Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How does that make sense :Asus ZenBook Pro UX501 is $1000 cheaper but has better specs than mbp2015
- Thread starter SHEEPOS
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It weighs 5 pounds and has poor battery life.
Newsflash: Large windows laptop has better on-paper specs than MBP if you ignore compromises, film at eleven.
Newsflash: Large windows laptop has better on-paper specs than MBP if you ignore compromises, film at eleven.
Mostly because you're not paying for the fruit logo it seems. I've done a quick google, and its being compared positively towards the MBP.
Because it's bloody heavy, doesn't run on OS X and has a poor battery life.
Its inability to run OS X is the biggest reason for the price in my personal opinion.
Few reasons. First of all, Apple likes a huge margin on their stuff. The largest margins of anyone in the phone, tablet or laptop industry.
Second, the Asus has 3 hour lower battery life, 33.3% slower WiFi, a worse IPS display (lower viewing angles, not all IPS are the same), only a single Thunderbolt 2 connector, 25% slower SSD, Doesn't have Iris Pro, Instead only HD 4000 graphics, it's also heavier.
So you can see Asus has made a lot of compromises there. That isn't to say Apple hasn't, the M370X is definitely a compromise that Apple made. But I think all those cuts Asus has made there definitely helps them to provide a lower cost notebook and of course there is the Apple tax that I already mentioned.
Second, the Asus has 3 hour lower battery life, 33.3% slower WiFi, a worse IPS display (lower viewing angles, not all IPS are the same), only a single Thunderbolt 2 connector, 25% slower SSD, Doesn't have Iris Pro, Instead only HD 4000 graphics, it's also heavier.
So you can see Asus has made a lot of compromises there. That isn't to say Apple hasn't, the M370X is definitely a compromise that Apple made. But I think all those cuts Asus has made there definitely helps them to provide a lower cost notebook and of course there is the Apple tax that I already mentioned.
I've owned the UX501 for a few weeks and it doesn't have a chance compared to the MacBook Pro I'm now having, not even when the MBP runs Windows. It might offer better price performance but in terms of absolute quality it doesn't stand a chance.
If you look beyond the price on paper you'd come to realize that the rMBP is actually cheaper. That's because macs tend to last longer than their PC counterparts. So would u rather pay $1500 every two years for a PC or pay $2500 and have a mac that lasts 5+ years.
Not sure how fair that is. Macs and PCs use almost identical components nowadays. I'd bet the lifespan of the Zenbook not significantly different than a MacBook Pro.
Reference needed. As far as anecdotes go, I've never had a Win PC die at two years and plenty here have had their MBPs die before 5 years. Graphics and heat related issues being significant causes of logic board failure.
Because more people are inclined to register and discuss working products or broken products? The views are obviously skewed.
I wouldn't buy it just for the shameless copying. It is one thing to copy the macbook form factor but the website as well. I can't reward that lack of innovation. Oh and it'll tank in 2 years whereas the macbook will be good in 5 years.
I'm typing this on a cheapo Acer window 8.1 laptop. Within a year of purchasing this the DVD/CDR drive failed, the number keys above the keyboard stopped working; numbers three through six do not work although the function keys do and I have a long Ethernet cable snaking across my kitchen floor because the wireless network adapter stopped working. All within a year.
My wife purchased the top o' the line rMBP the day it came out in May. We have every expectation that it will not have any of these problems for the next five years.
My wife purchased the top o' the line rMBP the day it came out in May. We have every expectation that it will not have any of these problems for the next five years.
Intel HD 4000 from the Asus to the Iris Pro, and you're saying better specs!?!
Too much internet for today, I'm off
It comes with a 960m Nvidia as a dGPU, that's its biggest asset as well as the 4k display.
Well, the 960m is kind of overrated as people tend to believe it is kind of similar to the 970m which it isn't. And as far as screen goes, I would rather have one that can display yellows correctly than 4k.
I'm gonna go ahead and provide some of my experiences and advice here:
Just use what you like. If you're into Windows, that's cool. If you prefer the cost effectiveness of a Windows notebook in terms of what you get, that's cool too. Macs aren't better than PCs by default, PCs aren't better than Macs by default. No need to defend purchases, build quality or other standpoints of what makes up a computer.
That Asus may last you a year, or it may last you 3 or even 4 - it all comes down to what you prefer, and what you prefer to do with your money. It's your computer after all - no need to bash or defend what someone else is considering or is happy with.
I, for one, in general with a few exceptions, believe the longevity of a computer is influenced mostly by how it is taken care of - not because its Apple, Asus, Acer, or what have you. I am aware of the idea and reality of build quality - but I had an Asus notebook for 3 years that I paid $650 for, a Lenovo Ideapad (also $650) that is still being used within my family for 3 and a half years now, and a Hannspree (that's right - who here has ever heard of Hannspree) netbook that I paid $250 for which I used for a while and now another family member is using it, and that was purchased 3 years ago as well.
There is no default answer to this. Macs don't last X amount of years and Windows notebooks don't last Y amount of years - and, as always ... hardware specifications are not a sole reason to purchase a notebook. There are many other factors, just do your homework and find what you prefer.
Just use what you like. If you're into Windows, that's cool. If you prefer the cost effectiveness of a Windows notebook in terms of what you get, that's cool too. Macs aren't better than PCs by default, PCs aren't better than Macs by default. No need to defend purchases, build quality or other standpoints of what makes up a computer.
That Asus may last you a year, or it may last you 3 or even 4 - it all comes down to what you prefer, and what you prefer to do with your money. It's your computer after all - no need to bash or defend what someone else is considering or is happy with.
I, for one, in general with a few exceptions, believe the longevity of a computer is influenced mostly by how it is taken care of - not because its Apple, Asus, Acer, or what have you. I am aware of the idea and reality of build quality - but I had an Asus notebook for 3 years that I paid $650 for, a Lenovo Ideapad (also $650) that is still being used within my family for 3 and a half years now, and a Hannspree (that's right - who here has ever heard of Hannspree) netbook that I paid $250 for which I used for a while and now another family member is using it, and that was purchased 3 years ago as well.
There is no default answer to this. Macs don't last X amount of years and Windows notebooks don't last Y amount of years - and, as always ... hardware specifications are not a sole reason to purchase a notebook. There are many other factors, just do your homework and find what you prefer.
You make too much sense. Most fanatics here can't handle that.
Anyone else not able to access Asus' website for that model?
Here is the link from Google search and here is the Asus website search result with one link, which gives me an error.
Found the error. One has to go the Asus website and look for the Light and Thin notebooks and then can finally view the correct website. Well done navigation, keeps one interested and wants to buy everything Asus from now on.
Here is the link from Google search and here is the Asus website search result with one link, which gives me an error.
Found the error. One has to go the Asus website and look for the Light and Thin notebooks and then can finally view the correct website. Well done navigation, keeps one interested and wants to buy everything Asus from now on.
The 960m is 60% faster than the m370x. I don't think it's overrated, but rather a preferred card to the lower end AMD Apple chose for this refresh. The 950m is also a much better card. I do agree with the complaints. Apple is charging the same price as always, and while the new card is more powerful, it's a step down in overall class.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because NVIDIA chips suck big time in OpenCL, while AMD Radeon cards perform better at these.
And professional tasks largely use OpenCL these days (take a look at Adobe CC and FCP X).
Keep in mind that the rMBP is more of a professional laptop than a gaming laptop. If you want to game on a laptop, the rMBP isn't for you.
I thought the same thing, but if you actually look at Maxwell OpenCL benchmarks all of NVIDIA's cards stomp AMD.
Really. Look at the 970 or 980 or Titan or Titan X or 980 Ti. Way above all the AMD cards in OpenCL benchmarks. Same situation on the mobile versions, 950m and 960m.
The older NVIDIA kepler cards were terrible at OpenCL absolutely rubbish, 70%-90% slower than AMD. But the Maxwell cards are 10-50% faster than AMD at the same market segments.
Even I was surprised to find this out when I investigated benchmarks recently, check this out: https://i.imgur.com/wiK5ZSG.png
Well if we go back to 2013 you may note that in June at WWDC 13 they announced the Mac Pro with Dual AMD graphics. This was the start of Apple turning away from NVIDIA.
In October that year they released the MacBook Pro 15" with 750m graphics but this was the same chip as the 650m, both kepler, same pin out on the chip. All Apple had to do was swap the chips over. Very little change.
Fast forward to the iMac Retina, AMD again, now we have the 2015 rMBP, also AMD.
I think what we are seeing here isn't really that Apple is choosing AMD because it's better but because they are curating a closer relationship with AMD when it comes to graphics. That close relationship has resulted in the D300, D500 and D700 for Apples Mac Pro which are completely Apple exclusives still to this day (although they are based on the HD 7970) and they have been first to get the M370X too.
NVIDIA seems to be much less flexible, they won't be dictated to. They will not for example give Apple GTX 980's or 780 Ti's (back then) rebranded as Quadro D780's. This is what AMD did for Apple.
So again I don't think it has anything to do with performance it's about a relationship the two companies are curating and it's pushing NVIDIA out of Apple's systems and I think it's detrimental as NVIDIA currently has the fastest parts in every thermal envelope.