ASUS' N82Jv: Jack-Of-All-Trades
by Jarred Walton on September 11, 2010 11:10 PM ESTASUS N82Jv-X2: More of the Same
Those familiar with ASUS will find the usual assortment of good and bad in the N82Jv. The overall build quality is good, but we're still dealing with a predominantly plastic chassis and there's the usual bit of flex that accompanies such designs. In terms of technology, ASUS is ahead of the curve with USB 3.0 and they've been the biggest adopter of NVIDIA's Optimus Technology since day one. We've seen a lot more Optimus laptops start to show up, but right now the N82Jv comes with the fastest CPU+GPU combination of the bunch. The next generation 400M GPUs from NVIDIA are nearly upon us, so that may change in the near future, but it would hardly be a surprise to see ASUS at the forefront of 400M Optimus notebooks.
That's all good, but the areas we've complained about in the past remain unaddressed. The LCD is a huge blemish on an otherwise good design. Is it that hard to get good LCDs? (Hint: Ask Apple where they get the MacBook Pro panels.) How about a larger battery than the 47/48Wh size that's so ubiquitous in entry and midrange laptops? I suppose if you're trying to hit a $1000 price point, yes, it's difficult to get such upgrades, but let's just forget a hard price point and put in some quality to separate your brand from the pack.
Perhaps we're being a bit too hard on ASUS. After all, the N82Jv really is one of the better combinations of features, performance, and pricing currently on the market. If you read our review of the N61Jv back in March and wanted a faster GPU and a smaller chassis, the N82Jv provides both. In that sense, the N82Jv preempts the N61Jv and warrants a Silver Editors' Choice award. Then in May, we looked at the U30Jc and praised the battery life/capacity but lamented the slow GPU and poor LCD quality. Notice a pattern yet? Six months is a long time, and while the GT 335M is a nice update in the graphics department, we really wanted it back in March. ASUS literally did nothing to address our complaints with battery capacity and LCD quality. Standing still doesn't win extra points, and in the hope of encouraging ASUS to ship a better LCD next time, we're skipping the award. The ASUS N82Jv gets our recommendation and an honorable mention, but if Editors' Choice grades start at 90%, it's about an 86%.
Our introduction called the ASUS N82Jv a "Jack-of-All-Trades", and so it is. The corollary to that unfortunately holds as well, as this is a Master of None. It does so many things well, but in no area is it truly exceptional. The GT 335M is able to play games at Medium detail and 1366x768, but any more than that and it starts to choke, and it lacks DX11 features for the forward looking users. The CPU is good for most tasks, but it will struggle with computationally intensive tasks. Battery life is above average…as long as average includes a bunch of $500 to $600 entry-level notebooks. And finally, build quality is decent, but you're not going to sway any business users away from their ThinkPads, Latitudes, ProBooks, etc.
Don't get me wrong: this is a good laptop and certainly worth serious consideration if you're in the market, but there's only so many times I can say, "Yes, but…." The N82Jv with an 8-cell battery like that in the U-series would be a bronze award, or the N82Jv with a good LCD but the same 48Wh battery would garner a silver. Give me both and it's a Gold Award for sure. And bonus points for upping the build quality to a sturdy magnesium/aluminum frame like that in the MacBook Pro/ThinkPad, plus drop in a new GeForce 400M GPU. For all those upgrades, I'd happily recommend paying $1300, and such a laptop could go toe-to-toe with the MacBook Pro 13 and even come out on top—depending on your aesthetical slant. But $1000 for the current implementation puts it at the MacBook level, and just like we recommend most users spring for the Pro 13" (or 15"/17"), we're stuck wishing for something that doesn't yet exist.
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*