Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarAsus ZenBook 15 UX534F Laptop Review: Look Like an Ultrabook, Play Like a Gamer
Ultrabook-gaming hybrid. The Zenbook 15 is one of the very few laptops equipped with an Intel U-series CPU and a GTX 1650 Max-Q GPU for an impressive level of gaming performance relative to the compact chassis size. It strikes an excellent balance between the portability and long runtimes of a traditional Ultrabook while offering enough GPU power to play the latest games at 1080p. ScreenPad 2.0 looks crisper and feels smoother than before, but its associated price premium remains a tough sell.
The Asus ZenBook 15 UX534 is nearly the same as the ZenBook 15 UX533 in chassis design, ports, and even CPU options. The main differences are the GPU update (GTX 1050 Max-Q to GTX 1650 Max-Q) and the ScreenPad 2.0 integration in contrast to the standard clickpad on last year's model. ScreenPad 2.0 is a touchscreen from Asus that replaces the traditional clickpad to offer a dual screen experience on laptops. Models currently shipping with a ScreenPad include the Asus VivoBook S15, ZenBook Pro Duo, and ZenBook Pro 15 UX580. The smaller 14-inch ZenBook 14 UX434 and 13.3-inch ZenBook 13 UX334 are also available with many of the same features as the ZenBook 15 UX534.
We recommend checking out our existing review on the ZenBook 15 UX533 since the UX534 is nearly identical. For this review, we will be looking for any performance differences between the two models and how the ScreenPad impacts battery life.
The ZenBook 15 UX534 can be found on Xotic PC for $1400 or $200 more than the ZenBook 15 UX533 with no ScreenPad 2.0.
More Asus reviews:
Working For Notebookcheck
Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!
Currently wanted:
News and Editorial Editor - Details here
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix
Case - Classic ZenBook Look and Feel
All our chassis comments on the ZenBook 15 UX533 apply here on the ZenBook 15 UX534 since they are nearly identical. Keep in mind that the UX534 is actually slightly thicker (18.9 mm vs 18 mm) and heavier (1.7 kg vs. 1.6 kg) than the UX533 likely due to the integration of the ScreenPad, but everything else from the iconic spun-metal finish of the outer lid, metal chassis design, gold trims, and overall rigidity are the same between them.
Top 10 Laptops
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks
under 300 USD/Euros, under 500 USD/Euros, 1.000 USD/Euros
Best Displays, for University Students
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤5-inch, Camera SmartphonesNotebookcheck's Top 10 Smartphones under 160 Euros
Connectivity - Nope, Still no Thunderbolt 3
Port options remain identical to the ZenBook 15 UX533 and even the Dell XPS 15 7590. In Asus' case, however, its card reader is slower than the one on the Dell and its USB Type-C port does not support Thunderbolt 3 in contrast to the Dell or HP Spectre x360 15.
SD Card Reader
We appreciate the full-size SD card reader as this is a multimedia machine after all. Keep in mind that a fully inserted SD card will still protrude by over half its length to be unsafe when transporting. We would have preferred a full insertion instead.
| SDCardreader Transfer Speed | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Communication
The Intel 9560 comes standard for Wi-Fi 5 and Bluetooth 5 connectivity. The module is soldered and so Wi-Fi 6 options will be unlikely at least until the next iteration of the ZenBook 15 series.
| Networking | |
| iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 | |
| Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti | |
| Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng | |
| iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti | |
| Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 | |
Maintenance
The bottom panel requires a T5 Torx wrench and it is sharp around the edges to deter tinkerers. Once inside, there is not much to upgrade aside from the single M.2 2280 slot and battery. RAM is soldered since the system utilizes LPDDR3.
Accessories and Warranty
Asus throws in a USB Type-A to RJ-45 adapter and a faux leather carrying case in each box. The standard one-year limited warranty applies.
Input Devices
Keyboard
The keyboard remains identical to the ZenBook 15 UX534.
Touchpad
The ScreenPad surface area is larger (13 x 6.7 cm) than the clickpad on the UX533. The matte surface feels just a regular clickpad for smooth and reliable cursor control, but this has its drawbacks in terms of pixel clarity that we will show in the next section. There is almost no sticking when gliding at slow speeds which can make accurate clicking or drag and dropping more difficult.
Applying pressure on the ScreenPad surface will activate the integrated mouse keys. Feedback is on the soft side even though the auditory click is somewhat loud. An external mouse is going to be a lot more comfortable in this regard.
Display - Narrow Bezels on all Four Sides
The ZenBook 15 UX534 utilizes the same BOE NV156FHM-N63 IPS panel and BOE07D8 controller as on the ZenBook 15 UX533. Thus, both models share similar response times, brightness levels, contrast ratios, and color spaces. Images appear sharp on the glossy screen even if response times are not as smooth as the 120 Hz or 144 Hz panels on Asus' ROG laptops. Users who want even deeper colors should consider the ZenBook Pro 15 or ZenBook Pro Duo which promise full AdobeRGB coverage.
Our test unit suffers from light-moderate uneven backlight bleeding along the top corners of the screen as shown by the image below. It's noticeable during video playback with black borders, but it's thankfully not severe enough to be distracting.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 312.6 cd/m²
Contrast: 1008:1 (Black: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.78 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 3.78
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
87.4% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 57.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.21
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 BOE NV156FHM-N63, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 Samsung 156WR04, SDCA029, OLED, 15.6, 3840x2160 | HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng AU Optronics AUO30EB, IPS, 15.6, 3840x2160 | Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB BOE HF NV156QUM-N51, IPS, 15.6, 3840x2160 | Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti BOE NV156FHM-N4K, IPS, 15.6, 1920x1080 | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) APPA040, IPS, 15.4, 2880x1800 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 94% | -16% | 21% | 69% | 1% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 41.2 (22, 19.2) | 2.3 (1.1, 1.2) 94% | 57 (26, 31) -38% | 34 (16, 18) 17% | 13.6 (7.2, 6.4) 67% | 43.2 (20.4, 22.8) -5% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 33.2 (19.6, 13.6) | 2.4 (1.1, 1.3) 93% | 31 (16, 15) 7% | 25 (14, 11) 25% | 10 (6, 4) 70% | 31.2 (16.4, 14.8) 6% |
| PWM Frequency | 59.52 (100) | 961 (90) | 200 (99) | 117000 (75, 150) | ||
| Screen | 19% | 11% | 5% | 12% | 47% | |
| Brightness middle | 312.6 | 421.2 35% | 330 6% | 309 -1% | 312.7 0% | 520 66% |
| Brightness | 290 | 417 44% | 310 7% | 299 3% | 305 5% | 492 70% |
| Brightness Distribution | 85 | 94 11% | 87 2% | 84 -1% | 90 6% | 88 4% |
| Black Level * | 0.31 | 0.37 -19% | 0.29 6% | 0.27 13% | 0.39 -26% | |
| Contrast | 1008 | 892 -12% | 1066 6% | 1158 15% | 1333 32% | |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 5.78 | 6.06 -5% | 4.03 30% | 3.9 33% | 4.57 21% | 1.2 79% |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 8.86 | 11.89 -34% | 6.74 24% | 7.5 15% | 6.81 23% | 2.3 74% |
| Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated * | 3.78 | 1.96 48% | 2.91 23% | |||
| Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 5.4 | 2.8 48% | 4.49 17% | 4.58 15% | 4.3 20% | 1.3 76% |
| Gamma | 2.21 100% | 2.15 102% | 2.57 86% | 2.43 91% | 2.29 96% | 2.18 101% |
| CCT | 7864 83% | 6235 104% | 6744 96% | 7344 89% | 7098 92% | 6738 96% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 57.1 | 81 42% | 61 7% | 39 -32% | 59.4 4% | |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 87.4 | 99.6 14% | 94 8% | 90 3% | 91.3 4% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 57% /
34% | -3% /
7% | 13% /
7% | 41% /
21% | 24% /
38% |
* ... smaller is better
Further measurements with an X-Rite colorimeter reveal an overly cool color temperature out of the box. Our calibration attempt improves both grayscale (DeltaE 5.4 to 1.6) and colors noticeably for a more accurate picture as shown by our Calman results below. We recommend applying our calibrated ICM profile above if you don't have the tools to calibrate the display yourself.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 33.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.6 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. » 87 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 41.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 19.2 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. » 54 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (39.6 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected |  | ||
In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9270 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured. | |||
ScreenPad 2.0 - Smoother and Less Grainy than ScreenPad 1.0
The 5.65-inch IPS ScreenPad on this ZenBook appears to be very similar to the ScreenPad as found on the VivoBook S15 S532F. Properties like brightness, contrast ratio, response times, and even gamut are close in value. The biggest drawback to the ScreenPad continues to be its grainy picture and the far physical distance between it and the main screen. Shifting your eyes between the main screen and ScreenPad can be tiring when compared to the Apple Touch Bar or the HP Omen 2S X 15. Nonetheless, the extra screen real estate is invaluable for multi-tasking as any dual monitor desktop PC user would tell you.
One annoying aspect of the ScreenPad is that its brightness setting will reset to 50 percent every time the display is disabled or turned off. Automatically saving the previous brightness setting would avoid this issue.
See our page on the ScreenPad to read more about our thoughts on the technology.
| Maximum Brightness | Contrast Ratio | Minimum Brightness | PWM | Black-White Response Time | Gray-Gray Response Time | sRGB Coverage | AdobeRGB Coverage |
| 419.8 | 874:1 | 13.54 | No | 11.2 ms | 14.8 ms | 89.5 percent | 57.6 percent |
Performance - The Perfect Pairing of Processors
Whereas most other laptops pair Intel Core H-series CPUs with GeForce Max-Q GPUs, the ZenBook 15 uses an Intel Core U-series CPU instead. The smaller ZenBook 14 UX434 and ZenBook 13 UX334 do not have the same GTX 1650 Max-Q options as the UX534 as they are limited to the less demanding GeForce MX250.
LatencyMon shows DPC latency issues even if wireless is disabled.
Processor - Slightly Slower than the ZenBook 15 UX533
CPU performance is ever-so-slightly slower than the same Core i7-8565U processor on the ZenBook 15 UX533 after accounting for throttling. When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, the CPU in the UX534 is consistently slower by up to 5 percent. It's not enough to make a tangible difference during day-to-day loads, but it shows how finicky Turbo Boost clock rates can be even within the same laptop family.
See our dedicated page on the Core i7-8565U for more technical information and benchmarks.
System Performance
PCMark results are where we expect them to be when considering the CPU and GPU. The only other laptop in our database with the same CPU and GPU as our ZenBook is the MSI Prestige 14 and so both systems share similar PCMark data. However, be prepared for a deluge of annoying popups from Asus encouraging you to register for their cloud or app services upon startup.
| PCMark 8 | |
| Work Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q (5132 - 5145, n=2) | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) | |
| Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng | |
| Home Score Accelerated v2 | |
| Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV | |
| Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 | |
| Average Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q (3758 - 3764, n=2) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2018 (2.6 GHz, 560X) | |
| Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB | |
| HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3764 points | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 5132 points | |
Help | ||
Storage Devices - One Slot Only
A single M.2 PCIe x4 2280 slot is available with no secondary options which can make storage expansion costly. The 1 TB Samsung SSD PM981 SSD in our unit is the same one as found on our ZenBook Pro Duo and so both systems share similar AS SSD and CDM results. Expect different drives depending on the retailer or online shop.
See our table of HDDs and SSDs for more benchmark comparisons.
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | Dell XPS 15 7590 9980HK GTX 1650 Toshiba XG6 KXG60ZNV1T02 | HP Spectre x360 15-df0126ng Toshiba XG5-P KXG50PNV2T04 | Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB SK Hynix PC401 512GB M.2 (HFS512GD9TNG) | Asus ZenBook Pro Duo UX581GV Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR | Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB256HAHQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS SSD | 18% | -43% | -25% | 7% | -14% | |
| Copy Game MB/s | 1287.32 | 1823.85 42% | 700.4 -46% | 574.39 -55% | 1676.98 30% | 1149.77 -11% |
| Copy Program MB/s | 468.05 | 983.98 110% | 328.55 -30% | 390 -17% | 874.26 87% | 513.29 10% |
| Copy ISO MB/s | 1375.25 | 3182.39 131% | 1651.54 20% | 1640.9 19% | 2111.62 54% | 1539.06 12% |
| Score Total | 3483 | 3638 4% | 2684 -23% | 1951 -44% | 3970 14% | 3177 -9% |
| Score Write | 1664 | 1693 2% | 1127 -32% | 677 -59% | 2034 22% | 1450 -13% |
| Score Read | 1210 | 1294 7% | 1071 -11% | 884 -27% | 1278 6% | 1152 -5% |
| Access Time Write * | 0.075 | 0.039 48% | 0.057 24% | 0.051 32% | 0.118 -57% | 0.104 -39% |
| Access Time Read * | 0.034 | 0.05 -47% | 0.147 -332% | 0.044 -29% | 0.041 -21% | 0.063 -85% |
| 4K-64 Write | 1374.95 | 1456.13 6% | 956.6 -30% | 486.04 -65% | 1809.77 32% | 1212.2 -12% |
| 4K-64 Read | 969.22 | 1077.98 11% | 845.02 -13% | 623.05 -36% | 1092.42 13% | 917.46 -5% |
| 4K Write | 146.01 | 98.3 -33% | 92.75 -36% | 123.04 -16% | 93.04 -36% | 105.96 -27% |
| 4K Read | 52.32 | 43.25 -17% | 24.62 -53% | 44.74 -14% | 44.99 -14% | 51.32 -2% |
| Seq Write | 1432.22 | 1386.27 -3% | 773.05 -46% | 679.56 -53% | 1316.23 -8% | 1315.15 -8% |
| Seq Read | 1886.9 | 1723.09 -9% | 2017.79 7% | 2158.18 14% | 1408.99 -25% | 1828.99 -3% |
* ... smaller is better
GPU Performance - Gaming Power in an Ultrabook Form Factor
The GTX 1650 Max-Q is performing where we expect it to be in relation to other laptops equipped with the same GPU. Users can expect almost 20 percent slower performance than the standard non-Max-Q GTX 1650 or almost 50 percent slower performance than the GTX 1660 Ti. Raw performance is actually quite similar to the last generation GTX 1050 Ti while being more power efficient in the process. As always, remember to enable DX12 if possible as Nvidia Turing has been optimized for the DX12 games.
Idling on Witcher 3 shows no sudden frame drops or interrupting background activity. The GPU is powerful enough to play even the latest titles at 1080p30 on Medium to High settings. 60 FPS is possible on lower settings but anything greater will begin to stress the ULV CPU.
See our dedicated page on the GTX 1650 Max-Q for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.
| 3DMark 11 | |
| 1280x720 Performance Combined | |
| HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl | |
| Asus Strix Hero III G731GV | |
| HP Omen 15-dc0015ng | |
| Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB | |
| Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-74G-50U5 | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q (6547 - 10350, n=6) | |
| Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB | |
| Asus VivoBook 15 X512FL-EJ205T | |
| Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T | |
| 1280x720 Performance GPU | |
| Asus Strix Hero III G731GV | |
| Razer Blade 15 GTX 1660 Ti | |
| HP Omen 15-dc0015ng | |
| HP Omen X 2S 15-dg0075cl | |
| Gainward GeForce GTX 1650 4 GB | |
| Acer Aspire 7 A715-74G-50U5 | |
| Asus GX531GM (Zephyrus S) | |
| Average NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q (10422 - 11764, n=7) | |
| Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FT-DB77 | |
| Asus TUF FX705GE-EW096T | |
| Lenovo Yoga 730-15IKB | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Asus VivoBook 15 X512FL-EJ205T | |
| Asus Zenbook 14 UX433FN-A6023T | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 10217 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 21547 points | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 6698 points | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 2949 points | |
Help | ||