Notebookcheck

Asus VivoBook 15 Laptop (i5-8250U, GeForce 940MX, FHD) Review

Nino Ricchizzi, 👁 Sebastian Jentsch, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Mark Riege), 01/24/2018

Not quite grown up yet. The new VivoBook from Asus sounds promising: A new quad-core processor and a dedicated graphics unit are wrapped in a premium-looking case. The sales price also seems very fair. While it looks similar to the high-quality ZenBook visually, taking a closer look, this is only the surface.

"A notebook for all situations," this is exactly what Asus aims to achieve with the VivoBook. It is not the first time that we have seen a laptop of this series in our test lab. As an affordable alternative to the higher-quality ZenBook series, the VivoBook targets the price-range below 900 Euros (~$1124). Nonetheless, this everyday device should be equipped for all multimedia applications.

In order to prepare it for this vast application area, Asus has built-in a quad-core processor, 8 GB of working memory, a dedicated Nvidia graphics card, and a 1 TB HDD. The configuration of our test package costs around 750 Euros (~$937; note that the available configurations differ in the US).

It was only a few months ago that we tested the VivoBook S15 extensively. In terms of the visuals and equipment, the S15 model is similar to our test unit here. However, that model had a metal case and SSD storage in the configuration we tested. Despite that, we were not satisfied in our test at that time. In order to evaluate whether Asus has overcome the analyzed weaknesses with the VivoBook 15, we want to incorporate the VivoBook S15 into our current test comparison.

Other manufacturers also want to join the competition in this notebook category and price range. For this reason, we will include the following competitors. The HP Pavilion 15 is almost equipped similarly, aside from not only having a hard drive, and it currently costs around 800 Euros (~$999). The comparison to the Dell Vostro 15, which has to make do with merely a TN panel, is similarly interesting. Lenovo also offers a device which is similarly equipped: the IdeaPad 320 for 800 Euros (~$999).

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T (VivoBook 15 X Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX - 2048 MB, Core: 1083 MHz, Memory: 1000 MHz, GDDR5, 22.21.13.8284 (ForceWare 392.84)
Memory
8192 MB 
, DDR4-2400, single channel
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, LG Philips LP156WF9-SPK2, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel Kaby Lake-U iHDCP 2.2 Premium PCH
Storage
1 TB HDD, 5400 RPM
Soundcard
Intel Kaby Lake-U/Y PCH - High Definition Audio
Connections
2 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, Audio Connections: audio combo, Card Reader: SD
Networking
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 19.4 x 361.4 x 243.5 ( = 0.76 x 14.23 x 9.59 in)
Battery
42 Wh Lithium-Ion, 3 cells
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Additional features
Speakers: 2 W stereo speakers, Keyboard: chiclet, Keyboard Light: no, 24 Months Warranty
Weight
1.62 kg ( = 57.14 oz / 3.57 pounds), Power Supply: 220 g ( = 7.76 oz / 0.49 pounds)
Price
750 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case and Features

A distinguishing mark of the VivoBook series is the wedge-shaped case with a display lid that has a brushed aluminum look. Initially, all the visuals offer a premium and high-quality impression. The rounded edges and corners also give the impression of being a unibody metal case. However, this appearance is misleading, and the 2 kg case is made solely of plastic parts. This is a significant difference to the VivoBook S15, which is completely manufactured from metal.

The small display bezel, which is called NanoEdge, has remained unchanged. Despite the different choice of materials, the back of the display and top of the base continue to be pressed down easily. We were unable to replicate the creaking noises in the area of the palm rest which we had noticed in the VivoBook S15. The display hinge is comfortably easy to move and the display only wobbles briefly. Overall, the plastic case leaves a decent impression. The quality of the workmanship is also satisfactory. Unfortunately, the battery cannot be replaced without some amount of work. In order to take a look inside, the bottom of the case which is fastened with 10 screws has to be removed. In addition, the bottom unit is held by numerous clips. At that point, we had to abandon our attempt of opening the device (shop unit).

In terms of the amount of connections, Asus remains faithful to its previous position. In particular, we don't like the two slow USB-2.0 ports and it is especially annoying that the two ports are located at the left side. The faster USB-3 connections (1 x USB 3.1 Type-C) are on the right side of the notebook exclusively. Since accordingly, you have to connect the peripherals with the higher data throughput on the right side, this leads to the great disadvantage that your work space on the right side becomes very limited. An additional disadvantage is that the two fast USB connections are separated by an HDMI port in between. Not only does this interfere with the access to the USB-3 Type-A port when the display cable is connected, but larger plugs can even prevent access.

The built-in SD card slot achieves 34.8 MB/s when copying JPG files (around 5 MB each). To test this, we used a Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II as our reference card. Compared to all the multimedia notebooks we have previously tested, this result is below their average of 54.5 MB/s.

An Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265, which uses MIMO-2x2 technology, serves to connect to the Internet. It is supposed to transfer at gross data rates of up to 867 Mbit/s. However, in reality we measure an average of 531 Mbit/s as the client. On the server side, we get a better average of around 660 Mbit/s (715 Mbit/s maximum). Compared to the competition, our test unit does a decent job and is at the same level as the HP Pavilion 15 and the Acer Swift 3.

The Asus VivoBook 15 presents itself ...
The Asus VivoBook 15 presents itself ...
... in a premium-looking case that has a metal look ...
... and reminds us strongly of the ZenBook series.
Unfortunately it does not come near the quality ...
... of the more expensive ZenBook.
It proves itself as a pure multimedia notebook.

Size Comparison

378 mm / 14.9 inch 260 mm / 10.2 inch 23 mm / 0.906 inch 2.2 kg4.85 lbs378 mm / 14.9 inch 252.1 mm / 9.93 inch 22.5 mm / 0.886 inch 1.8 kg4.01 lbs380 mm / 15 inch 252.5 mm / 9.94 inch 19.2 mm / 0.756 inch 1.9 kg4.14 lbs361.4 mm / 14.2 inch 243.5 mm / 9.59 inch 19.4 mm / 0.764 inch 1.6 kg3.57 lbs361 mm / 14.2 inch 244 mm / 9.61 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.7 kg3.75 lbs
SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
80.2 MB/s ∼100% +130%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
34.8 MB/s ∼43%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
33.9 MB/s ∼42% -3%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
26 MB/s ∼32% -25%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
22 MB/s ∼27% -37%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
86.9 MB/s ∼100% +130%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
37.8 MB/s ∼43%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
37.4 MB/s ∼43% -1%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
28.8 MB/s ∼33% -24%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
9.5 MB/s ∼11% -75%
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
554 MBit/s ∼100% +4%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
531 MBit/s ∼96%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
510 MBit/s ∼92% -4%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
285 MBit/s ∼51% -46%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
54 MBit/s ∼10% -90%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
680 MBit/s ∼100% +3%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
668 MBit/s ∼98% +1%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
660 MBit/s ∼97%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
Realtek 8821AE Wireless LAN 802.11ac PCI-E NIC
333 MBit/s ∼49% -50%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
49 MBit/s ∼7% -93%

Input Devices

Keyboard

As in the VivoBook S15 before, we did not like the keyboard very much. The keys are sufficiently sized, and even the arrow keys were not reduced due to space limitations. The pressure point of the keys was also very even overall. However, besides these positive points, it lacks in every other regard. Due to the very soft and short stroke, the typing experience feels very spongy and imprecise. Despite their roughened surface, the keys do not offer any grip. In addition, the keyboard can be pressed down with only a little use of force. There is also no backlight.

In terms of the typing noise, the small keys produce a muffled and not too loud feedback. However, the space key mars this image, since you can hear a loud clattering during fast input. 

Overall, we recommend an external keyboard for office work. For general surfing and social media usage, the built-in keyboard is sufficient.

Touchpad

The smooth surface of the 10.4 x 7.4 cm (~4.1 x 2.9 in) touchpad reacts to input precisely. Even in the corners, which often are considered problematic areas, input is recognized correctly. Multitouch gestures such as scrolling of websites mostly succeed without any problems. However, from time to time some problems occurred in our test unit, in particular during drag-and-drop input. 

The invisible mouse keys are integrated below the touchpad. It looks strange to us that the touchpad sits lower in the case on the left back corner than on the right corner. The shallow stroke produces a clicking sound which is not too loud.

Input devices
Input devices

Display

Pixel grid
Pixel grid

The images are displayed on a Full HD IPS panel made by LG. The matte display has an average brightness of 250 cd/m², which is average considering the selected competitors. However, looking at all the multimedia notebooks we tested previously, the brightness could have been a bit higher. On the other hand, the VivoBook produces a quite saturated black value, which is noticeable particularly in dark movie sequences and images. However, the slight blue tint in the state of delivery is unpleasant. The CalMAN analysis confirms this with a Delta-E deviation of more than 6 in the grayscales and at about 5.31 in the colors.

240
cd/m²
238
cd/m²
228
cd/m²
249
cd/m²
267
cd/m²
251
cd/m²
245
cd/m²
275
cd/m²
255
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
LG Philips LP156WF9-SPK2
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 275 cd/m² Average: 249.8 cd/m² Minimum: 14 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 83 %
Center on Battery: 266 cd/m²
Contrast: 1214:1 (Black: 0.22 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.31 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 6.24 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
59% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 37% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.7
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
LG Philips LP156WF9-SPK2, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
AU Optronics B156W02 / AUO B156HAN02.1, , 1920x1080, 15.6
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
AU Optronics, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Dell Vostro 15-5568
Chi Mei CMN15C4, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
Chi Mei N156HGA-EAB, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Response Times
-82%
-12%
-16%
-13%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
43 (22, 21)
47 (21, 26)
-9%
45 (24, 21)
-5%
41 (24, 17)
5%
42 (24, 18)
2%
Response Time Black / White *
11 (6, 5)
28 (16, 12)
-155%
13 (8, 5)
-18%
15 (11, 4)
-36%
14 (10, 4)
-27%
PWM Frequency
26000 (20)
25000 (70)
Screen
12%
-51%
-41%
-51%
Brightness middle
267
293
10%
234
-12%
239
-10%
227
-15%
Brightness
250
275
10%
230
-8%
219
-12%
207
-17%
Brightness Distribution
83
86
4%
76
-8%
86
4%
81
-2%
Black Level *
0.22
0.25
-14%
0.34
-55%
0.43
-95%
0.44
-100%
Contrast
1214
1172
-3%
688
-43%
556
-54%
516
-57%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.31
3.81
28%
12.19
-130%
10.11
-90%
11.52
-117%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
9.28
6.64
28%
20.81
-124%
17.33
-87%
19.97
-115%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.24
2.66
57%
13.99
-124%
10.88
-74%
12.01
-92%
Gamma
2.7 81%
2.54 87%
2.32 95%
2.33 94%
2.23 99%
CCT
7619 85%
6541 99%
15863 41%
11924 55%
13330 49%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
37
37
0%
36
-3%
38
3%
38
3%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
59
58
-2%
56
-5%
60
2%
59
0%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-35% / -4%
-32% / -45%
-29% / -37%
-32% / -45%

* ... 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
11 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 6 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
43 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22 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. » 61 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (39.5 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 9331 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Anyone who wants to work outdoors with the 15-inch device should avoid direct sunlight and the mid-day sun. However, the matte display can be used without any problems in slightly overcast surroundings.

The Asus VivoBook 15 outdoors
The Asus VivoBook 15 outdoors

Performance

LatencyMon
LatencyMon

Our test unit is supposed to be equipped for usage in the multimedia area. The necessary performance is provided by a new quad-core processor of the Intel Kaby-Lake architecture, which is considered the successor of the well-known Intel Core i5-7200U/7260U series. The built-in Nvidia GeForce 940MX is not quite as current, since it was first introduced almost two years ago. However, the graphics unit should still be able to smoothly display the standard multimedia applications and some games.

DDR4 storage, which unfortunately only works in single-channel mode, is used as storage equipment. Also there is no SSD, but only a 1 TB HDD. The whole package costs 750 Euros (~$937). For an additional 150 Euros (~$187), buyers will get 16 GB of working memory (dual-channel) and an additional 256 GB M.2 SSD. However, the VivoBook with a GeForce MX150 and a 256 GB 2.5-inch SSD, which costs just 100 Euros (~$124) more, is even more interesting.

Processor

Clock speeds during Cinebench
Clock speeds during Cinebench

The heart of the VivoBook is an Intel Core i5-8250U, which is a Kaby-Lake Refresh of the well-known 7000 series. The largest difference compared to the VivoBooks of the previous generation is that there is now a quad-core processor inside. The separate cores each have a speed of 1.6 to 3.4 GHz. According to the spec-sheet, the maximum power consumption is 15 W (TDP) which is the same as in the older dual-core alternatives. We want to evaluate the additional performance compared to the predecessor CPU, the Intel Core i5-7200U, via Cinebench R15.

We noticed quickly that during the cold start, Cinebench R15 achieves a decent value of 720 points. However, as soon as the device reaches its operating temperature, the CPU temperature rises quickly, and thermal throttling of the processor speed becomes unavoidable. We notice this particularly in our Cinebench loop. After only one run, the performance of the CPU drops by 10 - 15%. However, the CPU still continues to run at a high speed level above the basic core speed. The comparison to similarly equipped competitors shows a large performance advantage of 160 points. The performance gap becomes even larger to the Lenovo IdeaPad 320, which is equipped with an Intel Core i5-7200U and it only reaches around 330 points.

It is also positive that the processor can command its full performance in battery operation.

Anyone looking for further comparisons between various processors or in particular a performance comparison between the new and old Kaby-Lake models can browse our benchmark chart of current notebook processors.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Dell Vostro 15-5568
Intel Core i7-7500U
147 Points ∼67% +8%
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
Intel Core i5-8250U
146 Points ∼67% +7%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
Intel Core i5-8250U
136 Points ∼62%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
Intel Core i5-7200U
130 Points ∼60% -4%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
Intel Core i5-7200U
126 Points ∼58% -7%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
Intel Core i5-8250U
720 Points ∼16%
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
Intel Core i5-8250U
556 Points ∼13% -23%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
Intel Core i7-7500U
342 Points ∼8% -52%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
Intel Core i5-7200U
331 Points ∼8% -54%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
Intel Core i5-7200U
329 Points ∼8% -54%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
136 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
720 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
74.54 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Help

System Performance

Overall, we can see a sufficiently powerful system here, which is equipped for all the usual application areas. However, the slower hard drive storage creates a bottleneck which becomes particularly noticeable during general operation. We objectively evaluate this in the PCMark 8 Home system benchmark. But unexpectedly the VivoBook comes out at the level of the competitors that are equipped with SSD storage. However, we have to keep in mind here that we found a significant performance advantage of the CPU in the comparison above. Possibly due to the slower storage and single-channel working memory, this performance advantage could not be fully used.

PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
GeForce 940MX, 8250U, SanDisk SD8SN8U256G1006
3683 Points ∼60% +3%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
GeForce 940MX, 7200U, SK Hynix HFS256G3BTND
3677 Points ∼60% +2%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
GeForce 940MX, 7500U, Micron SSD 1100 (MTFDDAV256TBN)
3672 Points ∼60% +2%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
GeForce 940MX, 8250U
3592 Points ∼59%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
GeForce 940MX, 7200U, Toshiba SG5 THNSNK128GVN8
3468 Points ∼57% -3%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3592 points
Help

Storage Solution

HD Tune
HD Tune

Data is stored on a 1 TB hard drive from Toshiba. The drive has a 2.5-inch format and spins at a speed of 5400 RPM. The transfer rates are in the range characteristic for this kind of storage. Since all of the competitors without exception use SSD storage, our test unit limps behind in the benchmarks. As already mentioned, Asus also offers various models with optional SSDs. Alternatively, you can also add a hard drive via an empty M.2 slot.

Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
 
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
Toshiba SG5 THNSNK128GVN8
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
SanDisk SD8SN8U256G1006
Dell Vostro 15-5568
Micron SSD 1100 (MTFDDAV256TBN)
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
SK Hynix HFS256G3BTND
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
6380%
6727%
5064%
8822%
Write 4k QD32
4.468
121.8
2626%
181.8
3969%
161.2
3508%
260.4
5728%
Read 4k QD32
0.738
279.1
37718%
250.9
33897%
172.8
23315%
346.1
46797%
Write 4k
4.059
86.19
2023%
54.17
1235%
93.58
2205%
78.25
1828%
Read 4k
0.207
16.05
7654%
27.8
13330%
21.87
10465%
31.47
15103%
Write 512
111.2
138.2
24%
299.1
169%
161.7
45%
259.4
133%
Read 512
42.35
368.6
770%
345.2
715%
312.9
639%
314.5
643%
Write Seq
126
138.6
10%
453.5
260%
238.7
89%
259.3
106%
Read Seq
139.2
437.6
214%
475.4
242%
476.2
242%
466.4
235%
Transfer Rate Minimum: 6.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 119.1 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 86 MB/s
Access Time: 19.6 ms
Burst Rate: 215.5 MB/s
CPU Usage: 2.5 %

Graphics Card

An Nvidia GeForce 940MX is available as the dedicated graphics unit. At this point, this multimedia graphics card has aged and is now considered to belong to the entry-level segment. The GPU supports the DirectX12 standard and in our case has 2048 MB of the possible 4096 MB of DDR5 storage. In our graphics benchmarks, such as 3DMark 11, our test unit fares as expected. Anyone who also hopes for the full performance during mobile usage will be disappointed, since the graphics performance drops by about 13% during battery operation.

The comparison to the Acer Swift 3 shows that the Nvidia GeForce 940MX does not represent the current state of affairs anymore. While the Swift 3 has the same CPU as the VivoBook, the manufacturer has upgraded the GPU to a GeForce MX150. The MX150 belongs to the current entry-level segment and is able to produce a performance advantage of more than 50% in 3DMark 11. For this reason, those interested buyers who also like to get into the world of gaming should accept the additional premium of 100 Euros (~$124) for a VivoBook model with the MX150.

You can read up on comparisons to other graphics units in our benchmark chart.

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Acer Swift 3 SF315-51G-57E5
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i5-8250U
4742 Points ∼9% +58%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Intel Core i5-7200U
4575 Points ∼9% +53%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i5-8250U
2992 Points ∼6%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i5-7200U
2918 Points ∼6% -2%
Asus Vivobook S15 S510UQ-BQ189T
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i5-7200U
2689 Points ∼5% -10%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i7-7500U
2583 Points ∼5% -14%
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Intel Core i5-8250U
2471 Points ∼5% -17%
3DMark 11 Performance
3168 points
3DMark Ice Storm Standard Score
53750 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
10605 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
2017 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
710 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Despite the built-in dedicated graphics unit, current games can often only be played smoothly in low settings. In order to be able to increase the graphics settings and FPS amount, you have to employ older games such as BioShock Infinite.

In order to analyze the performance differences of various graphics cards during gaming, we refer to our article on the gaming performance of current notebook graphics cards.

low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 86.4 50.8 44.7 18.7 fps
BioShock Infinite
1366x768 High Preset
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
82.2 fps ∼100% +84%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
59.7 fps ∼73% +34%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
52.38 fps ∼64% +17%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
44.7 fps ∼54%
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
41.9 fps ∼51% -6%
1366x768 Medium Preset
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL
97 fps ∼100% +91%
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
68.4 fps ∼71% +35%
Dell Vostro 15-5568
61.93 fps ∼64% +22%
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng
51.7 fps ∼53% +2%
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
50.8 fps ∼52%

Legend

 
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T Intel Core i5-8250U, NVIDIA GeForce 940MX,
 
HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng Intel Core i5-8250U, NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, SanDisk SD8SN8U256G1006
 
Dell Vostro 15-5568 Intel Core i7-7500U, NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, Micron SSD 1100 (MTFDDAV256TBN)
 
Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE Intel Core i5-7200U, NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, SK Hynix HFS256G3BTND
 
Acer Aspire 5 A515-51G-51RL Intel Core i5-7200U, NVIDIA GeForce MX150, Kingston RBUSNS8180DS3128GH
 
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R4W1 AMD Ryzen 5 2500U, AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7

Emissions and Power Management

Noise Emissions

Fan characteristics
Fan characteristics

As long as our test unit does not change into the Windows High Performance profile and remains idle, it is hardly audible. You can only hear a slight HDD whirring. As soon as we demanded more performance, the notebook's noise becomes noticeable. The fans are relatively sensitive and immediately rev up during load. However, at up to 43 dB(A), the noise remains within acceptable limits. The background noises, some of which are high-frequency, are more annoying. A glance at the competitors shows that this can be done better, and all of the competitors do a better job. The HP Pavilion 15, which is almost similarly equipped, hardly reaches 37 dB(A).

Noise Level

Idle
32.3 / 32.3 / 32.3 dB(A)
Load
43.2 / 43.2 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: 31 dB(A)
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs204139.838.640.6412538.336.136.536.138.33133.733.134.634.133.74032.632.431.432.532.65031.931.832.132.531.96331.831.53231.931.88029.230.129.229.129.210029.329.329.229.429.312527.827.626.626.427.816027.527.7262627.520027.628.125.125.327.625027.627.623.82427.631528.227.223.423.428.240027.527.822.423.127.550027.22721.721.927.263028.22821.52128.280031.73222.620.131.7100033.633.920.919.733.6125031.731.62019.631.7160033.233.220.718.833.2200034.534.519.918.534.5250032.832.51918.332.8315032.232.319.518.632.2400029.829.918.618.329.8500027.927.818.518.427.9630027.327.518.718.527.3800024.824.918.618.424.81000021.721.718.418.421.71250019.819.918.218.219.81600019.219.518.518.519.2SPL43.243.232.331.643.2N4.24.31.81.74.2median 27.9median 27.8median 20.7median 19.6median 27.9Delta1.81.92.42.61.8hearing rangehide median Fan NoiseAsus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T

Temperature

The VivoBook has...
The VivoBook has...
...problems during the stress test.
...problems during the stress test.

Our test unit never warms up uncomfortably, neither during idle nor during load. The hottest spot is at the top at about 44 °C (111 °F) in the back area of the keyboard. During regular operation, you can hardly notice any warming. The Dell Vostro operates in a completely different realm. The competitor warms up to 56 °C (133 °F) at the bottom during load operation, which makes using it on your lap almost impossible.

In order to analyze the temperature development inside, we apply a stress scenario to our test unit using the Prime95 and FurMark applications. Already at the start of running the software, the CPU temperature rises to 95 °C (203 °F) after a few seconds. The consequence is clear. The CPU has to control its speed. The processor has to throttle already after 30 seconds. In our case, this means that the CPU drops below its basic clock speed of 1.6 GHz. After one minute, the cores only operate at 1 GHz, and after about one hour of runtime, the CPU levels out at only 1.1 GHz. However, you will hardly ever encounter such immense loads on the processor and GPU under real conditions. As we saw during the Cinebench loop, the processor is able to command a good performance even over a longer time period. The performance drop we saw here may become noticeable during gaming, for example.

There is a small all-clear indication as soon as we complete our software run. Almost immediately, the clock speed of the processor increases to its maximum Turbo Boost. Also after the stress test, 3DMark 11 achieves the same points as during a cold start.

Max. Load
 28.4 °C
83 F
34.9 °C
95 F
33.2 °C
92 F
 
 25.9 °C
79 F
40 °C
104 F
36 °C
97 F
 
 24.5 °C
76 F
25.3 °C
78 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
Maximum: 40 °C = 104 F
Average: 31 °C = 88 F
36.7 °C
98 F
44 °C
111 F
28.6 °C
83 F
38.9 °C
102 F
39.5 °C
103 F
26.5 °C
80 F
30.6 °C
87 F
26.4 °C
80 F
25.2 °C
77 F
Maximum: 44 °C = 111 F
Average: 32.9 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  45.9 °C = 115 F | Room Temperature 22.6 °C = 73 F | FIRT 550-Pocket
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 31 °C / 88 F for the devices in the class Multimedia.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40 °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 44 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 38.8 °C / 102 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.8 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 31 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 31 °C / 87.8 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 (-1.9 °C / -3.4 F).

Speakers

Neither the sound volume nor its quality are sufficient for an enjoyable music experience. On the other hand, voices are reproduced relatively clear for Skype conferences.

Speaker frequency diagram
Speaker frequency diagram
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.940.639.9253936.1393136.834.136.8403832.5385038.732.538.76340.431.940.48039.729.139.710040.829.440.812542.626.442.616045.32645.320049.625.349.625053.62453.631556.123.456.140055.223.155.250058.221.958.263059.32159.380058.820.158.8100060.619.760.6125065.319.665.3160066.618.866.6200068.818.568.8250070.618.370.6315068.318.668.3400067.618.367.6500067.818.467.8630068.218.568.280006618.4661000061.818.461.81250056.918.256.91600061.818.561.8SPL78.831.678.8N42.11.742.1median 60.6median 19.6median 60.6Delta6.42.66.435.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.432.434.432.436393640.642.240.63435.43436.737.836.731.129.631.126.628.826.626.328.326.328.625.628.636.923.336.939.622.739.636.821.536.851.220.851.265.720.465.764.219.364.263.518.563.565.118.265.168.217.968.270.917.970.967.317.767.369.417.869.467.917.767.969.218.169.270.418.270.46718.36766.418.566.463.618.663.667.418.667.467.818.467.85818.55879.930.679.946.91.446.9median 65.7median 18.5median 65.78.81.88.83033.23031.832.531.833.934.333.931.230.231.228.931.228.930.628.730.627.826.727.826.125.926.125.72425.727.823.927.833.723.833.751.221.751.256.321.156.357.520.257.553.319.253.353.618.853.658.418.158.458.517.658.566.217.666.262.417.862.462.817.662.865.617.865.665.417.965.460.818.160.863.218.363.258.518.458.564.818.764.868.118.968.16418.86460.61960.675.330.575.335.11.435.1median 58.5median 18.8median 58.57.81.97.8hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534TApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHzHP Pavilion 15-cc107ngLenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (70.61 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 19%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 22% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 72% 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, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HP Pavilion 15-cc107ng audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (70.88 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.2% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 59% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 19%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 42% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15IKB 80XL01NEGE audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (68.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 75% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 19%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency comparison (checkboxes selectable!)

Power Consumption

Even during idle, our test unit is a few watts more power hungry than the competitors. During exclusive load of the CPU via Prime95, the power consumption rises to 60 W initially and then finally decreases to 42 W due to the thermal clock speed conditions. In combination with FurMark, the power requirements increase to 64 W.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.4 / 0.3 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.6 / 9.2 / 9.7 Watt
Load midlight 58 / 64.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy

Battery Life

There is an ad sticker which promises a battery life of 8 hours on the keyboard of the Asus VivoBook. We wanted to test this using our WLAN scenario, which simulates surfing the web at a brightness of 150 cd/m². Unfortunately, our test unit went into sleep state after barely 4 hours. The HP Pavilion shows more endurance when it interrupts its operations only after 6.5 hours. 

Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing 1.3
Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T
8250U, GeForce 940MX, 42 Wh
234 min ∼9%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
3h 54min

Pros

+ compact case
+ premium design
+ low heat development
+ CPU performance

Cons

- 2 x USB 2.0
- imprecise typing experience
- low battery life
- strong throttling under load

Verdict

The Asus VivoBook 15, provided by cyberport
The Asus VivoBook 15, provided by cyberport

The goal of the new VivoBook is unambiguous: a multimedia notebook for everyday life. The manufacturer has focused on the core characteristics of this category but does not use the full potential in some areas. While Asus' new 15-inch notebook has premium and high-quality looks, it is unfortunate that only plastic parts are used. In terms of the input devices, we already complained about the spongy keyboard which is only suitable for occasional typing work in our last test of the VivoBook-S series.

Things are better with the Full HD display, which is okay for this price range. The manufacturer uses a matte IPS panel here, which does not appear to be obligatory if we take a look at the competitors. In the performance area, we can particularly praise the powerful CPU. However, this results in a quick increase of the processor temperature, starting up the fans easily. Finally, we are missing some endurance in the battery life, considering that this is supposed to be an "everyday notebook." 

The envisioned goal of the new VivoBook has not been achieved yet. But it still does its work as a multimedia notebook.

Interested buyers should compare it with the competitors. If you still have some financial wiggle room, you should take a look at the significantly more powerful Acer Swift 3.

Asus VivoBook 15 X510UQ-BQ534T - 01/18/2018 v6(old)
Nino Ricchizzi

Chassis
80 / 98 → 82%
Keyboard
60%
Pointing Device
84%
Connectivity
42 / 81 → 52%
Weight
68 / 20-67 → 100%
Battery
74%
Display
83%
Games Performance
66 / 85 → 78%
Application Performance
79 / 92 → 86%
Temperature
91%
Noise
72 / 95 → 75%
Audio
64%
Camera
29 / 85 → 34%
Average
69%
77%
Multimedia - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 6 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 Laptop (i5-8250U, GeForce 940MX, FHD) Review
Nino Ricchizzi, 2018-01-24 (Update: 2018-01-25)