ASUS U30Jc: Refining Thin and Light Performance
by Jarred Walton on May 18, 2010 11:23 PM ESTASUS U30Jc LCD Analysis
I've often said that I prefer matte LCDs on laptops. Most of that comes from my experience using laptops outside, or at least near windows where I get some horrible reflections on the glossy displays. Like most consumer laptops, the U30Jc goes the glossy route, and like most inexpensive laptops it also uses a low contrast LCD panel. We don't like all the corner cutting that happens on LCDs, but unfortunately most manufacturers don't see LCD quality as something they can easily use to differentiate their system from the competition. And if you're trying to get shelf space at Best Buy, you're pretty much given a price target that you have to hit or you don't get in the door. $900 to $1000 is a pretty hard price cap for them, and so it's little surprise that LCD quality is once again sacrificed in pursuit of keeping costs down.
The test results above confirm our suspicions that this is yet another lousy laptop display (YALLD?). Contrast ratio is in the middle of the pack, but at 211:1 all of these displays are very poor. The 200nits white level is fine, and color accuracy is actually slightly better than most laptops (notice that the spikes on the U30Jc are only 3.5 to 4.5 instead of the 6.0 to 8.0 spikes on many other laptops). However, decent color accuracy isn't something most users will notice (or need) whereas a good contrast ratio can make a good impression.
Viewing angles are par for the course. It surprises me when I see other reviews talking about the display being "above average" or having good black levels. To be clear, a black level of nearly 1.0nits qualifies as pretty severe backlight bleed and is in no way "black". For a display running at 200nits, we would like black levels closer to .30nits. ASUS has done this (and more) with the 1005HA, 1001P, and the G73Jh; now we just need better quality displays in their nicer "budget midrange" offerings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
zac206 - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
This laptop seems interesting. I would wonder how the MSI X360 would do against it, as it seems to have similar specs.GullLars - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
A good review here, seems like a decent laptop for some uses.I would love to see how it does if you swap the HDD for a SSD.
Jarred, If you still have the U30Jc in house an Intel SSD (or SandForce), would you consider swapping the drive and repeating the test suite? It would be much appreciated.
Doing so would likely increase productivity noticably, and increase typical battrey life through the "hurry up and go idle" principle.
A $100-200 SSD like x25-V/M would likely double (or more?) the PCmark Vantage total score, putting it firmly in the lead ahead of the Lenovo T410, with a good lead, possibly even in first place with double the score of second place.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
Does it need to be an Intel SSD? Because I have a Vertex I can slap in there if that's okay....GullLars - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
Sure, go ahead and put in the vertex. Remember to set AHCI mode.It will give a bit lower scores, but should still give a decent points boost.
Looking forward to it.
Will you post it as an extension/edit to the article, or maybe a new short one?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
I'll post it as a separate follow-up I think, as it's going to take a few days to rerun some of these tests.Kegetys - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
Too bad they didn't improve the screen at all, I have an UL30VT and the machine is fantastic except the poor quality display ruins it. Very bad viewing angles, poor contrast and entirely useless outdoors. The machine could also fit a 16:10 screen fine (huge bezels on top and bottom) and the added vertical space would be welcomed for desktop use. You wont enjoy movies with the screen anyway so 16:9 has very little use in my opinion.teohhanhui - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
The glossy screen is a major deal breaker for me :(Looking at Dell Vostro 3300/3400 instead.
Modeverything - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
I was just curious as to why a few of the laptops change between benchmarks? Doesn't this make some of the testing inconsistent?JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
I'm guessing you're referring to the previously missing Studio XPS 16 and Acer 5740G results on the application and 3DMark pages. Sorry about that. I added them in as they somehow got left off my spreadsheet. Mea culpa. If there are any others missing, let me know.blyndy - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
What about the Dell Vostro 3300?(http://www.dell.com/content/topics/topic.aspx/us/s...
Same size, same RAM/GPU, better cpu (i5-520M), 500 GB HDD, bluetooth. No HDMI (it's available on the 14", 15" and 17" models) and ships with only a 4-cell battert (an 8-cell is available), but it picks up eSATA and express-card, fingerprint reader and double mouse trackpad buttons (and it looks ten times better!) for $933.
I think that its miles ahead for the money, and the 17" model has the option for a GT 330M (although the 17" display show an unnerving amount of flex in this video at 44 secs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2HW0yMzbG8)
These Dells 3x00's are 8/10, they would be a 9/10 if the screens where matte, and the 17" would be a 10/10 if it offered a GTS 350M with GDDR5 :)
It would be great if Anandtech could do a review of one of them.