ASUS N53JF: Midrange 15.6” 1080p, Take Four
by Jarred Walton on December 28, 2010 1:40 AM ESTConclusion: Four, Four, Four for My Headaches...
Four leaf clovers are supposed to be lucky, but getting four good 1080p LCDs in a row on notebooks is apparently asking too much. Looking at previous ASUS offerings, the N53JF ends up being better in some areas compared to the ASUS N82Jv and N61JV, but worse in others. Performance is one area that has improved, though it’s not such a major change that you’d want to upgrade. Mostly, the DX11 enabled GT 425M is a match for the older GT 335M, and while the chassis is larger we have to keep in mind that you’re getting a 1080p display and a Blu-ray combo drive. Battery capacity still trails the U-series, which is unfortunate, but our bigger complaint is that the keyboard actually feels worse than the chiclet design on the N61/N82. Perhaps that’s just reviewer preference, but it would be nice to at least have keyboard backlighting and less flex. Getting at the internals is also more involved this time around, and while it isn’t a major issue we do prefer ease of access over hidden screws under the rubber feet.
The more difficult comparison is Dell’s XPS 15—the difficult part coming from the fact that the LCD upgrade that pushed the XPS into Gold Editors’ Choice territory is now MIA. Take out the LCD and the XPS 15 suddenly drops down to Bronze territory—or perhaps Silver if you’re generous and really like the speakers. We know quite a few people that weren’t particularly keen on the rounded design of the XPS line, so without the display it becomes a much more iffy proposition. I do have to say I’m more than a little irritated that the HP Envy 14’s Radiance panel and Dell XPS 15’s 1080p B+GR LED upgrades have both disappeared after the initial launch and reviews. That is not a trend we want to see, but at least the XPS line doesn’t have glossy bezels: one step forward, one step back.
Given the price, performance, build quality, and aesthetics, I can see quite a few people preferring the ASUS N53JF over the XPS 15, at least if you get the 1080p model we’re reviewing. It runs relatively cool and quiet but delivers decent performance. However, if you’re going after a good 1080p laptop, we’d go for the Clevo B5130M over the ASUS, by virtue of its higher contrast panel. If you don’t mind the 2008-era glossy plastic aesthetic of the Compal NBLB2, that’s also a good choice at a similar price, with lower battery life in trade of slightly higher graphics performance.
With the Christmas shopping season just past and CES (and the Intel Sandy Bridge launch) coming up next week, there’s no need to run out and buy any of the current generation of notebooks. If Sandy Bridge manages to meet expectations, the only way we’d consider buying the soon-to-be-outdated Core 2010 notebooks is if prices drop—or maybe if Sandy Bridge models end up costing at least two hundred dollars more than the current offerings. That means $800 for this laptop would be reasonable, assuming Sandy Bridge dual-core laptops (with Optimus GPUs) launch at around $1000. We’ve still got a couple more 2010 laptop reviews to clear out before CES is upon us, so you should see reviews of the smaller Dell XPS 14 and the long-awaited HP Envy 14 shortly, but neither one will really alter the mobile landscape. While there are quite a few decent laptops out there, there’s nothing clearly ahead of the competition, and the competition is about to intensify. That usually means better prices for consumers, so we can’t complain too much, but we’d prefer paying a bit more for laptops with higher quality displays.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
anactoraaron - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
That they would pack in USB 3.0, bluray and then put in that below average 1080p display. Not that it matters with Sandy Bridge on the horizon. Best advise is still to wait.ET - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
It's nice to see 1080p becoming more prevalent at this size laptop, but why can't we see some higher res displays at 20"+? I had a 19" 1600x1200 CRT eight years ago, and resolution hasn't gone up since then, and even dropped from 1920x1200 to 1080p in recent times. Laptops these days have some high DPI displays and I'd love to see some on the desktop.Ushio01 - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
1920x1080 monitors are replacing 1680x1050 TN panels in the mid range monitor segment just as 1680x1050 replaced 1280x1024 monitors with the advantage of either 120hz TN or IPS screens. 1920x1200 monitors still exist and are just as expensive as always along with the 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 in the high and very high end segments.jabber - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
1080p will be a curse for us all in a couple of years time.Never will a standard have been surpassed and found wanting so quickly.
They should have made it 1440p at least.
Now us computers users have to suffer from the display world being lazy and sticking to a screen depth not much more that what we were used to 10 years ago.
Thats progress.
DanNeely - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
I think the main bottleneck for the resolution picked for the HD standard was the capacity of dtv broadcast/blueray/hddvd disks without any compression artifacts. Bumping the frame sizes up 77% would have needed a significantly higher compression level and would've resulted in the videophiles who're currently reviling netflix/hulu/etc's streaming offerings for low quality to have slammed the new standards; potentially rendering them stillborn at birth, and almost certainly slowing adoption down significantly.The other hangup would be the size of the TV screen needed to get full use of the resolution in the living room. 1080p is generally not worthwhile on less than a 40" screen because the angular size of the pixels at 720p are too small to resolve at couch distance. The smaller pixels of a 1080p screen won't be visible as individual pixels until about 56". At the time the standards were being written 56" was an enormously large TV. It's still larger than most TVs sold today.
Until that changes (and bluerays, or the bandwidth needed to stream them at full quality, become commodity items) I don't expect anything to change on the consumer video market. When that happens I expect the new standard will be one of the 4k resolutions; probably either 3996×2160 (1.85:1) or 4096×1714 (2.39:1). We'd also need a higher density video cable standard. DP 1.2 will carry the 2d version of either signal, but would need doubled again to support 3d. Hopefully lightpeak will be mainstream by then and able to carry the data.
TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
2.39:1 ? That is insane.DanNeely - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
It's the wide-wide screen mode at theaters today. IT would render all but the largest desktop computer displays too short to be useful for anything except consuming content. The video industry would see this as a feature.TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
I don't think letterbox has any future in the movie industry itself. Avatar 3D was rendered at 1.78 : 1. Let the 2.39:1 die, the sooner the better!Hrel - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
here hereJarredWalton - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link
Hear, hear?