.2
5483 Points ∼71% +23%
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
4856 Points ∼63% +9%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK hynix PC300 HFS512GD9MND
4458 Points ∼57%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
4364 Points ∼56% -2%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (3835 - 4488, n=6)
4262 Points ∼55% -4%
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
3912 Points ∼50% -12%
Lenovo Legion Y520-15IKBA-80WY001VGE
Radeon RX 560 (Laptop), 7300HQ, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
3700 Points ∼48% -17%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4188 points
Help

Storage Devices

Internal storage options include M.2 2280 and a 2.5-inch SATA III bay. The PCIe x2 SK Hynix PC300 primary M.2 SSD in our test unit returns much faster transfer rates when compared to SATA III solutions as expected, but the drive still pales in comparison to PCIe x4 Samsung solutions like the PM961. Our secondary 1 TB Seagate HDD shows an average transfer rate of 80 MB/s which is typical of a 5400 RPM drive.

See our table of HDDs and SSDs for more benchmark comparisons.

CDM 5 (SSD)
CDM 5 (SSD)
CDM 5 (HDD)
CDM 5 (HDD)
AS SSD
AS SSD
HD Tune
HD Tune
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
SK hynix PC300 HFS512GD9MND
Dell G5 15 5587
SK hynix SC311 M.2
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Liteonit CV3-8D128
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
Razer Blade 15 2018
Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
AS SSD
-63%
-55%
-66%
58%
Copy Game MB/s
791.97
130.89
-83%
323.54
-59%
202.59
-74%
Copy Program MB/s
334.26
95.68
-71%
195.3
-42%
84.83
-75%
Copy ISO MB/s
1265.27
146.65
-88%
446.8
-65%
325.65
-74%
Score Total
2249
557
-75%
752
-67%
850
-62%
3806
69%
Score Write
836
199
-76%
234
-72%
230
-72%
1450
73%
Score Read
968
240
-75%
337
-65%
410
-58%
1584
64%
Access Time Write *
0.127
0.066
48%
0.073
43%
0.061
52%
0.038
70%
Access Time Read *
0.059
0.128
-117%
0.141
-139%
0.197
-234%
0.051
14%
4K-64 Write
676.75
112.39
-83%
132.19
-80%
127.33
-81%
1203.91
78%
4K-64 Read
755.54
164.14
-78%
257.03
-66%
342.29
-55%
1299.71
72%
4K Write
85.79
62.19
-28%
53.75
-37%
57.1
-33%
93.55
9%
4K Read
30.78
24.44
-21%
28.3
-8%
16.18
-47%
46.45
51%
Seq Write
734.97
243.71
-67%
479.79
-35%
456.4
-38%
1520.94
107%
Seq Read
1816.52
511.34
-72%
515.92
-72%
512.06
-72%
2375.98
31%

* ... smaller is better

SK hynix PC300 HFS512GD9MND
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1896 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 765.9 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 334 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 294.6 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1347 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 745.5 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 31.32 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 95.91 MB/s

GPU Performance

3DMark 11
3DMark 11

The GTX 1050 in the VivoBook is performing exactly where we expect it to be when compared to the average GTX 1050 in our database to indicate no throttling behavior. Users can expect a 50 to 60 percent raw performance increase from the GTX 960M or up to 70 to 80 percent from the GeForce MX150 commonly found on newer Ultrabooks. Demanding titles are playable in 1080p with graphical settings tuned down.

See our GeForce GTX 1050 GPU page for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8300H
8215 Points ∼45% +11%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8305G
7788 Points ∼43% +5%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U
7414 Points ∼41%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (4446 - 7607, n=38)
6820 Points ∼38% -8%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1050Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ
6104 Points ∼34% -18%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points ∼25% -40%
Lenovo ThinkPad T580-20LAS01H00
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4000 Points ∼22% -46%
Asus ZenBook UX530UX-FY070T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7500U
3955 Points ∼22% -47%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10, 2700U
2734 Points ∼15% -63%
1280x720 Performance GPU
MSI GV62 8RE-016US
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 8300H
15101 Points ∼30% +100%
Xiaomi Mi Gaming Laptop 7300HQ 1050Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Laptop), 7300HQ
10007 Points ∼20% +32%
Dell XPS 15 9575 i5-8305G
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8305G
9862 Points ∼19% +30%
Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop)
  (6744 - 8223, n=38)
7656 Points ∼15% +1%
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U
7563 Points ∼15%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points ∼9% -36%
Lenovo ThinkPad T580-20LAS01H00
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4392 Points ∼9% -42%
Asus ZenBook UX530UX-FY070T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 7500U
4117 Points ∼8% -46%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10, 2700U
3728 Points ∼7% -51%
3DMark 11 Performance
7625 points
Help
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 227172.2152.961.3fps
The Witcher 3 (2015) 19fps

Stress Test

We stress the notebook with synthetic benchmarks to identify for any potential throttling issues. When subjected to Prime95 stress, the CPU can be observed running at 3.2 GHz for the first few seconds before reaching 82 C. Once this temperature threshold is reached, the clock rate will throttle down to 2.3 GHz in order to maintain a cooler core temperature. This behavior mirrors our CineBench loop test results from above. When under Prime95 and FurMark stress, core temperatures will settle in the mid 80 C range.

Running Witcher 3 is more representative of real-world gaming loads. CPU and GPU temperatures stabilize in the 70 C range each with steady performance throughout.

Running on battery power will limit both CPU and GPU performance. A 3DMark 11 run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores of 6689 and 5097 points, respectively, compared to 8112 and 7563 points when on mains.

System idle
System idle
Prime95 stress
Prime95 stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Witcher 3 stress
Witcher 3 stress
0123456789101112131415161718192021Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C) Average GPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress 2.3 -- 62 --
FurMark Stress -- 1519 72 81
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 2.1 1519 80 84
Witcher 3 Stress 3.6 - 3.9 1696 72 78

Emissions

System Noise

The cooling solution consists of one fan and two heat pipes for both the CPU and GPU. When idling, fan noise is essentially unnoticeable in even quiet environments. Unfortunately, the fan can be sensitive to onscreen loads and so we recommend the Power Saver profile if streaming or browsing.

Higher loads like gaming can be as loud as 44 dB(A) to be louder than the MSI GL63 but comparable to the old Pavilion 15 Power. Despite not being advertised as a gaming notebook, the X570UD can certainly sound like one.

We can notice no electronic noise or coil whine on our test unit.

Noise Level

Idle
29.3 / 29.5 / 30.5 dB(A)
Load
41.2 / 47.2 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: 29.2 dB(A)
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8550U, SK hynix PC300 HFS512GD9MND
Dell G5 15 5587
GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 8300H, SK hynix SC311 M.2
HP Pavilion 15 Power 1GK62AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
Asus FX503VM-EH73
GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), 7700HQ, SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 8300H, Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY
Noise
-0%
-5%
-10%
-2%
-2%
off / environment *
29.2
30.3
-4%
27.8
5%
28.2
3%
27.8
5%
28.6
2%
Idle Minimum *
29.3
31.1
-6%
32.1
-10%
33
-13%
29.6
-1%
28.6
2%
Idle Average *
29.5
31.1
-5%
32.2
-9%
33.3
-13%
29.6
-0%
31.6
-7%
Idle Maximum *
30.5
34.2
-12%
32.2
-6%
34.7
-14%
29.6
3%
31.6
-4%
Load Average *
41.2
34.9
15%
43.3
-5%
44.5
-8%
37.3
9%
38.6
6%
Witcher 3 ultra *
44
42.7
3%
45
-2%
49.2
-12%
49.8
-13%
40.6
8%
Load Maximum *
47.2
44
7%
49.6
-5%
52.8
-12%
53.7
-14%
56.8
-20%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

When idling, the keyboard and palm rests are cool while the bottom rear of the notebook can be noticeably warmer by several degrees. The right palm rest in particular will always be warmer than the left because the 2.5-inch drive is installed directly underneath.

When under heavy load, the center keyboard and bottom surfaces can be as warm as 40 C and 50 C, respectively. Fortunately, the WASD keys remain relatively cool and the bottom hot spot is towards the rear of the unit as illustrated by our temperature maps below. The warm surfaces never become uncomfortable when typing or gaming on a flat desk.

System idle (top)
System idle (top)
System idle (bottom)
System idle (bottom)
Witcher 3 stress (top)
Witcher 3 stress (top)
Witcher 3 stress (bottom)
Witcher 3 stress (bottom)
Maximum stress (bottom)
Maximum stress (bottom)
Maximum stress (top)
Maximum stress (top)
Max. Load
 37 °C
99 F
39.8 °C
104 F
37.8 °C
100 F
 
 31.4 °C
89 F
39 °C
102 F
32.6 °C
91 F
 
 22.6 °C
73 F
23.4 °C
74 F
28 °C
82 F
 
Maximum: 39.8 °C = 104 F
Average: 32.4 °C = 90 F
41.2 °C
106 F
53.4 °C
128 F
40 °C
104 F
33.6 °C
92 F
46 °C
115 F
28.2 °C
83 F
32 °C
90 F
27 °C
81 F
25 °C
77 F
Maximum: 53.4 °C = 128 F
Average: 36.3 °C = 97 F
Power Supply (max.)  48.8 °C = 120 F | Room Temperature 21 °C = 70 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.4 °C / 90 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 39.8 °C / 104 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 53.4 °C / 128 F, compared to the average of 38.8 °C / 102 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.7 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 30.9 °C / 88 F.
(+) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.5 °C / 87 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 28 °C / 82.4 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 (+1.1 °C / 2 F).

Speakers

Pink noise
Pink noise

The stereo 2 W speakers offer decent sound quality when considering the price. Bass is average, but the palm rests reverberate more noticeably when on higher volume settings compared to other laptops. Expect to bump up the volume for videos and movies since the maximum output is on the modest side.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.3382536.234.33133.234.24033.532.55032.531.46332.3328030.931.610030.231.212529.331.716028.24220027.752.825027.559.431526.658.240026.657.650025.957.76302561.880025.666.1100024.961.3125024.453.2160024.154200023.951.9250023.750.7315023.555.4400023.658.1500023.463.7630023.468.5800023.466.81000023.361.51250023.2621600023.266SPL36.474.2N2.733median 24.4median 58.1Delta1.65.335.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus VivoBook 15 X570UDApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (68.53 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 62% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 18%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 43% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 48% 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
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 8%, average was 19%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 2% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Prime95 initiated at the 20s mark. Note the falling consumption over the 5-minute recording period
Prime95 initiated at the 20s mark. Note the falling consumption over the 5-minute recording period

Power consumption is slightly below the Sabre 15G and GL63 when under load since these competing systems utilize more demanding 45 W HQ-class CPUs. Maximum load demands 103 W from a medium-sized (~15.8 x 7.5 x 2.8 cm) 120 W AC adapter.

When running Prime95, the system will draw as much as 61 W before gradually falling to 41 W as shown by our graph on the right. The results indicate unsustainable Turbo Boost potential to reflect our stress tests and CineBench loop tests above.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.44 / 0.89 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.1 / 6.3 / 10.5 Watt
Load midlight 82.2 / 103.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
8550U, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), SK hynix PC300 HFS512GD9MND, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Dell G5 15 5587
8300H, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, SK hynix SC311 M.2, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), Liteonit CV3-8D128, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
8300H, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), Toshiba HG6 THNSNJ256G8NY, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus FX503VM-EH73
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1060 (Laptop), SanDisk SD8SN8U128G1002, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Razer Blade 15 GTX 1060
8750H, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Power Consumption
-16%
-24%
-23%
-68%
-92%
Idle Minimum *
5.1
4.9
4%
8
-57%
7.1
-39%
12.8
-151%
14.9
-192%
Idle Average *
6.3
8.5
-35%
10.9
-73%
9.8
-56%
15.4
-144%
17.5
-178%
Idle Maximum *
10.5
9.1
13%
11
-5%
10.4
1%
15.9
-51%
19.2
-83%
Load Average *
82.2
90.7
-10%
76.7
7%
88.8
-8%
78
5%
103.2
-26%
Load Maximum *
103.2
144
-40%
106.4
-3%
132.5
-28%
143.4
-39%
132.7
-29%
Witcher 3 ultra *
85.9
110
-28%
94.9
-10%
93.3
-9%
107.3
-25%
123.1
-43%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Expect just under 5.5 hours of real-world WLAN use when set to the Balanced profile. Runtimes are generally longer than a traditional gaming laptop while being a few hours shorter than the latest Ultrabooks with slower integrated graphics.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
5h 18min
Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD
8550U, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 48 Wh
Dell G5 15 5587
8300H, GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q, 56 Wh
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 47 Wh
MSI GL63 8RC-069US
8300H, GeForce GTX 1050 (Laptop), 41 Wh
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
2700U, Vega 10, 49 Wh
Asus ZenBook UX530UX-FY070T
7500U, GeForce GTX 950M, 50 Wh
Battery Runtime
23%
-18%
-20%
0%
16%
Reader / Idle
705
493
440
795
526
WiFi v1.3
318
391
23%
261
-18%
255
-20%
317
0%
370
16%
Load
133
77
41
75
105

Pros

+ accurate grayscale without any calibration
+ lightweight for the price and power
+ relatively quiet under low loads
+ dual storage options; NVMe
+ MicroSD reader

Cons

- unable to sustain maximum Turbo Boost
- spongy and shallow keyboard keys
- chassis vibration from speakers
- lid could have been more rigid
- very narrow NumPad
- difficult serviceability
- loud under load

Verdict

In review: Asus Vivobook X570UD/K570UD. Test model provided by Computer Upgrade King
In review: Asus Vivobook X570UD/K570UD. Test model provided by Computer Upgrade King

The Asus X570UD proves that you don't need an Intel HQ-class CPU to play the latest games. The 15 W Kaby Lake-R series offers a performance level in between that of the 45 W Core i5-7300HQ and i7-7700HQ commonly found on inexpensive gaming laptops. The lower cooling requirements mean a lighter and more portable system without sacrificing gaming performance or uncomfortably high core temperatures. The i7-8550U and GTX 1050 pairing is something we'd love to see on more thin-and-light gaming laptops not unlike the older Blade 14 and its i7-7500U and GTX 960M.

Of course, there are some cut corners to be aware of since the Vivobook is a budget-mainstream offering. The weak keyboard and trackpad leave a cheap impression and the poor serviceability is a hindrance to users who want to upgrade storage or RAM. Other than these drawbacks, the X570UD/K570UD is a good balance for on-the-go students who want something affordable, lightweight, and also capable of playing the latest games.

Lighter than the Dell G5, Lenovo Legion Y520, and Gigabyte Sabre 15 while being just as powerful and inexpensive. The Asus Vivobook K570UD/X570UD skips the luxuries for an adequate core experience and respectable gaming prowess.

Asus VivoBook 15 X570UD - 07/22/2018 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
67 / 98 → 68%
Keyboard
62%
Pointing Device
50%
Connectivity
44 / 81 → 54%
Weight
64 / 20-67 → 94%
Battery
84%
Display
85%
Games Performance
89 / 85 → 100%
Application Performance
94 / 92 → 100%
Temperature
89%
Noise
84 / 95 → 89%
Audio
60%
Camera
42 / 85 → 50%
Average
70%
80%
Multimedia - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 3 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 15 K570UD (i7-8550U, GTX 1050) Laptop Review
Allen Ngo, 2018-07-22 (Update: 2018-11- 4)
Allen Ngo
Allen Ngo - US Editor in Chief
After graduating with a B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics from the University of California, I studied reactor physics to become licensed by the U.S. NRC to operate nuclear reactors. There's a striking level of appreciation you gain for everyday consumer electronics after working with modern nuclear reactivity systems astonishingly powered by computers from the 80s. When I'm not managing day-to-day activities and US review articles on Notebookcheck, you can catch me following the eSports scene and the latest gaming news.