Wireless

Acer has fitted the Intel AX200 Wireless adapter in their Swift 3, and for good reason. Intel’s wireless networking adapters have been the cream of the crop in the PC space for some time, with rock solid stability, and excellent performance. The AX200 is the new Wi-Fi 6 adapter, adding 160 MHz channel support and higher QAM orders to provide much higher peak performance than Wi-Fi 5, while at the same time offering better congestion control as well.

WiFi Performance - TCP

The Acer Swift 3 has very good networking performance from the 2x2 networking solution, hitting over 1.1 Gbps transfer speeds on our TCP test. We are using the ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AX11000 router, and if you’d like to check out more about the new Wi-Fi 6 testing, please check out our overview.

Audio

The Acer Swift 3 features DTS Audio with stereo front-facing speakers, and dual-microphones for Cortana support. Although the speakers are forward facing, they are on the bottom of the notebook, so can be obstructed depending on the surface the notebook is on.

Sound quality is quite good, with reasonable bottom end response for a notebook of this size. The speakers do not get overly loud, measuring 75 dB(A) one inch over the trackpad, but the sound was free from distortion.

Thermals

Thin, light, and performance. The holy trinity of laptop design. It is not always easy to achieve. Acer has a thin and light laptop, with a new 7 nm AMD Ryzen 7 4700U onboard which should help them out, but to see how the laptop responded it was run through an extended stress test of the CPU, with the GPU kicked in near the end.

As with most modern CPUs, the Ryzen 7 quickly ramps up well past its target thermal design power, hitting around 30 Watts draw at the start, but as the test goes on, that value falls back to around 18 Watts. But the power line shows several spots where it dropped back due to thermal capacity. A perfect result here would be a straight line for the CPU frequency but struggles to maintain its boosted frequency. The laptop does not seem to find a sweet spot where it can maintain temperatures either, it instead bounces from maximum power draw to minimum. The GPU also is not consistent when it is turned on around the 2300 second mark.

As this is a full stress test, it can be unfair since you are unlikely to run into a scenario where you use the system at 100% load for such an extended duration. To see how the laptop performs in a more real-world test, it was again tested using Far Cry 5 as a load source.

If anything, the results were even more disappointing. The laptop really struggled with its thermals, dropping the framerate into single digits often. The device attempted to run at around 18 Watts of power draw, slightly over the 15 Watt TDP, but in fact only averaged around 8 Watts during this run.

The laptop does not get overly loud during this load, only hitting around 45 dB(A), but clearly the included cooling system is inadequate for very heavy loads, such as gaming. Far Cry 5 is a demanding game, especially on CPU, so the SoC is even more taxed trying to balance the CPU and GPU, but overall this is a very poor result.

Software

Acer includes a few utilities which are useful, and a few that are not, such as some Norton Antivirus with a short trial period. But it is worth looking at a few pieces of software and included utilities.

The AMD Radeon Settings gives you control over the GPU settings, including disabling Vari-Bright, and seeing the system settings. It is a nice looking utility, but other than providing a few options to enable or disable, but it would be nice if you could use it to manage driver updates for the GPU rather than just copy the version numbers.

If you do want to update drivers, you can use the Acer Care Center, where you can also manage recovery media creation and support requests. This is now a standard feature on all notebooks, and Acer’s implementation is attractive and easy to use.

Acer includes a couple of links to e-tailers like Amazon and Booking.com, which are easily deleted, but also are a quick reminder that margins are thin when prices are this low.

Battery Life and Charge Time Final Words
Comments Locked

191 Comments

View All Comments

  • Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    Deicidium doesn't care that the benchmarks invalidate his talking points. As long as Intel only have 4 cores at 15W, 4 cores will be enough. Once Intel get 8 cores at 15W, he'll find a reason why it suddenly makes sense.
  • SolarBear28 - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    Regardless of whether or not 8 cores is necessary in a budget device, I think its a good policy to get as much CPU as you can for the money, especially in a non upgradable laptop. I have a usable 10 year old laptop because I got more CPU power than i needed at the time of purchase.
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    This. If you're keeping a device for more than 4 years, you're buying for the software made then, not now.
  • 0iron - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    I wish I could give 👍 to your comment!
  • sonny73n - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    @deici

    “ The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise - no one using this laptop will be doing anything that even requires 4 cores. ”

    I open 15 tabs on average with web browser(s). I also transcode movies very frequently. So the more cores the better. We know you’re full of BS, Intel shill.
  • Dribble - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Having millions of tabs open doesn't require lots of cores, just enough memory. You aren't going to be transcoding movies on a cheap laptop with a little SSD.
  • sonny73n - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    @Dribble
    Obviously you’ve never worked with browsers before. More cores is better for multitasking but someone on here said otherwise.
    Yes, I’m transcoding a few Disney movies every week for my 4 years old son so he can watch them with his iPad.
    I’m not going to explain to you in technical details. If you think “the extra cores are useless...” like Deici does, you’re totally in a different league.
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    "The extra cores are useless and nothing more than a marketing exercise"
    Maybe, maybe not. Not really your place to say how other people are supposed to use their laptops, is it?

    Bear in mind that we only got 4 cores at 15W from Intel *after* AMD announced the original Ryzen APU. Your logic now sounds like theirs when they designed Kaby Lake.
  • GreenReaper - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    Browser tabs, virus checkers, malware, that stream you have going in the corner on your secondary monitor - all of those things take up cores. A lot of software has been redeveloped to use all the cores available to it nowadays.
  • fmcjw - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 - link

    Is it because the 8-core throttles more to an even lower power state, spending more time to cool down?

    I'm also curious to see evaluations of how much of that 25% battery time is consumed by wasted cycles in actual application performance. Probably not a lot on a benchmarks, since the SoC is designed to be shut down idle cores, but in real life the OS probably fires them up for no good reason, probably just because they they're there. I mean this is a mix of apps with legacy UI's and libraries we're talking about, not server optimized cloud applications.

    Accordingly, from a software and sustained performance perspective, is it better just to focus on single core performance?

    I have a tendency to get a more predictable Core i3-8145U sans Turbo Boost, or a Ryzen 3-3200U with fewer cores, despite them looking poor on benchmarks. I have no idea what I'm missing, but hopefully it's a worthy trade-off. At least there's less throttling due to quicker heat up of quad/hex/octa-cores, longer battery life due to less cores to address, and wasted cycles due to inefficiencies in the application/OS.

    Hope this is something Anandtech can investigate? Too many brilliant minds are trained on phone topics, but not the state of affairs in PC land.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now