Asus Zenbook UX360CA-FC060T Convertible Review
For the original German review, see here.
A consolidation has recently become apparent on the convertible market: Core m fanless is moving into tablets (Spectre x2 12, IdeaPad Miix 700), and Core i is reserved for higher-performance, fan-cooled, 360-degree devices. Asus steps out of line and installs a frugal Core m3 into its Zenbook Flip UX360CA-FC060T - without a fan. However, the Surface Pro 4, like Acer's Aspire Switch 12 Alpha - both with Core i -, prove that everything is principally possible. The Alpha is presently being tested, but we will nevertheless use available rates for comparison in this report.
Opponents for the Zenbook UX360CA are found either among 360-degree convertibles or 2-in-1 tablets with laptop replacement claims. Particularly the latter have become very exciting in the past few months thanks to the IdeaPad Miix 700 and HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng. With exception of the Surface Pro 4 Core i version, these devices exclusively operate with fanless Core m.
- Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N, Core m, 950 Euros (~$1071)
- Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700, Core m, 1300 Euros (~$1465)
- HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA, Core m, 1300 Euros (~$1465)
- Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core m3, 950 Euros (~$1071)
We have to draw attention to the "cheaper" models like the Aspire R13 R7-372T or Spectre x360 13 among the 360-degree convertibles in the price comparison. They, however, are furnished with higher-performance Core i CPUs and have a fan.
- Toshiba Satellite Radius 12 P20W-C-106, i7, 1350 Euros (~$1522)
- Lenovo Yoga 900 13ISK, i7, 1400 Euros (~$1578)
- Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T-746N, i5, 999 Euros (~$1126)
- HP Spectre x360 13 (i5-6200U), i5, 1000 Euros (~$1127)
Where is the comparatively affordable Zenbook UX360CA priced at 830 Euros (~$935) situated? Can it compete against its Core m rivals, some with throttling issues in our tests (e.g. HP Spectre x2 12-a003ng)? How big is the difference between Core i5 and i7? Can the Zenbook Flip deliver the hoped for laptop performance needed for appealing work with Windows?
Case
The cool aluminum casing gives the Zenbook UX360CA a relatively elegant yet somewhat boring look. The lid's circular finish is of course an eye-catcher, and the chain-link hinges of the 360-degree hinge will attract attention. However, particularly one thing is not outstanding: The stiffness. The lid warps evidently at the corners when touched - although we noticed that the touchscreen is float-mounted. The display's metallic bezel can thus be pulled away from it to some extent. This is not a disadvantage since it protects the panel from breaking as a result from too high tension.
The base is not an unstable piece of carton. The stiffness is overall good - but not more. The chassis warps just when the UX360CA is picked up at a corner. This is also the case when we twist it at the corners. Positive: the chassis cannot be dented, nor does it sound hollow anywhere. Unfortunately, that is not true for the keyboard surface that yields obviously and produces a clattering feedback. More about that in "Input Devices".
The hinge does not do a very good job, which is due to its ease of running especially in laptop mode. Users who tap the touchscreen a bit more energetically will cause the display to wobble. However, the panel cannot really be pushed back when using the touchscreen unless inputs are entered crudely.
The base and display are united via magnetism in tablet mode. However, it is not very strong; the base's high weight folds down by itself when it is only held by the TFT.
Connectivity
The interfaces outshine every Windows tablet - when we only look at the total count. USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-C besides two full-sized Type-A ports (USB 3.0) is a purchase argument for this slim format. Micro-HDMI and Type-C Gen 1 join in and allow a twist-safe connection of the new cable type. Gen 1 does not provide any speed advantages, though. Thunderbolt 3 is not installed, either.
Tablets often only offer Type-C USB (HP Spectre x2 12, Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N). The IdeaPad Miix 700, however, provides both Type-C and Type-A USB, and then again, the Surface Pro 4 offers mini-DisplayPort and Type-A USB but not a Type-C port. The Surface Pro 4 is also the oldest model in the comparison. Buyers will have to decide which interfaces are essential and which ones are not needed according to intended use.
We test the performance of the installed card reader with our Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II reference card. Photographers will be pleased about the full-sized SD reader. Unfortunately, the card cannot be inserted into the casing completely as it would then collide with the keyboard. The maximum transfer rate is 37 MB/s when copying large data blocks, while 39 MB/s can be expected with common JPG image files (approx. 5 MB each). Those are average outcomes; slower readers achieve 15 MB/s with the image files, and fast ones around 80 MB/s.
Communication
Intel's Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260 besides Bluetooth 4.1 takes care of connecting a smartphone or Wi-Fi network. The UX360CA did not pass our field tests outside the office with a very good grade: It did not manage the 40-meter measuring point outdoors; the connection disrupted after about 30 meters. Two-thirds of our review samples achieve the 40-meter measuring point.
Accessories
A sleeve, cable strap and a small 45-watt power supply are in the box. Asus does not offer any UX360-specific accessories.
Maintenance
A maintenance hatch is not present, but the base plate could be removed after releasing tiny Torx screws. We tried it and failed half way through this procedure. Glued ribbon cables prevented removing the underside just as much as the base plate itself. We did not make further attempts in favor of the manufacturer and an undamaged device.
We could separate the base plate from the chassis' upper tray by 80% with a putty knife, but the plate did not want to be pried off the back. Careful! More screws are hidden behind both rear-sided stoppers! Asus apparently does not want the user to perform maintenance work and makes it impossible. As far as we could see in the one-third opened device, the working memory is on-board and only the Wi-Fi module is inserted. The Lite-On CV1 SSD cannot be upgraded since it is soldered.
Warranty
Asus includes a 24-month manufacturer warranty (pick-up & return).
Input Devices
Keyboard
The flat keys are similar to the ones in the Zenbook UX305UA, except for the power button. The one in the review sample is no longer integrated in the keyboard but is implemented as a button beside the volume control. Unfortunately, we cannot speak of a sufficient drop and firm stroke since Asus has somehow managed to create a cavity under the keys. Thus, this area yields and coils especially in the center. The stroke is, consequently, wobbly and the feedback feels shaky. Too bad, seeing that the pressure point is distinct and the roughened keys are not slippery.
Touchpad
The ClickPad with a diagonal of 12.4 centimeters is the opposite of the keyboard. It is sensitive up into the lateral areas and supports common multitouch gestures. The surface is sleek and clearly differs from the rather dull wrist rest area. It will unlikely be mistaken in the dark although the pad is only lowered marginally. The ClickPad only has a short drop, but it features a striking and clearly audible pressure point. As usual for such pads, dedicated mouse keys are absent and a single button is under the entire surface. Depending on where the finger is placed, the device recognizes whether it is a left or right mouse click. The pad's handling is smooth and almost always precise. The sleek surface allows the fingers to glide very quickly without leaving a greasy finger impression.
Touchscreen
The touchscreen can be used without interruptions also up into the lateral areas. This is standard. The display's instability during stronger swipe and tap gestures annoyed us. Users who are a bit more careful will not have problems, though.
Display
Asus delivers 1920x1080 pixels on a 13.3-inch IPS panel with a 72% NTSC coverage according to the manufacturer. The TFT comes from AU Optronics (B133HAN02.7). Although the brightness of 300 cd/m² is not ideal, the illumination is distributed very homogeneously; there are no bright spots or backlight bleeding. Models with higher or lower resolutions are not offered. Asus has had its Zenbooks with diverse panel options available until now - from WXGA (1366x768) up to 4K (3200x1800) in the UX305CA.
The contrast of 1400:1 is more than satisfactory; the low black level presents a rich black and clear outlines. On the other hand, the DeltaE rates are not good although Asus installs a color profile ex-factory. Users who need high color reproduction accuracy should calibrate the screen with a photospectrometer. In the best case, our profile of the review sample linked in the box will help and improve the DeltaE.
We determined screen flickering (PWM) at a brightness of 30% and lower. This level is considerably below 150 cd/m², which is rarely used in practice. The low frequency could lead to headaches or eye problems in sensitive users.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 90 %
Center on Battery: 302 cd/m²
Contrast: 1438:1 (Black: 0.21 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.33 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 8.13 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
93% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
60% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
66.5% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
93% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
65.1% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.52
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA-FC060T 1920x1080 IPS | Toshiba Satellite Radius 12 P20W-C-106 3840x2160 IPS | HP Spectre x360 13-4104ng 2560x1440 IPS | Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T-746N 2560x1440 IPS | Lenovo Yoga 900-13ISK 80MK 3200x1800 IPS | Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Core i5, 128GB 2736x1824 IPS | Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N 2160x1440 sAMOLED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -1% | 1% | 6% | -3% | 2% | ||
| Display P3 Coverage | 65.1 | 63.6 -2% | 66.8 3% | 69.6 7% | 63.2 -3% | 65 0% | |
| sRGB Coverage | 93 | 94.7 2% | 92.8 0% | 98 5% | 88.7 -5% | 96.5 4% | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 66.5 | 65 -2% | 67.3 1% | 70.7 6% | 64.9 -2% | 67 1% | |
| Response Times | -117% | 16% | 120% | 183% | -58% | ||
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 29 ? | 68 ? -134% | 24 ? 17% | 36 ? -24% | 38.8 ? -34% | 46 ? -59% | |
| Response Time Black / White * | 22 ? | 44 ? -100% | 19 ? 14% | 30 ? -36% | 22.4 ? -2% | 31.2 ? -42% | |
| PWM Frequency | 192 ? | 1000 ? 421% | 1316 585% | 50 ? -74% | |||
| Screen | 13% | -1% | 19% | -27% | 9% | 111% | |
| Brightness middle | 302 | 388 28% | 324 7% | 320 6% | 319.8 6% | 413 37% | 363 20% |
| Brightness | 298 | 351 18% | 324 9% | 308 3% | 302 1% | 396 33% | 378 27% |
| Brightness Distribution | 90 | 85 -6% | 90 0% | 91 1% | 88 -2% | 87 -3% | 90 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.21 | 0.32 -52% | 0.34 -62% | 0.17 19% | 0.835 -298% | 0.36 -71% | 0.03 86% |
| Contrast | 1438 | 1213 -16% | 953 -34% | 1882 31% | 383 -73% | 1147 -20% | 12100 741% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.33 | 1.83 71% | 4.36 31% | 3.18 50% | 2.68 58% | 3.09 51% | 4.8 24% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 11.89 | 9.91 17% | 6.91 42% | ||||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 8.13 | 2.17 73% | 4.62 43% | 4.13 49% | 2.35 71% | 3.92 52% | 5.04 38% |
| Gamma | 2.52 87% | 2.43 91% | 2.18 101% | 2.03 108% | 2.09 105% | 2.3 96% | 2.57 86% |
| CCT | 6811 95% | 6703 97% | 6857 95% | 6752 96% | 6975 93% | 7333 89% | 7255 90% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 60 | 60 0% | 60 0% | 65 8% | 57 -5% | 61 2% | 73 22% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 93 | 95 2% | 93 0% | 98 5% | 88 -5% | 97 4% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -35% /
-8% | 5% /
2% | 48% /
36% | 51% /
19% | -16% /
-6% | 111% /
111% |
* ... smaller is better
The sAMOLED panel in Samsung's Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N with an incredible contrast of 12100:1 is a beauty. Its DeltaE rates are also somewhat better. The comparison devices are furnished with the best panels presently available for tablets or convertibles. The UX360CA is very well-equipped in terms of quality in this comparison, despite it having the lowest resolution in the group. The minor greenish tint is seen in both the CalMAN Grayscale and Saturation Sweeps screenshots. It can be eliminated via calibration.
The UX360CA is not very outdoor-suitable due to both the intense reflections of the glossy surface and its low brightness compared with its opponents. 300 cd/m² would be more than sufficient for a matte laptop, but it is still too little for using a touchscreen device in the sun. 400 cd/m² would be the target objective.
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 22 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 44 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 29 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 14 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 35 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 192 Hz | ≤ 30 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 192 Hz (worst case, e.g., 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 192 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Changing viewing angles will not be an issue for the user thanks to the IPS panel - the displayed content can be looked at from everywhere without inversions or color tints.
Performance
We would call this consistent: Instead of confusing buyers with processor, SSD and resolution options, Asus only offers some downgrades of the Zenbook UX360CA. The Core m3 besides an 8 GB working memory is standard just like the FHD resolution. The buyer can only choose between the colors black and gold, and between a 128 GB and 256 GB SSD storage (+ 100 Euros, ~$112).
Asus must have read our reviews and realized: The Core m3 offers the best price-performance ratio especially since many Core m5 and m7 tablets tend to throttle and cannot retrieve the performance that they should achieve in theory. We found this disproportion in e.g. Lenovo's IdeaPad Miix 700 (m5-6Y54) and HP's Spectre x2 12-a003ng (m7-6Y75).
Processor
Just how well does Intel's Core m3-6Y30 (0.9 GHz) processor fare compared with Core m tablets? Quite well, seeing that it is on par with Samsung's Galaxy Tab Pro S based on the same processor. HP's Spectre x2 12 is defeated despite m7 since the Spectre x2 12 already throttles its clock speed massively during normal load.
Both the Core i5 and i7 clock up to 35% faster, which is not surprising here. The Core i has a TDP of 15 watts and not only 4.5 watts like the Core m. The weakness of Lenovo's Yoga 900-13ISK 80MK is remarkable. The 1400-Euro model with a Core i7 is just 2% faster in Cinebench R15 single-thread test, but 38% faster in the multithread test. The UX360CA is a really good deal in terms of price-performance.
The Core m3 clocks at 1.9 to 2.0 GHz in the Cinebench tests; it utilizes its Turbo very effectively. According to the specs, the m3-6Y30 can clock up to a maximum of 2.2 GHz in single-thread. The SoC remains acceptably cool at just below 80 °C in the Cinebench multithread loop.
The processor's performance remains stable in battery mode; the R15 single and multi scores are the same. Only the iGPU's Shading score drops marginally from 30.3 to 28.3 FPS, but that could also be a normal fluctuation. The GPU clocks at 500 MHz in the Shading test.
* ... smaller is better
System Performance
We tested the system performance with PCMark 8. Asus' Zenbook UX360CA delivers very good results here that do not at all match the inferior performance from the Core i comparison. Acer's Aspire R13 R7-372T-746N premium model only outruns the UX360CA by 14% - and that in both versions of PCMark 8. The R13 is, however, 1.5 kilograms heavier and 18 millimeters tall. Our UX360CA weighs 1.35 kg and has a height of 14 millimeters. In relation to its size and fanless design, the Zenbook UX360CA has quite a bit up its sleeve.
HP's Spectre x2 12-a003ng K3D42EA puts this result back into perspective in the Work Score Accelerated v2. After the poor outcomes in the processor tests, HP's tablet is apparently quite capable since it takes the lead here. It cannot be due to an exorbitantly fast SSD as the next paragraph proves.
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 2727 points | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 3496 points | |
Help | ||
Storage Device
The Lite-On CV1-8B128 in our Zenbook UX360CA tends to lag behind the competition storage device by Samsung on average. However, the maximum 52% that we determined here is negligible for SSD conditions. By and large, no significant performance differences are recorded between SSD configurations based on Samsung PM871, PM951, Sandisk X300 or Lite-On CV1.
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA Lite-On CV1- 8B128 | Toshiba Sat. Radius 12 P20W-C Samsung PM871 | HP Spectre x360 13 Samsung PM851 | Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T Lite-On CV1- 8B256 | Lenovo Yoga 900- 13ISK Samsung PM871 | Microsoft Surface Pro 4 Samsung PM951 | Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N Lite-On CV1- 8B128 | Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 Samsung PM871 | HP Spectre x2 12 Sandisk X300 SD7SN6S | Acer Aspire Switch Alpha 12 SA5-271 N.N. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrystalDiskMark 3.0 | 44% | -11% | 44% | 42% | 28% | -8% | 26% | 6% | 18% | |
| Read Seq | 497 | 492.6 -1% | 491.8 -1% 491.8 -1% | 507 2% | 514 3% | 666 34% | 419.8 -16% | 497.9 0% | 410.1 -17% | 518 4% |
| Write Seq | 182.9 | 306.5 68% | 264.5 45% 264.5 45% | 354.4 94% | 459.5 151% | 154.2 -16% | 162.9 -11% | 153.5 -16% | 316 73% | 199.9 9% |
| Read 4k | 31.89 | 33.48 5% | 30.88 -3% 30.88 -3% | 32.66 2% | 36.34 14% | 28.51 -11% | 27.49 -14% | 36.2 14% | 27.4 -14% | 29.3 -8% |
| Write 4k | 62 | 89.7 45% | 75.6 22% 75.6 22% | 81.6 32% | 100.1 61% | 101.5 64% | 48.44 -22% | 95.5 54% | 53.5 -14% | 76.8 24% |
| Read 4k QD32 | 207.7 | 323.9 56% | 31.85 -85% 31.85 -85% | 277.6 34% | 313.8 51% | 368.3 77% | 236.2 14% | 389.5 88% | 196 -6% | 272 31% |
| Write 4k QD32 | 131.8 | 249 89% | 73.9 -44% 73.9 -44% | 261.2 98% | 96.8 -27% | 153.6 17% | 135 2% | 154 17% | 147.8 12% | 197.1 50% |
| AS SSD | 20% | 36% | 62% | 42% | -8% | 17% | -1% | 16% | ||
| Seq Read | 486.3 | 491.7 1% 491.7 1% | 514 6% | 505 4% | 832 71% | 473.3 -3% | 499.7 3% | 439.1 -10% | 505 4% | |
| Seq Write | 175.6 | 255.5 46% 255.5 46% | 342 95% | 454.6 159% | 142.5 -19% | 169.6 -3% | 147 -16% | 216.9 24% | 186.6 6% | |
| 4K Read | 28.29 | 23.7 -16% 23.7 -16% | 30.32 7% | 32.29 14% | 34.24 21% | 20.79 -27% | 32.41 15% | 23.12 -18% | 31.06 10% | |
| 4K Write | 57 | 63.4 11% 63.4 11% | 71.3 25% | 80.6 41% | 86.5 52% | 52.5 -8% | 80.7 42% | 49.2 -14% | 66 16% | |
| Score Read | 372 | 437 17% 437 17% | 345 -7% | 458 23% | 645 73% | 343 -8% | 459 23% | 333 -10% | 460 24% | |
| Score Write | 180 | 274 52% 274 52% | 371 106% | 429 138% | 239 33% | 176 -2% | 227 26% | 223 24% | 228 27% | |
| Score Total | 737 | 930 26% 930 26% | 896 22% | 1129 53% | 1190 61% | 686 -7% | 913 24% | 722 -2% | 918 25% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 44% /
44% | 5% /
5% | 40% /
40% | 52% /
53% | 35% /
35% | -8% /
-8% | 22% /
21% | 3% /
2% | 17% /
17% |
Graphics Card
The HD 515 is the downgrade of the HD520 as very obvious in the synthetic benchmarks. The HD 515 lags behind by approximately 25 to 30%. It achieved 4200 points in the Cloud Gate benchmark; HD 520 devices deliver almost 6000 points here. The comparison does not look at all bad in the comparison of Core m models. The UX360CA has an edge on Lenovo's IdeaPad Miix 700 and Samsung's Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N. The Spectre x2 12 with its dual-channel memory scores better here, but our review sample also benefits from dual-channel.
The UX360CA stands out with its H.265/HEVC decoder for simple multimedia use. Therefore, these kinds of videos can be completely decoded in the hardware and the SoC is only loaded to 10 to 15%, and it thus has reserves for other tasks.
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 785 points | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 4205 points | |
Help | ||
Gaming Performance
The HD 515 is neither suitable for up-to-date games nor demanding hardware support, such as video editing via Intel Quick Sync. Only old games can be played smoothly on the HD 515; high details in Full HD resolution should not even be considered. The user would have to choose games from before 2010 to experience smooth gameplay in medium details (WXGA). Browser-based games should not be a problem for the UX360CA thanks to their low requirements.
| Rise of the Tomb Raider - 1024x768 Lowest Preset (sort by value) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N | |
| Tomb Raider | |
| 1366x768 Normal Preset AA:FX AF:4x (sort by value) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA | |
| Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4 | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 | |
| 1024x768 Low Preset (sort by value) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA | |
| Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4 | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 | |
| BioShock Infinite - 1366x768 Medium Preset (sort by value) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA | |
| HP Spectre x360 13 | |
| Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T | |
| Microsoft Surface Pro 4 | |
| Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 | |
| low | med. | high | ultra | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomb Raider (2013) | 34.8 | 12.4 | ||
| BioShock Infinite (2013) | 36.4 | 20.2 | 15.8 | |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 8.4 | 4.2 |
Emissions
System Noise
The UX360CA, like the Zenbook UX305CA, does not sport a fan and thus does not produce noise.
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA HD Graphics 515, 6Y30, Lite-On CV1-8B128 | Toshiba Sat. Radius 12 P20W-C HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Samsung SSD PM871 MZNLN256HCHP | HP Spectre x360 13 HD Graphics 520, 6200U, Samsung SSD PM851 256 GB MZNTE256HMHP | Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Lite-On CV1-8B256 | Lenovo Yoga 900- 13ISK HD Graphics 520, 6500U, Samsung SSD PM871 MZNLN512HCJH | Microsoft Surface Pro 4 HD Graphics 520, 6300U, Samsung MZFLV128 NVMe | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | ||||||
| off / environment * | 31.3 | 31.3 | ||||
| Idle Minimum * | 32.5 | 29.6 | 31.3 | 29.7 | 31.5 | |
| Idle Average * | 32.6 | 29.6 | 31.3 | 29.8 | 31.5 | |
| Idle Maximum * | 32.6 | 34.6 | 31.8 | 30 | 31.5 | |
| Load Average * | 41 | 34.7 | 39.2 | 32 | 40.5 | |
| Load Maximum * | 41 | 37.9 | 39.1 | 38.5 | 40.7 |
* ... smaller is better
Temperature
It does not get critical; the infrared thermometer only displays approximately 39 °C on the upper side of the keyboard even in the stress test. The reason is found in the massive throttling to 500 to 700 MHz in the stress test. As soon as the SoC surpasses 80 °C, it reduces its clock speed until roughly 60 °C is permanently reached. The GPU only clocks at 250 to 350 MHz at this point. Only 10 seconds is needed for the cooling system to calm down again after removing Prime95 from the permanent stress test. The processor then recovers to 1.1 GHz, so above the standard clock of 900 MHz. Thus, the possible performance is relatively stable just like the fanless thermals.
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA 6Y30 fanless | Toshiba Sat. Radius 12 P20W-C 6500U fan | HP Spectre x360 13 6200U fan | Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T 6500U fan | Lenovo Yoga 900- 13ISK 6500U fan | Microsoft Surface Pro 4 6300U fan | Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N 6Y30 fanless | Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 6Y54 fanless | HP Spectre x2 12 6Y75 fanless | Aspire Switch Alpha 12 SA5-271 6200U fanless | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | -14% | -5% | -0% | 1% | -44% | -30% | -9% | -16% | -20% | |
| Maximum Upper Side * | 39 | 46.5 -19% | 39.6 -2% | 40 -3% | 37.4 4% | 52.3 -34% | 42.5 -9% | 38.6 1% | 43.5 -12% | 46.7 -20% |
| Maximum Bottom * | 37.6 | 43 -14% | 39.7 -6% | 37.6 -0% | 36.4 3% | 51.4 -37% | 44.6 -19% | 40.8 -9% | 42 -12% | 51 -36% |
| Idle Upper Side * | 25.7 | 28.9 -12% | 25 3% | 25.1 2% | 26.6 -4% | 43.2 -68% | 36.6 -42% | 30.4 -18% | 33 -28% | 29.5 -15% |
| Idle Bottom * | 26 | 28.4 -9% | 29.8 -15% | 26 -0% | 25.6 2% | 36 -38% | 38.6 -48% | 28 -8% | 29.3 -13% | 28.6 -10% |
* ... smaller is better
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 19.6 to 60 °C for the class Convertible.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.6 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 36.8 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.3 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 30.3 °C / 87 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 27.8 °C / 82 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28 °C / 82.4 F (+0.2 °C / 0.4 F).
Speakers
The speakers are situated on the underside and radiate their sound toward the tabletop. The volume is relatively low. Presumably, this setting is to prevent the small speakers from scratching and distorting at high volumes. However, they occasionally distorted when playing powerful beats in Beethoven's third symphony. The speakers cannot render much depth as the adjacent Pink Noise characteristics prove. All low frequencies are downright absorbed.
Energy Management
Power Consumption
The comparison of power consumption clearly illustrates the goal of a Core m: It is not absolute high-performance, but rather low energy requirement in idle or during low load. Non-stop video editing and CAD constructions will likely be possible on such subnotebooks to a very limited degree. An idle minimum of 3.4 watts is therefore remarkably low. However, other devices - primarily fanless tablets - also manage this.
The power consumption during medium load via 3DMark and the stress test are very close. That is typical for Core m processors since the SoC throttles due to the risk of overheating below the nominal rate of here 900 MHz to 500-700 MHz. All Core ms behave this way. Lenovo's IdeaPad Miix 700 is an exception as it completely utilizes its Turbo even in the stress test. In "Performance" we already ascertained that the clock rate is within an ideal Turbo range of 1.9 to 2.0 GHz during normal load via a Cinebench.
The Aspire Switch Alpha 12 SA5-271 with fanless liquid cooling is interesting here. Its 25 watts avg. load suggests: The SoC throttles its clock to some extent, but a Spectre x360 13 with identical SoC needs a bit more (28 W). Users who want the highest possible performance in every load state will not get around a Toshiba Satellite Radius 12 P20W-C or even an Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T. Both systems boldly treat themselves to almost 40 watts, which speaks for the retrievable performance. That is still the "laptop-performance" standard in small format. Fanless Core m devices are far remote from this.
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA 6Y30 fanless | Toshiba Sat. Radius 12 P20W-C 6500U fan | HP Spectre x360 13 6200U fan | Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T 6500U fan | Microsoft Surface Pro 4 6300U fan | Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N 6Y30 fanless | Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 6Y54 fanless | HP Spectre x2 12 6Y75 fanless | Aspire Switch Alpha 12 SA5-271 6200U fanless | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -103% | -25% | -68% | -20% | 5% | -28% | -11% | -54% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.4 | 8.8 -159% | 3.9 -15% | 6.2 -82% | 4.4 -29% | 3.4 -0% | 4 -18% | 4.5 -32% | 7.3 -115% |
| Idle Average * | 7 | 12.8 -83% | 7.4 -6% | 8 -14% | 9 -29% | 8 -14% | 8.6 -23% | 7.7 -10% | 10 -43% |
| Idle Maximum * | 7.6 | 13.7 -80% | 9.2 -21% | 11.6 -53% | 10.7 -41% | 9 -18% | 9.3 -22% | 8.3 -9% | 10.15 -34% |
| Load Average * | 19 | 38 -100% | 28.1 -48% | 40 -111% | 19.6 -3% | 12 37% | 18.6 2% | 19.8 -4% | 25.2 -33% |
| Load Maximum * | 20.1 | 39 -94% | 27.6 -37% | 36.6 -82% | 19.9 1% | 16.1 20% | 36.3 -81% | 20.6 -2% | 29.3 -46% |
* ... smaller is better
| Off / Standby |   0.27 / 0.34 Watt |
| Idle |  3.4 / 7 / 7.6 Watt |
| Load |
19 / 20.1 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
Battery Runtime
Asus speaks of up to 12 hours of battery life, but we cannot confirm this. The UX360CA lasted 6:26 hours in our Wi-Fi test. The PC operates in "Balanced" mode using a brightness reduced to approximately 150 cd/m². A web-based script opens websites in the browser or simulates activity. The runtime is first really long in idle: 17 hours was achieved but using minimum brightness which is a dim 18 cd/m². At this brightness, content is just adequately legible. Users could throughout achieve 10 hours when idle is used frugally and the brightness is reduced even further; a workday is thus realistic.
The battery's capacity is not low; 54 watt hours is an impressive power pack for such a small subnotebook. It is a lithium-polymer battery that accommodates more volumic energy in a tight space.
Approximately 2 hours is needed for recharging in idle mode, which is very fast. The Core m3's low TDP of just 4.5 watts is also evident in the relatively long load runtime of four hours. Core i systems (TDP: 15 watts) with good to very good Wi-Fi runtimes of 6 to 8 hours achieve 1.5 to at most 2 hours here.
| Asus Zenbook UX360CA 6Y30 fanless | Toshiba Sat. Radius 12 P20W-C 6500U fan | HP Spectre x360 13 6200U fan | Acer Aspire R13 R7-372T 6500U fan | Lenovo Yoga 900- 13ISK 6500U fan | Microsoft Surface Pro 4 6300U fan | Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro S W700N 6Y30 fanless | Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 6Y54 fanless | HP Spectre x2 12 6Y75 fanless | Aspire Switch Alpha 12 SA5-271 6200U fanless | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -38% | 30% | -33% | -20% | -18% | 22% | -12% | -15% | -36% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1027 | 669 -35% | 844 -18% | 899 -12% | 1110 8% | 861 -16% | 954 -7% | 640 -38% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 386 | 241 -38% | 500 30% | 382 -1% | 403 4% | 427 11% | 525 36% | 440 14% | 361 -6% | 321 -17% |
| Load | 239 | 85 -64% | 128 -46% | 111 -54% | 157 -34% | 166 -31% | 112 -53% | |||
| H.264 | 393 | 515 | 450 | 468 |
Pros
Cons
Verdict
Are you looking for a light convertible that copes with multiple, productive Windows tasks and looks good at the same time? Asus takes an attempt at tackling this balancing act and rebuilds its successful Zenbook UX305CA (Core m, fanless) in Yoga style. The outcome is a rival for Lenovo's Yoga 900-13ISK (1400 Euros, ~$1578). Of course, Asus makes the better price of 830 Euros (~$935), but it waives a 4K resolution and only has a Core m3 and no pretty watchband hinge.
"Only a Core m3" - is that a drawback? We think: No. Asus has recognized, like we have in our tests with the Core m3, m5 and m7, that the m3 provides the best price-performance ratio. This is for the reason that the Core m7 - like in e.g. HP's Spectre x2 12 - cannot develop its full performance during basic load due to throttling. That would be like if someone buys a motorcycle that is limited to only 80 km/h. Then it would be preferable to buy a frugal, 125 m³ lightweight bike from the outset. It also gets through city traffic well as the system benchmarks prove. Thanks to the fast SSDs in all comparison devices, the differences between Core i and Core m are quite small. 12 - 15% sounds very insignificant.
Microsoft has not for nothing opted against m5 and m7 in its fanless Surface Pro 4. Users who want more power will have to look for Core i processors. Asus, however, does not offer these in its 360-degree model but only in its normal clamshell Zenbooks. Lucrative alternatives would be the not much higher-priced Acer's Aspire R13 R7-372T-746N (with Thunderbolt 3 port) or Toshiba's Satellite Radius 12 P20W-C-106.
Compared with tablet solutions, the UX360CA offers a greater diversity of interfaces. Depending on the requirements, this plus point does not inevitably beat every tablet. Lenovo's IdeaPad Miix 700 comes with a full-sized Type-A USB port alongside micro-HDMI, and HP's Spectre x2 12 offers a total of two USB Type-C ports - but not a real video-out.
Asus' Zenbook UX360CA-FC060T ultimately is a well-conceived convertible subnotebook that only suffers from a keyboard that is weak because it is unstable. Prolific writers will not be happy with it in the long term.
Asus Zenbook UX360CA-FC060T
- 06/15/2016 v5.1 (old)
Sebastian Jentsch
Price comparison
