The ASUS ZenPad S (Z580CA) Review
by Brandon Chester on August 31, 2015 8:00 AM ESTGPU Performance
Rather than using Intel’s HD series iGPUs, the Atom Z3530 and Z3580 SoCs in both versions of the ZenPad S use Imagination Technologies’ PowerVR G6430 GPU. Since this implementation is identical to the one in the ZenFone 2 it’s not likely we’ll see a large gap in absolute performance. However, the larger chassis of the ZenPad may allow it to dissipate heat more effectively, which could help performance in long-term sustained workloads. It’s also worth noting that the less expensive Atom Z3530 model of the ZenPad S will suffer from reduced performance in GPU heavy workloads due to the 1GHz reduction in max CPU clock compared to the $299 model, as well as the drop in GPU speed from 533MHz to 457MHz.
In 3DMark we actually see a noticeable gap between the ZenPad S and the ZenFone 2. The latter ends up scoring around 2000 points higher in both sub-tests, which leads to an overall score which is also around 2000 points higher. I would mostly attribute this to software differences rather than any issues with throttling, and the next tests will help to confirm that assumption.
The ZenPad S doesn’t perform as well as the ZenFone 2 in BaseMark X’s on screen tests, which isn’t surprising given that it’s pushing 1.6 million more pixels. In the off screen tests we see both devices perform roughly equally, and this is reflected in the overall score. In other reviews, such as my review of the Dell Venue 8 and Venue 10 I mentioned that G6430 is a bit slow compared to the competition at that price point. For a $299 it fits perfectly, and coincidentally a lower clocked version of it is what’s used in the iPad Mini 2 which is also $299.
In GFXBench we again see the ZenPad S performs worse than the ZenFone 2 at its native resolution, but the overall GPU power of the two devices is equal. Like the Venue 8 and Venue 10, the PowerVR G6430 implementation in Atom Z3580 outperforms Apple’s A7 by a significant degree in the T-Rex HD test, but not in any other.
It’s clear from our tests that the GPU performance of the ZenPad S Z580CA is roughly the same as Apple’s iPad Mini 2. Since both devices have the same price, the ZenPad S is right where it needs to be in this regard. Performance in programs running at a device’s native resolution will obviously be slower than the ZenFone 2 due to the ZenPad S’s higher resolution, but I think G6430 provides more than adequate performance to run the display, and is the best you’ll be able to find in a $299 device right now.
NAND Performance
The performance of a mobile device's internal storage can have a significant impact on performance. When any applications are performing reads or writes in the background, a low NAND solution can cause the tasks the user is currently performing to grind to a halt. On top of that, there are fairly obvious implications for the time it takes to move music, movies, pictures, and other media to and from the device.
Both random read and random write speeds on the ZenPad S are very good for a mobile device. In both cases it ends up being the fastest tablet on record.
The sequential read speed on the ZenPad S is good for a $299 device, and the sequential write speed is actually the fastest we've seen in an Android tablet. However, it's disappointing to see that Android devices can now adopt USB 3.0 without terrible connectors by using USB Type-C, yet they still have NAND that won't even saturate a USB 2.0 link in the best possible scenario. Relative to the NAND in other Android devices the ZenPad S performs well, but the speed of eMMC flash memory still leaves much to be desired.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
kmmatney - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link
Having both a 16:9 windows tablet and an iPad, IMO 4:3 is better. Who plays "immersive" games on there tablet? - that's what a computer or laptop is for. For typical things you use a tablet for - web browsing, reading emails, reading books, you tube, various other consumption, the 4:3 aspect ratio is perfect. I don't pretend to do any serious work on my tablets, but I wish my windows tablet was 4:3. There is a reason why the MS Surface tablets no longer use a 16:9 aspect ratio.boeush - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link
This is getting pretty stupid... Let's say your tablet is x inches long. Does it really make that much difference whether it's height gives 19:10 ot 4:3 AR? Unlike a phone, you aren't about to shove that tablet into a pocket. So is it REALLY so TERRIBLE that you have extra vertical screen space when watching a movie in landscape? Yeah, instead of that extra screen you could just have empty space I guess - but that still won't make your tablet all that more compact anyway (with the horizontal dimension being dominant.) So boo-hoo, you get top and bottom sidebars on your video. Contrast that with the use cases where you need/want that extra height in your landscape mode, or the extra width in portrait - and DON'T HAVE IT because your tablet is built oblong and that's that. Seriously, I for one would rather have extra screen space I don't need under certain circumstances, rather than at other times needing the extra space and not having it!keltypack - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link
I totally agree with the 4:3 aspect ratio. I don't know what people are thinking, but a tablet is a GREAT way to watch a movie on an airplane. The 16:9 ratio is much better for reading books. I don't understand the Apple fascination with 4:3. To be fair, I think 3:2 is a better aspect ratio than 16:9, but maybe that is the old-school photographer in me.uhuznaa - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link
16:9 sucks for websites and more compley apps though, both in portrait (too narrow) and in landscape (with some toolbars around you see only a small sliver and when typing into a form there's hardly any content left).But yes, if you're mainly watching movies with your tablet, 16:9 is better.
sonny73n - Tuesday, September 1, 2015 - link
The only reason 16:9 is better for movies because all HD contents are in 16:9. But to me, 16:9 is just odd and stupid. I remember when the first wave of HDTV hit the market, there was a widescreen trend. So bad they even started making movies wider than 16:9 - something really odd like 1920x818 instead of the 1920x1080.16:9 is horrible even on phones. Keyboard in landscape mode blocks more than 50% of the screen. You can have a 4.7in 1280x768 screen looks as big as a 5in 1280x720. 16:9 sucks, movies too. I'd rather see movies in 2:3 format.
BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
@sonny73n: 16:10 more accurately maps to the active area of the human visual system and thus gives a more immersive experience at the appropriate screen size / viewing distance. 16:9 was just cost cutting measure by reducing the probability of defects in a screen given the statistical probability of localization. Problem is, you can't interact with your tablet when it's in your face. Most people don't sit that close to a TV either. Usability on 16:9 isn't very good. It is better at 16:10, but 4:3 or 3:2 can make more sense in a lot of cases. I personally prefer 16:10 (1280x800 in your example above), but a lot of that depends on how the tools you use are laid out.R. Hunt - Tuesday, September 1, 2015 - link
Apps look so much more natural in 4:3 IMO. Web browsing, and PDF reading are also better. I think, specially for large tablets, a squarer aspect ratio is overall the better choice. My Tab Pro 10.1 looks and feels really awkward in portrait (and unnecessarily long). I'll be getting the Tab S2 soon, no doubt.BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, September 2, 2015 - link
@keltypack: Yes. Your 3:2 preference is the old school photographer in you. Nothin wrong with that.retrospooty - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link
jjj, I think you need to put the pipe down.Puck85 - Thursday, September 10, 2015 - link
serious question: what should I buy instead of this around this price range?