ASUS' N82Jv: Jack-Of-All-Trades
by Jarred Walton on September 11, 2010 11:10 PM ESTASUS N82Jv-X2: More of the Same
Those familiar with ASUS will find the usual assortment of good and bad in the N82Jv. The overall build quality is good, but we're still dealing with a predominantly plastic chassis and there's the usual bit of flex that accompanies such designs. In terms of technology, ASUS is ahead of the curve with USB 3.0 and they've been the biggest adopter of NVIDIA's Optimus Technology since day one. We've seen a lot more Optimus laptops start to show up, but right now the N82Jv comes with the fastest CPU+GPU combination of the bunch. The next generation 400M GPUs from NVIDIA are nearly upon us, so that may change in the near future, but it would hardly be a surprise to see ASUS at the forefront of 400M Optimus notebooks.
That's all good, but the areas we've complained about in the past remain unaddressed. The LCD is a huge blemish on an otherwise good design. Is it that hard to get good LCDs? (Hint: Ask Apple where they get the MacBook Pro panels.) How about a larger battery than the 47/48Wh size that's so ubiquitous in entry and midrange laptops? I suppose if you're trying to hit a $1000 price point, yes, it's difficult to get such upgrades, but let's just forget a hard price point and put in some quality to separate your brand from the pack.
Perhaps we're being a bit too hard on ASUS. After all, the N82Jv really is one of the better combinations of features, performance, and pricing currently on the market. If you read our review of the N61Jv back in March and wanted a faster GPU and a smaller chassis, the N82Jv provides both. In that sense, the N82Jv preempts the N61Jv and warrants a Silver Editors' Choice award. Then in May, we looked at the U30Jc and praised the battery life/capacity but lamented the slow GPU and poor LCD quality. Notice a pattern yet? Six months is a long time, and while the GT 335M is a nice update in the graphics department, we really wanted it back in March. ASUS literally did nothing to address our complaints with battery capacity and LCD quality. Standing still doesn't win extra points, and in the hope of encouraging ASUS to ship a better LCD next time, we're skipping the award. The ASUS N82Jv gets our recommendation and an honorable mention, but if Editors' Choice grades start at 90%, it's about an 86%.
Our introduction called the ASUS N82Jv a "Jack-of-All-Trades", and so it is. The corollary to that unfortunately holds as well, as this is a Master of None. It does so many things well, but in no area is it truly exceptional. The GT 335M is able to play games at Medium detail and 1366x768, but any more than that and it starts to choke, and it lacks DX11 features for the forward looking users. The CPU is good for most tasks, but it will struggle with computationally intensive tasks. Battery life is above average…as long as average includes a bunch of $500 to $600 entry-level notebooks. And finally, build quality is decent, but you're not going to sway any business users away from their ThinkPads, Latitudes, ProBooks, etc.
Don't get me wrong: this is a good laptop and certainly worth serious consideration if you're in the market, but there's only so many times I can say, "Yes, but…." The N82Jv with an 8-cell battery like that in the U-series would be a bronze award, or the N82Jv with a good LCD but the same 48Wh battery would garner a silver. Give me both and it's a Gold Award for sure. And bonus points for upping the build quality to a sturdy magnesium/aluminum frame like that in the MacBook Pro/ThinkPad, plus drop in a new GeForce 400M GPU. For all those upgrades, I'd happily recommend paying $1300, and such a laptop could go toe-to-toe with the MacBook Pro 13 and even come out on top—depending on your aesthetical slant. But $1000 for the current implementation puts it at the MacBook level, and just like we recommend most users spring for the Pro 13" (or 15"/17"), we're stuck wishing for something that doesn't yet exist.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
Hrel - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
GPU = DX10. Simply foolish to buy that as we near 2011Screen resolution = 1366x768. Seriously?! When will they learn?
Just a personal thing, but I'd prefer a 15" laptop just cause I want a numpad.
Asus if you're reading this:
Screen resolution of 1600x900 or greater. (Preferably a contrast ratio of 500:1 or higher)
Battery size of 60Wh or greater. (Preferably 84Wh)
GPU = Nvidia DX11 with similar performance to the AMD HD5650.
CPU = Intel dual core w/ HT @2Ghz or greater with 3MB L3 cache or greater.
HDD = 7200rpm 320GB or greater. (500GB Seagate MomentusXT hyrbrid drive would be best.)
Don't price it over $1000. Go over to cyberpower.com, they build a similar system to this on a Compal whitebox for under 1K.
Hrel - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
you know, even if they stuck with the "standard" quality screen but upped the resolution I'd be happy. Just offer an upgrade to a better screen for 100 bucks or so. The batter can't give though, anything under 60Wh is ridiculous.Hrel - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Just to clarify the GPU choice, I'm totally ok running games at 1280x720 on my laptop. High end all "eye candy" on gaming is what my desktop is for. That doesn't mean it's ok to make the screen low resolution. 1600x900 or higher or I won't even look at it.JarredWalton - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Yeah, but you can't do 1600x900 gaming I think is the rationale. Or something. I got this laptop a couple weeks back, before the DX11 400M announcement, which arguably steals some of the thunder as well. I just really hope the inevitable update can give us the bigger battery, better screen, and at least a 435M. That would be a very sweet laptop, and it shouldn't be hard to take the N82Jv and make those tweaks in less than a month. Sell off the low-end screen in other models and make a nice "N82 Pro".kmmatney - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
The 16:9 display was the worst thing to ever happen to laptops...beginner99 - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
this.16:9 is bascially only useful for games and movies. for browsing or office work it's a pain in the ass. even 16:10 can be annoying for that.
teohhanhui - Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - link
I find 16:10 to be perfect for side-by-side comparison or just for viewing 2 pages of a document at a time.FH123 - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Screen resolution = 1366x768. Seriously?! When will they learn?This comment scares me. Am I the only one who doesn't value resolution highly? I've used Windows 7 and still found plenty of software not fully optimised for high DPI, so I'd rather stick to the above resolution. I'd simply want a good display in that resolution.
I am the owner of a Thinkpad T410s with a 1440x900 display. Better, right? At least still 16:10? Wrong! Contrast ratio 95:1, black-level 2.9 cd/m2. I've no doubt the Asus' screen is crap, like Jarred says, but there's worse to be found in the high-end business segment. Basically I think I'd kill for the Asus' screen at twice the contrast and 1/3 the black-level!
synaesthetic - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Windows 7 is designed for a minimum vertical pixel count of 768, so really, 1366x768 should only be present on laptops in the sub-13" size category.This is how I see it...
There's just no point in robbing yourself of more vertical pixels. And fix the "standard netbook resolution" of 1024x600 to actually be 16:10 instead of 16:9.4 or whatever it actually is.
1366x768 is a stupid resolution and deserves to go away.
10": 1024x640
11-12": 1280x800
13-14": 1600x900
15": 1600x900 or 1920x1200
16" and up: 1920x1200
Accept no substitutes.
synaesthetic - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Correction: 15" should be 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 depending on preference. 1600x900 is the only good 16:9 resolution IMO, and it's pretty much perfect on a 14" panel.