Notebookcheck

Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA (i5-8250U) Convertible Review

Great for the price. The latest VivoBook convertible gets more right than wrong. Though not a huge upgrade over last year's model in terms of features and internal specifications, its chassis is now sleeker and more visually appealing for its sub $800 price range.

The Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412 directly succeeds last year's VivoBook Flip 14 TP410 with a fair number of changes in tow. Announced in June, the convertible only began shipping earlier this month for a starting price of under $700 USD for the base Core i3 configuration.

Our test unit today is the mid-range Core i5 SKU with 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage for $750 USD. The highest-end option includes a Core i7-8550U with double the RAM and up to 1 TB of storage. The 1080p touchscreen and integrated graphics are otherwise identical across the entire lineup.

The mainstream VivoBook series sits just below the flagship ZenBook series to appeal to users on a tight budget. Thus, it directly competes with other sub 15-inch mainstream convertibles like the Lenovo Yoga 530, Acer Spin 3 SP314, Samsung Notebook 7 Spin, Dell XPS 13 9365, or Dell Inspiron 13 5000 2-in-1. Pricier flagship convertibles are also available in this size category such as the ZenBook Flip 14, Lenovo Yoga 920, and HP Spectre x360 13.

We recommend checking out our review on the last generation VivoBook Flip 14 TP410 as it still shares many similarities with this latest iteration.

Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T (VivoBook Flip 14 Series)
Graphics adapter
Intel UHD Graphics 620, Core: 300 MHz, Memory: 1200 MHz, DDR4, 23.20.16.4974
Memory
8192 MB 
, DDR4-2400, 1200 MHz, Dual-Channel, 10-10-10-28
Display
14 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 157 PPI, AUO B140HAN04.0, IPS, AUO403D, glossy: yes
Mainboard
Intel Kaby Lake-U iHDCP 2.2 Premium PCH
Storage
Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN, 256 GB 
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: SD, 1 Fingerprint Reader, Sensors: Accelerometer
Networking
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265 (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 17.6 x 327.4 x 224.8 ( = 0.69 x 12.89 x 8.85 in)
Battery
42 Wh
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: VGA
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, Asus Install, Asus Hello, Asus Gift Box, Asus Battery Health Charging, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
1.5 kg ( = 52.91 oz / 3.31 pounds), Power Supply: 133 g ( = 4.69 oz / 0.29 pounds)
Price
750 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Asus has managed to cut the thickness down from 19 mm on last year's TP410 model to 17.6 mm on this year's TP412 model. The newer design is just a hair lighter and smaller as a result without sacrificing any of the connectivity features of the previous model.

The matte chassis leaves a good first impression with no unintended gaps or uneven crevices. The aluminum outer lid is smooth and more rigid than even the lid of the Yoga 920. Meanwhile, the plastic base is slightly textured with a comparatively cheaper feel. Slight but visible flexing is possible when attempting to twist the front edges or warp the center of the keyboard deck. The flexing is not enough to be a concern during regular use, but it cements the TP412 as a mainstream offering instead of a flagship Zenbook.

The hinges are the weakest aspect of the chassis as they could have been more taut to reduce teetering of the lid. Overall, system rigidity is a step below the Spectre x360 13.

Connectivity

The ports are essentially identical to last year's TP410. The Kensington Lock has been moved from the left edge to the right edge, but nothing else has changed. We're hoping that Asus will drop the proprietary AC adapter port altogether for USB Type-C charging similar to the ZenBook 3 UX390.

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!

SD Card Reader

The integrated SD card reader is slow with a transfer rate of only 28 MB/s with our UHS-II test card. Moving 1 GB worth of images from our card to desktop takes over 40 seconds compared to 6 or 7 seconds on the Spectre x360 15.

A fully inserted SD card still protrudes by over half its length. Be sure to remove the card first for safer transporting.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
178.4 MB/s ∼100% +605%
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
174 MB/s ∼98% +588%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
25.3 MB/s ∼14%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
24.5 MB/s ∼14% -3%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
208.6 MB/s ∼100% +648%
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
192 MB/s ∼92% +589%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
27.87 MB/s ∼13%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
26.6 MB/s ∼13% -5%

Communication

The Intel 8265 module has not changed for theoretical transfer rates of up to 867 Mbps. While we experienced no issues when browsing the net, we noticed that connectivity was not always steady. An iPerf test revealed that transfer rates would sometimes fluctuate to under 100 Mbps once or twice every minute. We're unsure if this is widespread or something specific to our test unit.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
613 MBit/s ∼100%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
526 MBit/s ∼86% -14%
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
525 MBit/s ∼86% -14%
Lenovo IdeaPad 330-15IGM
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
344 MBit/s ∼56% -44%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
665 MBit/s ∼100% +31%
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
575 MBit/s ∼86% +14%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
506 MBit/s ∼76%
Lenovo IdeaPad 330-15IGM
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3165
298 MBit/s ∼45% -41%

Maintenance

Serviceability has improved significantly over last year's model. The bottom panel is relatively easy to remove with just a Philips screwdriver and sharp edge. The RAM slot is covered by an aluminum cage and the secondary 2.5-inch SATA bay has been removed.

Accessories and Warranty

The box includes no extras other than the AC adapter, Quick Start guide, and warranty card. The standard one-year limited manufacturer warranty applies.

Input Devices

Keyboard

The keyboard keys (~27.0 x 10.5 cm) are adequate if not slightly on the spongy side. The Backspace, Enter, and Arrow keys in particular are softer than we are used to. Clatter is moderate and close to the keys of the XPS 13.

The three-level white backlight returns. Unlike on the TP410, however, Asus has flipped the F function keys with their secondary multimedia functions. Thus, the fn key is no longer required to adjust volume, brightness, or keyboard lighting.

Touchpad

The Precision clickpad surface (~10.6 x 7.5 cm) is responsive with smooth gliding properties. If moving very slowly, however, the finger tends to stick and skip. Its integrated mouse clicks are also shallow in travel and could have benefited from stronger feedback.

Display

Asus has unfortunately downgraded the display for the TP412. Whereas last year's TP410 utilized an IPS panel from Chi Mei, the new TP410 uses an IPS panel from AU Optronics with inferior gamut and contrast and a dimmer backlight as shown by our table below. It could have been a cost-saving measure, but it's a very disappointing find nonetheless.

Luckily, the glossy touchscreen is still crisp and free of grains. We can detect no pulse-width modulation and backlight bleeding is minimal around the corners of our unit.

Minimal uneven backlight bleeding
Minimal uneven backlight bleeding
Subpixel array (157 PPI)
Subpixel array (157 PPI)
222.5
cd/m²
247.7
cd/m²
227.5
cd/m²
234.1
cd/m²
255.5
cd/m²
237.5
cd/m²
252.1
cd/m²
250.4
cd/m²
249.9
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 255.5 cd/m² Average: 241.9 cd/m² Minimum: 15.67 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 252.5 cd/m²
Contrast: 881:1 (Black: 0.29 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.18 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2, calibrated: 3.8
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
59.1% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 37.5% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.05
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
AUO B140HAN04.0, IPS, 14, 1920x1080
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
AU Optronics B139HAN03.0, IPS, 13.9, 1920x1080
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Chi Mei N140HCE-EN1, IPS, 14, 1920x1080
Lenovo Yoga 530-14IKB-81EK00CWGE
InfoVision M140NWF5 R2, IPS, 14, 1920x1080
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
LQ156D1, IPS, 15.6, 3840x2160
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
BOE0730, IPS, 15.6, 3840x2160
Response Times
-12%
9%
-8%
-13%
14%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
38 (19.6, 18.4)
46 (20.8, 25.2)
-21%
34 (19, 15)
11%
45 (20, 25)
-18%
46.4 (22.8, 23.6)
-22%
36 (18, 18)
5%
Response Time Black / White *
30.8 (17.2, 13.6)
31.6 (18.4, 13.2)
-3%
29 (18, 11)
6%
30 (14, 16)
3%
32 (18, 14)
-4%
23.6 (12, 11.6)
23%
PWM Frequency
24750 (80)
520 (90)
980.4 (25)
943.4 (99)
Screen
-11%
29%
18%
35%
15%
Brightness middle
255.5
297.9
17%
327
28%
240
-6%
494
93%
349.5
37%
Brightness
242
278
15%
308
27%
234
-3%
457
89%
331
37%
Brightness Distribution
87
81
-7%
90
3%
93
7%
88
1%
90
3%
Black Level *
0.29
0.44
-52%
0.23
21%
0.11
62%
0.34
-17%
0.29
-0%
Contrast
881
677
-23%
1422
61%
2182
148%
1453
65%
1205
37%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.18
5.1
-22%
2.63
37%
4.98
-19%
5.2
-24%
4.06
3%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
19.15
11
43%
6.58
66%
10.75
44%
17.5
9%
7.68
60%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
3.8
3.33
12%
4.22
-11%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.2
6.7
-205%
4.11
-87%
3.51
-60%
2.7
-23%
4.4
-100%
Gamma
2.05 107%
2.9 76%
2.45 90%
2.2 100%
2.1 105%
2.11 104%
CCT
6599 98%
6839 95%
7352 88%
6606 98%
7038 92%
7422 88%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
37.5
64.1
71%
63
68%
40
7%
71.2
90%
56.5
51%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
59.1
91.7
55%
97
64%
62
5%
98.8
67%
86.9
47%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-12% / -11%
19% / 25%
5% / 14%
11% / 27%
15% / 15%

* ... smaller is better

Color space covers only 59 percent and 38 percent of the sRGB and AdobeRGB standards, respectively, to indicate a budget panel. Costlier Ultrabooks like the Zenbook or Lenovo Yoga often cover sRGB almost fully for deeper and more accurate colors.

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

Further display measurements reveal accurate grayscale and colors which we were not expecting from a budget-mainstream system. Our calibration attempts improve the display only marginally. Colors still become increasingly more inaccurate at higher saturation levels due to imperfect sRGB coverage.

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
30.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17.2 ms rise
↘ 13.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 78 % 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
38 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19.6 ms rise
↘ 18.4 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. » 35 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to 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 8929 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is poor despite the flexible 2-in-1 design. The dim display and glossy backlight only accentuate glare. Viewing angles are otherwise very wide with no major color shifting as one would expect from an IPS panel.

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

Performance

Current SKUs can be configured with a Core i3-8130U, i5-8250U, or i7-8550U while the integrated Intel GPU remains fixed. These ULV CPUs cater to light office or home users where word processing, browsing, streaming, and multi-tasking take priority. Performance users or video editors may want to consider laptops with more powerful Intel Core H-class CPUs such as the Zenbook Pro 15 series.

 

Processor

CineBench R15
CineBench R15

CPU performance is where we expect it to be for a Core i5-8250U. The Kaby Lake-R processor is roughly 60 percent faster than the Kaby Lake Core i5-7200U in last year's TP410 for a performance level very similar to the Core i5-7300HQ. Users upgrading from the Core i3-8130U option should see a notable performance boost of about 54 percent.

Running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop reveals a performance drop of only 7 percent over time. This suggests that the system is unable to maintain maximum Turbo Boost clock rates indefinitely when under very high stress. Such a behavior is not unexpected from super-thin laptops.

See our dedicated page on the Core i5-8250U for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600Tooltip
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN: Ø549 (543.42-590.28)
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A: Ø329 (327.78-330.68)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Dell XPS 15 2018 i5 FHD 97Wh
Intel Core i5-8300H
167 Points ∼77% +16%
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
Intel Core i7-8705G
165 Points ∼76% +15%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
Intel Core i7-8550U
162 Points ∼74% +13%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14IKB-81EK00CWGE
Intel Core i5-8250U
144 Points ∼66% 0%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
Intel Core i5-8250U
144 Points ∼66%
Average Intel Core i5-8250U
  (81 - 167, n=87)
141 Points ∼65% -2%
Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-30YA
Intel Core i3-8130U
140 Points ∼64% -3%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U
139 Points ∼64% -3%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel Core i5-7200U
127 Points ∼58% -12%
Asus F555UB-XO043T
Intel Core i5-6200U
115 Points ∼53% -20%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y
65 Points ∼30% -55%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Dell XPS 15 2018 i5 FHD 97Wh
Intel Core i5-8300H
840 Points ∼19% +61%
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
Intel Core i7-8705G
707 Points ∼16% +36%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U
589 Points ∼13% +13%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
Intel Core i7-8550U
581 Points ∼13% +12%
Average Intel Core i5-8250U
  (320 - 730, n=90)
567 Points ∼13% +9%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14IKB-81EK00CWGE
Intel Core i5-8250U
535 Points ∼12% +3%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
Intel Core i5-8250U
521 Points ∼12%
Acer Aspire 3 A315-51-30YA
Intel Core i3-8130U
338 Points ∼8% -35%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel Core i5-7200U
330 Points ∼8% -37%
Asus F555UB-XO043T
Intel Core i5-6200U
289 Points ∼7% -45%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y
164 Points ∼4% -69%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
144 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
521 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
49.23 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.8 %
Help

System Performance

Our PCMark 10 score is 16 percent higher than the last generation TP410 to indicate a small year-over-year performance boost. Pricier and more powerful convertibles, such as the Yoga 920, will still outperform the TP412.

Our test unit suffers from sleep and wake issues. When setting the system to sleep, it would always reboot instead of waking up properly. There appears to be no update to address the issue at the time of writing.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 10
PCMark 10
PCMark 10 - Score
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G
4966 Points ∼64% +39%
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
Vega M GL / 870, 8705G, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
4958 Points ∼64% +39%
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
4012 Points ∼52% +13%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
3564 Points ∼46%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14IKB-81EK00CWGE
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
3515 Points ∼45% -1%
Average Intel Core i5-8250U, Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (3407 - 4081, n=58)
3257 Points ∼42% -9%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
3074 Points ∼40% -14%
PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
3999 Points ∼66% +34%
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
Vega M GL / 870, 8705G, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
3946 Points ∼65% +32%
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G
3631 Points ∼60% +22%
Average Intel Core i5-8250U, Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (2986 - 4458, n=61)
3592 Points ∼59% +20%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
3387 Points ∼56% +13%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
2986 Points ∼49%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
2986 points
Help

Storage Devices

Whereas the TP410 had two internal drive options (M.2 + 2.5-inch SATA III), the TP412 has only a single M.2 drive. The 256 GB Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN drive in our test system is average for a SATA III SSD if not slightly slower in sequential read and write rates.

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

CDM 5
CDM 5
AS SSD
AS SSD
Single M.2 slot
Single M.2 slot
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
Lenovo Yoga 520-14IKB 80X80097GE
Intel SSD 600p SSDPEKKW256G7
AS SSD
150%
-29%
162%
51%
Copy Game MB/s
354.05
319.2
-10%
183.47
-48%
697.83
97%
425.73
20%
Copy Program MB/s
364.29
463.32
27%
120.9
-67%
463.66
27%
227.41
-38%
Copy ISO MB/s
414.39
1340.54
223%
241.63
-42%
1674.47
304%
578.97
40%
Score Total
839
2536
202%
1005
20%
2720
224%
1312
56%
Score Write
379
608
60%
323
-15%
1145
202%
662
75%
Score Read
301
1316
337%
453
50%
1087
261%
449
49%
Access Time Write *
0.056
0.028
50%
0.226
-304%
0.065
-16%
0.033
41%
Access Time Read *
0.079
0.044
44%
0.118
-49%
0.047
41%
0.092
-16%
4K-64 Write
279.43
391.27
40%
230.24
-18%
950.02
240%
495.36
77%
4K-64 Read
234.31
1039.22
344%
375.3
60%
839.57
258%
279.34
19%
4K Write
64.7
128.14
98%
68.31
6%
96.87
50%
110.15
70%
4K Read
23.31
48.46
108%
28.07
20%
20.21
-13%
33.13
42%
Seq Write
350.31
885.3
153%
248.76
-29%
979.74
180%
561.17
60%
Seq Read
437.85
2281.75
421%
499.7
14%
2268.6
418%
1367.32
212%

* ... smaller is better

Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 533.3 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 439.9 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 188.4 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 227 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 465.2 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 413.2 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 24.65 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 66.49 MB/s

GPU Performance

3DMark 11
3DMark 11

The integrated UHD Graphics 620 holds no surprises as it very common amongst laptops less than two years old. Raw GPU power is about 22 percent higher than the HD Graphics 620 in last year's TP410 and almost 35 percent slower than the old GeForce 940MX. In practical terms, GPU performance is still lackluster for anything more demanding than streaming or light gaming.

See our dedicated page on the UHD Graphics 620 for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
8405 Points ∼46% +436%
MSI Prestige PS42 8RB-059
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4354 Points ∼24% +178%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10, 2700U
2734 Points ∼15% +74%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 8550U
2395 Points ∼13% +53%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, PRO 2500U
1945 Points ∼11% +24%
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
1640 Points ∼9% +5%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8250U
1569 Points ∼9%
Average Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (959 - 3031, n=105)
1509 Points ∼8% -4%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
1169 Points ∼6% -25%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel UHD Graphics 615, 4415Y
1134 Points ∼6% -28%
Chuwi GBox CWI560
Intel UHD Graphics 600, N4100
445 Points ∼2% -72%
1280x720 Performance GPU
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
9632 Points ∼19% +455%
MSI Prestige PS42 8RB-059
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4686 Points ∼9% +170%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10, 2700U
3728 Points ∼7% +115%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, PRO 2500U
2954 Points ∼6% +70%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 8550U
2613 Points ∼5% +50%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8250U
1737 Points ∼3%
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
1709 Points ∼3% -2%
Average Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (1235 - 3203, n=105)
1694 Points ∼3% -2%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
1425 Points ∼3% -18%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel UHD Graphics 615, 4415Y
1257 Points ∼2% -28%
Chuwi GBox CWI560
Intel UHD Graphics 600, N4100
484 Points ∼1% -72%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
7059 Points ∼17%
MSI Prestige PS42 8RB-059
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
3712 Points ∼9%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10, 2700U
2442 Points ∼6%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 8550U
2069 Points ∼5%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, PRO 2500U
1775 Points ∼4%
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
1150 Points ∼3%
Average Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (557 - 2495, n=85)
1099 Points ∼3%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel UHD Graphics 615, 4415Y
819 Points ∼2%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
800 Points ∼2%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, 8705G
37915 Points ∼21%
MSI Prestige PS42 8RB-059
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
21586 Points ∼12%
Acer Swift 3 SF315-41-R6J9
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10, 2700U
15613 Points ∼8%
Asus VivoBook S410UQ-NH74
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 8550U
10816 Points ∼6%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, PRO 2500U
10692 Points ∼6%
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
9678 Points ∼5%
Average Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (6910 - 14880, n=94)
8922 Points ∼5%
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7200U
6942 Points ∼4%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel UHD Graphics 615, 4415Y
6602 Points ∼4%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Graphics
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, PRO 2500U
60959 Points ∼8%
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
54785 Points ∼8%
Average Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (30939 - 59483, n=28)
45012 Points ∼6%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel UHD Graphics 615, 4415Y
35452 Points ∼5%
3DMark 11 Performance
1929 points
Help
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 63.834.329.19.7fps

Stress Test

We stress the notebook with synthetic loads to identify for any potential throttling or stability issues. When running Prime95, the CPU can be observed operating at 3.2 GHz for the first few seconds until reaching a core temperature of 95 C. Thereafter, clock rates quickly drop to a stable 2.3 GHz in order to maintain a cooler core temperature of 73 C as shown by our screenshots below. When considering that the base clock rate of the Core i5-8250U is 1.6 GHz, the system's ability to maintain a +700 MHz Turbo Boost is admirable. Running both Prime95 and FurMark simultaneously will throttle performance even further.

Running on battery power will not impact CPU or GPU performance. A 3DMark 11 run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores that are within just 1 percent of the scores when running on mains.

System idle
System idle
Prime95 stress
Prime95 stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C)
System Idle -- -- 34
Prime95 Stress 2.3 -- 73
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 1.0 800 66

Emissions

System Noise

The system fan is always active no matter the onscreen load. When idling on desktop, however, fan noise is so low that our microphone cannot detect it 15 cm away; you'd have to place an ear on the keyboard to hear the slight whir. The system is essentially silent when word processing or streaming.

Higher loads like gaming may induce a fan noise of 35 dB(A) to 39 dB(A) not unlike on the TP410.

Single 50 mm fan
Single 50 mm fan
Fan noise profile
Fan noise profile

Noise Level

Idle
28.4 / 28.4 / 28.4 dB(A)
Load
35.7 / 39 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: 28.4 dB(A)
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8750H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
HD Graphics 620, 7200U, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
Vega M GL / 870, 8705G, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04
Lenovo Yoga 530-14IKB-81EK00CWGE
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
Noise
2%
-5%
-6%
-5%
-3%
off / environment *
28.4
28
1%
29.9
-5%
30.3
-7%
28.1
1%
30.3
-7%
Idle Minimum *
28.4
28
1%
29.9
-5%
31.2
-10%
30.8
-8%
30.3
-7%
Idle Average *
28.4
28.8
-1%
29.9
-5%
31.2
-10%
30.9
-9%
30.3
-7%
Idle Maximum *
28.4
30.3
-7%
30.3
-7%
31.2
-10%
30.9
-9%
30.3
-7%
Load Average *
35.7
34.5
3%
36.5
-2%
36.2
-1%
31.8
11%
36.1
-1%
Load Maximum *
39
34.3
12%
40.4
-4%
38.3
2%
44.2
-13%
33.9
13%
Witcher 3 ultra *
40.4
48.1

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Rear exhaust when under load
Rear exhaust when under load

Surface temperatures are warmest near the center of the notebook due to the positioning of the processor and heat sink underneath. When under very high loads, the top and bottom hot spots can become as warm as 37 C and 48 C, respectively. The system never becomes uncomfortably warm when streaming or word processing, but take care to not cover the small ventilation grilles along the bottom.

System idle (top)
System idle (top)
System idle (bottom)
System idle (bottom)
Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (bottom)
Maximum load (bottom)
Max. Load
 26 °C
79 F
34 °C
93 F
31.2 °C
88 F
 
 23.8 °C
75 F
36.6 °C
98 F
32.6 °C
91 F
 
 19.4 °C
67 F
19.8 °C
68 F
21 °C
70 F
 
Maximum: 36.6 °C = 98 F
Average: 27.2 °C = 81 F
40.2 °C
104 F
40.2 °C
104 F
32.4 °C
90 F
40.8 °C
105 F
49.4 °C
121 F
27.2 °C
81 F
26.6 °C
80 F
25.2 °C
77 F
25 °C
77 F
Maximum: 49.4 °C = 121 F
Average: 34.1 °C = 93 F
Power Supply (max.)  40 °C = 104 F | Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 27.2 °C / 81 F, compared to the average of 30.4 °C / 87 F for the devices in the class Convertible.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.6 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.8 to 55.7 °C for the class Convertible.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 49.4 °C / 121 F, compared to the average of 36.6 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 30.4 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 22.2 °C / 72 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(+) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 29.2 °C / 84.6 F (+7 °C / 12.6 F).

Speakers

The stereo speakers are surprisingly loud for the size with no static and minimal chassis reverberation. Bass is weak and earphones are recommended for video or music playback.

Stereo speakers near bottom front corners
Stereo speakers near bottom front corners
Pink noise at maximum volume
Pink noise at maximum volume
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2038.340.72532.435.83133.133.94033.332.95031.1316330.533.68030.231.110028.732.112527.4391602749.120026.55425026.359.831526.163.740025.565.550024.665.263024.366.280024.173.3100024.274.6125023.870.1160023.567.8200023.272.2250023.266.6315023.366400023.268500023.271.9630023.275.1800023.176.31000023.1771250022.972.81600022.974.8SPL35.784N2.560.5median 23.8median 67.8Delta0.97.235.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51TApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.01 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 28% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 22%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 65% 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

When idling, the TP412 is more efficient than the TP410 which could explain its longer battery life in the next section. Otherwise, consumption is similar to other Ultrabooks with the same Core i5-8250U or i7-8550U CPU.

The very small (~5.2 x 5.2 x 2.8 cm) 45 W AC adapter is sufficient for the power profile of the system.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.23 / 0.87 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 3.3 / 5.2 / 5.6 Watt
Load midlight 32.9 / 35.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN, IPS, 1920x1080, 14
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
8550U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 13.9
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
7200U, HD Graphics 620, SK Hynix HFS256G39TND-N210A, IPS, 1920x1080, 14
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
8705G, Vega M GL / 870, Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6
Lenovo Yoga 530-14IKB-81EK00CWGE
8250U, UHD Graphics 620, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG, IPS, 1920x1080, 14
Power Consumption
-10%
-211%
-24%
-207%
-6%
Idle Minimum *
3.3
3.1
6%
9.48
-187%
3.9
-18%
11.7
-255%
3.3
-0%
Idle Average *
5.2
6.6
-27%
16.1
-210%
7
-35%
16.8
-223%
5.8
-12%
Idle Maximum *
5.6
7
-25%
16.9
-202%
9.3
-66%
18.9
-238%
8
-43%
Load Average *
32.9
35.2
-7%
90.8
-176%
35
-6%
82.3
-150%
29.2
11%
Load Maximum *
35.2
34.6
2%
134.4
-282%
33
6%
94.9
-170%
31.1
12%
Witcher 3 ultra *
87.2

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Battery capacity has not increased from last year's TP410. Despite this, runtimes are now much longer by over two hours when subjected to the same WLAN loads. A reduction in background activity could be a likely culprit.

Charging from near empty to full capacity takes a little over two hours.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
9h 38min
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 42 Wh
Lenovo Yoga 920-13IKB-80Y7
8550U, UHD Graphics 620, 70 Wh
Dell XPS 15 9570 i7 UHD
8750H, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 97 Wh
Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP410UA-EC242T
7200U, HD Graphics 620, 42 Wh
HP Spectre x360 15-ch000
8705G, Vega M GL / 870, 84 Wh
Lenovo Yoga 530-14IKB-81EK00CWGE
8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 45 Wh
Battery Runtime
19%
0%
-30%
-40%
-28%
Reader / Idle
1655
540
918
WiFi v1.3
578
685
19%
576
0%
407
-30%
344
-40%
417
-28%
Load
140
76
66
105
Witcher 3 ultra
62

Pros

+ more easily serviceable
+ good CPU performance
+ loud internal speakers
+ relatively lightweight
+ relatively affordable
+ attractive design
+ long battery life
+ SD card reader
+ USB Type-C

Cons

- keyboard and clickpad could have had stronger feedback
- dimmer display than last year's model; more glare
- poorer colors and contrast than last year's model
- secondary 2.5-inch SATA III bay removed
- no DisplayPort over USB Type-C
- suboptimal camera placement
- hinges could be more taut
- wake and sleep issues

Verdict

In review: Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T
In review: Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T

The 2018 VivoBook Flip TP412 is both a few steps forward and a few steps back compared to its immediate predecessor. Its Kaby Lake-R update is indubitably faster while being thinner, lighter, and longer-lasting for a more attractive package overall. Unfortunately, its display is dimmer, its gamut is narrower, and it's missing the secondary 2.5-inch SATA bay that was present on the TP410.

For a retail price of $700 to $800, the TP412 is a compelling 14-inch convertible without any of the fancy features of pricier models. Its versatility makes it good for indoor and classroom use while its dim display makes it poorer for outdoor conditions.

Fair for the price. The VivoBook Flip TP412 doesn't offer anything above its price range to make it a must buy for mainstream users. Hopefully, future iterations will brighten up the glossy display to improve outdoor visibility.

Asus VivoBook Flip 14 TP412UA-DB51T - 09/29/2018 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
79 / 98 → 81%
Keyboard
77%
Pointing Device
83%
Connectivity
47 / 80 → 59%
Weight
69 / 35-78 → 79%
Battery
92%
Display
81%
Games Performance
58 / 68 → 85%
Application Performance
83 / 87 → 95%
Temperature
92%
Noise
95%
Audio
61 / 91 → 67%
Camera
35 / 85 → 42%
Average
73%
83%
Convertible - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 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 Flip 14 TP412UA (i5-8250U) Convertible Review
Allen Ngo, 2018-09-30 (Update: 2018-09-30)
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.