ASUS U35Jc: Jogging in Place
by Dustin Sklavos on September 30, 2010 3:00 AM ESTThe Slightly Improved Screen
We gripe constantly about modern notebook screens and with good reason: they're generally terrible. Poor screen quality is something we've often picked on ASUS for in particular, and with each new iteration of their notebooks they proceed to not change the panel. Once again we find ourselves with a similar dilemma.
In Jarred's review of the U30Jc, he cited the screen as being pretty middling, yet with the U35Jc we have the exact same panel type and model on hand. It's neither terrible nor exciting: the glossy 1366x768 panel gets the job done, but it could do the job better.
Whatever ASUS changed behind the scenes, at least it improved the quality of this otherwise stunningly mediocre panel somewhat. (The same applies to the U33Jc LCD, incidentally, though delta E wasn't quite so low.) The backlighting of the U35Jc appears to be a bit stronger, allowing the panel to boast a substantially higher—but still not that great—contrast ratio. What's more impressive to us is that several of the spikes we routinely see on all TN laptop panels are noticeably lower. Perhaps it's just the normal variance in inexpensive panels from the LCD manufacturers, but our test U35Jc panel is clearly better than the U30Jc we looked at.
What do we do with this information, though? We've been asking ASUS to use better quality screens for a while now, and in the U35Jc they use the same old screen but at least improve the backlighting and colors a bit. Should we be happy with baby steps? On a 13.3" screen, the 1366x768 resolution is reasonable at least, so we can't cite that as an issue. But the vertical viewing angles shown above are still poor, and color gamut (but not accuracy) appears to be way behind the panels that Dell is using. The U35Jc's screen winds up being a wash (so to speak.)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
pirspilane - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
I have wanted to buy a U35 since reading your Laptop Buyer's Guide in July, but was waiting for a full review. Now I don't know what to get.I like the 35s light weight and am perfectly willing to forgo lugging around a rarely-used DVD drive. The omission of USB 3.0 is a bummer, but I noticed that your Bronze Award U30Jc has the same shortcoming.
Any suggestions in the 13" thin & light category are appreciated. Is the performance hit the U35 suffers enough of a factor to still choose the heavier U30? I wonder how much this will be notice in everyday use.
Sanctusx2 - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
Just wanted to 2nd this. I was anxiously looking forward to the U35 after the earlier U30 reviews too and am left with the same disappointment. I definitely want to dump the DVD drive for the weight and size reductions, but losing so much performance and battery life is a bit rough. I'd be eager to hear anyone else's suggestions in the same category as well.JarredWalton - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
On paper, the only real change between U30Jc and U35Jc is the removal of the DVDR, which helps cut the weight down nearly a pound. I still have no idea why the battery life dropped so much; lack of BIOS optimizations? Luck of the draw? Performance is pretty much a wash, though the slower 1GB of graphics memory is a drawback on the U35 as well.If you're not worried about gaming performance, I'd say you can still grab either laptop and be happy. But then, if you're not worried about gaming performance, I have seen little reason to get more than even Intel's HD Graphics. They handle HD video offload, including Flash 10.1, with no issues that I've encountered. I'm sure there are edge cases where Intel's IGP may not decode graphics as well as the G310M, but few people actually need those edge case formats.
I wish the battery life was the same, because it would make the recommendation a lot easier: do you value lower size, or the presence of a DVDR more? And maybe there are "better" U35Jc laptops that make up the gap we experienced.
For my money, right now I'd be more inclined to go with something like the Dell Latitude E6410. Get it with this same CPU, integrated graphics, 4GB RAM, and a 1440x900 anti-glare LCD (hooray for 16:10!). Add a backlit keyboard and you get a final price of around $1000. I've actually got one for testing, and the keyboard and build quality are right there with Lenovo ThinkPad. Or you can find a T410 for about the same $1000. But I'm more interested in build quality and a better (at least higher resolution) LCD than in G310M.
Gary Key - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
In regards to the battery life numbers posted we are working with AnandTech to figure out what happened in their testing.In all of our internal testing both the U35Jc and the actual U30Jc replacement (U45Jc) have generated better battery life numbers across the board than the U30Jc.
Unfortunately we were not privy to their test results or problem report until the article went live so we are behind the curve on problem resolution.
MacGyver85 - Saturday, October 2, 2010 - link
So if I understand correctly you represent someone from Asus ?If so: for the love of god please send up the message that LCD quality matters. I'm still not buying any laptop because of the bad quality of the screens. And I *really* want to buy an Asus laptop...but only if the screen quality trumps whatever else is out there.
You've done an excellent job in regards of battery life recently so please extend that same attention to detail to the screen.
I've heard the argument that better screen quality doesn't sell but that seems a sorry excuse at best. Just put any of the existing laptops next to the newer model wherever it is sold and people will *get it*. They'll see the difference and choose the better screen for sure.
Do I sound desperate for a quality laptop LCD or what :)
hybrid2d4x4 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
I'm with you MacGyver. I want to buy a laptop and have been keeping an eye on the Asus U/UL lineup for as long as it's existed. But after dealing with several glossy-screened Acers, I just can't justify spending any money on something that annoys me to no end in a naturally-lit room or even a basement with lights on behind me (I didn't even dare to try using one outside, though I need my laptop to be able to do so).Unlike most people, I have no problem with the 768p resolution, but gloss is unacceptable (and low-contrast, cheap-looking LCDs are a major letdown). I'm even considering a 1005P netbook to tide me over and I really don't want to settle for an atom (and I'm definitely not paying $2k for a high-end laptop just for a good screen). When will we get laptop options with decent screens? :(
pirspilane - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
Thanks JarredWalton,turns out, I'm not interested in gaming. I think a lot of people are looking for a laptop that focuses on: thin & light; non-gaming; no DVD; good battery life, keyboard & LCD.
The Dell Latitude E6410 is very intriguing, except for the 3/4 lb. additional weight. Definitely will check it out.
zhill - Sunday, October 3, 2010 - link
I've been looking at the U35F-X1, which is the U35JC minus the G310M. It's cheap (on Amazon $733), and should get slightly better battery life and certainly run cooler.Still same lousy LCD etc, but with that extra cash you can put in an SSD for better overall performance without a weight or battery life hit. Worth a look if performance-per-dollar is important rather than outright performance.
pirspilane - Monday, October 4, 2010 - link
Thanks zhill. Hadn't heard about that one. Looks like you save $80-100 and get a battery life boost by ditching a not-so-great graphics card. Good trade-off.Katspajamas - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
I'm suprised you didn't mention the HDD is a Momentus, the Seagate hybrid SSD/magnetic.....