Notebookcheck Logo

ScreenPad 2.0 Debut: Asus VivoBook S15 S532FL Laptop Review

A tale of two screens.

Asus' second stab at a touchscreen-touchpad hybrid is head and shoulders above the first generation ScreenPad on last year's ZenBook Pro 15 UX580 in terms of usability and display quality. A few hurdles remain including the impact on battery life, grainy matte overlay, and poor viewing angles.

Asus introduced its first generation Screenpad 1.0 last year on the ZenBook Pro 15 UX580GE The system was essentially a ZenBook Pro 15 UX550 but with the traditional clickpad swapped for a ScreenPad instead. Fast-forward to 2019 and Asus is now ready to introduce its second generation Screenpad to more laptops outside of just its flagship ZenBook series including the entry-level VivoBook series.

Our test unit today is the VivoBook S15 S532 which is essentially the VivoBook S15 S531 but with the traditional clickpad swapped for a ScreenPad 2.0. Port positioning is also slightly different this time around which we will detail below. Other than the small list of changes, the chassis is identical to the S531.

What we're most interested in is the 5.65-inch ScreenPad 2.0 and how it compares to last year's ScreenPad 1.0. Only two SKUs are available at the time of writing: the S532FL with i7-8565U CPU and GeForce MX250 graphics and the cheaper S532FA with i5-8265U CPU with integrated UHD Graphics 620. Both come equipped with the same Screenpad 2.0 touchscreen and 1080p display. Our test unit is the higher-end S532FL configuration with discrete Nvidia graphics for a respectable level of gaming performance considering the $800 USD asking price.

Direct competitors in this space are plentiful as there are many 15.6-inch Ultrabooks to choose from including the Dell XPS 15, Lenovo IdeaPad 720S, Acer Aspire 5 A515, or HP Spectre x360 15.

More Asus reviews:

Asus VivoBook S15 S532F (VivoBook S15 S532 Series)
Processor
Intel Core i7-8565U 4 x 1.8 - 4.6 GHz (Intel Core i7)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 - 2048 MB VRAM, Core: 1519 MHz, RAM: 1502 MHz, GDDR5, 419.72, Optimus
Memory
8 GB 
, 4 GB soldered + 4 GB Samsung DDR4-2666 (1x SODIMM), 1200 MHz, 17-17-17-39
Display
15.60 inch 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 141 PPI, LG Philips LP156WFC-SPD1, IPS, LGD0563, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel Cannon Lake-U PCH-LP Premium
Storage
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G, 256 GB 
Soundcard
Intel Cannon Lake-LP - cAVS
Connections
2 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo, Card Reader: MicroSD reader
Networking
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265 (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 18 x 357.2 x 230.3 ( = 0.71 x 14.06 x 9.07 in)
Battery
42 Wh Lithium-Polymer, 3-cell
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64 Bit
Camera
Webcam: 720p
Primary Camera: 0.9 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: yes, ScreenPad 2.0, Asus E-Service, McAfee LiveSafe, 12 Months Warranty
Weight
1.8 kg ( = 63.49 oz / 3.97 pounds), Power Supply: 325 g ( = 11.46 oz / 0.72 pounds)
Price
800 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

Although the chassis has changed from the VivoBook S15 S530, it doesn't feel all that different. The same matte plastic material is back for a more budget first impression when compared to the smoother brushed aluminum surfaces of the higher-end ZenBook 15 series. Even so, build quality is strong especially for the lid relative to other narrow bezel laptops like the LG Gram 15 or Samsung Notebook 9. Flexing is visible but minimal with just slight creaking when attempting to twist the base or depress the keyboard center.

The hinges are more of a mixed bag. We're able to notice quiet creaking noises when opening and closing the lid which adds to the "budget" feel of the design. The hinges could have been tauter as well especially when you get closer to the maximum angle of ~150 degrees where the hinges start to feel slightly weaker. They're satisfactory for now, but we have our doubts about longevity.

Footprint is slightly smaller than the last generation VivoBook S15 S530 since the bezels of the newer design are narrower. Otherwise, thickness and weight are unchanged. The system is only slightly larger than both the pricier ZenBook 15 UX533 and Dell XPS 15 9570.

Gray matte plastic masks fingerprints very well
Gray matte plastic masks fingerprints very well
The signature Asus ErgoLift hinge returns
The signature Asus ErgoLift hinge returns
Nearly all the ports are along the right edge
Nearly all the ports are along the right edge
Lid opened to maximum angle of 150 degrees
Lid opened to maximum angle of 150 degrees
All plastic chassis from top to bottom
All plastic chassis from top to bottom
Hinges are decent, but could have been stiffer
Hinges are decent, but could have been stiffer
363.4 mm / 14.3 in 243.5 mm / 9.59 in 17.95 mm / 0.707 in 1.8 kg3.97 lbs359.7 mm / 14.2 in 248.8 mm / 9.8 in 19.6 mm / 0.772 in 2.1 kg4.54 lbs361 mm / 14.2 in 243 mm / 9.57 in 18 mm / 0.709 in 1.8 kg3.97 lbs358.8 mm / 14.1 in 243.5 mm / 9.59 in 17.95 mm / 0.707 in 1.9 kg4.19 lbs357.2 mm / 14.1 in 230.3 mm / 9.07 in 18 mm / 0.709 in 1.8 kg3.97 lbs357 mm / 14.1 in 235 mm / 9.25 in 17 mm / 0.669 in 2 kg4.44 lbs354 mm / 13.9 in 220 mm / 8.66 in 18 mm / 0.709 in 1.6 kg3.53 lbs297 mm / 11.7 in 210 mm / 8.27 in 1 mm / 0.03937 in 5.7 g0.01257 lbs

Connectivity

We commend Asus for including three USB Type-A ports which is three more than what many other Ultrabooks tend to offer these days. Thunderbolt 3 is understandably omitted since the manufacturer is reserving this high-end feature for its costlier ZenBook series instead. It's too bad that the VivoBook series continues to rely on a proprietary AC adapter for charging instead of the more universal USB Type-C.

Port options are identical to the last generation VivoBook S15 S530 albeit slightly rearranged. The right edge in particular is now a bit more crowded with 6 of the 8 ports in close proximity to one another.

Front: No connectivity
Front: No connectivity
Right: MicroSD reader, 3.5 mm combo, USB Type-C Gen. 1, USB 3.0, HDMI, AC adapter
Right: MicroSD reader, 3.5 mm combo, USB Type-C Gen. 1, USB 3.0, HDMI, AC adapter
Rear: No connectivity
Rear: No connectivity
Left: 2x USB 2.0
Left: 2x USB 2.0

SD Card Reader

The spring-loaded MicroSD reader performs at about half the speed of the full-size SD reader on the ZenBook 15. Transferring 1 GB worth of images from our UHS-II test card to desktop takes about 31 seconds.

A fully inserted SD card sits almost flush against the edge for safe transporting.

SD Card Reader
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
176.6 MB/s +430%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
77.8 MB/s +134%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
71.6 MB/s +115%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
65.6 MB/s +97%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
34 MB/s +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro UHS-II)
33.3 MB/s
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
207.8 MB/s +484%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
88.2 MB/s +148%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
83.7 MB/s +135%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78 MB/s +119%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
38.3 MB/s +8%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro UHS-II)
35.6 MB/s

Communication

An Intel 8265 comes standard for transfer rates up to 867 Mbps and integrated Bluetooth 4.2. In contrast, most Ultrabooks these days come equipped with the pricier Intel 9260 or 9560 for transfer rates up to 1.73 Gbps and integrated Bluetooth 5. For home and office purposes, the Intel 8265 is more than sufficient. We experienced no connectivity issues during our time with the test unit.

Removable M.2 2230 WLAN module
Removable M.2 2230 WLAN module
Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
648 (626min - 667max) MBit/s +35%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
644 (499min - 661max) MBit/s +34%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
643 MBit/s +34%
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
564 MBit/s +18%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
479 MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
651 (547min - 681max) MBit/s +7%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
638 MBit/s +5%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
610 MBit/s
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
522 (371min - 601max) MBit/s -14%
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
487 MBit/s -20%

Maintenance

Servicing requires a Philips screwdriver and a sharp edge. The bottom panel is latched very tightly around the edges and corners — much more so than on most other laptops we've tested. Be very careful to not damage the system or your fingers during this process.

Users will get direct access to 2x storage bays and 1x SODIMM slot.

The tight bottom panel is almost impossible to remove without a sharp edge
The tight bottom panel is almost impossible to remove without a sharp edge

Accessories and Warranty

There are no included extras in the box outside of the usual warranty card and Quick Start guide. The standard one-year limited warranty applies.

Input Devices

Keyboard

The keyboard is identical to the keyboard of the VivoBook S15 S530 despite the changes to the chassis. Key sizes, layout, and tactility are thus unchanged meaning our existing comments still apply here.

An annoying attribute of the keyboard worth repeating is the white color of the key caps. Since the backlight is also white, the contrast is poor when compared to the usual black key caps with white lighting. White Samsung laptops have avoided this issue by using a blue backlight instead and so it's disappointing to see no improvements from Asus in this regard.

Touchpad

If you already have a dual monitor setup at home or work, then you are already familiar with Asus' ScreenPad as it is essentially a 5.65-inch (13 x 6.7 cm) secondary IPS monitor with a native resolution of 2160 x 1080. Everything you can do on a typical multi-monitor PC setup can also be done on the ScreenPad including video, wallpaper settings, brightness, and even gaming. The practicality of the feature is obvious for both multimedia and productivity.

The ScreenPad has its own unique settings menu as well. Unlike last year's ScreenPad, frame rates are silky smooth this time around with an Android-like UI to make navigation feel more familiar even for first-time users. Brightness, resolution, and refresh rates can be adjusted. Customizeable shortcuts are available for launching Windows or ScreenPad applications much like on an Android Home screen.

An annoying feature of the ScreenPad is the automatic pop-up that suddenly appears when dragging a window on the main display. The pop-up will help snap the window you're dragging to the ScreenPad, but the problem is that it's very easy to accidentally snap the window if all you want to do is move it by just half an inch.

If you're uninterested in the ScreenPad and only wish to use it as a traditional clickpad, then you only need to press the clickpad icon on the bottom left with a finger to enable traditional clickpad mode. Gliding on the slightly roughened matte surface feels a lot like a regular clickpad but just a tad bit stickier.

Moderate key clatter with light feedback when pressed. Firmer feedback would have been better
Moderate key clatter with light feedback when pressed. Firmer feedback would have been better
NumPad and Arrow keys are smaller and spongier than the main QWERTY keys
NumPad and Arrow keys are smaller and spongier than the main QWERTY keys
Identical keyboard to the VivoBook S15 S530. ScreenPad is black when off
Identical keyboard to the VivoBook S15 S530. ScreenPad is black when off
Matte ScreenPad surface feels like touching a matte laptop screen
Matte ScreenPad surface feels like touching a matte laptop screen
ScreenPad black-white response times
ScreenPad black-white response times
ScreenPad grey-grey response times
ScreenPad grey-grey response times
No detectable PWM on ScreenPad brightness control
No detectable PWM on ScreenPad brightness control
Screenshot of the dual monitor setup with ScreenPad enabled. Since the ScreenPad (bottom) has a higher native resolution than the main display (top), it is actually larger to Windows. It would have made more practical sense for Asus to engineer a 16:9 1080p ScreenPad instead for symmetry between both monitors
Screenshot of the dual monitor setup with ScreenPad enabled. Since the ScreenPad (bottom) has a higher native resolution than the main display (top), it is actually larger to Windows. It would have made more practical sense for Asus to engineer a 16:9 1080p ScreenPad instead for symmetry between both monitors

Display

The S532 utilizes the exact same LG Philips LP156WFC-SPD1 IPS panel as on the S530 and so our existing comments on the S530 display apply here. Both color space and contrast are only average for shallower and less accurate colors than on Asus' pricier ZenBook 15 UX533.

Perhaps most notably, the ScreenPad is brighter than the main display (450 nits vs. 262 nits) with higher native resolution (2160 x 1080 vs. 1920 x 1080), higher contrast ratio (~1100:1 vs. ~600:1), and even a wider gamut (89.7 percent sRGB vs. 55.6 percent sRGB). Subjectively, however, these advantages mean little because the matte overlay on the ScreenPad causes onscreen text and images to appear very grainy. It's not as bad as on the first generation ScreenPad, but it's noticeable nonetheless.

ScreenPad 2.0
Response Time Grey 50%/Grey 80% (ms)17.2, 16.4
Response Time Black/White (ms)11.2, 10.0
Brightness (nits)450.8
Black Level (nits).39
Contrast1156:1
ColorChecker DeltaE20003.73
ColorChecker DeltaE2000 Max6.68
Greyscale DeltaE20004.7
Gamma2.26
CCT7540
Color Space (% of AdobeRGB 1998)57.7
Color Space (% of sRGB)89.7
Matte panel with no edge-to-edge glass or touchscreen options
Matte panel with no edge-to-edge glass or touchscreen options
Narrow bezel design
Narrow bezel design
Subpixel array for main display
Subpixel array for main display
Subpixel array for ScreenPad. The thick matte overlay is responsible for the grainy screen
Subpixel array for ScreenPad. The thick matte overlay is responsible for the grainy screen
258.4
cd/m²
260.6
cd/m²
243.3
cd/m²
260.1
cd/m²
262.3
cd/m²
250.2
cd/m²
235.7
cd/m²
245.6
cd/m²
233.4
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
LG Philips LP156WFC-SPD1 tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 262.3 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 250 cd/m² Minimum: 13.02 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 262.3 cd/m²
Contrast: 610:1 (Black: 0.43 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.81 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92, calibrated: 5.36
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
55.6% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
35.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
38.35% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
55.9% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
37.12% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.15
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
LG Philips LP156WFC-SPD1, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
LQ156D1, IPS, 15.6", 3840x2160
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
Chi Mei CM15E9, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
BOE07D8, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
BOE NV156FHM-N48, IPS, 15.6", 1920x1080
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
LP156WFC-SPD1, IPS LED, 15.6", 1920x1080
Display
99%
11%
69%
7%
4%
Display P3 Coverage
37.12
79.6
114%
41.36
11%
67.2
81%
40.02
8%
38.51
4%
sRGB Coverage
55.9
98.4
76%
62.2
11%
88.4
58%
58.5
5%
57.9
4%
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage
38.35
79.7
108%
42.74
11%
64.6
68%
41.34
8%
39.79
4%
Response Times
-72%
-35%
-68%
-60%
-34%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
24.8 ?(12.8, 12)
52.4 ?(27.6, 24.8)
-111%
40 ?(22, 18)
-61%
45 ?(21, 24)
-81%
45 ?(23, 22)
-81%
38.8 ?(20.8, 18)
-56%
Response Time Black / White *
24 ?(14, 10)
31.6 ?(18, 13.6)
-32%
26 ?(14, 12)
-8%
37 ?(23, 14)
-54%
33 ?(18, 15)
-38%
26.8 ?(16, 10.8)
-12%
PWM Frequency
1000 ?(25)
25000 ?(30)
250 ?(90)
Screen
28%
34%
31%
19%
18%
Brightness middle
262.3
451.9
72%
221
-16%
311
19%
278
6%
262
0%
Brightness
250
414
66%
207
-17%
303
21%
271
8%
256
2%
Brightness Distribution
89
81
-9%
87
-2%
81
-9%
89
0%
90
1%
Black Level *
0.43
0.36
16%
0.15
65%
0.24
44%
0.26
40%
0.21
51%
Contrast
610
1255
106%
1473
141%
1296
112%
1069
75%
1248
105%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
5.81
5.62
3%
4.35
25%
5.1
12%
4.73
19%
5.8
-0%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
14.7
19.1
-30%
8.98
39%
8.91
39%
8.38
43%
14.3
3%
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated *
5.36
2.69
50%
2.48
54%
5.17
4%
4.6
14%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
2.8
6.9
-146%
3.09
-10%
4.93
-76%
2.59
7%
2.5
11%
Gamma
2.15 102%
2.2 100%
2.23 99%
2.44 90%
2.38 92%
1.99 111%
CCT
7016 93%
6254 104%
6068 107%
7641 85%
6160 106%
6528 100%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
35.2
71.8
104%
56
59%
58
65%
36
2%
36.6
4%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
55.6
98.5
77%
86
55%
88
58%
58
4%
57.6
4%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
18% / 29%
3% / 20%
11% / 26%
-11% / 7%
-4% / 9%

* ... smaller is better

Color space for the main display is narrow at just 55.6 percent of sRGB compared to >90 percent on most flagship Ultrabooks. This is definitely not the system to use for any professional graphics work. It's very odd to find that the secondary ScreenPad is capable of reproducing a wider range of colors than the primary display.

Main display vs. sRGB
Main display vs. sRGB
Main display vs. AdobeRGB
Main display vs. AdobeRGB
ScreenPad vs. sRGB
ScreenPad vs. sRGB
ScreenPad vs. AdobeRGB
ScreenPad vs. AdobeRGB

Color temperature is slightly on the cool side for the main display. Our calibration attempt addresses this for a more accurate grayscale, but color accuracy remains moot due to the very narrow color space mentioned above.

Meanwhile, color temperature on the ScreenPad is far too cool. While it's possible to calibrate the ScreenPad for even better colors, the VivoBook series is not designed to provide color accurate displays in the first place and so the practicality of calibrating the ScreenPad is questionable.

Grayscale before calibration
Grayscale before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
Grayscale (ScreenPad)
Grayscale (ScreenPad)
Saturation Sweeps (ScreenPad)
Saturation Sweeps (ScreenPad)
ColorChecker (ScreenPad)
ColorChecker (ScreenPad)

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
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 14 ms rise
↘ 10 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. » 50 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
24.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 12.8 ms rise
↘ 12 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 31 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8747 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is only average at best. The main display is dimmer than both the XPS 15 and MacBook Pro 15 and so colors become washed out even if working under shade. Meanwhile, the ScreenPad is even worse because apparent brightness dips noticeably depending on the viewing angle. As shown by the images below, glare impacts the ScreenPad significantly and bright ambient light can even blacken the screen. The bright 450-nit backlight is only useful if looking directly at the ScreenPad from atop which is an unrealistic orientation during regular use.

Outdoors on a cloudy day
Outdoors on a cloudy day
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors under shade
Outdoors on a cloudy day
Outdoors on a cloudy day
ScreenPad outdoors on a cloudy day
ScreenPad outdoors on a cloudy day
ScreenPad outdoors under shade
ScreenPad outdoors under shade
ScreenPad outdoors on a cloudy day
ScreenPad outdoors on a cloudy day
Wide IPS viewing angles for main display. Contrast and colors shift slightly if viewing from extreme angles
Wide IPS viewing angles for main display. Contrast and colors shift slightly if viewing from extreme angles
Wide IPS viewing angles for ScreenPad. The display works best when there is little to no ambient lighting to obscure it
Wide IPS viewing angles for ScreenPad. The display works best when there is little to no ambient lighting to obscure it
Brightness is good when looking directly at the ScreenPad from atop...
Brightness is good when looking directly at the ScreenPad from atop...
... but even a slight inclined angle accentuates glare and noticeably reduces brightness
... but even a slight inclined angle accentuates glare and noticeably reduces brightness
Strong glare when viewing from the sides
Strong glare when viewing from the sides
Strong glare when viewing from the sides
Strong glare when viewing from the sides

Performance

No Latency issues
No Latency issues

The 15 W Intel U-class CPU puts the VivoBook S15 squarely in the Ultrabook category where such processors are ubiquitous. Instead, it's the discrete GeForce MX250 GPU option that sets our S532FA apart from most other Ultrabooks where graphics are typically limited to integrated Intel only. This gives our Asus significantly more graphics horsepower to play many popular titles at the native 1080p resolution.

There is 4 GB of soldered RAM with only one DDR4 SODIMM expansion slot. Thus, a maximum of 12 GB of DDR4-2400 RAM is supported.

It's worth noting that the S532 houses the faster '1D13' variant of the GeForce MX250 instead of the slower '1D52' variant as found on the Acer Swift 3. GPU Boost clock rates are much faster on the '1D13' variant (1582 MHz vs. 1038 MHz).

Processor

CineBench R15
CineBench R15

CPU performance is disappointing. CineBench R15 ranks the i7-8565U CPU in our VivoBook laptop 15 percent slower than the average i7-8565U laptop in our database. This becomes even worse after accounting for throttling as shown by our CineBench R15 Multi-Thread loop graph below. The initial score of 680 points falls off a cliff by the second loop to just 498 points to represent a steep performance dip of nearly 27 percent. The pricier ZenBook 15 with the same i7-8565U CPU is able to maintain a wide 39 percent lead over our VivoBook in the same benchmark. Even the Core i5-powered Lenovo Yoga C930 is able to outperform our Core i7-powered VivoBook.

Despite the below average processor performance, it's still about 15 percent and 50 percent faster than the two-generations old Core i7-7500U in single-thread and multi-thread loads, respectively. The performance benefits just aren't as wide as they could have been given what the i7-8565U is capable of on other laptops.

See our dedicated page on the Core i7-8565U for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

04590135180225270315360405450495540585630675720765810Tooltip
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø502 (489.9-680.49)
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø704 (683.27-815.1)
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø470 (467.49-492.88)
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø588 (570.26-651.27)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U
191 Points +14%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U
  (138.3 - 193, n=51)
172.5 Points +3%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
171 Points +2%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel Core i7-8550U
168 Points 0%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Core i7-8565U
168 Points
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
146 Points -13%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
146 Points -13%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel Core i5-8250U
145 Points -14%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
136 Points -19%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U
815 Points +20%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
769 Points +13%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Core i7-8565U
680 Points
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
675 (643.4min - 674.64max) Points -1%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
654 Points -4%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel Core i7-8550U
651 Points -4%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel Core i5-8250U
613 Points -10%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U
  (452 - 815, n=52)
612 Points -10%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
338 Points -50%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
168 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
680 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
103.8 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
99.6 %
Help

System Performance

PCMark benchmarks are consistently ahead of last year's VivoBook S530UN. Its Productivity Score, however, is 10 percent lower than the Acer Aspire 5 A515 equipped with the same CPU likely due in part to the below average CPU performance of our VivoBook. Navigation and browsing are still smooth as silk as one would expect from a modern SSD-powered Ultrabook.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 8 Work Accelerated
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10 Standard
PCMark 10
Score
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5059 Points +22%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4443 Points +7%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4236 Points +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4148 Points
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
4072 Points -2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, i5-8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
3711 Points -11%
Essentials
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
9291 Points +10%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
8951 Points +6%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
8471 Points
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
8233 Points -3%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
8233 Points -3%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, i5-8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
6710 Points -21%
Productivity
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
7212 Points +11%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
7212 Points +11%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
6879 Points +6%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
6505 Points 0%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
6486 Points
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, i5-8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
6236 Points -4%
Digital Content Creation
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5444 Points +54%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4204 Points +19%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3527 Points
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
3475 Points -1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, i5-8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
3315 Points -6%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
3033 Points -14%
PCMark 8
Home Score Accelerated v2
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4220 Points +18%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4052 Points +13%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
3840 Points +7%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, i5-8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
3620 Points +1%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
3615 Points +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3575 Points
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5381 Points +9%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5272 Points +7%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
5110 Points +3%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, i5-8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
5025 Points +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4946 Points
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4620 Points -7%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3575 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4946 points
PCMark 10 Score
4148 points
Help

Storage Devices

Two M.2 2280 slots are available. Our test unit comes equipped with an entry-level 256 GB WDC PC SN520 with sequential read and write rates of about 1200 MB/s and 700 MB/s, respectively, according to AS SSD. Results are slow especially when compared to pricier NVMe drives like the Samsung SSD PM981, but even the slowest NVMe SSDs are almost always faster than the fastest SATA III-based SSDs where transfer rates are limited to about 500 MB/s.

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

Primary M.2 2280 slot
Primary M.2 2280 slot
Empty secondary M.2 2280 slot adjacent to the fan
Empty secondary M.2 2280 slot adjacent to the fan
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
AS SSD
71%
1%
102%
34%
Seq Read
1147
1320
15%
2465
115%
2469
115%
1557
36%
Seq Write
752
1500
99%
1318
75%
1991
165%
1237
64%
4K Read
41.52
30.73
-26%
42.97
3%
54.3
31%
42.56
3%
4K Write
149.7
94.4
-37%
81.9
-45%
99.8
-33%
127.2
-15%
4K-64 Read
605
1453
140%
1025
69%
1823
201%
1034
71%
4K-64 Write
453.2
1815
300%
338.6
-25%
1282
183%
1186
162%
Access Time Read *
0.073
0.061
16%
0.077
-5%
0.042
42%
0.077
-5%
Access Time Write *
0.025
0.044
-76%
0.046
-84%
0.039
-56%
0.028
-12%
Score Read
761
1616
112%
1314
73%
2125
179%
1233
62%
Score Write
678
2059
204%
552
-19%
1581
133%
1437
112%
Score Total
1821
4507
148%
2488
37%
4771
162%
3291
81%
Copy ISO MB/s
1093
2577
136%
700
-36%
1313
20%
Copy Program MB/s
775
515
-34%
167.2
-78%
334.6
-57%
Copy Game MB/s
1196
1120
-6%
370.4
-69%
684
-43%

* ... smaller is better

WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1728 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 662 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 410.3 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 460.8 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 1085 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 970 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 46.13 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 149.9 MB/s

GPU Performance

The GeForce MX250 is merely a rebrand of the last generation MX150 and so there are almost no performance differences between them. 3DMark results are nearly identical to last year's Razer Blade Stealth equipped with the MX150. Users can expect a performance level in between the GTX 950M and GTX 960M.

3DMark scores are almost 25 percent higher than the Acer Swift 3 equipped with the same MX250 GPU. Nvidia offers two known variants of the MX250 with different clock rates and we're glad to see that the VivoBook utilizes the faster one.

3DMark 11
3DMark 11
Fire Strike
Fire Strike
Cloud Gate
Cloud Gate
Time Spy
Time Spy
3DMark
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H
9536 Points +157%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK
7374 Points +99%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U
5622 Points +52%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points +12%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i7-8565U
3726 Points +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
3705 Points
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (2939 - 3885, n=29)
3531 Points -5%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
2977 Points -20%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, i7-8565U
2729 Points -26%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, i5-8250U
2347 Points -37%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), R5 2500U
2310 Points -38%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U
1216 Points -67%
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H
3565 Points +221%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i7-8565U
1147 Points +3%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
1138 Points +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
1111 Points
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (881 - 1169, n=22)
1070 Points -4%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), R5 2500U
649 Points -42%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U
349 Points -69%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Score
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H
8075 Points +144%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK
6688 Points +102%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U
5209 Points +57%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
3651 Points +10%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i7-8565U
3377 Points +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
3308 Points
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (2726 - 3567, n=28)
3201 Points -3%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
2762 Points -17%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, i7-8565U
2476 Points -25%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, i5-8250U
2212 Points -33%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), R5 2500U
2123 Points -36%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U
1112 Points -66%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance GPU
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H
13447 Points +183%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK
9032 Points +90%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U
7016 Points +48%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i7-8565U
4905 Points +3%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
4756 Points
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (3585 - 4942, n=29)
4404 Points -7%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
3593 Points -24%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, i7-8565U
3582 Points -25%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), R5 2500U
3549 Points -25%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, i5-8250U
2895 Points -39%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U
1911 Points -60%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U
1734 Points -64%
1280x720 Performance Combined
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK
8450 Points +94%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, i5-9300H
7595 Points +74%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U
6774 Points +55%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points +3%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, i7-8565U
4394 Points +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
4357 Points
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (3532 - 4638, n=29)
4250 Points -2%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, i7-8565U
3902 Points -10%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, i7-8565U
3816 Points -12%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, i5-8250U
2940 Points -33%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000), R5 2500U
2683 Points -38%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel UHD Graphics 620, i5-8550U
1862 Points -57%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, i5-8250U
1524 Points -65%
3DMark 11 Performance
4946 points
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score
12992 points
3DMark Fire Strike Score
3308 points
3DMark Time Spy Score
1223 points
Help

Gaming Performance

Much like the GeForce MX150 before it, the MX250 offers an excellent balance between gaming performance and portability. It's not powerful enough to play the most demanding titles at 1080p like Witcher 3 or Shadow of the Tomb Raider, but it's great for popular multiplayer titles like LoL, Fortnite, Overwatch, or Rocket League.

Running Witcher 3 shows no recurring dips in frame rates to suggest no interrupting background activity when gaming. We had one exception during the hour-long test where frame rates would dip to 11 FPS as shown in the graph below, but this did not occur a second time.

See our dedicated page on the GeForce MX250 for more technical information and gaming benchmarks.

The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 High Graphics & Postprocessing (Nvidia HairWorks Off)
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
62.2 fps +226%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
Intel Core i9-8950HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
42.6 fps +123%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
41 fps +115%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX150
22.6 fps +18%
Asus GL552VW-DK725T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
21.3 fps +12%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (16.3 - 23.1, n=27)
20.1 fps +5%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX250
19.1 fps
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U, AMD Radeon RX Vega 10
15 fps -21%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX Vega 10
13.3 fps -30%
05101520253035Tooltip
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F: Ø33.4 (11-37)
lowmed.highultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 191.8 109.2 88.3 33.7
The Witcher 3 (2015) 66.9 36.8 19.1 10.7
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) 24 7

Emissions

System Noise

The cooling solution consists of just a single fan and heat pipe. While typical for smaller notebooks, we were expecting something larger and more capable to better exploit the 15.6-inch form factor. The result is a fan that pulses frequently when browsing or video streaming on High Performance mode. We recommend setting the system to Power Saver or just opting for the config with no dedicated graphics if the GPU is not needed.

When gaming, fan noise jumps and stabilizes at the maximum of 41.5 dB(A) which is not an uncommon range for thin Ultrabooks with dedicated GPUs. Results are similar to both the ZenBook 15 UX533 and Acer Aspire 5 A515. The noise is somewhat high pitched and thus more noticeable than we would like.

We're able to notice no electronic noise or coil whine on our test unit.

Single ~50 mm fan
Single ~50 mm fan
GPU and CPU share the same heat pipe
GPU and CPU share the same heat pipe
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i9-8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
Vega 8, R5 2500U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, i7-7700HQ, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, i7-8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
Noise
-3%
-2%
-3%
-5%
-4%
off / environment *
28
28.2
-1%
30.13
-8%
30.3
-8%
30.5
-9%
29.9
-7%
Idle Minimum *
28
28.5
-2%
30.13
-8%
30.3
-8%
30.5
-9%
29.9
-7%
Idle Average *
28
28.6
-2%
30.13
-8%
30.3
-8%
30.5
-9%
29.9
-7%
Idle Maximum *
30
28.8
4%
30.13
-0%
30.3
-1%
30.5
-2%
29.9
-0%
Load Average *
41.4
36.2
13%
38.8
6%
39.3
5%
40.8
1%
41.7
-1%
Witcher 3 ultra *
41.5
47.6
-15%
Load Maximum *
41.5
47.6
-15%
38.8
7%
39.6
5%
41.8
-1%
41.7
-0%

* ... smaller is better

Noise Level

Idle
28 / 28 / 30 dB(A)
Load
41.4 / 41.5 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 28 dB(A)

Temperature

No rear or side exhaust
No rear or side exhaust

Surface temperatures when idling are flat on both sides of the laptop at just below 30 C on average. Interestingly, the left edge of the ScreenPad is always slightly warmer likely because its backlight or data cable originates from this side of the display. When gaming, the keyboard center nearest the "P" key can become as warm as 45 C which is about standard for an Ultrabook with dedicated GeForce graphics. The smaller Razer Blade Stealth, for example, also reaches about 44 C at its keyboard center when gaming. The WASD keys are never uncomfortably warm at only about 30 C when gaming.

Heat escapes from ventilation grilles hidden underneath the hinges to allow for a cleaner and more elegant look.

System idle (top)
System idle (top)
System idle (bottom)
System idle (bottom)
Witcher 3 (top)
Witcher 3 (top)
Witcher 3 (bottom)
Witcher 3 (bottom)
Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (top)
Maximum load (bottom)
Maximum load (bottom)
Max. Load
 31.2 °C
88 F
45.4 °C
114 F
38.2 °C
101 F
 
 29.2 °C
85 F
39 °C
102 F
36.2 °C
97 F
 
 29 °C
84 F
28.4 °C
83 F
30.6 °C
87 F
 
Maximum: 45.4 °C = 114 F
Average: 34.1 °C = 93 F
40.6 °C
105 F
40.4 °C
105 F
32 °C
90 F
36.2 °C
97 F
40.8 °C
105 F
29.8 °C
86 F
30 °C
86 F
30.4 °C
87 F
29.4 °C
85 F
Maximum: 40.8 °C = 105 F
Average: 34.4 °C = 94 F
Power Supply (max.)  46.4 °C = 116 F | Room Temperature 22.4 °C = 72 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.1 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 31.3 °C / 88 F for the devices in the class Multimedia.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.4 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 36.9 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.6 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(±) Playing The Witcher 3, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.6 °C / 96 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (32 °C / 89.6 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (-3.2 °C / -5.8 F).

Stress Test

We stress the system to identify for any potential throttling or stability issues. When running Prime95, we can observe the CPU spiking to 3.3 GHz for the first few seconds until hitting a core temperature of 93 C. Thereafter, clock rates drops to just 2.2 GHz in order to maintain a cooler core temperature of 74 C. Since the base clock rate of the i7-8565U is 1.8 GHz, the CPU is able to maintain a Turbo Boost of +400 MHz which is rather low even for an Ultrabook. The i7-8550U in the Lenovo Yoga C930 is able to maintain a faster clock rate of 2.5 GHz when under the same conditions which corroborates with our CineBench results above.

The GPU throttles quite heavily to just 937 MHz when running extreme Prime95 and FurMark loads. Thankfully, this does not occur during real-world gaming conditions.

When running Witcher 3, CPU and GPU temperatures plateau at about 78 C and 67 C, respectively. The HP Spectre x360 15 with MX150 graphics runs slightly warmer in the mid-to-high 70 C range when under the same gaming conditions.

Running on batteries will impact CPU performance. A Fire Strike run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores of 3557 and 3631 points, respectively, compared to 8347 and 3705 points when on mains.

System idle
System idle
Prime95 stress
Prime95 stress
Witcher 3 stress
Witcher 3 stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C) Average GPU Temperature (°C)
System Idle -- -- 50 48
Prime95 Stress 2.2 -- 74 61
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 1.5 - 1.6 937 69 67
Witcher 3 Stress ~3.6 1443 78 67

Speakers

There is nothing special about the stereo speakers despite the Harman Kardon name. Audio quality is typical of most thin laptops including the limited bass reproduction. To the system's credit, vibration of the palm rests are kept to a minimum even though the speakers are right underneath and high volume settings do not introduce any static or shaking.

Speakers near the front corners
Speakers near the front corners
Pink noise at maximum volume. The speakers are loud enough to fill a small room
Pink noise at maximum volume. The speakers are loud enough to fill a small room
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs204443.12539.940.23138.638.5404039.25037.437.76336.9378037.336.110035.236.61253440.816033.75420033.258.625031.860.131531.661.340031.263.250030.766.763030.668.380029.672.2100029.468.912502965.8160028.764.2200028.667.8250028.459.5315028.259.5400028.364.150002866.7630027.863.7800027.864.81000027.968.51250027.770.11600027.675.5SPL4178.7N4.145.6median 29median 64.2Delta1.34.435.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.72.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseAsus VivoBook S15 S532FApple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 57% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 40% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

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 (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Idling on desktop demands between 6 W and 11 W depending on the brightness and power profile. The ScreenPad demands an additional 2.8 W when at its maximum brightness setting. Results are slightly higher on average than the ZenBook 15 UX533FD and Acer Aspire 5 A515 during these low loads.

When gaming, consumption jumps to the 58 W to 69 W range to be more demanding than the aforementioned Acer. The ZenBook 15 UX533FD with more powerful GTX 1050 Max-Q graphics is only slightly more demanding at 74 W despite it offering 50 percent faster GPU performance than our GeForce MX250.

When running both Prime95 and FurMark simultaneously, consumption spikes to 88 W before declining to 70 W, 55 W, and then 50 W as shown by our graph below. This behavior mirrors our Stress Test observations above where clock rates are highest only during the first few seconds of testing before declining over time.

The small (~7.5 x 7.5 x 3.3 cm) 90 W AC adapter is just enough to power the system through high processing loads. Running 3DMark 06, for example, already draws 69 W on average.

It's worth noting that the system draws an unusually high >4 W when in Sleep mode and it appears to have issues entering a "true" sleep state because the bottom surface would always become very warm. Most laptops are at 2 W or less when under such conditions.

Constant power consumption when running Witcher 3 on Ultra settings
Constant power consumption when running Witcher 3 on Ultra settings
Prime95+FurMark initiated at 20s mark. Note the spike before consumption begins to drop every few seconds
Prime95+FurMark initiated at 20s mark. Note the spike before consumption begins to drop every few seconds
3DMark 06 load. Consumption fluctuates depending on the frame rate of the scene
3DMark 06 load. Consumption fluctuates depending on the frame rate of the scene
Prime95 initiated at 20s mark. Consumption spikes to 66 W before inevitably falling to 36 W due to unsustainable maximum Turbo Boost
Prime95 initiated at 20s mark. Consumption spikes to 66 W before inevitably falling to 36 W due to unsustainable maximum Turbo Boost
Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.36 / 4.2 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 6 / 10.3 / 10.5 Watt
Load midlight 69.1 / 88 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6"
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR, IPS, 3840x2160, 15.6"
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
R5 2500U, Vega 8, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6"
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB512HAJQ, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6"
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
i7-8565U, GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6"
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G, IPS, 1920x1080, 15.6"
Power Consumption
-44%
31%
8%
14%
23%
Idle Minimum *
6
7.1
-18%
4.8
20%
3.7
38%
2.7
55%
4.4
27%
Idle Average *
10.3
13.6
-32%
7
32%
8
22%
8
22%
6.9
33%
Idle Maximum *
10.5
14.1
-34%
9.5
10%
9.8
7%
10.6
-1%
9.9
6%
Load Average *
69.1
103.9
-50%
40.8
41%
85
-23%
74
-7%
55
20%
Witcher 3 ultra *
57.8
103
-78%
Load Maximum *
88
130.9
-49%
44.3
50%
92.4
-5%
89
-1%
63.4
28%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Battery capacity has not changed from the last generation VivoBook S15 S530. As a result, battery life is shorter since there are now two displays to power. We are able to record a runtime of just over 5 hours compared to almost 6.5 hours on the S530 when under similar WLAN conditions. Similar battery life discrepancies were also recorded between the ZenBook UX580 and UX550. Most other 15.6-inch Ultrabooks have larger batteries for noticeably longer runtimes including Asus' own ZenBook 15 UX533.

Charging from empty to full capacity takes about 1.5 hours.

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
10h 55min
WiFi Websurfing
5h 06min
Load (maximum brightness)
1h 26min
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, 42 Wh
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
i9-8950HK, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 97 Wh
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
R5 2500U, Vega 8, 55.8 Wh
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
i7-7700HQ, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 79 Wh
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
i7-8565U, GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 73 Wh
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
i7-8565U, GeForce MX250, 48 Wh
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
i5-8550U, GeForce MX150, 42 Wh
Battery Runtime
26%
39%
73%
104%
30%
27%
Reader / Idle
655
899
37%
1356
107%
1587
142%
773
18%
WiFi v1.3
306
514
68%
426
39%
588
92%
519
70%
414
35%
388
27%
Load
86
62
-28%
102
19%
171
99%
117
36%

Pros

+ ScreenPad 2.0 is brighter, leaner, faster, and easier to use than ScreenPad 1.0
+ discrete '1D13' GeForce MX250 graphics; respectable gaming performance
+ 2x M.2 2280, 1x SODIMM expansion slot
+ gray matte surfaces mask fingerprints
+ relatively inexpensive
+ MicroSD reader

Cons

- ScreenPad brightness changes dramatically depending on viewing angle
- below average CPU performance; poor Turbo Boost performance
- only average battery life; small battery capacity
- no fingerprint reader or Kensington Lock
- still relies on a proprietary AC charger
- ScreenPad still on the grainy side
- slow MicroSD performance
- difficult serviceability

Verdict

In review: Asus VivoBook S15 S532FL
In review: Asus VivoBook S15 S532FL

In our review of the original ZenBook Pro 15 with ScreenPad 1.0, we called it an inherently useful innovation but with plenty of first-generation problems like the steep learning curve, clunky UI, very grainy display, and reduced battery life. ScreenPad 2.0 directly alleviates many of our complaints with its larger size, brighter touchscreen, and revised Android-like UI for a laptop that's just half the price of the ZenBook Pro 15. It's common for users to skip first generation products because the second generation models will almost always be significantly better and cheaper. This school of thought couldn't apply more to the ScreenPad 2.0; If you were intrigued by the Asus technology but decided to wait it out last year, then this year's affordable VivoBook is the time to finally jump in.

ScreenPad 2.0 is by no means perfect. The matte overlay is still on the grainy side especially when compared to the crisp glossy smartphone displays in our pockets. The extra screen continues to impact battery life and Windows itself is not well optimized for such a high PPI display in the first place. Perhaps a ScreenPad that matches the native resolution, contrast, and colors of the main display would have created better synergy between them.

As for the laptop itself, the CPU is slower than average because of its limited Turbo Boost sustainability. This thankfully does not impact gaming performance which makes this VivoBook a good solution for both productivity and casual gaming purposes. 

The ScreenPad isn't a novelty for the sake of being different. It's aspect ratio and innate second monitor properties make it objectively more useful that Apple's Touch Bar approach. There are still lots of kinks to work out especially in regard to graininess, but it's a huge leap forward in the right direction over last year's ScreenPad 1.0.

Asus VivoBook S15 S532F - 07/23/2019 v6 (old)
Allen Ngo

Chassis
77 / 98 → 78%
Keyboard
79%
Pointing Device
81%
Connectivity
46 / 81 → 57%
Weight
65 / 20-67 → 97%
Battery
82%
Display
83%
Games Performance
77 / 85 → 90%
Application Performance
92 / 92 → 100%
Temperature
89%
Noise
90 / 95 → 95%
Audio
50%
Camera
39 / 85 → 46%
Average
73%
83%
Multimedia - Weighted Average

Price comparison

Read all 1 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > ScreenPad 2.0 Debut: Asus VivoBook S15 S532FL Laptop Review
Allen Ngo, 2019-07-23 (Update: 2024-11- 4)