ASUS G74SX: Noteworthy Updates to ASUS' G7 Series
by Jarred Walton on October 6, 2011 12:00 AM ESTBattery Life: No Optimus Makes Me Sad
If there’s one major area where the G74SX falls short, it’s battery life. With no form of switchable graphics, battery life is roughly on par with what we saw from the previous G73 series of notebooks. Alienware uses switchable graphics for their M18x and M17x HD 6970M, and Optimus for the M17x with GTX 580M; both deliver much better mobility off the mains. The Toshiba Qosmio X775 likewise uses Optimus with a paltry 48Wh battery, and even with the battery capacity handicap it still puts up respectable numbers.
Perhaps the GTX 560M uses a bit more power than the GTX 460M, or maybe the slight change in battery design (and capacity) plays a role. More likely is that the 16GB of memory is also using a bit more power. Whatever the case, battery life is down incrementally relative to the G73SW in all of our tests. You can just squeak past 2.5 hours of H.264 playback or Internet surfing, and around 3.5 hours of idle battery life, but you’ll definitely want to carry the power brick with you whenever you plan on going mobile for more than 90 minutes.
It’s in the relative battery capacity that the Qosmio really shows what Optimus can provide, although to be fair it doesn’t have as much RAM (or SO-DIMMs) to power. Relative battery life is slightly more than double what the G74SX can manage in the idle and Internet tests, and 68% higher in the H.264 result. You do get the “peace of mind” of always using the discrete graphics, no matter the task, but is that enough to sway people to give up battery life? I’m not sure how many feel that way, but I know I’d rather have Optimus and deal with a few idiosyncrasies now and then.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
plonkplink - Thursday, October 6, 2011 - link
I'll just skip this review since:1. it has a squinty letterbox screen (16:9).
2. it's an octodecillion times uglier than the saxxy Toshiba Qosmio.
3. Just as someone said: "beep blueray;that is all.". :)
Dustin Sklavos - Thursday, October 6, 2011 - link
2 and 3 are reasonable enough...1, though. Yeah...good luck with that. The industry made the shift. None of us are happy about it, but we can either sit in the corner and sulk about the lost 120 pixels of vertical real estate or be happy that mobile graphics are fast enough to drive the rest of it.
JojoKracko - Thursday, October 6, 2011 - link
I have to agree with 1. By going to a 17 inch laptop, you've already decided to accept a larger size / heavier / more expensive laptop so that negates all of the manufacturer's flimsy excuses for using a 16x9 display over a 16x10 version. Total BS IMHO how the industry got away with screwing everyone with this aspect ratio change. 16x10 is better for every single use on your computer - except one - watching movies. And really, how many of you would prefer to watch a movie on your laptop instead of on your widescreen TV?2. I personally prefer the G74. Call me crazy. Better textures.
3. As I would watch movies on my TV, I agree. Beep Blueray!
I'd add 4. Beep more than 8 GB of ram on laptops and more than 1.5 GB on the video cards in general. Useless, wasteful marketing gimmicks. Lower the price by the same amount instead. It is already crazy how fast a 2 grand laptop loses its value.
5. Matte AR Screen for fricks sake ASUS!!!!!
6. MATTE SCREEN - it is worth repeating until they realize they could take ALL of MSI's business with this one change.
seapeople - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
Stop saying this.1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080 because it has more pixels, not because of the aspect ratio.
I actually prefer more screen width than height... I always run into problems with width when I'm trying to look at multiple applications on the screen at once rather than height.
If you're really going to argue that it's the aspect ratio, then tell me what you would like better: 1600x900 or 1440x900?
erple2 - Sunday, October 9, 2011 - link
Until applications become more horizontally focused, the more vertical pixels become important.It's not that I prefer 1440x900 over 1600x900, it's for a given number of horizontal pixels, I'd MUCH rather have more vertical pixels - so I'd prefer 1600x1000 over 1600x900 every time.
As long as the menubars, tabs, close buttons etc are all aligned vertically, I'll still say that I want more vertical pixels for a given horizontal pixel count.
I wouldn't mind having a 2133x1200 res screen (16x9 with 1200 vertical pixels), but nobody makes them.
Even on my 1080p laptop, I feel as though it's vertically cramped. Then again, I'm used to using 1920x1200 screens on my desktop for work and play.
Wolfpup - Friday, October 7, 2011 - link
16:9 is today's normal aspect ratio, and it's not "squinty", the resolution and screen size work pretty well for a notebook."Ugly" is subjective, but I like the G74's utilitarianness. I find Toshiba and Dell's systems much uglier, though that's bottom on my list for why I buy a system regardless.
And I have no idea what "beep blueray" means. At first I thought you thought this didn't have it, which it does. Now I'm thinking you DON'T want it for some unknown reason...well, you don't have to use it, or can buy a cheaper G74 model without it.
JojoKracko - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Beep Bluray just means that it is unnecessary for most of us. Especially the versions with the bluray burner. Realistically, how many buyers of the G74 do so because it has a bluray burner? Half of 1 percent? If that? It is a useless marketing gimmick. Just like moving from 8-16 GB of ram (again, might help 1/2 of 1% of us), or 3GB of video card ram vs 1.5 GB. Even the GTX570M is slower than an old desktop 460GTX and that card can't max out it's 1GB of ram. 3GB is a joke, and 30 bucks that should have been spent on something useful - like a taller screen, better cooling, a bump to the next level of cpu, a bump to the GTX570M, etc. Same goes for the extra $40 for bluray player, or extra $100 for bluray burner. Marketing BS. Doesn't help the majority of you. Demand to be able to pay for what you need.Comment here or even better, write letters to Asus.
Oh, best use of the extra cash? MATTE F'ing SCREENS!!! This reflective crap should have been banned a decade ago.
piroroadkill - Thursday, October 6, 2011 - link
16GB RAM is useless for the vast majority of people.Give me an IPS 1920x1200 screen and 8GB RAM instead, and it would be almost perfect.
piroroadkill - Thursday, October 6, 2011 - link
Perfect.. spec wise, I mean.JojoKracko - Thursday, October 6, 2011 - link
True Dat! 1900 x 1200 IPS panel. Extra $75. Well worth the expense. Heck, double or triple it and I'd still pay it for these two features.MATTE SCREEN also. They did it with their top of the line 3D version and it was far superior to the glossy crap screen you get with this 'update' version - IMHO.