Ultrabook Wrap-Up

We’ve now looked at three 13.3” ultrabooks, plus the MacBook Air 11 and 13, and the ASUS UX21E. I’ve also had some hands on time at a local store with a Samsung Series 9, so that covers much of the ultrabook market right now. Unfortunately, I haven’t had a chance to see any of the Lenovo IdeaPad U300/U400 offerings or any other ultrabooks in person (yet), so I’ll have to leave them out of consideration.

Taken as a whole, the one thing these laptops are doing right is making really slim and amazing looking devices. For those in the generic Windows laptop world that don’t get to many coffee shops where the cool people hang out, the first encounter with an ultrabook is almost invariable one of amazement. “Wow! That’s an amazing looking laptop. Is it any good or does it just look cool?” I had several (non-techie) people come by while I worked on this review, and that was basically the reaction from every one of them. I agree on the first point: these ultrabooks really look sleek. The question of whether or not they’re good isn’t quite so clear.

Understand first and foremost that the target market for an ultrabook values aesthetics and portability over performance. There are dozens of laptops that cost less and offer more performance, but that’s not the point. The purpose of ultrabooks is to provide a fast, light business laptop that can last through most of a day’s workload and not weigh you down while you carry it around. If that’s what you’re after, the Acer S3, ASUS UX31E, and Toshiba Portege Z835—and very likely the Lenovo U300 and any other forthcoming ultrabooks—should keep you happy. Buy whichever one has the best price or most appealing look and you’re good to go. If you’re looking for other features, however, you’ll want to consider exactly what you get a bit more. Personally, I’d rather have a slightly bulkier laptop with a 1080p display, more connectivity options, and a discrete GPU for some moderate gaming—the Dell XPS 15z is still one of my favorites for walking the fine line between price, features, performance, and quality. But let’s assume you’ve decided you want an ultrabook; which one should you get?

For best build quality right now and aesthetic, out of the units I’ve seen I’d place the Apple MacBook Air and the ASUS Zenbooks at the top of the list. The aluminum unibody construction of the MBA makes for a very solid feeling laptop and the ASUS Zenbooks are right there with it. If you value screen quality over other elements, the MacBooks once again get a recommendation, but I also have to give props to the Samsung Series 9 13.3” model—it has a beautiful matte panel with a great contrast ratio, and colors look far better than on the ASUS, Acer, or Toshiba offerings. On the other hand, ASUS offers a very bright display and is the only 1600x900 resolution in a 13.3” ultrabook right now—at least a baby step over the status quo laptop LCDs.

Some people still value wired connectivity; for such users, Toshiba is the only ultrabook I’ve seen so far with an integrated Gigabit Ethernet port—and yes, I missed having GbE on both the Acer and ASUS; would it have killed them to at least include a 2x2:2 MIMO WiFi adapter? Acer lacks USB 3.0, so connectivity folks will likely want to go elsewhere. If you’re after a good keyboard, my initial experience is that all of the ultrabooks (including the MacBook Air) don’t have a lot of key travel, which may or may not bother you. Subjectively, however, I think the Samsung Series 9 was the most comfortable keyboard for me to type on, followed by the MacBook Air, with the others all rating as slightly behind those two; also worth noting is the MBA and Series 9 both have backlit keyboards. Finally, for best battery life, so far ASUS comes out quite a bit ahead of the others, thanks to a larger 48Wh battery and good power optimizations.

That covers most recommendations, but there’s still one more point to consider: cost. While the Acer S3 doesn’t place first in most areas, it’s still an ultra thin laptop that looks decent, and the 256GB C400 SSD is better than most of the other SSD options. ASUS got the 128GB SF-2200 SSD right in the UX21E, but the 256GB SanDisk U100 doesn’t look like it can even keep up with the second tier SSDs; considering the cost, I’d avoid ASUS’ 256GB models. Apple meanwhile charges the most by a fairly sizeable margin—shocking, I know—but if you look at the previous paragraph you’ll find that they warrant consideration on most categories.

The most reasonable conclusion is that you have to choose what’s most important, as you simply can’t get it all. You can get an $1100 ASUS UX31E that has similar or slightly better performance compared to the base model $1300 MacBook Air 13, you get a higher resolution and brighter LCD panel, and you get USB 3.0 support along with Windows 7. For $200 more, you get a higher contrast LCD with a 16:10 aspect ratio, Thunderbolt, a backlit keyboard, and OS X. If you already prefer OS X, the choice is very simple, but some Windows users might actually be willing to spend the additional money for an MBA13 ($300 extra when you factor in the Windows license). If I were to recommend just one ultrabook right now, the $1100 ASUS UX31E-DH52 gets my vote, but if you want more performance without breaking the bank, the Acer S3-951-6432 has everything you need except for a good LCD and USB 3.0 priced at $1230. If you want the MacBook equivalent of the Acer, you’ll have to pony up $1700 to get the same CPU and a 256GB SSD, though I’d say the LCD and improved build quality are worth at least $200.

The ultrabook market is still relatively new, and there are additional models coming out from other companies. As SSD prices drop, we’re likely to see better prices as well, and really we’d like to stick closer to $1000 for a 128GB SSD and a Core i5 CPU. We’d also like to see more attention to detail, particularly on the LCDs. For a 13.3” laptop, 1440x900 or 1600x900 is my preferred resolution, but along with that I’d like something that can handle the full sRGB color space and offer close to a 1000:1 contrast ratio—and an anti-glare surface would be icing on the cake. We’ll see if any of the upcoming ultrabooks can surpass the current offerings, which unfortunately end up looking very much like a revised take on attractive but expensive ultraportables. They're not bad, but they're also not the type of product we can universally recommend without pointing out some of the potential drawbacks.

And Then We Get to the LCDs…
Comments Locked

81 Comments

View All Comments

  • icrf - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    I think the problem is thin laptops are designed to be portable, and 17" laptops of any thickness aren't nearly as portable. If you have a bag/case big enough for a 17" chassis there is usually plenty of room for something much thicker than an inch.

    Lighter weight, however, is good pretty much everywhere.
  • Sufo - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    Well there's always the razer blade... lol
  • JojoKracko - Thursday, March 15, 2012 - link

    Yes, I'd also like a 15 or 17 inch ultrabook. But it would have to have a better screen than these come with.

    Fortunately there is some hope that the manufacturers are coming to their senses. The UX31A will have a 1080P Matte IPS screen.

    Now just create a 17 inch version with a numeric keypad (full width zero key please) and I'll be happy.
  • popej - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - link

    Thanks for review!

    Some doubts:
    - Does contrast measurements include ambient light reflection? If not, results could be far form real life experience. I'm afraid that flowed test leads to flowed design, where manufactures try to get best tests results instead of best usefulness.
    - Are battery life test comparable between units? I have doubts about Internet test. One of the tricks that Asus is using is to reduce CPU speed when on battery. This way battery last more but quality of work is reduced. I would prefer a test, where amount of work done is measured, not only time.
    - Can this notebooks be comfortably used outdoor? I would expect this possibility from a ultra portable device. But none of your test gives a clear answer.
  • Kepe - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - link

    Jarred mentions twice in this article that the Asus unit can be used outside thanks to its bright display.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - link

    The ambient light will affect the perceived brightness from the display (brighter environment means you'll want the LCD backlight turned up), and perceived contrast with reflections will also be affected. For the test, we place a colorimeter on the display and measure the white level and black level; divide the two and that's your contrast. I'm not sure what would be flawed with that approach, though in practical use other variables (that can't really be tested) come into play.

    The battery life tests are all performed at equivalent settings. That means Power Saver profile (or Power4Gear Maximum Battery on the ASUS). Then we make sure maximum CPU speed is set to 100% while minimum speed is 5%. The displays are also calibrated to the same ~100 nits brightness, and we run a loop where the web pages are loaded every 60 seconds in a repeatable manner. For most Internet surfing, this is far more important than quantity of work completed -- you read a web page that loads in a couple seconds; rarely do you actually run a continuous load for surfing, particularly on a laptop that's running off its battery.

    On the other end of the spectrum, the H.264 playback is a continuous load of video decoding, so your real-world battery life will generally be more than that and less than the idle, but where you fall naturally depends on what you're doing.
  • popej - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - link

    Colorimeter measurements would be equivalent of using notebook in a dark room, where anti-glare coating has no relevance. I think that easy way to check practical contrast could be done with digital photography using picture raw data for analysis.

    I don't know Power4Gear but quick search in net indicate, that "Maximim battery" could mean underclocking CPU, thus no 100% speed. So there is no superior efficiency but simply different settings.
  • twotwotwo - Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - link

    I'm with papaj on ambient light. You can't tell exactly what conditions users will work in, but these numbers are based on _zero_ ambient light, not the most common use case (though it is a real use case, e.g., watching a movie in a dark room). And it makes black levels very important to the contrast ratio and anti-glare not important at all.

    I get that it's kind of hard to factor reflections in and, frankly, you guys already do a ton of tests on a ton of systems. Also, initially you wouldn't have lots of other recent devices' numbers for comparison as you do for ambient-light-free contrast numbers. I didn't even know until today (via a DisplayMate comparison) that the reflection strength was something that was measured or that it varied so widely, but knowing it, I'm pretty curious about "real," everyday contrast numbers.

    Some kind of "indoor contrast ratio" figure would be interesting, using black and white levels on the current colorimeter figures + (reflection strength * a standard assumed level of light indoors). Even bare reflection strength numbers would be interesting, as I'm sure readers vary in what they think about display shininess. :)
  • twotwotwo - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    Whoof, just peeked at the VESA standards for measuring reflectance. I'm amazed that anyone does any of those tests now.
  • QChronoD - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    I would like to see the contrast ratio of the Asus measured when its at ~100 nits as well. The 500 nits would be useful if one wanted to use the laptop outside, but I would guess that the vast majority of the time it would be used indoors. Would it be possible to measure the Asus' screen at the standard brightness? If nothing else, the black levels wouldn't be washed out, and it would probably look better.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now