Notebookcheck

Asus VivoBook Pro 15 (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1050) Laptop Review

Christian Hintze (translated by Andreas Osthoff), 10/13/2017

Stylish and elegant, but still a bit buggy. The new VivoBook is supposed to be the more affordable ZenBook sibling for the mainstream. Is it a success, or has Asus cut too many corners?

For the original German review, see here.

The new Asus VivoBook Pro 15 was announced at this year's Computex. It is about 400 Euros ($473) less expensive than its larger sibling Asus ZenBook Pro and is targeting mainstream customers. The starting price for the VivoBook Pro 15 is $1299. We have a look at the differences between the VivoBook and the more expensive ZenBook Pro UX550VD.

It also competes with rivals such as the Gigabyte Sabre 15, the HP Pavilion 15t, the Acer Aspire VX 15, and the Dell XPS 15. However, both the Dell and the Acer have slightly slower processors (Intel Core i5-7300HQ) and only 8 instead of 16 GB of RAM.

You can get the VivoBook Pro with a Full HD or 4K screen. Our test model is equipped with the 1080p panel, Core i7-7700HQNvidia GTX 1050, and 16 GB of RAM. The design of the new VivoBook is now closer to the ZenBook series, so you get a mainstream notebook with premium looks.

Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T (VivoBook Pro Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) - 4096 MB, Core: 1632 MHz, Memory: 1752 MHz, ja
Memory
16384 MB 
, 1x 16 GB, 3 free RAM slots
Display
15.6 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel 141 PPI, INNOLUX N156HGA-EAB, TN, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel HM175 (Skylake PCH-H)
Storage
Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN, 256 GB 
, plus 1 TB Seagate ST1000LM035-1RK172, 160 GB free
Soundcard
Intel Skylake PCH-H High Definition Audio Controller
Connections
2 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, Audio Connections: combined stereo jack, Card Reader: SD, 1 Fingerprint Reader
Networking
Realtek RTL8168/8111 Gigabit-LAN (10/100/1000MBit), Intel 8265 Tri-Band WiFi (Oak Peak) Network Adapter (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 19.2 x 380 x 256 ( = 0.76 x 14.96 x 10.08 in)
Battery
47 Wh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: HD webcam
Primary Camera: 1 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: harman/kardon stereo system, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, 24 Months Warranty, Collect & Return in Germany & Austria; international 2-year Bring-In
Weight
1.98 kg ( = 69.84 oz / 4.37 pounds), Power Supply: 517 g ( = 18.24 oz / 1.14 pounds)
Price
1399 Euro

 

Case

The case of the VivoBook Pro 15 has an elegant gold color and is made of brushed aluminum. It is visually closer to the ZenBooks and looks quite sophisticated. The design is otherwise rather simple and typical for a business machine. A silver Asus logo is at the top, but there are no other colored items or gimmicks except for the small indentation at the front, which helps to open the lid.

The base in particular is very sturdy thanks to the aluminum surfaces. There is a lot of resistance when you apply pressure, and there is only some flex in the center of the keyboard as well as some creaking from the left side around the ports. It also looks as if there is a glue pad underneath the right palm rest, because it will stick to the surface beneath for a little while. The lid is very slim and not very torsion resistant due to the construction, but the stability is still sufficient. The inner display bezels are only made of thin plastic.

The only three ventilation slots at are the bottom of the notebook and the openings for the speakers are located at the front. The battery cannot be removed, and there is no maintenance cover. The bottom plate, however, can be removed, but more on that later.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Dell XPS 15 is the smallest and slimmest device here, but the VivoBook Pro 15 otherwise fares pretty well. It is a bit bigger, but just slightly thicker than the Asus ZenBook. It is also the lightest device at 2 kg (~4.4 lb) next to the Dell and the ZenBook. However, the power adapter adds another 500 grams (~1.1 lb). Both the Acer and the Gigabyte are the largest and heaviest among the rivals.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

The port selection is pretty functional and simple. The two USB 2.0 ports in particular are outdated in our opinion. We would have preferred USB 3.x ports only, especially since the only USB-A 3.0 connector on the left side is not marked with a different color. Thunderbolt is missing as well, because you only get a 1.Gen USB-C port. Monitors can be attached via HDMI or USB-C, which supports DisplayPort. There are not many audio ports either, and headphones and microphones share one combo jack. Finally, you also get an SD-card reader as well as Ethernet.

The port layout is okay, thanks to the limited number. The space between the individual ports on the left is not particularly generous, but sufficient. There are no connectors at the front or the rear of the notebook, even the status LEDs are located on the (right) side.

Left side: Power, LAN, USB-A 3.0, HDMI, USB-C 3.1
Left side: Power, LAN, USB-A 3.0, HDMI, USB-C 3.1
Right side: Kensington, 2x USB-A, stereo jack, SD-card reader, status LEDs
Right side: Kensington, 2x USB-A, stereo jack, SD-card reader, status LEDs
Rear: No ports
Rear: No ports
Front: No ports
Front: No ports

Communication

Our test model performs well in our communication tests, even though there are some mixed results. The transmitting performance of the VivoBook Pro is excellent, but it falls behind many rivals when it receives data. Gigabyte's Sabre is at the bottom of the ranking in both tests.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
674 MBit/s ∼100% +65%
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
Qualcomm/Atheros QCA6174
660 MBit/s ∼98% +61%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
635 MBit/s ∼94% +55%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
594 MBit/s ∼88% +45%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel 8265 Tri-Band WiFi (Oak Peak) Network Adapter
409 MBit/s ∼61%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
240 MBit/s ∼36% -41%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel 8265 Tri-Band WiFi (Oak Peak) Network Adapter
661 MBit/s ∼100%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
Killer Wireless-n/a/ac 1535 Wireless Network Adapter
641 MBit/s ∼97% -3%
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
Qualcomm/Atheros QCA6174
632 MBit/s ∼96% -4%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 7265
532 MBit/s ∼80% -20%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
377 MBit/s ∼57% -43%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 3168
319 MBit/s ∼48% -52%

Security

The notebook is equipped with a fingerprint scanner. It is sitting in the upper right corner of the touchpad and enables quick logins without passwords via Windows Hello.

Accessories

The box of the VivoBook Pro includes only a warranty card, a small service leaflet as well as a special offer for McAfee Live.

Maintenance

The bottom panel is hard to remove
The bottom panel is hard to remove

There is unfortunately no maintenance hatch on the VivoBook Pro 15 and the battery is integrated as well. This means that it is important to reach the hardware easily. We can see 11 screws at the bottom, but the cover was still sitting tight after the removal of all screws.

We did not want to remove the rubber feet or warranty sticker to look for hidden screws, and it was hard to remove the cover with a sharp object due to minimal gaps. We stopped the attempt to prevent any damages. It is therefore a problem in terms of accessing the internals.

Warranty

The manufacturer offers a two-year Collect & Return warranty in Germany and Austria.

Input Devices

Keyboard

Keyboard
Keyboard
Narrow numberpad & arrow keys
Narrow numberpad & arrow keys

The keys have a convenient travel, are well labeled, and have sufficient spacing. At least the main keys, because Asus has also implemented a dedicated numeric keypad. This is a good thing in general, but the keys are extremely narrow due to the limited space and feel very cramped as a result. The same applies to the arrow keys, which are also much narrower than usual.

The Power button is integrated into the keyboard in the upper right corner, but you will not confuse it with any special keys since functions such as "End", etc. are secondary functions on the number keypad. Their position is unusual and requires some time to get used to. These functions are only available when the number keypad is deactivated.

The build quality of the keyboard is not particularly impressive in general, but there is not much to criticize either. You can type quickly and the noise level is also okay. However, the keyboard flexes a bit in the center, which can result in a somewhat spongy typing experience.

You also get a three-stage keyboard illumination, which can also be deactivated, but you cannot change the color.

Touchpad

Touchpad with fingerprint scanner
Touchpad with fingerprint scanner

Asus has shifted the touchpad slightly to the left due to the inclusion of the numeric keypad, so the hand is more aligned with the other keys. The size of the pad is sufficient and the smooth surface provides good gliding capabilities. The touchpad obviously supports multi-touch, and it worked well during our review. It is a Precision touchpad and supports gestures with up to four fingers.

The lower part of the pad can be clicked, and there is a stripe that divides the left and right side. The clicking sound, however, is too loud for our taste and sounds pretty cheap.

We have already mentioned the fingerprint scanner in the upper right corner. It can be used to login to Windows via Windows Hello. It uses some space from the touchpad, but this was not a big deal after a little while. It seems that the VivoBook is equipped with the touchpad from the ZenBooks, where we found similar advantages/disadvantages.

Display

Subpixel array
Subpixel array

Asus has equipped the VivoBook Pro with an Innolux panel from Chi Mei. It looks as if Asus has saved some money here since the panel is not convincing. It is a 1080p panel based on the TN technology; almost all the rivals are using superior IPS models and this is visible in the measurements as well.

This starts with the luminance of the matte panel, which is pretty low at just 224 nits. The brightness distribution of 85% is okay, but could be better. There is at least one rival with an even darker panel, the HP Pavilion, at just 193 nits. We did not notice any backlight bleeding, but this is rare on TN panels anyway.

220
cd/m²
222
cd/m²
217
cd/m²
233
cd/m²
247
cd/m²
236
cd/m²
209
cd/m²
211
cd/m²
220
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 247 cd/m² Average: 223.9 cd/m² Minimum: 13.6 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 246 cd/m²
Contrast: 515:1 (Black: 0.48 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.39 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 5.25 | - Ø
60% sRGB (Argyll) 38% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.48
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
INNOLUX N156HGA-EAB, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
CMN15E8 (N156HCE-EN1), , 1920x1080, 15.6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
ID: LGD0533, Name: LG Display LP156WF6-SPK3, , 1920x1080, 15.6
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
AU Optronics AUO41ED, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
BOE CQ NV156HFM-N42, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
Sharp SHP1453 LQ156M1, , 1920x1080, 15.6
Response Times
-31%
-30%
-55%
-62%
-163%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
44 (25, 19)
38.8 (20.4, 18.4)
12%
32 (16.4, 15.6)
27%
44.4 (15.2, 29.2)
-1%
46 (25, 21)
-5%
54 (33.2, 20)
-23%
Response Time Black / White *
13 (10, 3)
27.2 (14.8, 12.4)
-109%
25.6 (15.6, 10)
-97%
27.2 (6.8, 20.4)
-109%
34 (20, 14)
-162%
52.4 (33.2, 19.2)
-303%
PWM Frequency
25000 (30)
25910 (20)
4%
20000 (99)
-20%
20000 (90)
-20%
Screen
41%
5%
8%
28%
54%
Brightness
224
313
40%
241
8%
193
-14%
268
20%
392
75%
Brightness Distribution
85
83
-2%
84
-1%
75
-12%
91
7%
89
5%
Black Level *
0.48
0.27
44%
0.3
37%
0.19
60%
0.26
46%
0.26
46%
Contrast
515
1241
141%
828
61%
1104
114%
1065
107%
1538
199%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.39
4.7
13%
7.5
-39%
7.8
-45%
5.05
6%
4.9
9%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.25
5.8
-10%
6.5
-24%
7.3
-39%
2.97
43%
7.2
-37%
Gamma
2.48 97%
2.06 117%
2.19 110%
2.39 100%
2.39 100%
2.11 114%
CCT
7609 85%
6518 100%
7852 83%
5771 113%
6466 101%
6911 94%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
38
58.7
54%
37
-3%
39.3
3%
38
0%
64.2
69%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
60
90.1
50%
57.9
-3%
56.5
-6%
59
-2%
98.9
65%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
5% / 22%
-13% / -5%
-24% / -5%
-17% / 4%
-55% / 11%

* ... smaller is better

The contrast is even worse than the luminance. 515:1 is basically just half of what we see from many rivals, and the XPS 13 manages almost three times that. The black value of 0.48 cd/m² is also the worst within the comparison, and the TN panel cannot keep up with the IPS rivals.

Our measurements also determine screen flickering, probably caused by PWM, which is used to control the brightness. However, the flickering occurs only at a luminance of 30% and less. The frequency is also very high at 25 kHz, so even sensitive users should not have a problem.

CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps
CalMAN Saturation Sweeps
CalMAN ColorChecker
CalMAN ColorChecker

We are not surprised about the low color gamut. 60% sRGB and 38% AdobeRGB are, however, not surpassed by the rivals either. Both the Asus ZenBook and the Dell in particular perform better in the measurements and especially in terms of color gamut.

Subjectively, we can confirm the impression of the lackluster measurements: The picture quickly appears washed-out depending on the viewing angle (see below), despite the low luminance. The low contrast is also noticeable when you watch a movie. The luminance is at least sufficient for indoor environments.

sRGB: 60%
sRGB: 60%
AdobeRGB: 38%
AdobeRGB: 38%
Indirect sunlight
Indirect sunlight

You need a bright and high-contrast display if you want to use a display outdoors or even under sunlight. The TN-Panel of the VivoBook Pro does not meet these requirements. Still, the values seem to be sufficient to use it at least with indirect lighting. You should look for a place in the shade.

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
13 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10 ms rise
↘ 3 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. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (26.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 25 ms rise
↘ 19 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. » 62 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (42.4 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 detected 25000 Hz30 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 25000 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 25000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

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 viewing angle stability is usually another drawback of TN panels, and this model is not much different. The loss of details is still okay when you look at it from the side, but vertical shifts are a problem. The content quickly looks very dark and black as soon as you tilt the display back, while it is quickly washed and white out from above. You will have to adjust the opening angle very often.

Viewing angles
Viewing angles

Performance

Dropouts in LatencyMon
Dropouts in LatencyMon

The Asus VivoBook Pro 15 is equipped with an Intel Core i7-7700HQ CPU, Nvidia GTX 1050 GPU and 16 GB of RAM. The storage solution consists of a 256 GB SSD in combination with a 1 TB hard drive. The specifications are very similar to the competing multimedia laptops. The hardware suggests a good all-rounder, which should handle almost all the tasks you throw at it. Even gaming is possible, but there are limitations. The VivoBook Pro 15 should therefore be a good choice for occasional gaming, light video and picture editing as well as office applications.

The tool LatencyMon revealed some dropouts, so the notebook can have some issues with real-time audio playback or other applications. The problems might be caused by driver issues.

 

Processor

The Core i7-7700HQ is an Intel processor based on the Kaby Lake architecture. It is a quad-core with Hyperthreading support, so it can execute up to eight threads simultaneously. It is 200 MHz faster than its Skylake predecessor and now runs with clocks between 2.8 and 3.8 GHz. It is the fourth fastest model in the mobile Kaby Lake range, so it is a fast processor with plenty of performance for all applications.

The clocks are not significantly reduced in our 30-minute loop of Cinebench Multi-core and we can see a steady 3.4 GHz, even though there are some deviations towards the end.

Battery power: Multi-core score drops, single-core is identical (compare below)
Battery power: Multi-core score drops, single-core is identical (compare below)

The CPU performance is much lower on battery power. The CPU cores fluctuated between 3.2 GHz and 800 MHz in the Cinebench R15 Multi-core test, while we saw 3.4 to 3.5 GHz in the Single test with short drops. The Multi-core performance result is significantly lower at 281 vs. 700 points on mains. This is not a normal behavior and we only noticed it in this benchmark, so we believe it is an outlier. Further developments did not improve the performance. Maybe there are still some driver issues concerning the optimal core utilization in Multithread scenarios.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730Tooltip
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit

All competitors are basically on par in the Cinebench Multi-core test, only the Acer and Dell fall behind by 16 to 30% due to their slower processors. The VivoBook Pro is sitting between these two models in the Single-core test and is about 8% slower than rivals with the same CPU. It seems that our review unit cannot utilize its full Turbo potential, but the results are still within the normal range for a Core i7-7700HQ according to our CPU benchmark list.

Cinebench R15
Cinebench R15
Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R10
Cinebench R10
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
162 Points ∼100% +9%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
162 Points ∼100% +9%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
161 Points ∼99% +9%
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
148 Points ∼91% 0%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
148 Points ∼91%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
146 Points ∼90% -1%
CPU Multi 64Bit
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
741 Points ∼100% +2%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
739 Points ∼100% +2%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
736 Points ∼99% +2%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
724 Points ∼98%
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
511 Points ∼69% -29%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
Intel Core i5-7300HQ
508 Points ∼69% -30%
Cinebench R11.5
CPU Single 64Bit
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.84 Points ∼100% +8%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.82 Points ∼99% +6%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
1.71 Points ∼93%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.17 Points ∼100% +1%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
8.1 Points ∼99%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
6.81 Points ∼83% -16%
Cinebench R10
Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7352 Points ∼100%
Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
28341 Points ∼100%
Cinebench R10 Shading 64Bit
9003 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Multiple CPUs 64Bit
28341 Points
Cinebench R10 Rendering Single CPUs 64Bit
7352 Points
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit
8.1 Points
Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64Bit
59.61 fps
Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64Bit
1.71 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
148 Points
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
96.94 fps
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
724 Points
Help

System Performance

All the competitors are in the same ballpark in the PCMark 8 Work test, only the HP Pavilion falls behind by 42%, which is hard to understand. Our VivoBook is inconspicuous.

The Home score shows bigger differences. Our test model is ranked third behind the HP and ZenBook (+9 and +10%, respectively). The rivals from AcerDell, and Gigabyte are 4 to 10% slower.

We did not experience any issues and office applications in particular are no challenge for the system. Windows 10 always ran smoothly and without noticeable delays.

PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
5063 Points ∼100% +3%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
5028 (min: 5001) Points ∼99% +2%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
4934 Points ∼97%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
4884 Points ∼96% -1%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
2880 Points ∼57% -42%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
4207 (min: 4206) Points ∼100% +10%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
4182 Points ∼99% +9%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
3833 Points ∼91%
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
3661 Points ∼87% -4%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
3659 Points ∼87% -5%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
3431 Points ∼82% -10%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3833 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4934 points
Help

Storage Devices

The primary Micron SSD 1100 has a storage capacity of 256 GB and is on place 214 of our SSD/HDD ranking. It is an SSD with average transfer rates connected via SATA-III, so it cannot benefit from the potentially faster NVMe-interface. The Asus ZenBook is equipped with a faster NVMe model, but the VivoBook can keep up with the other rivals.

AS SSD
AS SSD
CrystalDiskMark 5: SSD
CrystalDiskMark 5: SSD
CrystalDiskMark 3: SSD
CrystalDiskMark 3: SSD
CrystalDiskMark 3: HDD
CrystalDiskMark 3: HDD

The secondary storage is a 1 TB HDD from Seagate. It is on place 617 in our ranking with a performance rating of 2.5. The performance is rather inconspicuous, but it works well for storing large files. You should expect longer loading times for games though.

Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
Hynix HFS128G39TND
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
142%
9%
-3%
-80%
Write 4k QD32
241.5
524.98
117%
140.2
-42%
138.1
-43%
1.057
-100%
Read 4k QD32
246.1
617.36
151%
400.9
63%
375.8
53%
69.75
-72%
Write 4k
79.38
158.02
99%
89.84
13%
104.8
32%
1.021
-99%
Read 4k
24.77
60.63
145%
33.12
34%
35.18
42%
10.84
-56%
Write 512
346.7
687.68
98%
185.4
-47%
137.2
-60%
42.51
-88%
Read 512
319
613.93
92%
399.7
25%
362.1
14%
101.7
-68%
Write Seq
408.3
1364.7
234%
476.6
17%
137.6
-66%
74.17
-82%
Read Seq
483.9
1434.4
196%
522.1
8%
510
5%
123
-75%
Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
Sequential Read: 483.9 MB/s
Sequential Write: 408.3 MB/s
512K Read: 319 MB/s
512K Write: 346.7 MB/s
4K Read: 24.77 MB/s
4K Write: 79.38 MB/s
4K QD32 Read: 246.1 MB/s
4K QD32 Write: 241.5 MB/s

GPU Performance

The VivoBook Pro 15 can use two graphics adapters: The integrated processor GPU Intel HD Graphics 630 and the dedicated Nvidia GTX 1050 with 4 GB of VRAM. The iGPU takes care of simple tasks such as office applications, while the dGPU is active for more challenging tasks such as video editing or gaming. Nvidia's Optimus technology is supported, so the system chooses the GPU automatically and saves power during light workloads, but provides sufficient performance for other tasks.

Nvidia's GTX 1050 is an entry-level Pascal GPU with mainstream performance figures, so it is a real all-rounder. Modern games should be playable at medium settings, but the performance also depends a lot on the cooling system. We check whether the card can utilize its full performance potential or not.

All models are very close together in the synthetic 3DMark 11 and 2013 tests, only the Dell is between 4 and 7% faster depending on the test. Otherwise, there are no outliers and the VivoBook is on the expected performance level.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
3DMark Fire Strike
3DMark Fire Strike
3DMark Cloud Gate
3DMark Cloud Gate
3DMark Cloud Gate on battery
3DMark Cloud Gate on battery

The performance is throttled significantly on battery power. 3DMark 13 is one example, especially the Cloud Gate benchmark. While the VivoBook still managed about 38000 points (Graphics) on mains, the result dropped to just 6900 points on battery. This is a deficit of more than 80% – a negative record. 3DMark 11 even refused to run; the High-Performance profile was active in both cases.

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i5-7300HQ
8201 Points ∼100% +6%
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i5-7300HQ
7835 Points ∼96% +2%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7731 Points ∼94% 0%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7712 Points ∼94%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7564 Points ∼92% -2%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
7461 (min: 7273) Points ∼91% -3%
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i5-7300HQ
6393 Points ∼100% +7%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
6166 Points ∼96% +3%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
6100 Points ∼95% +2%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
6032 (min: 6004) Points ∼94% +1%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
5982 Points ∼94%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i5-7300HQ
39864 Points ∼100% +4%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
39507 Points ∼99% +3%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
38748 Points ∼97% +1%
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
38266 Points ∼96%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Intel Core i7-7700HQ
37128 (min: 36802) Points ∼93% -3%
3DMark 11 Performance
7558 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
20059 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
5452 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Modern games can usually be played smoothly at medium settings with the GTX 1050, which is supported by our gaming benchmarks. The VivoBook Pro manages 31 FPS (on average) in the “Witcher 3” at 1080p and high details, but the gaming experience was not smooth at all. You should therefore reduce either the resolution or the settings. Medium details in 1366x768 pixels resulted in 69 FPS, so there is still headroom for more challenging scenes, even higher details are still possible.

We can see a steady frame rate when the power adapter is attached. Our graph below shows there is no throttling.

This changes on battery power: As with our previous tests, the performance is heavily throttled on battery. We expect the “Witcher 3” will be unplayable in this state, so we tested it with the medium preset, where we determined 69 FPS on mains. This value drops to just 24 FPS on battery (-65%). There is significant stuttering and the game is basically unplayable – at medium settings! It is curious that the fans are almost inaudible, despite the gaming load, which is another indicator of an unbalanced fan control.

012345678910111213141516171819202122Tooltip
The Witcher 3 ultra

The VivoBook is slightly behind the rivals, but the deviations are pretty big. The rivals are often up to 10% faster (depending on the setting) in the “Witcher 3”, especially the Dell is much faster in Full HD and high settings (up to 30%), and the VivoBook is usually at the bottom of the ranking, but all the rivals are back on par in the ultra preset.

You can still play almost every game at medium settings, despite the small drawback. However, this is only the case on mains. Medium settings on battery power are usually not very smooth.

The Witcher 3
1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off) (sort by value)
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
31.02 fps ∼17%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
37 fps ∼20%
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
41 fps ∼23%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
39.9 fps ∼22%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
34.6 fps ∼19%
1366x768 Medium Graphics & Postprocessing (sort by value)
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
69.75 fps ∼31%
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
68.4 fps ∼30%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
70.1 fps ∼31%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
77.3 fps ∼34%
1024x768 Low Graphics & Postprocessing (sort by value)
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
111.45 fps ∼32%
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
120.4 fps ∼34%
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
125.5 fps ∼36%
low med. high ultra
The Witcher 3 (2015) 111.4569.7531.0220fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) 124.1769.2939.1231.59fps

Emissions

System Noise

The fan behavior reveals unnecessary weaknesses. The noise levels of the VivoBook Pro 15 are actually inconspicuous and average within our comparison group, but the fans are never deactivated while idling. The ZenBook is quieter in general, which is also the case under load. Acer's Aspire is quieter too, but the other rivals are a bit louder.

However, the fans are very annoying in practice. We can notice a frequent pulsating of the fans for a few minutes, without any apparent reason. It already starts after the system is running for a little while, even though the device is still cold and we are performing usual office applications. The frequent pulsating can only be prevented by switching into Power-Saver mode. It seems that Asus can still improve the fan control, because the pulsating is completely unnecessary. The notebook is therefore often loud, which is particularly annoying in quiet environments. We did not notice any other annoying electronic sound or the like. We hope Asus will improve this behavior via firmware update.

Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
Noise
7%
-7%
-5%
7%
-6%
off / environment *
30.5
29.4
4%
28.2
8%
29.3
4%
30
2%
30.3
1%
Idle Minimum *
30.6
29.4
4%
33
-8%
32.3
-6%
30
2%
31.6
-3%
Idle Average *
30.9
29.9
3%
33.3
-8%
32.3
-5%
30
3%
31.6
-2%
Idle Maximum *
31.9
29.9
6%
34.7
-9%
32.4
-2%
31.1
3%
33.4
-5%
Load Average *
38.6
38.3
1%
44.5
-15%
44.4
-15%
31.3
19%
47.8
-24%
Witcher 3 ultra *
47.3
39.8
16%
49.2
-4%
Load Maximum *
45.7
39.6
13%
52.8
-16%
49.2
-8%
38.9
15%
47.8
-5%

* ... smaller is better

Noise Level

Idle
30.6 / 30.9 / 31.9 dB(A)
HDD
30.9 dB(A)
Load
38.6 / 45.7 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: 30.5 dB(A)
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.532.429.633.232.52529.135.230.832.529.13131.63537.534.331.64029.930.735.830.229.95038.637.53031.238.66328.829.427.928.728.8802826.62626.72810027.927.227.525.927.91252725.925.324271602824.823.823.92820027.724.723.223.827.725029.425.122.321.729.431533.227.421.421.133.240031.326.320.520.231.350029.624.62019.229.66303124.819.318.83180032.225.718.618.132.2100035.327.718.917.635.3125035.827.518.317.635.8160035.728.91817.835.720003629.518.617.636250036.128.918.417.836.131503427.318.317.934400032.925.118.618.132.9500033.423.418.418.333.4630030.721.818.718.430.7800026.919.718.818.726.91000022.819.218.918.922.81250020.519.118.918.820.51600019.519.419.11919.5SPL45.838.630.930.545.8N5.22.91.51.45.2median 31Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028Tmedian 25.1median 18.9median 18.8median 31Delta3.12.31.41.93.12829.227.827.43030.430.42829.626.825.429.130.127.326.426.427.124.228.728.426.226.825.429.423.426.227.325.625.222.626.923.924.125.32625.927.226.823.325.724.927.326.326.2252326.325.228.321.822.92220.821.821.72521.921.622.119.621.921.423.322.121.820.619.720.219.621.823.122.921.719.720.619.522.722.421.921.217.918.718.722.224.623.321.417.218.217.523.425.123.722.116.617.417.524.126.424.923.2161716.525.725.524.722.416.516.816.326.125.924.722.816.316.816.125.926.72524.117.117.216.12728.326.825.617.717.816.728.430.729.627.818.118.416.930.83129.928.618.318.517.331.630.528.727.118.318.317.830.427.125.12418.517.917.927.127.827.225.318.717.917.827.725.923.421.818.61817.926.121.320.820.121.417.717.721.51919.118.619.317.417.219.517.417.517.318.216.916.917.717.117.617.518.216.416.41715.917.217.217.41615.816.639.638.336.830.529.929.439.832.72.41.31.31.23.1median 25.1Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VDmedian 23.4median 22.1median 18.2median 17.9median 17.5median 252.7220.80.71.12.536.532.133.734.733.234.83432.932.933.532.232.632.131.329.931.431.931.434.929.929.930.73433.735.337.829.933.629.729.832.3313330.730.228.330.531.53232.428.929.632.130.748.94631.928.329.529.129.134.933.83126.529.22726.729.329.632.325.526.225.525.628.929.125.323.824.924.225.426.626.72523.624.823.826.430.330.828.122.723.523.425.93231.327.721.821.423.627.43533.832.421.521.925.53139.639.436.620.120.323.929.73938.93419.619.62227.136.536.33318.619.423.227.437.636.932.918.220.122.427.237.437.233.217.620.52428.338.337.932.917.721.420.627.136.936.631.417.31919.122.835.936.131.317.418.619.723.238.237.430.117.418.918.821.23534.22817.318.31819.732.831.826.617.317.917.918.529.729.625.217.617.818.118.42728.426.117.818.118.418.42526.124.917.818.418.419.423.925.525.417.918.31817.920.623.423.318.318.133.437.648.247.843.230.331.622.76.66.34.41.41.6median 22.4Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)median 25.9median 34.9median 33.8median 30.1median 18.2median 19.62.92.44.13.93.62.42.5hearing rangehide median Fan Noise

Temperature

Stress test with FurMark & Prime95
Stress test with FurMark & Prime95

The situation for the VivoBook is better in the temperature section, and it is even slightly better than the ZenBook. Only the HP Pavilion is cooler here, but our test model is still on the second place and does not get as warm as most competitors.

The temperature development is also good: Almost the whole area around the palm rests is conveniently cool. The center of the keyboard can warm up quite a bit under load and the temperature at the bottom can be uncomfortable as well. Using the VivoBook on your lap is no problem except for extreme load scenarios.

We can see a slightly reduced CPU clock in our stress test with the tools Prime95 and FurMark after ~15 minutes, when the clock levels off at around 3.3 GHz and a core temperature of around 90 °C (~194 °F). The graphics card warms up to "only" 79 °C (~174 °F), so it can utilize its performance steadily.

Max. Load
 38.1 °C41.8 °C38.6 °C 
 25.5 °C39.8 °C29.6 °C 
 25.7 °C25.2 °C25.8 °C 
Maximum: 41.8 °C
Average: 32.2 °C
32.5 °C36.8 °C32.2 °C
28.6 °C30.9 °C26.7 °C
25 °C25.2 °C25.2 °C
Maximum: 36.8 °C
Average: 29.2 °C
Power Supply (max.)  50.2 °C | Room Temperature 22.4 °C | FIRT 550-Pocket
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Liteonit CV3-8D128
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7700HQ, Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, Hynix HFS128G39TND
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 7300HQ, WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache
Heat
-9%
-8%
6%
-16%
-14%
Maximum Upper Side *
41.8
43.6
-4%
43.6
-4%
41.8
-0%
47.2
-13%
47.6
-14%
Maximum Bottom *
36.8
44.5
-21%
40.2
-9%
33.4
9%
42.2
-15%
42.1
-14%
Idle Upper Side *
26.2
28
-7%
27.8
-6%
24.4
7%
31.8
-21%
29.9
-14%
Idle Bottom *
25.9
26.7
-3%
29.2
-13%
23.8
8%
29.5
-14%
29.8
-15%

* ... smaller is better

Witcher 3 (top)
Witcher 3 (top)
Idle (top)
Idle (top)
Load (top)
Load (top)
Witcher 3 (bottom)
Witcher 3 (bottom)
Idle (bottom)
Idle (bottom)
Load (bottom)
Load (bottom)

Speakers

Asus advertises a premium sound experience from powerful speakers co-developed by Harman Kardon. It is supposed to be up to 320% louder than standard laptops – including intense bass and obviously much better sound in general. The maximum volume is really a bit higher than comparable devices, but you should still not expect a wide sound spectrum or very good bass reproduction, even though the latter is still surprisingly good for this class of devices. Many other systems have problems delivering any bass at all, so the VivoBook definitely has the edge here.

Headphones and other external devices can only be attached via the combined stereo jack.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.933.232.92531.932.531.93132.234.332.24031.130.231.15038.831.238.86333.128.733.18042.526.742.510050.325.950.312558.62458.61606023.96020053.723.853.725060.121.760.131564.621.164.640069.120.269.15006819.26863067.518.867.580071.618.171.6100071.317.671.3125069.117.669.1160065.917.865.9200069.217.669.2250068.917.868.9315065.317.965.340006618.166500069.618.369.6630068.118.468.1800068.618.768.61000068.918.968.91250069.718.869.71600065.51965.5SPL80.630.580.6N52.91.452.9median 68Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028Tmedian 18.8median 68Delta3.11.93.135.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHzmedian 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (71.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 10.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (7.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 18%, worst was 35%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 99% 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 select/deselectable!)

Energy Management

Power Consumption

The VivoBook Pro is the most efficient notebook while idling in a direct comparison. The consumption is decent in general, even though the load values are higher compared to some of the rivals. All in all, the test model is still comparatively efficient, especially in practical office scenarios.

The maximum consumption in our stress test is 120 W, so the provided 120 W power adapter is working at its limit. We still measure 109 W in the “Witcher 3” (Ultra), so the power adapter should be sufficient in practice.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.3 / 0.5 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 4.7 / 7.7 / 10.9 Watt
Load midlight 82 / 120 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Micron 1100 MTFDDAV256TBN, TN, 1920x1080, 15.6
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Samsung PM961 NVMe MZVLW512HMJP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Liteonit CV3-8D128, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Samsung CM871a MZNTY128HDHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), Hynix HFS128G39TND, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), WDC WD10SPCX-75KHST0 + SanDisk Z400s M.2 2242 32 GB Cache, LED IGZO IPS InfinityEdge, 1920x1080, 15.6
Power Consumption
-2%
-14%
-19%
-27%
-12%
Idle Minimum *
4.7
5.05
-7%
8
-70%
8.29
-76%
8.4
-79%
6.6
-40%
Idle Average *
7.7
8.2
-6%
10.9
-42%
8.9
-16%
13.1
-70%
9
-17%
Idle Maximum *
10.9
12.2
-12%
11
-1%
10.2
6%
14.2
-30%
10.7
2%
Load Average *
82
82
-0%
76.7
6%
77.1
6%
50
39%
77.5
5%
Load Maximum *
120
120
-0%
106.4
11%
136.6
-14%
111
7%
130
-8%
Witcher 3 ultra *
109
93.1
15%
94.9
13%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

The battery capacity of our test model is 47 Wh, which does not appear to be much. We check how long the VivoBook will last in different scenarios.

We determine the maximum runtime with the Battery Eater Reader's Test and active Power-Saver profile, deactivated wireless modules, and the minimum luminance. The VivoBook lasts little more than 10 hours. A decent result, but both the ZenBook as well as the HP are even more enduring.

The opposite is the minimum runtime with active wireless modules, High-Performance profile, and maximum luminance. The Battery Eater Classic Test simulates a load scenario. The battery of the VivoBook lasts 82 minutes, so the VivoBook can beat the more expensive ZenBook.

Our practical test simulates continuous web browsing at an adjusted luminance and the Balanced power profile. We determine around six and a half hours. HP and ZenBook are once again better, but the other devices are beaten.

Our video loop runs at a luminance of 150 nits with the Power-Saver profile and deactivated wireless modules. The sample video runs for almost six hours. The ZenBook lasts almost two hours longer, which is a good result.

All in all, the runtime is decent and the VivoBook Pro is average within the comparison group. The device supports Quick Charge and charges the battery to ~60% within one hour. A full recharge takes about two hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
10h 9min
WiFi Surfing v1.3
6h 32min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
5h 52min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 22min
Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 47 Wh
Asus ZenBook Pro UX550VD
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 73 Wh
Gigabyte Sabre 15G
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 47 Wh
HP Pavilion 15t-X7P42AV
7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 63.3 Wh
Acer Aspire VX15 VX5-591G-589S
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 52.5 Wh
Dell XPS 15 2017 9560 (7300HQ, Full-HD)
7300HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook), 56 Wh
Battery Runtime
32%
-19%
32%
-16%
-7%
Reader / Idle
609
1061
74%
493
-19%
961
58%
565
-7%
H.264
352
465
32%
WiFi v1.3
392
535
36%
261
-33%
389
-1%
330
-16%
334
-15%
Load
82
70
-15%
77
-6%
115
40%
84
2%
Witcher 3 ultra
68

Pros

+ elegant design
+ comparatively lightweight
+ good application performance
+ always stays cool
+ comparatively good speakers
+ quite efficient

Cons

- meager port selection
- 2x USB 2.0
- narrow numberpad & arrow keys
- loud touchpad
- mediocre TN panel
- latencies & drop-outs
- extreme throttling on battery
- pulsating fans without apparent reason

Verdict


In review: Asus VivoBook 15. Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.
In review: Asus VivoBook 15. Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.

The Asus VivoBook Pro 15 has an elegant chassis and convinces with efficient operation while idling, a convenient weight, good speakers, and good temperature development.

We are still having trouble recommending the VivoBook at this point, because there are dropouts, extreme throttling on battery power and pulsating fan behavior. All of these problems should be fixable by software updates. However, the display also falls behind the rivals and the port selection is meager. It is still one of the most expensive device here.

Currently, the negative aspects define the general impression. It is not necessarily an issue of the device, but looks more like a firmware problem. Asus should quickly fix these issues, so the VivoBook can be a good laptop. We also think the price is currently too high, and some of the rivals are less expensive.

The Asus VivoBook Pro 15 is still fighting some bugs such as dropouts/latencies, severe throttling on battery power, and poor fan controls. You also get a comparatively bad TN panel, so the price is currently not justified.

Asus VivoBook Pro 15 N580VD-DM028T - 10/09/2017 v6
Christian Hintze

Chassis
79 / 98 → 80%
Keyboard
76%
Pointing Device
76%
Connectivity
50 / 81 → 61%
Weight
63 / 67 → 92%
Battery
87%
Display
79%
Games Performance
83 / 85 → 98%
Application Performance
87 / 92 → 94%
Temperature
90%
Noise
80 / 95 → 84%
Audio
73%
Camera
25 / 85 → 29%
Add Points
-1%
Average
68%
81%
Multimedia - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 3 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 Pro 15 (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1050) Laptop Review
Christian Hintze, 2017-10-13 (Update: 2017-10-14)
Andreas Osthoff
Andreas Osthoff - Senior Editor Business
I grew up with computers and modern consumer electronics. I am interested in the technology since I had my first computer, a Commodore C64, and started building my own PCs after that. My focus here at Notebookcheck is the business segment including mobile workstations, but I also like to test new mobile devices. It is always a great experience to review and compare new products. My free time is filled with a lot of sports, in the summer mainly on my bike.