ASUS U6V - Specifications and Summary
| ASUS U6V-A1 Specifications | |
| Processor | Core 2 Duo P8400 (2.26GHz 3MB 1066FSB) |
| Chipset | Intel PM45 + ICH9M |
| Memory | 2x2048MB DDR2-800 |
| Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce 9300M GS 256MB |
| Display | 12.1" WXGA (1280x800) Glossy LED Backlit |
| Hard Drive | 320GB 5400RPM 8MB |
| Optical Drive | 8x DVDR SuperMulti |
| Networking | Integrated Gigabit Ethernet Intel WiFi Link 5100 Bluetooth v2.0 |
| Audio | 2-Channel HD Audio (2.0 Speakers) |
| Battery | 3-Cell 26.5Whr 6-Cell 53Whr |
| Front Side | None |
| Left Side | 2 x USB 2.0 eSATA HDMI ExpressCard/54 WiFi On/Off Switch Power Connector Cooling Exhaust |
| Right Side | 1 x USB 2.0 Optical Drive (DVDRW) Headphone and Mic jacks Flash Reader (MS Pro, MMC, SD) Kensington Lock |
| Back Side | Ethernet VGA Modem (Optional) |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit |
| Dimensions | 11.81" x 8.66" x 1.0"-1.24" (WxDxH) |
| Weight | 3.45 lbs (3-cell battery) |
| Extras | Fingerprint Scanner 2.0MP Webcam Large Carrying Case with Strap Small Laptop Case Bluetooth Mouse Two Batteries Included TPM Express Gate by SplashTop |
| Warranty | 2-year ASUS Global 1-year Accidental Damage and Battery 30-day Zero Bright Dot LCD |
| Price | Starting at $1500 for U6V-A1 |
Given the smaller chassis, the component choices on the U6V are a step down in most areas relative to the other two notebooks. However, the step really isn't that large, and many of the parts are significantly more powerful - and more power-hungry - than what we found in the ASUS U2E. For example, rather than using an ultra low voltage Core 2 Duo chip running a paltry 1.33 GHz (or less), ASUS uses a standard 25W TDP P8400 running at 2.26 GHz. They also put in a 320 GB 5400 RPM hard drive instead of an SSD, and they max out the memory with 2x2GB of RAM. Unfortunately, ASUS chose to include Windows Vista Business 32-bit rather than a 64-bit OS, so you don't get full access to all of the memory. One compromise that might not be immediately apparent from looking at the specifications is that the LCD is clearly inferior to the LCD that was in the ASUS U2E. The native resolution is similar, and both provide LED backlighting. However, the contrast ratio on the U6V is very low at only 200:1.
Despite the smaller chassis, we had no difficulty using the keyboard on the ASUS U6V. Maybe it's just that we've encountered this same sort of keyboard layout on the other laptops, but we would actually prefer this keyboard layout to that of the G50V. It may not matter to some people, and most users will eventually adapt to whatever keyboard to use the most, but if you do a lot of typing such things do make a difference.
All of the features look good on paper, but sometimes the sum of the parts doesn't quite add up. We praised the build quality and stability of the G50V, but while the build quality of the U6V appears to be just as good, we did encounter a few glitches in the stability department. It was nothing we could specifically track down, but our test system locked up while sitting idle on the Windows desktop a couple times. If it happened only once, we would just chalk it up to one of "those things" that just happen on occasion; three times in as many weeks still isn't a huge issue, but it's now a blip on the radar. On the other hand, we also experienced periods of several days where the laptop didn't lock/crash, so the root cause is impossible to state with any certainty. All we know is that we had three occasions (so far) where we had to force reboot the system. It could be drivers, BIOS code, hardware related, or something else; it doesn't seem to be caused by heat, however, as we never experienced any crashes during stress tests.
We already mentioned that the LCD contrast ratio is much worse than we expected - we assumed that any LCD that bothered to use LED backlighting would be a higher quality panel, but in this case it appears we were wrong. Another area where performance has definitely dropped relative to the ASUS U2E is battery life; however, this isn't much of a surprise. More memory, a faster processor, and a standard hard drive all add up to a few more watts of power. With relatively small notebooks, every watt counts. It looks like the U6V ends up requiring about 25% more power than the U2E, so the small battery is only good for just over an hour of battery life in normal office tasks. The benefit of course is that the U6V is nearly twice as fast as the U2E, so that's probably compromise a lot of users are willing to make. If you really need battery life, you can always grab the 9-cell battery option that will still get you well over four hours of mobility, but that's an awfully big battery for a small laptop.
In the end, the U6V seems like it should be a really good laptop. It packs quite a bit of performance into a very small package, it looks nice, and while the price of $1500 certainly isn't cheap it's pretty good compared to some of the other ultraportable options. The stability issues we encountered are a minor concern (a few random locks on one sample isn't enough to draw any real conclusions), but the bigger concern for us has to be battery life. This isn't an issue specific to ASUS either, as we've seen the same problem with the other Windows Vista notebooks we've tested. Put simply: this is an ultraportable laptop in size and specifications, but battery life is only slightly better than the much larger G50V. We know that laptops exist that get over four hours with a ~55 Whr battery (hello, Apple MacBook/MacBook Pro/MacBook Air), and the U6V falls about 50% short of that mark. Why that's the case is difficult to say, but we simply can't recommend a $1500 12.1" laptop that can't run typical office tasks for at least four hours before the battery is dead. Apple has shown it's possible to provide all of that in a notebook that weighs less than 5 pounds and costs less than $1500, so their competitors need to match that level of performance - or at the very least come close.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
CEO Ballmer - Sunday, October 26, 2008 - link
This thing is Vista Home Certified! That's the bomb!http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com">http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
alantay - Saturday, October 25, 2008 - link
I don't have a very comparable figure about Linux power requirements, but on a Core 2 Duo Santa Rosa based HP laptop (T7100, X3100 IGP, 15.4" screen), the reported power consumption with a default Ubuntu 8.10 installation is 13 watts with lowered screen brightness and 19 watts at full brightness. Not bad, but not a big difference either.Truth is, Linux was bad at power usage until 12-18 months ago. Clearly worse than Windows XP at the time. Only recently there have been significant improvements, so it's now better than Windows Vista, but it seems nowhere near OS X. But it's getting better and better, so in a year it might be doing really good.
sprockkets - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
While it is true you may not need to have access to the cpu for upgrades, it literally sucks to have to get to it, just to properly clean out the fan, or worse, to replace it.enki - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Those laptops seem to be very poor representations of good pc laptop battery life. Look at the review for the T400:http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4...">http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4...
It got 581 minutes of battery life in their web browsing test and could play a 3d game for longer then those laptops could browse the web (3 hours)
So in your conclusion when you say if you like to work untethered you should pick a Mac it seems like a T400 with about 2 times the bettery life would be better
JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Someone else mentioned the T400 in response to the MacBook article. To repeat what I said there, here's a few quote from their review:"With the T400 you can reach 9 hours and 41 minutes with the wireless enabled, screen backlight at 60%, and the laptop in integrated graphics mode using only the 84Wh 9-cell battery. In this situation the notebook is only consuming roughly 8.5 watts of power. In dedicated graphics mode under the same settings battery life falls by exactly 2 hours down to 7 hours and 41 minutes, and power draw increases to 10.5 watts. The 6-cell battery managed 6 hours and 4 hours and 28 minutes respectively."
Another statement: "When watching XVID encoded movies off the hard drive the 9-cell had an estimated 6 hours and 45 minutes of battery life, drawing 13 watts of power." I really don't like "estimates", though I still suspect it can hit at least 6 hours of Xvid playback.
No mention is made of actually *surfing* the web - WiFi is merely "enabled". Without knowing more about how they conduct their battery life testing, I can't say whether their numbers are comparable to ours. What I do know is that U6V battery life almost doubles (149 minutes vs. 261 minutes) when I go from web surfing to idle. With a similar battery, the U6V would jump up to 418 minutes idle battery life. DDR3 and the ability to disable the discrete GPU probably make up the difference.
Three hours playing Portal with an 85 Whr battery on the T400 is okay, but not that much better than what I would expect from the U6V with a similar battery. With the default battery, that would drop to only two hours.
It does look like the T400 may be more or less equal to the MacBook, which is good to see. The MacBook with a 45 Whr battery under a heavier load (Xvid + constant downloading + web surfing) got 3.1 hours and the T400 gets an *estimated* 6.75 just playing Xvid. If we call those loads relatively "equal", the MacBook gets 4.13 Min/Whr compared to 4.82 Min/Whr on the T400. Probably the surfing and downloading would again make up the difference.
I'll see if I can get a T400 for review, but Lenovo hasn't sent us anything in the past so it's a long shot....
cweinheimer - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
"Otherwise, you might as well just stick with IGP, since the 9300M class hardware is only a small boost in performance over the X3100/X4500".Slightly better you say? If I recall the article from Anand's IGP chronicles, the 9300igp in atx destroys any intel IGP. Surely the 9300m isnt that much worse than the deskyop counterpart.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
What's twice as fast as a snail? LOL Okay, even at three times as fast it's hardly anything to brag about. If you want GPU performance, go out and get an appropriate GPU. If you're not going to play 3D games (which I wouldn't plan on doing with the 9300M GS), why bother? For 1280x800 gaming, I'd say the 9500M or HD 3600 are the bare minimum you should get. I'd also wager that the inclusion of the 9300M on the U6V cut battery life by at least 10% relative to X4500. (Would be nice to see an NVIDIA IGP notebook other than Apple as well....)garydale - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
I'm sorry, but nothing has changed in a couple of decades nor is it likely to, Notebooks are always slower, more expensive and more difficult to repair than desktop systems. It's inherent. You're trying to squeeze equivalent functionality into a smaller, integrated package.CPU manufacturers bring their new cores out for desktop systems first sos they can get the technology right before they add in the extra notebook features. Notebooks run off limited power so you need to make some adjustments, such as extra circuitry for dual power sources, power conservation, etc.. You need to add extra components like battery packs, dual outputs and docking interfaces.
When you buy a notebook, you're always buying the whole thing. You can't reuse your old keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc. And you have to squeeze everything into a smaller package, which makes it harder to manufacture.
So please, stop telling us how notebooks are catching up to desktop systems. They aren't and they can't. Notebooks are popular right now but serious users have desktop systems for the speed, flexibility, performance and cost.
I'm running a quad-core desktop system with 4G of dual-channel RAM and 3x500G SATA drives in a RAID 5 array. I don't think there is a notebook out there that can match any of the specs, let alone all of them. And I certainly can't get any notebook that powerful at the price I paid for the desktop system.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
I never said that notebooks are "catching up"; I simply pointed out that we are reaching the point where they are "fast enough". You pretty much repeated everything I stated in the intro, with a negative slant. I'm *not* recommending everyone go out and buy notebooks; what I'm saying is that they're a viable option for many users, even if they cost more.Anyway, the Clevo D-901C can handle three hard drives (in RAID 5), up to 8GB RAM, and quad-core processors (only 2.67GHz I believe), plus 9800M SLI. Total cost for such a system, however, ends up being over $5000. LOL
Now, tell me *why* your average user needs quad-core, a 1TB RAID 5 set, and probably SLI graphics while we're at it. Throw out gaming, video encoding, and 3D rendering (and other workstation/server loads). That's the market a notebook can easily satisfy. Heck, I have a single-core AMD 3800+ still hanging around that handles all the Internet/Office tasks 95% of PC users require, and I can guarantee that the three laptops in this article outperform it in every meaningful benchmark. We've reached the tipping point where there are a lot of people that just need something that's "fast enough".
geokilla - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
This laptop might actually contain a 9800M GS and not a 9800M GTS, which is basically an underclocked version of the GTS.More info on whether it's a 9800M GS or GTS can be found here.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=3...">http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=3...