Notebookcheck

Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH (N4200, HD) Laptop Review

Sascha Mölck (translated by Mark Riege), 06/17/2017

Unremarkable. The Asus convertible has an Apollo Lake processor on board and offers a lot of storage space. The battery life can be called average at best. At a price of almost 500 Euros (~$560), the device is not one of the most affordable models.

For the original German review, see here.

With the VivoBook Flip 12, Asus delivers a Windows convertible in the 11.6-inch format. The device is driven by a Pentium quad-core processor of the Apollo Lake generation. The competitors of the convertible include devices such as the HP Pavilion 11 x360, the ODYS Vario Pro 12, the Medion Akoya E2215T, and the Dell Latitude 3189. (In the US, the Flip 12 will be available in various configurations starting at $399.)

Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Graphics adapter
Intel HD Graphics 505, Core: 200-750 MHz, 21.20.16.4678
Memory
4096 MB 
, DDR3-1866
Display
11.6 inch 16:9, 1366x768 pixel 135 PPI, capacitive, 10 touch points, AU Optronics B116XAN04.3, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035, 1024 GB 
, 900 GB free
Soundcard
Realtek ALC256 @ Intel Apollo Lake SoC - High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, Audio Connections: combined audio, Card Reader: microSD, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Sensors: acceleration sensor, TPM 2.0
Networking
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9377 Wireless Network Adapter (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.1
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 21.35 x 293.4 x 198 ( = 0.84 x 11.55 x 7.8 in)
Battery
42 Wh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD
Additional features
Speakers: stereo, Keyboard: chiclet, Keyboard Light: no, McAfee LiveSafe (trial version), Ms Office 365 (trial version), Team Viewer 11, WPS Office for Asus, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
1.3 kg ( = 45.86 oz / 2.87 pounds), Power Supply: 132 g ( = 4.66 oz / 0.29 pounds)
Price
499 Euro

 

Case

In the VivoBook Flip 12, Asus bets on a colorful plastic case. Our test unit comes in a golden color. Alternatively, rose-gold and gray are also available. The top of the base has a texture that simulates brushed metal. The case shows good workmanship and has no shortcomings in that regard. In terms of stability also, there is nothing to complain about. The battery is built-in, and the computer does not have a maintenance flap. 

To get inside, all the screws on the bottom have to be removed. Then you have to put the convertible on its feet again and open the top of the base unit. For this, you need a flat lever and have to be very careful, since the top is held in place by many plastic brackets that can easily break. After you have loosened the top, you still cannot take it off, since inside the case runs a flat cable that is glued to the top of the base unit as well as the frame of the hard drive. It is above the keyboard, almost right in the center. At this point we gave up trying to open the device to avoid causing damage.

The VivoBook offers a decent selection of connections. The small computer brings three USB 3.1 Gen-1 ports (1x Type C, 2x Type A). There is also a video output (HDMI). There is much to like about the position of the connections, which are on both sides towards the back. Thus the area of the palm rest remains free of cables. 

The convertible has a Qualcomm WLAN chip (QCA9377) on board. In addition to the WLAN 802.11a/b/g/h/n standards, it also supports the fast ac standard. The transfer speeds that we measured under optimal conditions (no other WLAN devices in close proximity, close distance between notebook and server) turned out to be good.

Size Comparison

Left side: USB 3.1 Gen 1 (Type A), audio combo, fingerprint reader, volume rocker, power button
Left side: USB 3.1 Gen 1 (Type A), audio combo, fingerprint reader, volume rocker, power button
Right side: card reader (microSD), 2x USB 3.1 Gen 1 (1x Type C, 1x Type A), HDMI, power
Right side: card reader (microSD), 2x USB 3.1 Gen 1 (1x Type C, 1x Type A), HDMI, power
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
657 MBit/s ∼100% +91%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9377 Wireless Network Adapter
344 MBit/s ∼52%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Realtek RTL8723BS
52 MBit/s ∼8% -85%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
548 MBit/s ∼100% +62%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9377 Wireless Network Adapter
338 MBit/s ∼62%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Realtek RTL8723BS
46 MBit/s ∼8% -86%

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a loyal reader of notebookcheck? Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team!

Especially wanted: 
German-English-Translator - Details here
Review Editor - 
Details here
News Editor - Details here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Input Devices

The VivoBook comes a chiclet keyboard without a backlight. The flat, slightly roughened keys have a short stroke and a clear pressure point. The resistance could be crisper - but this is a matter of taste. While typing, the keyboard yields slightly in the center, which did not become annoying. The arrow keys are tiny and squeezed into a corner. Overall, Asus delivers a decent keyboard which completely fulfils the demands of home use.

The multi-touch capable ClickPad occupies an area of 10.5 x 6.1 cm (~4.1 x 2.4 in). This offers a lot of space for gesture control. The smooth surface of the pad does not prevent the fingers from gliding. The pad also reacts to input in the corners. It has a short stroke and clear pressure point.

The touchscreen supports 10 touch points and reacts to input promptly. It can support finger operation as well as an active pen. Asus even offers model versions that are equipped with the corresponding pen. This is not the case for our test unit.

Input devices
Input devices

Display

Pixel grid
Pixel grid

The glossy 11.6-inch touchscreen display of the VivoBook has a native resolution of 1366x768 pixels. It offers a very good contrast (1488:1), but in terms of brightness (245.5 cd/m2), the display could offer more. A value above 300 cd/m2 would be more appropriate. After all, this is a convertible, which should be used in various places under various lighting conditions. Positive: At no time does the screen show any PWM flickering.

260
cd/m²
253
cd/m²
266
cd/m²
234
cd/m²
253
cd/m²
277
cd/m²
179
cd/m²
221
cd/m²
266
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 277 cd/m² Average: 245.4 cd/m² Minimum: 16 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 65 %
Center on Battery: 253 cd/m²
Contrast: 1488:1 (Black: 0.17 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.17 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 2 | - Ø
66% sRGB (Argyll) 42% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.43
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
IPS, 1366x768, 11.6
Dell Latitude 3189
IPS, 1366x768, 11.6
ODYS Vario Pro 12
IPS, 1366x768, 11.6
Medion Akoya E2215T
IPS, 1920x1080, 11.6
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
IPS, 1366x768, 11.6
Response Times
-13%
-49%
9%
30%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
39 (18, 21)
40 (18.8, 21.2)
-3%
60 (31, 29)
-54%
31 (13, 18)
21%
18.8 (6.8, 12)
52%
Response Time Black / White *
25 (13, 12)
30.4 (16.4, 14)
-22%
36 (22, 14)
-44%
26 (6, 20)
-4%
23.2 (10, 13.2)
7%
PWM Frequency
50 (20)
Screen
12%
-47%
-20%
-3%
Brightness
245
284
16%
250
2%
309
26%
186
-24%
Brightness Distribution
65
92
42%
74
14%
76
17%
86
32%
Black Level *
0.17
0.16
6%
0.37
-118%
0.39
-129%
0.22
-29%
Contrast
1488
1819
22%
762
-49%
867
-42%
882
-41%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.17
3.4
-7%
5.63
-78%
3.94
-24%
3.06
3%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2
1.8
10%
5.04
-152%
2.54
-27%
1.42
29%
Gamma
2.43 99%
2.14 112%
2.19 110%
2.38 101%
2.34 103%
CCT
6850 95%
6544 99%
7254 90%
6902 94%
6432 101%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
42
42.8
2%
43
2%
46
10%
42.98
2%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
66
67
2%
67
2%
71
8%
67.56
2%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-1% / 7%
-48% / -48%
-6% / -14%
14% / 3%

* ... smaller is better

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: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8499 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The colors are displayed with an accuracy that is quite decent already in the state of delivery. With a DeltaE-2000 color deviation of 3.17, the display only barely misses the target range (DeltaE smaller than 3). The display does not suffer from a blue tint.

CalMAN - ColorChecker
CalMAN - ColorChecker
CalMAN - Grayscales
CalMAN - Grayscales
CalMAN - Saturation
CalMAN - Saturation

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
25 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 13 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. » 36 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (26.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
39 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 18 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. » 39 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (42.4 ms).

Asus has equipped the VivoBook with an IPS panel that remains stable from all viewing angles. The display can be read from any position. Outdoors, the convertible can only be used in shaded surroundings or when it is heavily overcast. Otherwise, the low display brightness and glossy display surface prevent this undertaking.

The VivoBook outdoors
The VivoBook outdoors

Performance

With the VivoBook, Asus delivers an 11.6-inch convertible that has sufficient performance for applications in the office and Internet areas. Our test unit can be purchased for about 500 Euros (~$560). At the time of the test we could not find other model variants, but only color variations.

Processor

The VivoBook comes with an Intel Pentium N4200 (Apollo Lake) quad-core processor. Thanks to a low TDP of 6 watts the chip can be cooled passively. This is also implemented here. In the tests, the processor fares considerably better than the direct Braswell predecessors (N3700/N3710). Intel has been able to increase the performance per MHz considerably. The new architecture delivers a performance increase of up to 30%. The processor operates with a basic speed of 1.1 GHz, which can be increased via Turbo up to 2.5 GHz.

The Turbo is used in mains and battery operation. In Multithreaded applications, the operating speed is lowered already after a few seconds from 2.4 to between 2.0 and 2.1 GHz. Single-threaded applications are not affected by this.

We test if the Turbo is used steadily by running the Multithread test of Cinebench R15 for about 30 minutes in a constant loop. From the first to the fifth run, the performance is lowered by half and then remains at that level for a while. From the fifth run on, the performance rises slightly again and then remains at that level permanently. The original performance is not achieved again. Thus, there is a considerable drop in performance, which is not surprising and is to be expected from a passively cooled device.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single 32Bit
1680
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
4673
Cinebench R10 Shading 32Bit
3331
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
53 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
167 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
17.82 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.8 %
Help
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
53 Points ∼100%
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
51 Points ∼96% -4%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
50 Points ∼94% -6%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel Celeron N3050
35 Points ∼66% -34%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
175 Points ∼100% +5%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
174 Points ∼99% +4%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
167 Points ∼95%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel Celeron N3050
65 Points ∼37% -61%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single 32Bit
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1680 Points ∼100%
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1638 Points ∼98% -2%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
1633 Points ∼97% -3%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
938 Points ∼56% -44%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
921 Points ∼55% -45%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 32Bit
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
5440 Points ∼100% +16%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
5346 Points ∼98% +14%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4673 Points ∼86%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
3076 Points ∼57% -34%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
2897 Points ∼53% -38%
Geekbench 3
32 Bit Multi-Core Score
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
4736 Points ∼100% +1%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4682 Points ∼99%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
2289 Points ∼48% -51%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
2130 Points ∼45% -55%
32 Bit Single-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1430 Points ∼100%
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1400 Points ∼98% -2%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
760 Points ∼53% -47%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
726 Points ∼51% -49%
Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
4558 Points ∼100% +1%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4491 Points ∼99%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1609 Points ∼100%
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1541 Points ∼96% -4%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
4729 Points ∼100%
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
4719 Points ∼100% 0%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
1616 Points ∼100%
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
1571 Points ∼97% -3%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel Pentium N4200
91.527 Points ∼100%
Dell Latitude 3180
Intel Pentium N4200
87.494 Points ∼96% -4%
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel Pentium N4200
84.572 Points ∼92% -8%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
44.098 Points ∼48% -52%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel Celeron N3050
43.305 Points ∼47% -53%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
42.548 Points ∼46% -54%

System Performance

The built-in SoC offers sufficient computing power for office and Internet applications. The PC Mark 8 benchmark result was quite decent and corresponds with the performance of the SoC. The overall performance can be increased by exchanging the HDD for an SSD. The system would react faster and the loading times would shorten. The exchange might not be that easy to do, however.

PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
2094 points
Help
PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
Dell Latitude 3189
HD Graphics 505, N4200, Liteonit CV3-8D128
2273 Points ∼100% +9%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
HD Graphics 505, N4200, Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
2094 Points ∼92%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
HD Graphics (Braswell), N3050, Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 HTS545050A7E680
1545 Points ∼68% -26%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8350, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1437 Points ∼63% -31%
Medion Akoya E2215T
HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Z8350, 64 GB eMMC Flash
1282 Points ∼56% -39%

Storage Solution

A conventional 2.5-inch hard drive by Seagate serves as the system drive. It offers a 1-TB storage capacity and runs at 5400 RPM. The transfer rates are at a normal level for 5400-RPM models.

Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
Transfer Rate Minimum: 26.5 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum: 135 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average: 100.6 MB/s
Access Time: 19.9 ms
Burst Rate: 78.7 MB/s
CPU Usage: 5.9 %
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Seagate Mobile HDD 1TB ST1000LM035
Dell Latitude 3189
Liteonit CV3-8D128
ODYS Vario Pro 12
32 GB eMMC Flash
Medion Akoya E2215T
64 GB eMMC Flash
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Hitachi Travelstar Z5K500 HTS545050A7E680
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
7181%
1851%
1279%
68%
Write 4k QD32
0.518
111.7
21464%
13.65
2535%
10.05
1840%
1.003
94%
Read 4k QD32
0.998
132.2
13146%
32.2
3126%
15.11
1414%
0.898
-10%
Write 4k
0.263
49.14
18584%
11.64
4326%
7.915
2910%
1.026
290%
Read 4k
0.378
8.864
2245%
15.91
4109%
13.09
3363%
0.407
8%
Write 512
67.31
170.6
153%
33.71
-50%
27.45
-59%
39.03
-42%
Read 512
22.62
243.7
977%
155
585%
155.3
587%
33.53
48%
Write Seq
66.38
214.3
223%
43.13
-35%
39.77
-40%
106.1
60%
Read Seq
53.91
408.4
658%
168.3
212%
169.6
215%
106
97%

Graphics Card

DXVAChecker
DXVAChecker

The Intel HD Graphics 505 graphics core manages the graphics output. The GPU supports DirectX 12 and operates at speeds of up to 750 MHz. The results in the 3D Mark benchmarks turn out considerably better than for devices that are equipped with GPUs of the preceding generation (Braswell). Here as well a change of architecture is responsible: The HD Graphics 505 GPU comes from the Skylake architecture (predecessor: Broadwell).

A look at our comparison chart shows that the VivoBook clearly remains behind the Dell Latitude 3189 which is equipped with the same graphics processor. The solution to the mystery is quickly found: The RAM memory of the Asus computer operates in single-channel mode, whereas that of the Latitude operates in dual-channel mode.

3DMark 11 Performance
672 points
Help
3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Dell Latitude 3189
Intel HD Graphics 505, Intel Pentium N4200
804 Points ∼100% +31%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
Intel HD Graphics 505, Intel Pentium N4200
616 Points ∼77%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
Intel HD Graphics (Braswell), Intel Celeron N3050
377 Points ∼47% -39%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8350
297 Points ∼37% -52%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), Intel Atom x5-Z8350
297 Points ∼37% -52%

Gaming Performance

At most, the VivoBook can display a handful of games on the screen smoothly - at low resolutions and low quality settings. However, this is only true for games that make very few demands on the hardware. There are considerably more playable games among the casual games you can find at the Windows Store. 

low med. high ultra
World of Warcraft (2005) 62.325.2fps
BioShock Infinite (2013) 25.414.411.5fps
Risen 3: Titan Lords (2014) 14.29.3fps
GTA V (2015) 9.54.3fps
Far Cry Primal (2016) 3fps
Civilization VI (2016) 9.7fps
Titanfall 2 (2016) 2.3fps
Prey (2017) 5.4fps
Rocket League (2017) 26.6fps
Dirt 4 (2017) 14.7fps

Emissions

System Noise

Since the VivoBook does not have a fan on board, you can only hear the soft murmur of the hard drive. If you were to replace the HDD with an SSD, you would get a silent system.

Noise Level

Idle
31.7 / 31.7 / 31.7 dB(A)
HDD
32.3 dB(A)
Load
31.7 / 31.7 dB(A)
 
 
 
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: 30.8 dB(A)

Temperature

The VivoBook in the stress test
The VivoBook in the stress test

The VivoBook runs through our stress test (Prime95 and FurMark run for at least one hour) in the same way in mains and battery operation. It should not be surprising that the operating speeds are lowered rather quickly. The CPU runs at 2 GHz for a few seconds and then is throttled to 1.4 GHz. From then on, the clock speed drops continuously. After about 20 minutes, the speed is at 400 to 500 MHz and remains at that level. The graphics core starts the test at 200 MHz and is then throttled down to between 150 and 100 MHz. 

Due to the passive cooling, the computer warms up slightly more. During the stress test, the 50 °C (122 °F) mark is exceeded at one measurement point. This should not give any reason for concern. In everyday operation, it warms up considerably less.

Max. Load
 30.9 °C42 °C45.2 °C 
 30.1 °C39.4 °C44.6 °C 
 26.7 °C30.6 °C33.8 °C 
Maximum: 45.2 °C
Average: 35.9 °C
42 °C50.4 °C28.4 °C
39.8 °C39.4 °C27.8 °C
33.9 °C33 °C26.8 °C
Maximum: 50.4 °C
Average: 35.7 °C
Power Supply (max.)  39.2 °C | Room Temperature 23 °C | FIRT 550-Pocket
Heat development top (load)
Heat development top (load)
Heat development bottom (load)
Heat development bottom (load)
Heat development top (idle)
Heat development top (idle)
Heat development bottom (idle)
Heat development bottom (idle)

Speakers

The stereo speakers are placed at the bottom of the device. Their sound is basically okay, but the bass could be more pronounced. For a better music experience, we recommend the use of headphones or external speakers.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2033.334.733.32536.534.536.53140.943.140.94033.132.133.15031.738.931.76332.733.432.7802927.92910029.926.229.912531.527.831.516035.724.735.720036.723.536.725050.122.750.131556.121.556.140062.220.762.250065.319.765.363065.519.665.580065.518.565.5100066.118.166.112506218.2621600571857200059.617.959.6250060.91860.9315059.218.159.2400060.418.460.4500058.518.458.5630061.518.661.580006319631000059.419.159.41250062.51962.51600065.919.565.9SPL7430.974N34.61.534.6median 60.4Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049Tmedian 19median 60.4Delta6.21.66.235.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHzmedian 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (66 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 26% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 66% 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 9%, average was 20%, worst was 47%
Compared to all devices tested
» 2% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Frequency comparison (Checkboxes selectable!)

Power Management

Power Consumption

Since the computer has an economical and weak SoC, it does not use up much power over the whole load range. While idling, we measured a maximum consumption of 8.7 watts. During the stress test, the value rose to just 19 watts, since the CPU and GPU are throttled. Overall, the VivoBook uses more power than a comparable device such as the Dell Latitude 3189. In particular in idle and under low load, the energy consumption turns out considerably higher - this is also reflected in the battery life. The power supply of the VivoBook offers a nominal power of 33 watts.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.46 / 0.47 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.7 / 7.8 / 8.7 Watt
Load midlight 21 / 19 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy

Battery Life

In our practically relevant WLAN test, we simulate the load when opening web sites. The "Balanced" profile is active, the power saving functions are deactivated, and the display brightness is adjusted to about 150 cd/m². The VivoBook achieves a runtime of 6:05 h.

Battery Runtime
WiFi Surfing v1.3 (Edge 40)
6h 05min
Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing 1.3
Dell Latitude 3189
N4200, HD Graphics 505, 42 Wh
607 min ∼100% +66%
Medion Akoya E2215T
Z8350, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), 38 Wh
474 min ∼78% +30%
ODYS Vario Pro 12
Z8350, HD Graphics (Cherry Trail),  Wh
453 min ∼75% +24%
Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T
N4200, HD Graphics 505, 42 Wh
365 min ∼60%
HP Pavilion 11-k103ng x360
N3050, HD Graphics (Braswell), 32 Wh
286 min ∼47% -22%

Verdict

Pros

+ IPS display
+ a lot of storage space
+ USB Type-C

Cons

- average battery life
- expensive
The Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T, provided by notebooksbilliger.de.
The Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T, provided by notebooksbilliger.de.

With the VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH, Asus delivers a convertible in the 11.6-inch format. The built-in Apollo Lake processor offers sufficient performance for applications of the office and Internet areas. Since the decoder integrated into the GPU enables playing all the usual video formats, the computer can be used as a quiet video player for the TV at home.

The display leaves a mixed impression. Asus delivers a contrast-rich display with stable viewing angles whose brightness turns out a little too low.

The VivoBook Flip 12 is primarily meant for use at home.

Thanks to the 1-TB hard drive, the small computer does not lack any storage space. Nonetheless, a small-capacity SSD would have been the better choice. Especially in computers that only have weak CPUs, the difference between an SSD and HDD is considerable in daily use. Users who want to switch to an SSD have to do it themselves. However, this exchange turns out to be not that easy. Unfortunately, Asus does not have any VivoBook variants equipped with SSDs in their offerings.

The battery life is average at best: In our WLAN test, the device achieves a runtime of 6:05 h. If the device is used exclusively in the living room at home, the battery life is quite sufficient. But if the device is to be used away from home, such as in the school or college, you always need to take the power supply. The Dell Latitude 3189, which is equipped with the same hardware platform and battery capacity, lasts a good four hours longer.

And finally we should mention the purchase price. Asus asks for 500 Euros (~$560) for the VivoBook, which is quite a hefty price for a simple convertible. However, in this regard the competition does not look much better and comparative models from the competition are in the same price range.

Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH-BP049T - 06/16/2017 v6
Sascha Mölck

Chassis
74 / 98 → 75%
Keyboard
69%
Pointing Device
88%
Connectivity
42 / 80 → 52%
Weight
71 / 78 → 85%
Battery
88%
Display
82%
Games Performance
48 / 68 → 71%
Application Performance
46 / 87 → 52%
Temperature
88%
Noise
92%
Audio
50 / 91 → 55%
Camera
40 / 85 → 47%
Average
68%
79%
Convertible - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 4 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Asus VivoBook Flip 12 TP203NAH (N4200, HD) Laptop Review
Sascha Mölck, 2017-06-17 (Update: 2017-06-19)