ASUS' N82Jv: Jack-Of-All-Trades
by Jarred Walton on September 11, 2010 11:10 PM ESTA Mobile Land of Confusion
We mentioned earlier that ASUS could probably benefit from a bit of simplification and consolidation in their mobile lineup. Let's discuss that a bit more. A simplified lineup is something Apple does very well: they have the standard MacBook, a Pro version with a better LCD and chassis, and then two larger Pro laptops that add switchable graphics. There's little confusion over what's what, though obviously there are a few gaps that Apple doesn't quite cover.
In contrast, ASUS has at least six categories of laptops, plus the Eee PC line. They have lines for Business, Gaming, Multimedia, Superior Mobility, Versatility, and the nebulous "Special Edition", and there are multiple overlapping products. Without delving into the spec sheets, can anyone quickly tell the difference between the B, G, K, N, P, and U-series offerings? Off hand, we'd guess that B is for Business, P is for Professional, G is for Gaming, and U is for Ultraportable (UL = Unlimited); as for N and K, they're pretty much interchangeable with minor style and component differences.
Click to enlarge
While it might be wise to have separate categories for gaming and business, all of the other areas can easily fall into the category of "versatility". We'd also like to see more "business" features in the B/P line, like magnesium alloy frames to go with the spill resistant keyboards. The real issue with the consumer lines (U, K, and N) is that they all have a few attractive features, but no single laptop combines the best aspects into one unit.
The U-series is crippled by its use of the anemic G 310M GPU, which will hopefully go away now that GT 415M is available. On the other hand, the U-series (including UL laptops) get big batteries that allow them to last all day on a single charge, and at least four hours of movie watching. Then we have the K/N series that are typically handicapped with smaller 48Wh batteries. Why not combine the two and satisfy a larger group of users? How much would it cost ASUS to make the 8-cell 84Wh battery standard on the N82Jv and forget about buying 6-cell 48Wh batteries? Sure, pricing might be slightly higher, but it seems like they could still hit $1000 and sell more units.
People seem happy to pay $1000 for the standard MacBook, and we'd have a superior laptop in just about every area for the same price. The N82Jv we're looking at today is pretty much the MacBook equivalent for the Windows world, with different styling, more performance, and a smaller battery. We're okay with the styling, but please fix the battery. Then what we really want is an "N82 Pro" to go up against the MacBook Pro 13. For $1200 they could take the basic design, add a sturdy magnesium alloy frame, and give us a midrange ASUS laptop with a decent LCD for a change. The MacBook Pro line isn't perfect, but it provides users with good performance, a metal chassis, and a quality LCD. We'd love to have a line in the Windows world that we could go to for a similar set of features.
We're not saying every laptop needs to cost $1200, but if we're already spending $1000, give us the option to spend a bit more for some upgrades outside of the CPU/HDD. Give us a sturdy, non-plastic chassis with high contrast LCDs. And if you're ready to go all the way, give us the choice between matte and glossy panels. ASUS has so many options and lines already, but the plethora of options means that even if you do want a certain model, it may not be available in your neck of the woods. So simplify the choices and cut off the low quality features that diminish brand name; besides, we've already got Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc. consumer lines that handle the inexpensive but cheap market quite well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
FH123 - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Good grief, how do you come up with those numbers? Show some consideration for people with different (yes, probably worse) eyes than yours. My preference is for 1024x768 at 14". My gripe is that the choice has gone away. My next choice would be 1280x800. Even that wasn't available in the low-weight, premium machine I bought. My ultimate choice would be something close to (laser) printed quality, e.g. 300 dpi upwards, and all the scaling problems solved by the OS. In the meantime, while we're at the resolutions you mention, I inevitably end up using some form of anti-aliasing, e.g. ClearType. That doesn't exactly make things better at the sort of awkward neither here (traditional screen < 100) nor there (traditional printer > 300) DPI we have at the moment.seanleeforever - Monday, September 13, 2010 - link
as a owner of both the BEST notebook screen in business, i think i know what i am talking about:screen resolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with screen quality, period. you guys are simply drinking Kool-Aid that notebook company tend to sell you. a higher resolution screen doesn't make it better than lower resolution screen, just as a 17 inch notebook is not better than 12 inch notebook (except it is larger).
the technology used in the panel is what decides screen quality. i have HP dream color 2 on my elitebook and outdoor screen on my x201 tablet. both uses 10 bit IPS screen that delivers superb image with NO color distortion at any angel, both are 300~400 dollar option on the top of the SAME RESOLUTION screen.
a good screen cost A lot of money, much higher than simply put more pixel on the screen. that's why notebook manufacturers try to fool you.
simply put, i will love to a 1200*800 ips than blue LED TN screen of any resolution.
Roland00 - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
You don't need direct x 11 with a laptop. Any game that you would want direct x 11 you would want a card that is faster than a 9800gt (aka 5750 or GTS 450 desktop parts) or else the card would be too slow to perform an acceptable frame rate with direct x 11 effects added on. Now in theory a game could be "completely" direct x 11 where you wouldn't have a direct x 9 or direct x 10 mode but this won't happen for games are developed for consoles and are developed for pc marketshare and too few people have direct x 11 cards thus their will be a direct x 9 and/or direct x 10 code path.That said the upcoming 400 series nvidia cards are looking to be faster than this card for they have a higher amount of shaders (the 420m, 430m, and 435m will all have 96 shaders, the difference between each model is the core clock and the shader clock, they have identical memory bandwidth). Whether this will provide an insignificant boost slightly different architecture, and/or memory bandwidth is anybody guess but I wouldn't be surprised to see at least a 20% performance boost for they have 25% more shader hardware, and all even the 420m has higher clocks than the 335m. (and the 435m is 30% faster on the core and shader clock compared to the 420m).
Get the 400 series not because of direct x11 but because it will be a faster card, and battery life isn't a big deal due to optimus.
Voldenuit - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
What use is a low-end DX11 GPU? Even midrange desktop DX11 GPUs struggle with DX11 games, so they are doubly useless on a laptop.A DX10 GPU can do most anything a DX11 one can.
DirectCompute? Check.
CUDA? Check.
OpenCL? Check.
PhysX? Check (not that you'd want to turn on Physx on a laptop, unless you were a masochist).
If you're building a high end (or even midrange) desktop, DX11 is the clear choice, but on the mobile front, it's hardly essential.
I do agree that with the shoddy battery, lousy screen and mediocre keyboard, there isn't much to entice me with the ASUS in any case.
Aaluran - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
I couldn't possibly agree more with this article. The LCD is an annoyance, but one I can live with, but that battery is laughable compared to the 84Wh one. This laptop is perfect as a second computer, but 47Wh is simply unaccpetable.strikeback03 - Monday, September 13, 2010 - link
That is one point I disagree on, IMO 3-4 hrs is good enough for a lot of mainstream users. Make a larger one available (as part of the purchase) for those who want it, but I find the LCD far more a problem than the battery.blackrook - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
The last two pages of this article just scream "HP Envy 14 with radiance screen!" to me. It's a huge shame Anandtech doesn't appear to have one on hand. I was surprised it was never mentioned. This is a laptop with:-magnesium/aluminum chassis
-switchable 5650 graphics (albeit underclocked and not Optimus)
-sensational screen
-acceptable battery capacity (59Wh?)
And it seems to be making waves. The Envy 14 upon initial release originally came standard with the radiance screen at $1099, until demand seemed to outpace supply. It became $999 with a standard brightview screen, radiance being as a $200 option. Since then the radiance screen has ballooned to a $300 premium. That's how much perceived value a quality screen is worth to consumers, and it stuns me why more manufacturers haven't tried to go the same route HP has with the Envy 14.
Just some food for thought.
The Crying Man - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Jarred mentioned that an Envy 14 was on it's way some weeks ago. Hopefully it's in the process of being reviewed now.JarredWalton - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
It still hasn't arrived... it seems HP can be like that. Plus, the current Envy 14 is now what, 6 months old? It's about due for an update.blackrook - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
It released in late June, and first day buyers started receiving them early July. So that'd make it around two and a half months old.So HP was supposed to send over a review unit and it never arrived? :S
*shakes head*