Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q laptop review: Like an AMD-powered XPS 15

It's been two years since we last checked out the Zenbook 535 series. Our last model, the 2020 UX535 with 10th gen Intel Coffee Lake-H and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q graphics, came equipped with a ScreenPad for additional screen real estate. This particular 2022 version in review comes with a newer AMD Zen 3 5900HX CPU and GeForce RTX 3050 Ti GPU albeit without the ScreenPad on the 2020 model. Our top-end FHD OLED configuration as reviewed can be found online for about $1500 USD retail, but SKUs with the Ryzen 5 5600H CPU or 4K UHD OLED display are also available.
Alternatives to the Asus Zenbook UM535 include other 15.6-inch multimedia or prosumer laptops like the MSI Prestige 15, Dell XPS 15, HP Spectre x360 15, or the Microsoft Surface Laptop 15.
More Asus reviews:
Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Wanted:
- Specialist News Writer
- Magazine Writer
- Translator (DE<->EN)
Details here
Potential Competitors in Comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
87.7 % | 05/2022 | Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q R9 5900HX, GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop GPU | 1.9 kg | 18 mm | 15.60" | 1920x1080 | |
87 % | 12/2020 | Asus ZenBook UX535-M01440 i7-10750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q | 2 kg | 20 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
85.2 % | 03/2020 | Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FTC-A8190T i7-10510U, GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | 1.6 kg | 18.9 mm | 15.60" | 1920x1080 | |
87.1 % | 04/2021 | Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE i7-10750H, GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile | 1.8 kg | 17.5 mm | 15.60" | 1920x1080 | |
83 % | 08/2020 | HP Envy 15-ep0098nr i7-10750H, GeForce RTX 2060 Max-Q | 2 kg | 19 mm | 15.60" | 3840x2160 | |
88.4 % | 08/2021 | Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED i7-11800H, GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop GPU | 1.9 kg | 18 mm | 15.60" | 3456x2160 |
Join our Support Satisfaction Survey 2023: We want to hear about your experiences!
Participate here
Case — Strong Base and Lid
The UM535 is the AMD version of the existing UX535. It's still a sleek chassis design despite being over two years old, but it's starting to show its age a bit with its large footprint and 16:9 form factor. Chassis rigidity remains strong with only minimal twisting and creaking even on the lid since all SKUs have glass reinforcement for the display.
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, for University Students, Best Displays
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤6-inch, Camera Smartphones
In terms of size and weight, the UX535 is larger and slightly heavier than the Dell XPS 15 or Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15 both of which offer similar H-series CPUs and GeForce GPUs.
Connectivity — No Thunderbolt Support
Port options are identical to the UX535 but with one key difference: the USB-C port is not Thunderbolt compatible nor does it support Power Delivery or DisplayPort. The system offers very few USB ports considering its 15.6-inch form factor.
SD Card Reader
Like all other Zenbooks, transfer rates are relatively slow with the integrated SD reader. Moving 1 GB of images from our UHS-II test card to desktop takes about 13 seconds compared to half that on the XPS 15.
SD Card Reader | |
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED (AV Pro V60) | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FTC-A8190T (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Asus ZenBook UX535-M01440 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
HP Envy 15-ep0098nr (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED (AV Pro V60) | |
HP Envy 15-ep0098nr (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 UHS-II) | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
Asus ZenBook UX535-M01440 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 microSDXC 64GB) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) |
Communication
An Intel 9260 comes standard for Wi-Fi 6 connectivity whereas many other high-end multimedia laptops are beginning to ship with Wi-Fi 6E support. We experienced slower-than-usual transmit rates on our machine even after several retests. It's recommended to check wireless connectivity and stability after purchasing to identify for any potential issues.
Webcam
The webcam is limited to 720p compared to 1080p on the Razer Blade 15. Both a camera kill switch and IR sensor are present for Windows Hello support.

Maintenance
Accessories and Warranty
There are no extras in the box other than the AC adapter and paperwork. The standard one-year limited warranty applies.
Input Devices — Feels Like a Vivobook
Keyboard
Overall key feedback feels similar to the Razer Blade 15 and most Vivobook models. Both travel and feedback are adequate if not slightly on the shallower and softer side, respectively. The keys on an HP Envy 15 or Lenovo ThinkPad X series are noticeably firmer and deeper for more satisfying feedback. It's a shame that there isn't a noticeable upgrade in terms of the keyboard when jumping from a cheaper Vivobook to the more expensive Zenbook.
Touchpad
The clickpad is much smaller than the one on the XPS 15 (10.5 x 7.3 cm vs. 15.1 x 9 cm) despite the larger footprint of the Zenbook Pro 15. Nonetheless, feedback is firmer and more satisfying when pressed when compared to the softer and quieter clickpad of the Dell. Traction is smooth with just a bit of sticking when gliding at slow speeds.
Display — Pushing OLED Mainstream
Asus uses the same 1080p 60 Hz Samsung ATNA56YX03 OLED panel across many of its 15.6-inch laptops including the VivoBook 15 KM513, VivoBook 15 Pro M3500QC, VivoBook 15 M513UA, and Vivobook 15 K513EQ. Thus, all of these laptops share very similar visual characteristics like the extremely fast response times and even brightness distribution, deep black levels, and good maximum brightness levels. These attributes allow content on an OLED panel to pop much more vividly than on a typical IPS panel. Strangely, however, we're only able to record a DCI-P3 coverage of just 79 percent even after attempting to adjust the default colors through the MyAsus software. The manufacturer advertises full DCI-P3 coverage and we've confirmed as much on all the aforementioned VivoBook laptops which may suggest that there could be a bug here in how the color profiles work between the Asus settings and Windows settings.
Keep in mind that pulse-width modulation is present on all brightness levels at 490 Hz from 0 to 49 percent brightness and 60 Hz from 50 percent brightness and up. The MyAsus software offers a slider tool to limit the maximum brightness of the display on top of the regular brightness slider via Windows Settings in an attempt to minimize the intensity of the flickering.
|
Brightness Distribution: 98 %
Center on Battery: 342.9 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.42 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.2
ΔE Greyscale 2.1 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
87.3% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
95.6% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
79.3% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.21
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q Samsung ATNA56YX03-0, OLED, 1920x1080, 15.60 | Asus ZenBook UX535-M01440 BOE0866, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Asus ZenBook 15 UX534FTC-A8190T BOE CQ NV156FHM-N63, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60 | Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE BOE CQ NV156FHM-N69, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.60 | HP Envy 15-ep0098nr Samsung SDC4145, AMOLED, 3840x2160, 15.60 | Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED SDC414D, OLED, 3456x2160, 15.60 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | -10% | -19% | -10% | 10% | 14% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 79.3 | 68.8 -13% | 65 -18% | 68.7 -13% | 88.5 12% | 99.9 26% |
sRGB Coverage | 95.6 | 99.5 4% | 86.2 -10% | 97.1 2% | 100 5% | 100 5% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 87.3 | 70.1 -20% | 62.9 -28% | 70.3 -19% | 99.9 14% | 98.1 12% |
Response Times | -1231% | -1667% | -150% | 116% | -31% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 2.1 ? | 34 ? -1519% | 45 ? -2043% | 5 ? -138% | 0.8 ? 62% | 3.6 ? -71% |
Response Time Black / White * | 2.3 ? | 24 ? -943% | 32 ? -1291% | 6 ? -161% | 2.7 ? -17% | 2.8 ? -22% |
PWM Frequency | 60.2 | 242.7 ? 303% | 59.5 ? -1% | |||
Screen | -1% | -55% | -155% | -38% | 9% | |
Brightness middle | 342.9 | 402 17% | 299 -13% | 360 5% | 374.3 9% | 362 6% |
Brightness | 346 | 375 8% | 280 -19% | 320 -8% | 379 10% | 367 6% |
Brightness Distribution | 98 | 84 -14% | 89 -9% | 81 -17% | 91 -7% | 97 -1% |
Black Level * | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.06 | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.42 | 2.47 -2% | 4.76 -97% | 6.84 -183% | 5.47 -126% | 2.1 13% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.05 | 4.32 -7% | 9 -122% | 12.52 -209% | 8.22 -103% | 4.1 -1% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.1 | 2.26 -8% | 3.53 -68% | 12.94 -516% | 2.3 -10% | 1.4 33% |
Gamma | 2.21 100% | 2.49 88% | 2.3 96% | 2.55 86% | 2.09 105% | 2.18 101% |
CCT | 6364 102% | 6285 103% | 7228 90% | 6973 93% | 6340 103% | 6608 98% |
Contrast | 1149 | 1424 | 2000 | 6033 | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 2.36 | 2.54 | 4.61 | 2.5 | ||
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 99 | 56 | 63 | 87.8 | ||
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 86 | 97 | 100 | |||
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -414% /
-227% | -580% /
-338% | -105% /
-114% | 29% /
13% | -3% /
0% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
2.3 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.1 ms rise | |
↘ 1.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.3 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
2.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1 ms rise | |
↘ 1.1 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (35.2 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 60.2 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 60.2 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 60.2 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18889 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. |
Performance — Zen 3 Ryzen 9 Is Still Top Tier
Testing Conditions
Our unit was set to Performance mode via both Windows and the MyAsus software prior to running any tests below for the highest possible scores. It's highly recommended that users become familiar with the MyAsus software as key features related to battery, performance, colors, and WiFi are all toggled here.
Optimus 1.0 comes standard for automatic switching between the CPU and Nvidia GPU. As expected, there is no MUX switch or internal G-Sync support since the Zenbook Pro 15 is not a gaming machine.
Processor
CPU performance and sustainability are both excellent and where we expect them to be relative to other laptops equipped with the same Ryzen 9 5900HX. Overall performance is only about 5 to 15 percent slower than the newest Zen 3+ Ryzen 9 6900HX and so users won't be missing very much by opting for the older 5900HX. The competing Core i7-12800H is about 25 percent slower in terms of raw multi-thread performance.
Cinebench R15 Multi Loop
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 5.4: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
* ... smaller is better
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx
Performance Rating | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE | |
Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED -9! |
AIDA64 / FP32 Ray-Trace | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (12470 - 16014, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / FPU Julia | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (79554 - 101008, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / CPU SHA3 | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (2754 - 3444, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / CPU Queen | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (87865 - 105123, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / FPU SinJulia | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (10899 - 12806, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / FPU Mandel | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (43685 - 55702, n=25) | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / CPU AES | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (109927 - 137901, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / CPU ZLib | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (706 - 878, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE | |
Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED |
AIDA64 / FP64 Ray-Trace | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (6664 - 8644, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / CPU PhotoWorxx | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (14344 - 25533, n=25) |
System Performance
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
CrossMark / Overall | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop GPU |
CrossMark / Productivity | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop GPU |
CrossMark / Creativity | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop GPU |
CrossMark / Responsiveness | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Laptop GPU |
PCMark 10 Score | 6687 points | |
Help |
AIDA64 / Memory Copy | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (36725 - 43318, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / Memory Read | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (41378 - 47593, n=25) | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / Memory Write | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (32536 - 46718, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE |
AIDA64 / Memory Latency | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q | |
Average AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX (73.5 - 97.1, n=25) | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE | |
Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED |
* ... smaller is better
DPC Latency
DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
HP Envy 15-ep0098nr | |
Dell XPS 15 9510 11800H RTX 3050 Ti OLED | |
Asus ZenBook UX535-M01440 | |
Lenovo Yoga Creator 7 15IMH05 82DS000VGE | |
Asus Zenbook Pro 15 OLED UM535Q |
* ... smaller is better
Storage Devices — Up To PCIe3 x4 Only
Our test unit ships with a midrange 1 TB WDC PC SN730 NVMe SSD offering sequential read and write rates of about 2900 MB/s and 3000 MB/s, respectively. The drive has no issues sustaining its maximum transfer rates for extended periods when running DiskSpd in a loop. PCIe4 speeds are not supported due to the Zen 3 chipset.
* ... smaller is better
Disk Throttling: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8
GPU Performance — The GTX 1660 Ti Would Have Been Better
The GeForce RTX 3050 Ti is a disappointing GPU. Though it's significantly faster than the entry-level GTX 1650, it falls short of the less expensive GTX 1660 Ti by roughly 20 percent. Its ray-tracing performance is significantly slower than the already slow mobile RTX 2060 as well.
Running on Balanced mode instead of Performance mode impacts GPU performance while CPU performance remains about the same. A Fire Strike test on Balanced mode would return a 9 percent smaller Graphics score.
3DMark 11 Performance | 16609 points | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 46618 points | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 11932 points | |
3DMark Time Spy Score | 5338 points | |
Help |