华硕 VivoBook S15 BAPE 笔记本电脑评测:性能超强的 OLED 笔记本电脑?还是特别版会铩羽而归?
并不是每天都能在笔记本盖子上看到可爱的猴子和其他动物。然而,华硕 VivoBook S15 BAPE 版的出现,却让这一切成为现实。华硕 VivoBook S15 BAPE 版是与日本时尚品牌 A Bathing Ape(简称 BAPE)合作推出的一款特别版多媒体笔记本电脑。
从硬件上看,BAPE 版与型号为 K5504 的普通 VivoBook S15 OLED 并无不同。不过,它在设计和包装盒中的内容方面确实有所不同。由于我们还没有机会对这款笔记本电脑进行评测,因此我们的分析将不仅关注这款引人注目的特别版的突出视觉特性。
配备了 英特尔酷睿 i9-13900HVivobook S 15 OLED BAPE 版配备了英特尔酷睿 i9-13900H、16 GB LPDDR5 内存和 1 TB 固态硬盘,可与其他笔记本电脑正面交锋,其中包括它的同系列兄弟华硕 VivoBook Pro 16。.该机配备了AMD Ryzen 7 6800H。相同的 CPU 和 英伟达GeForce RTX 4050 笔记本电脑图形处理器。.其他竞争对手包括采用相同 CPU/iGPU 组合的华为 MateBook 16s 以及 宏碁 Swift Go 16及其高分辨率 120 Hz OLED 面板。
潜在的竞争对手比较
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
84.9 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2024 | Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 i9-13900H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.6 kg | 19 mm | 15.60" | 2880x1620 | |
88.5 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2023 | Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC i9-13900H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.6 kg | 16.9 mm | 14.50" | 2880x1800 | |
87.6 % v7 (old) | 11 / 2023 | Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop GPU | 1.9 kg | 19 mm | 16.00" | 3200x2000 | |
86.6 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2023 | Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 i7-13700H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 1.6 kg | 19 mm | 16.00" | 3200x2000 | |
86 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2023 | Huawei MateBook 16s i9 i9-13900H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs | 2 kg | 17.8 mm | 16.00" | 2560x1680 | |
83.2 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2023 | Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W R7 6800H, Radeon 680M | 1.9 kg | 18.8 mm | 15.60" | 1920x1080 |
» Notebookcheck多媒体笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck游戏笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck低价办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck高端办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck工作站笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck亚笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck超级本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck变形本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck平板电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck智能手机Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck评测过最出色的笔记本电脑屏幕
» Notebookcheck售价500欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck售价300欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
外壳和功能 - 采用致命设计的特别版
第一眼看到华硕 VivoBook S15 OLED 时,你就会明白它不是一款普通的笔记本电脑。金属外壳上有一只猴子和其他动物,它们都属于 Baby Milo 独有的印花图案。不过,由于采用了照片光压印技术,它们显得非常低调。
与街头服饰品牌 "A Bathing Ape"(BAPE)的合作在打开设备时也得以延续。就连触摸板上也印有相同的图案。此外,笔记本电脑的边角和底座上也印有可爱的猿猴图案。颜色方面,该设备采用黑色。选择基于英特尔酷睿 i5-13500H 处理器的较弱配置版本的用户将获得银色的 BAPE 机型。
除此以外,华硕特别版还附带了一个直接的双键鼠标和一个笔记本电脑保护套,两者都采用了 BAPE 的装饰风格。此外,还包括一个 "A Bathing Ape "人偶、一台微型版笔记本电脑和一些贴纸。
在制造质量方面,我们没有任何抱怨。该设备符合 MIL-STD 810H 军用标准,坚固耐用。这款 15.6 英寸笔记本电脑的重量为 1.6 千克,对于具有这些规格的机器来说是可以接受的。在设备的左侧,华硕只配备了一个速度较慢的 USB-A 2.0 端口。在右侧,你会发现 Thunderbolt 4 和 HDMI 1.4 等接口。
与同类产品相比,该机的 Wi-Fi 性能较差,远低于所安装的英特尔 Wi-Fi 6E AX211 的平均水平。网络摄像头表现稳定,Delta E 平均值为 10,其隐私快门也能得分。
输入设备 - 使用爪子也很方便
橙色的 ESC 键和 ENTER 键的斑马纹设计并非 BAPE 特别版设计语言的一部分,而是华硕 VivoBook S15 OLED 的标准设计线索。虽然光学设计令人眼前一亮,但从技术上讲,几乎没有什么值得批评的地方。chiclet键盘的键程为1.35毫米,即使是大手也能获得良好的打字体验,由此产生的噪音也是可以忍受的。背光可设置为三种亮度之一或完全关闭。此外,华硕还在 F1 到 F12 键之间应用了一些特殊功能。
触摸板的尺寸为 13 x 8 厘米,同样,除了外观和相当大的点击噪音外,它并不显眼。
显示屏 - 120 Hz OLED 显示屏,光洁度极佳
华硕为 VivoBook S15 配备了 3K(2,880 x 1,620)高分辨率 OLED 面板,对角线尺寸为 15.6 英寸,刷新率为 120 赫兹。它的平均亮度为 370 cd/m²,光照非常均匀,与同类设备相比毫不逊色。不过,由于其表面光亮,它不得不与反光作斗争,因此很难建议在户外使用。
由于采用了 OLED 技术,该面板具有深黑色、高对比度和鲜艳的色彩还原,但也存在 PWM 闪烁的问题。总而言之,在同类产品中,安装的三星面板可以说是最好的之一,与华硕 ZenBook 14X 相比仅略有不足。
|
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 371.3 cd/m²
Contrast: 18520:1 (Black: 0.02 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.51 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91, calibrated: 3.36
ΔE Greyscale 2.1 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.52% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99.93% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.2
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 Samsung SDC4180, OLED, 2880x1620, 15.6" | Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU Samsung ATNA60BX01-1, OLED, 3200x2000, 16" | Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W Samsung SDC4161, OLED, 1920x1080, 15.6" | Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC Samsung, OLED, 2880x1800, 14.5" | Huawei MateBook 16s i9 BOE0BB0 TV160DKT-NH1, IPS, 2560x1680, 16" | Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 Samsung SDC418D ATNA60BC03-0, OLED, 3200x2000, 16" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Display | 0% | 1% | -1% | -25% | 1% | |
Display P3 Coverage | 99.93 | 98.7 -1% | 99.9 0% | 99 -1% | 63 -37% | 99.91 0% |
sRGB Coverage | 100 | 99.7 0% | 100 0% | 100 0% | 94.9 -5% | 100 0% |
AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 95.52 | 96.5 1% | 98.6 3% | 95 -1% | 65.1 -32% | 98.87 4% |
Response Times | -165% | -4% | 1% | -813% | -2% | |
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 2 ? | 0.68 ? 66% | 0.74 63% | 2 ? -0% | 34 ? -1600% | 2 ? -0% |
Response Time Black / White * | 2 ? | 13.2 ? -560% | 2 ? -0% | 2 ? -0% | 17 ? -750% | 2 ? -0% |
PWM Frequency | 240 | 240 ? 0% | 59 ? -75% | 250 ? 4% | 26 ? -89% | 227 ? -5% |
Screen | -47% | -8% | 14% | -191% | -19% | |
Brightness middle | 370.4 | 353 -5% | 378 2% | 372 0% | 448 21% | 370 0% |
Brightness | 376 | 354 -6% | 378 1% | 376 0% | 436 16% | 371 -1% |
Brightness Distribution | 96 | 98 2% | 98 2% | 98 2% | 93 -3% | 98 2% |
Black Level * | 0.02 | 0.01 50% | 0.35 -1650% | |||
Contrast | 18520 | 37200 101% | 1280 -93% | |||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.51 | 4.23 -180% | 2.2 -46% | 2.01 -33% | 1.6 -6% | 2.77 -83% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.89 | 7.13 -147% | 4.87 -69% | 4.05 -40% | 4.44 -54% | 4.08 -41% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 3.36 | 2.42 28% | 2.68 20% | 2.17 35% | 0.64 81% | 2.83 16% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.1 | 2.5 -19% | 1.43 32% | 1.84 12% | 2.78 -32% | 2.58 -23% |
Gamma | 2.2 100% | 2.4 92% | 2.47 89% | 2.39 92% | 2.46 89% | |
CCT | 6536 99% | 6642 98% | 6464 101% | 6488 100% | 6582 99% | 6241 104% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 2.43 | |||||
Total Average (Program / Settings) | -71% /
-63% | -4% /
-5% | 5% /
9% | -343% /
-282% | -7% /
-10% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1 ms rise | |
↘ 1 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1 ms rise | |
↘ 1 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 240 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 240 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 240 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
性能 - CPU 性能强大,但不咬合
这里介绍的华硕 VivoBook S15 OLED BAPE 版(型号 KK5504)配备了 英特尔酷睿 i9-13900H.它是与 "A Bathing Ape "合作生产的两款特殊机型中性能较强的一款。另外,性能较弱的 英特尔酷睿 i5-13500H也可供选择。
图形处理任务由 Iris Xe G7 96EUsiGPU 处理。华硕将其与双通道运行的 16 GB LPDDR5 内存(板载)以及 1TB M.2 NVMe PCIe 4.0 固态硬盘相结合。
测试条件
在 MyAsus 应用程序中,华硕提供了三种不同的风扇模式(性能模式、标准模式和耳语模式)。除非另有说明,我们使用性能模式和 Windows "最佳性能 "能耗状态进行了基准测试。
处理器
安装的 英特尔酷睿 i9-13900H是 Raptor Lake H 系列中的高端 CPU,共有 6 个带超线程的性能内核,主频高达 5.4 GHz,还有 8 个效率内核(20 个线程)。
但是,华硕并没有充分发挥 VivoBook S15 处理器的潜力。基准测试结果低于平均水平,但与其他大多配备相同处理器的竞争设备相当。这些结果通常使它跻身前三名。多核性能比单核性能更好。在 Cinebench R15 多连续测试中,经过最初的峰值后,性能随着时间的推移相当稳定。
归根结底,这款评测设备的日常 CPU 性能即使不是出类拔萃,也是不错的,而且在电池模式下也能正常运行,只是略有局限。
Cinebench R15 Multi Continuous Test
Cinebench R23: Multi Core | Single Core
Cinebench R20: CPU (Multi Core) | CPU (Single Core)
Cinebench R15: CPU Multi 64Bit | CPU Single 64Bit
Blender: v2.79 BMW27 CPU
7-Zip 18.03: 7z b 4 | 7z b 4 -mmt1
Geekbench 5.5: Multi-Core | Single-Core
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2: 4k Preset
LibreOffice : 20 Documents To PDF
R Benchmark 2.5: Overall mean
CPU Performance Rating | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average of class Multimedia | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Cinebench R23 / Multi Core | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (11997 - 20385, n=28) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average of class Multimedia (6936 - 30789, n=103, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Cinebench R23 / Single Core | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (1297 - 2054, n=26) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average of class Multimedia (878 - 2290, n=94, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Multi Core) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (4935 - 7716, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (2681 - 11768, n=87, last 2 years) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Cinebench R20 / CPU (Single Core) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (428 - 792, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (341 - 853, n=87, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Multi 64Bit | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (2061 - 3100, n=26) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average of class Multimedia (1252 - 4774, n=94, last 2 years) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Cinebench R15 / CPU Single 64Bit | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (211 - 297, n=26) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average of class Multimedia (99.6 - 323, n=89, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 |
Blender / v2.79 BMW27 CPU | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average of class Multimedia (107 - 502, n=85, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (166 - 268, n=24) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (45045 - 79032, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average of class Multimedia (30592 - 121228, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
7-Zip 18.03 / 7z b 4 -mmt1 | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (3665 - 6600, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (3398 - 7545, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 |
Geekbench 5.5 / Multi-Core | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (9094 - 15410, n=26) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average of class Multimedia (4990 - 23059, n=87, last 2 years) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Geekbench 5.5 / Single-Core | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (1140 - 2043, n=26) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average of class Multimedia (891 - 2555, n=87, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 / 4k Preset | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (14.1 - 22.3, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (5.26 - 30.5, n=78, last 2 years) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
LibreOffice / 20 Documents To PDF | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Average of class Multimedia (6.7 - 146.7, n=81, last 2 years) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (34.4 - 82.8, n=25) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 |
R Benchmark 2.5 / Overall mean | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Average of class Multimedia (0.3604 - 0.947, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (0.4052 - 0.723, n=25) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 |
* ... smaller is better
AIDA64: FP32 Ray-Trace | FPU Julia | CPU SHA3 | CPU Queen | FPU SinJulia | FPU Mandel | CPU AES | CPU ZLib | FP64 Ray-Trace | CPU PhotoWorxx
Performance Rating | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average of class Multimedia | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / FP32 Ray-Trace | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (6788 - 19557, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average of class Multimedia (4906 - 36957, n=76, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / FPU Julia | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (22551 - 95579, n=25) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average of class Multimedia (14528 - 147248, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / CPU SHA3 | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (2491 - 4270, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average of class Multimedia (1529 - 6698, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / CPU Queen | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (65121 - 120936, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (21547 - 141074, n=77, last 2 years) |
AIDA64 / FPU SinJulia | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (6108 - 11631, n=25) | |
Average of class Multimedia (1240 - 19021, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / FPU Mandel | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (11283 - 48474, n=25) | |
Average of class Multimedia (9903 - 75780, n=76, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / CPU AES | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (3691 - 149377, n=25) | |
Average of class Multimedia (31432 - 169946, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / CPU ZLib | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (789 - 1254, n=25) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average of class Multimedia (454 - 1973, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
AIDA64 / FP64 Ray-Trace | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (3655 - 10716, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average of class Multimedia (2738 - 20608, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
AIDA64 / CPU PhotoWorxx | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average of class Multimedia (7419 - 53918, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (10871 - 50488, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
系统性能
在我们用来检查系统性能的基准测试中,华硕 OLED 笔记本电脑再次发现自己大多处于下半部分,甚至是对比图的底部。不过,这并不影响日常工作任务。安装的 LPDDR5 内存提供了不错的性能。
CrossMark: Overall | Productivity | Creativity | Responsiveness
PCMark 10 / Score | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (4542 - 8670, n=72, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (5944 - 6802, n=8) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 |
PCMark 10 / Essentials | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (10347 - 12286, n=8) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average of class Multimedia (8480 - 12420, n=72, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU |
PCMark 10 / Productivity | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Average of class Multimedia (6089 - 10742, n=72, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (7319 - 8526, n=8) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 |
PCMark 10 / Digital Content Creation | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (3651 - 13548, n=72, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (7527 - 8155, n=8) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 |
CrossMark / Overall | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (1766 - 2146, n=7) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (978 - 2255, n=90, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
CrossMark / Productivity | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (1684 - 2064, n=7) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (913 - 2064, n=90, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
CrossMark / Creativity | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (1789 - 2224, n=7) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Average of class Multimedia (1054 - 2795, n=90, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
CrossMark / Responsiveness | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs (1474 - 2171, n=7) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Average of class Multimedia (869 - 2171, n=90, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
PCMark 10 Score | 6190 points | |
Help |
AIDA64 / Memory Copy | |
Average of class Multimedia (20549 - 104459, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (37448 - 74486, n=25) | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
AIDA64 / Memory Read | |
Average of class Multimedia (22917 - 125604, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (41599 - 75433, n=25) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
AIDA64 / Memory Write | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Average of class Multimedia (20226 - 117933, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (36152 - 88505, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
AIDA64 / Memory Latency | |
Average of class Multimedia (7 - 346, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average Intel Core i9-13900H (75.8 - 102.3, n=25) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
* ... smaller is better
DPC 延迟
测得的延迟时间低于大多数对比设备。即使这只是一个快照分析,在执行实时音频任务时也不太可能存在问题。
DPC Latencies / LatencyMon - interrupt to process latency (max), Web, Youtube, Prime95 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
* ... smaller is better
大容量存储器
在基准测试中,配备的 WD 1 TB SSD 的日常性能令人满意,排名中游。
* ... smaller is better
Continuous Performance Read: DiskSpd Read Loop, Queue Depth 8
图形卡
华硕在其 VivoBook S15 OLED BAPE 版中没有使用专用图形解决方案。取而代之的是集成 英特尔 Iris Xe 图形 G796个EU。在竞争设备对比图中,iGPU 的性能表现尚可,但要比配备专用 GPU 的设备高出不少。 在电池模式下,性能下降了约 10%。
尽管有 120 Hz 的显示屏,但你不应该指望这款多媒体设备能提供游戏级的性能。如果要玩相对较新的游戏,只能在最低或最多中等设置下进行。老式游戏有时可以在较高的图形设置和适当的帧速率下运行。
3DMark 11 Performance | 8095 points | |
3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 27025 points | |
3DMark Fire Strike Score | 5574 points | |
3DMark Time Spy Score | 2037 points | |
Help |
* ... smaller is better
The Witcher 3 - 1920x1080 Ultra Graphics & Postprocessing (HBAO+) | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (8 - 143.2, n=80, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 |
GTA V - 1920x1080 Highest Settings possible AA:4xMSAA + FX AF:16x | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (5.09 - 126.3, n=81, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC |
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark - 1920x1080 High Quality | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (6.53 - 141.8, n=82, last 2 years) | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 |
Dota 2 Reborn - 1920x1080 ultra (3/3) best looking | |
Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU | |
Average of class Multimedia (26.3 - 179.9, n=83, last 2 years) | |
Huawei MateBook 16s i9 | |
Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC | |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 | |
Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 | |
Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W |
Witcher 3 FPS diagram
low | med. | high | ultra | QHD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GTA V (2015) | 126.6 | 107.5 | 25.6 | 10.8 | |
The Witcher 3 (2015) | 106.8 | 69 | 37.2 | 16.8 | |
Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 114.5 | 85.9 | 72.5 | 65.6 | |
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark (2018) | 46.6 | 27 | 27 | 14 | |
X-Plane 11.11 (2018) | 55.2 | 46.3 | 39.8 | ||
Strange Brigade (2018) | 101 | 44.7 | 35.2 | 28.3 | |
Dirt 5 (2020) | 44.7 | 22.5 | 18 | 14 | |
F1 23 (2023) | 50 | 44 | 30 |
排放与能源 - 酷热无声的笔记本电脑
噪音排放
华硕 VivoBook S15 KK5504 BAPE 版证明了自己是一款安静的产品。与其他设备一样,它在空闲运行时保持安静。同样,在负载情况下,它的平均噪音低于大多数竞争对手,仅在峰值时高于前三名。遗憾的是,我们的评测设备偶尔也会发出线圈呜呜声。
Noise Level
Idle |
| 25.3 / 25.3 / 25.3 dB(A) |
Load |
| 43.5 / 50.75 dB(A) |
| ||
30 dB silent 40 dB(A) audible 50 dB(A) loud |
||
min: , med: , max: Earthworks M23R (15 cm distance) environment noise: 25.3 dB(A) |
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 Iris Xe G7 96EUs, i9-13900H, WD PC SN560 SDDPNQE-1T00 | Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop GPU, i9-13900H, Micron 2400 MTFDKBA1T0QFM | Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W Radeon 680M, R7 6800H, WD PC SN735 SDBPNHH-512G | Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC Iris Xe G7 96EUs, i9-13900H, Micron 2450 1TB MTFDKBA1T0TFK | Huawei MateBook 16s i9 Iris Xe G7 96EUs, i9-13900H, 321JN1024GB-TX01 | Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 Iris Xe G7 96EUs, i7-13700H, Micron 2400 MTFDKBA1T0QFM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noise | -1% | -12% | 2% | -4% | -2% | |
off / environment * | 25.3 | 20.96 17% | 26 -3% | 25.2 -0% | 25.7 -2% | 25.7 -2% |
Idle Minimum * | 25.3 | 25.28 -0% | 26 -3% | 25.2 -0% | 25.7 -2% | 26.1 -3% |
Idle Average * | 25.3 | 25.28 -0% | 26 -3% | 25.2 -0% | 28.4 -12% | 26.1 -3% |
Idle Maximum * | 25.3 | 25.28 -0% | 28.1 -11% | 26.5 -5% | 28.4 -12% | 27.2 -8% |
Load Average * | 43.5 | 51.88 -19% | 56.9 -31% | 39.8 9% | 45.3 -4% | 44.2 -2% |
Load Maximum * | 50.75 | 51.8 -2% | 62.6 -23% | 45.5 10% | 45.6 10% | 47.5 6% |
Witcher 3 ultra * | 49 |
* ... smaller is better
温度
评测样本的温度高达 41 °C,即使在空闲运行时也会相对较热,但不会令人感到不适。如果推动硬件,机箱温度会升至 62 °C。尽管最热的区域靠近数字键盘和机身底座,但温度还是让人不舒服。
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 51.5 °C / 125 F, compared to the average of 36.9 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 62.4 °C / 144 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.1 °C / 95 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are reaching skin temperature as a maximum (35.7 °C / 96.3 F) and are therefore not hot.
(-) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (-6.9 °C / -12.5 F).
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs | Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU Intel Core i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop GPU | Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W AMD Ryzen 7 6800H, AMD Radeon 680M | Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs | Huawei MateBook 16s i9 Intel Core i9-13900H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs | Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 Intel Core i7-13700H, Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Heat | 10% | 13% | 20% | 22% | 19% | |
Maximum Upper Side * | 51.5 | 42.6 17% | 50.2 3% | 38.9 24% | 43.2 16% | 44.4 14% |
Maximum Bottom * | 62.4 | 48.4 22% | 50.2 20% | 43.4 30% | 44.7 28% | 48 23% |
Idle Upper Side * | 41.7 | 39.4 6% | 32.1 23% | 33.5 20% | 32.1 23% | 31.9 24% |
Idle Bottom * | 37.2 | 39.8 -7% | 34.6 7% | 35.3 5% | 30.1 19% | 31.9 14% |
* ... smaller is better
发言人
虽然两个哈曼卡顿扬声器的最大音量都在可控范围内,但声音的再现是线性的,高音均衡但低音完全不足。因此,我们建议通过蓝牙或 3.5 毫米音频插孔使用耳机。
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 35% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 20% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 76% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook Pro 16 2021 M1 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | bass is linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (2.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (4.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 0% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
耗电量
功耗略高于配备类似 CPU 但没有专用 GPU 的对比设备。不过,有些笔记本电脑的显示屏较小,而且缺乏 OLED 技术。该设备的最大功耗为 94 瓦,超出了所提供的 90 瓦 PSU 的最大功率。
Off / Standby | 0.04 / 0.04 Watt |
Idle | 5.73 / 14.5 / 15.6 Watt |
Load |
40.5 / 94 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Power consumption Witcher 3 / stress test
Power consumption with an external monitor
电池寿命
VivoBook S15 BAPE 配备 75 Wh 电池。这意味着这款评测设备在电池容量方面处于中等水平。在负载情况下的运行时间不错,在其他使用情况下也很稳定。上网或观看视频的时间约为 8 到 9 小时。
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504 i9-13900H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, 75 Wh | Asus VivoBook Pro 16 K6602VU i9-13900H, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Laptop GPU, 96 Wh | Asus VivoBook S15 M3502RA-L1029W R7 6800H, Radeon 680M, 70 Wh | Asus ZenBook 14X UX3404VC i9-13900H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, 70 Wh | Huawei MateBook 16s i9 i9-13900H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, 84 Wh | Acer Swift Go SFG16-71 i7-13700H, Iris Xe G7 96EUs, 65 Wh | Average of class Multimedia | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 14% | 2% | -17% | 11% | -25% | 10% | |
H.264 | 537 | 585 9% | 766 43% | 847 ? 58% | |||
WiFi v1.3 | 510 | 606 19% | 692 36% | 600 18% | 787 54% | 467.7 -8% | 640 ? 25% |
Load | 209 | 59 -72% | 103 -51% | 142 -32% | 121 -42% | 97.1 ? -54% | |
Reader / Idle | 1056 | 1168 ? |
Pros
Cons
结论 - 总体而言,这是一款适合 BAPE 粉丝使用的可靠笔记本电脑
当然,华硕 VivoBook S15 OLED BAPE 版的出色之处主要在于其醒目而不张扬的 "A Bathing Ape "设计。
对于 BAPE 的粉丝来说,这款设备是他们向小猴子、它的朋友们以及背后的时尚品牌及其硬件功能表达喜爱的好机会。
在技术上,VivoBook S15 OLED 是一款成熟的设备,没有太大的弱点。这款多媒体笔记本电脑得分很高,尤其是在智能而光亮的 OLED 屏幕、CPU 性能和电池续航时间方面,所有这些都被安置在一个坚固而相对轻巧的机壳内。
当然,华硕还提供各种规格的 VivoBook S15,但没有 BAPE 品牌。如果您想获得更好的游戏性能,不妨考虑一下其他产品,如 VivoBook Pro 16.
价格和供应情况
华硕 Vivobook S 15 OLED BAPE 版(K5504)配备英特尔酷睿 i9-13900H、16 GB 内存和 1 TB 固态硬盘,零售价为 1499 美元,但可直接从制造商处购买,价格仅为 1300 美元。只需 1300 美元。在亚马逊上还可以找到不含 BAPE 的变体,售价约为 989 美元。
Asus VivoBook S15 K5504
- 01/25/2024 v7 (old)
Marcus Schwarten
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.