ASUS U35Jc: Jogging in Place
by Dustin Sklavos on September 30, 2010 3:00 AM ESTThe More Things Change...
...the more they stay the same. The ASUS U35Jc seems to be in many ways a series of trade-offs with the U30Jc, and that's disappointing because it really should have just been an improvement. The U35Jc sports a slightly faster processor, sheds a pound of weight thanks to ditching the optical drive, has a slimmer body, and marginally improved backlighting on the screen. Unfortunately, it also boasts a lower battery life and a mobile GPU with a lower memory speed on an already overworked 64-bit bus. If you opt to enable the ASUS "Super Hybrid Engine" which locks the processor speed at a pretty low setting, you can probably mitigate the battery issue somewhat, but we didn't need that on the U30Jc to post better numbers.
Taken on its own, the U35Jc can be pretty tempting. The keyboard is comfortable and sensible, and the brushed aluminum cover is both attractive and functional. Build quality is solid, and frankly the machine is damn light. You get excellent battery life—nearly six hours surfing the internet—and the performance is there to do just about anything you want with it. ASUS achieves what they set out to: build an ultraportable with good performance and good battery life without tipping the scales.
The problem is that the U35Jc can't be taken on its own. Notebooks aren't designed in a vacuum, and seeing gripes we had with the U30Jc go largely unanswered in the U35Jc results in the same kinds of issues Jarred brought up recently in his review of the ASUS N82Jv: it's hard to recommend something when it seems like the company is just standing still. ASUS took the optical drive out of the U30Jc, moved a couple things around, and called it a new model. Alternately, they took the slimmer U35Jc, and then stripped off the bamboo, USB3, and WiDi. Either way, that's not what progress looks like.
As a result, the only copelling reason to choose the U35Jc over the U30Jc is if the extra pound and slightly larger size of the U30Jc are a huge deal to you. For about the same money, you lose a negligible 133 MHz on the processor and gain an optical drive (an optical drive that ASUS turns off while running on the battery anyhow). The U35Jc is more of the same at a time when we were already fairly happy with what they produced. It's a product that retains the nagging issues of its predecessor and in many ways offers less. Is it a bad laptop? Certainly not; it's a decent laptop but next time we want to see some real improvement.
What we'd like to see is the U30Jc and/or U35Jc, with an improved LCD, USB 3.0, and a GeForce GT 415M. $900 to $1000 for such a system would be more than acceptable, because LCD quality really does matter. The U35Jc is fairly priced at $800, with good build quality and reasonable performance. It's just that it should have launched simultaneously with the U30Jc and left the decision of size/weight and the optical drive up to the user six months ago. Today, it's 95% the same as its predecessor, only six months late (five months since the laptop first started shipping).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
pirspilane - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
I have wanted to buy a U35 since reading your Laptop Buyer's Guide in July, but was waiting for a full review. Now I don't know what to get.I like the 35s light weight and am perfectly willing to forgo lugging around a rarely-used DVD drive. The omission of USB 3.0 is a bummer, but I noticed that your Bronze Award U30Jc has the same shortcoming.
Any suggestions in the 13" thin & light category are appreciated. Is the performance hit the U35 suffers enough of a factor to still choose the heavier U30? I wonder how much this will be notice in everyday use.
Sanctusx2 - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
Just wanted to 2nd this. I was anxiously looking forward to the U35 after the earlier U30 reviews too and am left with the same disappointment. I definitely want to dump the DVD drive for the weight and size reductions, but losing so much performance and battery life is a bit rough. I'd be eager to hear anyone else's suggestions in the same category as well.JarredWalton - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
On paper, the only real change between U30Jc and U35Jc is the removal of the DVDR, which helps cut the weight down nearly a pound. I still have no idea why the battery life dropped so much; lack of BIOS optimizations? Luck of the draw? Performance is pretty much a wash, though the slower 1GB of graphics memory is a drawback on the U35 as well.If you're not worried about gaming performance, I'd say you can still grab either laptop and be happy. But then, if you're not worried about gaming performance, I have seen little reason to get more than even Intel's HD Graphics. They handle HD video offload, including Flash 10.1, with no issues that I've encountered. I'm sure there are edge cases where Intel's IGP may not decode graphics as well as the G310M, but few people actually need those edge case formats.
I wish the battery life was the same, because it would make the recommendation a lot easier: do you value lower size, or the presence of a DVDR more? And maybe there are "better" U35Jc laptops that make up the gap we experienced.
For my money, right now I'd be more inclined to go with something like the Dell Latitude E6410. Get it with this same CPU, integrated graphics, 4GB RAM, and a 1440x900 anti-glare LCD (hooray for 16:10!). Add a backlit keyboard and you get a final price of around $1000. I've actually got one for testing, and the keyboard and build quality are right there with Lenovo ThinkPad. Or you can find a T410 for about the same $1000. But I'm more interested in build quality and a better (at least higher resolution) LCD than in G310M.
Gary Key - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
In regards to the battery life numbers posted we are working with AnandTech to figure out what happened in their testing.In all of our internal testing both the U35Jc and the actual U30Jc replacement (U45Jc) have generated better battery life numbers across the board than the U30Jc.
Unfortunately we were not privy to their test results or problem report until the article went live so we are behind the curve on problem resolution.
MacGyver85 - Saturday, October 2, 2010 - link
So if I understand correctly you represent someone from Asus ?If so: for the love of god please send up the message that LCD quality matters. I'm still not buying any laptop because of the bad quality of the screens. And I *really* want to buy an Asus laptop...but only if the screen quality trumps whatever else is out there.
You've done an excellent job in regards of battery life recently so please extend that same attention to detail to the screen.
I've heard the argument that better screen quality doesn't sell but that seems a sorry excuse at best. Just put any of the existing laptops next to the newer model wherever it is sold and people will *get it*. They'll see the difference and choose the better screen for sure.
Do I sound desperate for a quality laptop LCD or what :)
hybrid2d4x4 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
I'm with you MacGyver. I want to buy a laptop and have been keeping an eye on the Asus U/UL lineup for as long as it's existed. But after dealing with several glossy-screened Acers, I just can't justify spending any money on something that annoys me to no end in a naturally-lit room or even a basement with lights on behind me (I didn't even dare to try using one outside, though I need my laptop to be able to do so).Unlike most people, I have no problem with the 768p resolution, but gloss is unacceptable (and low-contrast, cheap-looking LCDs are a major letdown). I'm even considering a 1005P netbook to tide me over and I really don't want to settle for an atom (and I'm definitely not paying $2k for a high-end laptop just for a good screen). When will we get laptop options with decent screens? :(
pirspilane - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
Thanks JarredWalton,turns out, I'm not interested in gaming. I think a lot of people are looking for a laptop that focuses on: thin & light; non-gaming; no DVD; good battery life, keyboard & LCD.
The Dell Latitude E6410 is very intriguing, except for the 3/4 lb. additional weight. Definitely will check it out.
zhill - Sunday, October 3, 2010 - link
I've been looking at the U35F-X1, which is the U35JC minus the G310M. It's cheap (on Amazon $733), and should get slightly better battery life and certainly run cooler.Still same lousy LCD etc, but with that extra cash you can put in an SSD for better overall performance without a weight or battery life hit. Worth a look if performance-per-dollar is important rather than outright performance.
pirspilane - Monday, October 4, 2010 - link
Thanks zhill. Hadn't heard about that one. Looks like you save $80-100 and get a battery life boost by ditching a not-so-great graphics card. Good trade-off.Katspajamas - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
I'm suprised you didn't mention the HDD is a Momentus, the Seagate hybrid SSD/magnetic.....