Notebookcheck

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:

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Asus VivoBook S15 S532F (VivoBook S15 S532 Series)
Graphics adapter
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 - 2048 MB, Core: 1519 MHz, Memory: 1502 MHz, GDDR5, 419.72, Optimus
Memory
8192 MB 
, 4 GB soldered + 4 GB Samsung DDR4-2666 (1x SODIMM), 1200 MHz, 17-17-17-39
Display
15.6 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 inch 243.5 mm / 9.59 inch 17.95 mm / 0.707 inch 1.8 kg3.97 lbs359.7 mm / 14.2 inch 248.8 mm / 9.8 inch 19.6 mm / 0.772 inch 2.1 kg4.54 lbs361 mm / 14.2 inch 243 mm / 9.57 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.8 kg3.97 lbs358.8 mm / 14.1 inch 243.5 mm / 9.59 inch 17.95 mm / 0.707 inch 1.9 kg4.19 lbs357.2 mm / 14.1 inch 230.3 mm / 9.07 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.8 kg3.97 lbs357 mm / 14.1 inch 235 mm / 9.25 inch 17 mm / 0.669 inch 2 kg4.44 lbs354 mm / 13.9 inch 220 mm / 8.66 inch 18 mm / 0.709 inch 1.6 kg3.53 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.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
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 ∼100% +430%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
77.8 MB/s ∼44% +134%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
71.6 MB/s ∼41% +115%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
65.6 MB/s ∼37% +97%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
34 MB/s ∼19% +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro UHS-II)
33.3 MB/s ∼19%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
207.82 MB/s ∼100% +484%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
88.2 MB/s ∼42% +148%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
83.7 MB/s ∼40% +135%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
78 MB/s ∼38% +119%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
38.3 MB/s ∼18% +8%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro UHS-II)
35.6 MB/s ∼17%

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 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
651 (min: 547, max: 681) MBit/s ∼100% +7%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
638 MBit/s ∼98% +5%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
610 MBit/s ∼94%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
522 (min: 371, max: 601) MBit/s ∼80% -14%
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
487 MBit/s ∼75% -20%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
648 (min: 626, max: 667) MBit/s ∼100% +35%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
644 (min: 499, max: 661) MBit/s ∼99% +34%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Wireless-AC 9560
643 MBit/s ∼99% +34%
Lenovo Ideapad 720S-15IKB 81AC001AGE
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
564 MBit/s ∼87% +18%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
479 MBit/s ∼74%

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
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 262.3 cd/m² 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 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6, calibrated: 5.36
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
55.6% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 35.2% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 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
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 DeltaE2000 *
5.81
5.62
3%
4.35
25%
5.1
12%
4.73
19%
5.8
-0%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
14.7
19.1
-30%
8.98
39%
8.91
39%
8.38
43%
14.3
3%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
5.36
2.69
50%
2.48
54%
5.17
4%
4.6
14%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
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)
-22% / 13%
-1% / 23%
-19% / 16%
-21% / 7%
-8% / 10%

* ... 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 34 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.9 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (39.6 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9279 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) 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.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710720730740750760770780790800810820Tooltip
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø502 (489.9-680.49)
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø704 (683.27-815.1)
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø470 (467.49-492.88)
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4 UHD Graphics 620, 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 ∼88% +14%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
171 Points ∼78% +2%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U
  (73.1 - 193, n=48)
170 Points ∼78% +1%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel Core i7-8550U
168 Points ∼77% 0%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Core i7-8565U
168 Points ∼77%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
146 Points ∼67% -13%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
146 Points ∼67% -13%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel Core i5-8250U
145 Points ∼67% -14%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
136 Points ∼62% -19%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U
815 Points ∼19% +61%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
Intel Core i5-9300H
769 Points ∼18% +52%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
675 (min: 643.4, max: 674.64) Points ∼15% +33%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U
654 Points ∼15% +29%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel Core i7-8550U
629 Points ∼14% +24%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel Core i5-8250U
613 Points ∼14% +21%
Average Intel Core i7-8565U
  (361 - 815, n=49)
586 Points ∼13% +16%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Core i7-8565U
507 Points ∼12%
Lenovo ThinkPad 13 20J1005TPB
Intel Core i7-7500U
338 Points ∼8% -33%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
168 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
507 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
103.75 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
Digital Content Creation
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5444 Points ∼45% +54%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4204 Points ∼35% +19%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3527 Points ∼29%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
3475 Points ∼29% -1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, 8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
3315 Points ∼28% -6%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
3033 Points ∼25% -14%
Productivity
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
7212 Points ∼74% +11%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
7212 Points ∼74% +11%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
6879 Points ∼71% +6%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
6505 Points ∼67% 0%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
6486 Points ∼67%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, 8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
6236 Points ∼64% -4%
Essentials
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
9291 Points ∼84% +10%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
8951 Points ∼81% +6%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
8471 Points ∼77%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
8233 Points ∼75% -3%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
8233 Points ∼75% -3%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, 8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
6710 Points ∼61% -21%
Score
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
5059 Points ∼65% +22%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4443 Points ∼57% +7%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4236 Points ∼55% +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4148 Points ∼53%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
4072 Points ∼52% -2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, 8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
3711 Points ∼48% -11%
PCMark 8
Work Score Accelerated v2
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5381 Points ∼83% +9%
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
5272 Points ∼81% +7%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
5110 Points ∼78% +3%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, 8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
5025 Points ∼77% +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
4946 Points ∼76%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
4620 Points ∼71% -7%
Home Score Accelerated v2
Acer Aspire 5 A515-52G-723L
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4220 Points ∼69% +18%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-512G
4052 Points ∼67% +13%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK, Samsung SSD PM981 MZVLB1T0HALR
3840 Points ∼63% +7%
Asus VivoBook S15 S530UN-BQ097T
GeForce MX150, 8550U, SanDisk SD9SN8W256G1027
3620 Points ∼59% +1%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, SK hynix PC401 HFS256GD9TNG
3615 Points ∼59% +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
GeForce MX250, 8565U, WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
3575 Points ∼59%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
3575 points
PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2
4946 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%
Copy Game MB/s
1196.12
1119.94
-6%
370.35
-69%
684.39
-43%
Copy Program MB/s
774.94
515.14
-34%
167.2
-78%
334.61
-57%
Copy ISO MB/s
1093.22
2576.73
136%
700.22
-36%
1312.95
20%
Score Total
1821
4507
148%
2488
37%
4771
162%
3291
81%
Score Write
678
2059
204%
552
-19%
1581
133%
1437
112%
Score Read
761
1616
112%
1314
73%
2125
179%
1233
62%
Access Time Write *
0.025
0.044
-76%
0.046
-84%
0.039
-56%
0.028
-12%
Access Time Read *
0.073
0.061
16%
0.077
-5%
0.042
42%
0.077
-5%
4K-64 Write
453.18
1814.74
300%
338.56
-25%
1281.75
183%
1186.21
162%
4K-64 Read
604.92
1453.01
140%
1024.83
69%
1823.43
201%
1034.43
71%
4K Write
149.72
94.4
-37%
81.91
-45%
99.81
-33%
127.16
-15%
4K Read
41.52
30.73
-26%
42.97
3%
54.26
31%
42.56
3%
Seq Write
752.41
1500.4
99%
1318.2
75%
1990.72
165%
1236.86
64%
Seq Read
1146.57
1319.61
15%
2464.71
115%
2468.59
115%
1557.17
36%

* ... smaller is better

WDC PC SN520 SDAPNUW-256G
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 1728 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 662.4 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: 969.9 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
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
3565 Points ∼24% +221%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
1138 Points ∼8% +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
1111 Points ∼8%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (899 - 1134, n=7)
1059 Points ∼7% -5%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
649 Points ∼4% -42%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8250U
349 Points ∼2% -69%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
9536 Points ∼23% +157%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK
7374 Points ∼18% +99%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U
5622 Points ∼14% +52%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4133 Points ∼10% +12%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
3726 Points ∼9% +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
3705 Points ∼9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (2977 - 3885, n=12)
3565 Points ∼9% -4%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
2977 Points ∼7% -20%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, 8565U
2729 Points ∼7% -26%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 8250U
2347 Points ∼6% -37%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
2310 Points ∼6% -38%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8250U
1216 Points ∼3% -67%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Score
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
8075 Points ∼30% +144%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK
6688 Points ∼25% +102%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U
5209 Points ∼19% +57%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
3651 Points ∼14% +10%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
3377 Points ∼13% +2%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
3308 Points ∼12%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (2762 - 3567, n=12)
3195 Points ∼12% -3%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
2762 Points ∼10% -17%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, 8565U
2476 Points ∼9% -25%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 8250U
2212 Points ∼8% -33%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
2123 Points ∼8% -36%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8250U
1112 Points ∼4% -66%
3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK
8450 Points ∼37% +94%
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
7595 Points ∼34% +74%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U
6774 Points ∼30% +55%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4466 Points ∼20% +3%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
4394 Points ∼19% +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
4357 Points ∼19%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (3902 - 4638, n=12)
4313 Points ∼19% -1%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
3902 Points ∼17% -10%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, 8565U
3816 Points ∼17% -12%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 8250U
2940 Points ∼13% -33%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
2683 Points ∼12% -38%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
1862 Points ∼8% -57%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8250U
1524 Points ∼7% -65%
1280x720 Performance GPU
HP Omen 15-dc1020ng
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop), 9300H
13447 Points ∼26% +183%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q, 8950HK
9032 Points ∼18% +90%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, 8565U
7016 Points ∼14% +48%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8565U
4905 Points ∼10% +3%
Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 6500U
4826 Points ∼9% +1%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
4756 Points ∼9%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (3593 - 4942, n=12)
4449 Points ∼9% -6%
Acer Swift 3 SF314-55G-768V
NVIDIA GeForce MX250, 8565U
3593 Points ∼7% -24%
Lenovo Ideapad S340-14IWL-81N70056GE
NVIDIA GeForce MX230, 8565U
3582 Points ∼7% -25%
HP Envy x360 15-bq102ng
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, 2500U
3549 Points ∼7% -25%
HP Pavilion 15-cs0003ng
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 8250U
2895 Points ∼6% -39%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB 81C4
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
1911 Points ∼4% -60%
Lenovo Yoga C930-13IKB
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8250U
1734 Points ∼3% -64%
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 (Laptop)
62.2 fps ∼100% +226%
Dell XPS 15 9570 Core i9 UHD
Intel Core i9-8950HK, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
42.6 fps ∼68% +123%
Asus ZenBook 15 UX533FD
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
41 fps ∼66% +115%
Razer Blade Stealth i7-8565U
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX150
22.6 fps ∼36% +18%
Asus GL552VW-DK725T
Intel Core i7-6700HQ, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
21.3 fps ∼34% +12%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX250
  (18 - 22.4, n=11)
20.2 fps ∼32% +6%
Asus VivoBook S15 S532F
Intel Core i7-8565U, NVIDIA GeForce MX250
19.1 fps ∼31%
Lenovo IdeaPad S540-14API
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U, AMD Radeon RX Vega 10
15 fps ∼24% -21%
Lenovo Yoga 530-14ARR-81H9000VGE
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Radeon RX Vega 10
13.3 fps ∼21% -30%
010203040