ASUS U35Jc: Jogging in Place
by Dustin Sklavos on September 30, 2010 3:00 AM ESTThe More Things Change...
...the more they stay the same. The ASUS U35Jc seems to be in many ways a series of trade-offs with the U30Jc, and that's disappointing because it really should have just been an improvement. The U35Jc sports a slightly faster processor, sheds a pound of weight thanks to ditching the optical drive, has a slimmer body, and marginally improved backlighting on the screen. Unfortunately, it also boasts a lower battery life and a mobile GPU with a lower memory speed on an already overworked 64-bit bus. If you opt to enable the ASUS "Super Hybrid Engine" which locks the processor speed at a pretty low setting, you can probably mitigate the battery issue somewhat, but we didn't need that on the U30Jc to post better numbers.
Taken on its own, the U35Jc can be pretty tempting. The keyboard is comfortable and sensible, and the brushed aluminum cover is both attractive and functional. Build quality is solid, and frankly the machine is damn light. You get excellent battery life—nearly six hours surfing the internet—and the performance is there to do just about anything you want with it. ASUS achieves what they set out to: build an ultraportable with good performance and good battery life without tipping the scales.
The problem is that the U35Jc can't be taken on its own. Notebooks aren't designed in a vacuum, and seeing gripes we had with the U30Jc go largely unanswered in the U35Jc results in the same kinds of issues Jarred brought up recently in his review of the ASUS N82Jv: it's hard to recommend something when it seems like the company is just standing still. ASUS took the optical drive out of the U30Jc, moved a couple things around, and called it a new model. Alternately, they took the slimmer U35Jc, and then stripped off the bamboo, USB3, and WiDi. Either way, that's not what progress looks like.
As a result, the only copelling reason to choose the U35Jc over the U30Jc is if the extra pound and slightly larger size of the U30Jc are a huge deal to you. For about the same money, you lose a negligible 133 MHz on the processor and gain an optical drive (an optical drive that ASUS turns off while running on the battery anyhow). The U35Jc is more of the same at a time when we were already fairly happy with what they produced. It's a product that retains the nagging issues of its predecessor and in many ways offers less. Is it a bad laptop? Certainly not; it's a decent laptop but next time we want to see some real improvement.
What we'd like to see is the U30Jc and/or U35Jc, with an improved LCD, USB 3.0, and a GeForce GT 415M. $900 to $1000 for such a system would be more than acceptable, because LCD quality really does matter. The U35Jc is fairly priced at $800, with good build quality and reasonable performance. It's just that it should have launched simultaneously with the U30Jc and left the decision of size/weight and the optical drive up to the user six months ago. Today, it's 95% the same as its predecessor, only six months late (five months since the laptop first started shipping).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Dustin Sklavos - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
I have to disagree with you. The layout on this notebook has been a standard for a long time now, and it's something I'm very comfortable with and know a few people who feel the same way. I'm a pretty good touch typist and have never had any of the problems you cite, though that's admittedly anecdotal.ran100 - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
Now, when nvidia has already announced DX 11.0 series mobile graphics card with optimus technology. It is pity that manufacturers are yet to update. I want a notebook with gtx 460m and optimus. The panel of good quality is certainly important.JarredWalton - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
This laptop design was finished and being built probably 3-4 months ago at least, so it's no surprise that they didn't go to 400M. Still, 310M was such a slow card that I really hope it disappears quickly....tno - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
I mean this thing is less interesting as far as I'm concerned than a MacBook speed bump. I think sending this one back to Asus and demanding they try again when they have something interesting to review would have been warranted. These should have been released side by side as the U30optical and the U30lite.Jeffk464 - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
Nope, nope, nope, must wait for the sangdybridge based version with a 15" monitor. Or maybe a AMD zacate 13" version.zhill - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
First, your laptop reviews are the best around as far as I'm concerned, but I have one minor gripe: the choice of comparison machines in the performance/battery tests is somewhat confusing to me. For instance, why not include the protege r700 and the asus u33jc in the graphs as those a contenders for anyone interested in a 13" portable? I understand that you want to throw in an i5, i7um etc and one or two machines from different segements, but it gets old having to look back through old reviews to get the numbers for comparisons. Maybe a Bench addition (like CPU/SSD/GPU Bench) so we can pick our own comparisons to see the data? That would be great.On a positive note, your battery life/wH is a great metric for efficiency and levels the playing field when considering what a higher-capacity upgrade battery might do. Keep up the good work!
JarredWalton - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
I'd be interested in hearing your input as to what's "ideal" in terms of charts. I personally think around 8~10 systems is good, as otherwise it gets too cluttered. Dustin I think prefers closer to 6 systems. So, if anyone else has an opinion here let us know! We can obviously put a bunch of the other systems we've reviewed into the charts, but at some point we pass the useful stage and move into information overload.As for Mobile Bench, we've talked about it. I guess I just need to chat with Anand some more and see how soon we can make it happen. :-)
zhill - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
First, thanks for the quick response.As for the "ideal" chart presentation, I think that the number of systems you present is just about right--8 systems is perfectly reasonable. However, unless a particular unit performs way above or below its "weight-class" (in the sporting sense) or has some really new/interesting hardware (i.e. the first example of a new CPU/generation), I'm really only interested in similar products, not, for instance, the Studio 17 vs U30JC. However, if a model is particularly bad or really good (rare these days with very similar hardware configs) then some out-of-class comparisons are useful. It's not an easy thing to determine, which is why an interactive system would be perfect as an option. So for the u35jc a nice comparison set might be: r700, u30jc, u33jc, m11x, studio 14, macbook pro-13, and maybe throw in the vaio Z to see what 2X cost gets you. Obviously, these are my personal preferences and relate to how and why I read a review.
Again, great reviews overall. You guys are the only ones who cover the LCDs and keyboards well. I've read far too many other review with "keyboard was good" simply because it's full sized, but in practice the thing is full of mush and terrible. These reviews are particularly great for models that aren't readily available in stores to try out.
vol7ron - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
"...a disappointment when 7200 RPM drives have gotten so much cheaper. Power consumption differences between 5400 RPM and 7200 RPM drives can be fairly negligible at this point, so there's really no excuse for going with the faster hardware."Should it be "no excuse for going with the [slower] hardware", or "...for [not] going with the faster hardware"?
JarredWalton - Thursday, September 30, 2010 - link
Fixed.